Your thoughts.

Three words:

Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld

because we have the U.S. military and Russia dos not...

Two reasons:
1. The Soviets were fighting rebels who were recieving $1 billion a year in weapons and aid from another superpower. (the US)

2. The did not have the help of other Afghans, such as the Northern Aliiance. People who knew the land, and could offer help to the invaders.

Despite the US media's refusal to publicize the truth about the Taliban/al-Queda regime, they are totally despised by the Afghan people after a five year reign of terror. I don't think too many al-Queda vermin from Kanduz will make it to see the New Year.

The Taliban fought in fixed line defences and tried to hold territory in other words they fought a conventional war along conventional lines.

During the Soviet Occupation after early set backs, trying to hold territory they turned to guerrilla warfare, hit and run tactics, against isolated patrols against lines of communication. A different style of warfare.

Tony

To say that we have been so successful is due to the US military does not seem right. We had the US military in Viet Nam and did not get the same results.

allah has been busy making virgins for his followers.
Also, allah and the virgins will not be ignored.... they want these lover boys in allah's paradise asap time.
The slower we kill them, the madder the virgins and allah will get with us.

wrong, If God be with us, who be against us!!!.

re : We had the US military in Viet Nam and did not get the same results.

The VC used a mixture of coventional and guerrilla tactics.

The hard part is just starting winkiling the die hards out of there mountain retreats.

Tony

Three words:
Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld ( NOPE)

If God be with us, who be against us!.

Never put your trust in any man/woman.

Previous experience with these morons, they have a habit of not fighting, retreating and surrendering, now finish off Sadam.

Air Superiority!

We were on a search and destroy not a occupy and maintain mission. Who cares who runs the place as long as they love the US or are not violently opposed to us. You can not like us... that's ok.... you kill us ....you die .

We've also got a conservative who will let the military run the specific mission which is to flush this b@st@#d out and destroy his supporters.

Now comes the fun. Any bets on if Ben Laden will ever be found or is he gonna pull a Jimmy Hoffa. Who would want him or have him imprisoned on their soil. He is now just a "problem" that needs to "go away". No martyr no body, no shrine, no ashes, no bones just a faded memory of something smelly and evil.

sorry for the rant.

"The VC used a mixture of coventional and guerrilla tactics."

That had little to do with it, IMHO. The Russians in Afghanistan faced similar problems we did Vietnam -- working with a propped up government to fight against native guerrillas. In Afghanistan WE are helping the guerrillas fight against the centralized government. We're not the one's trying to maintain infrastructure, seats of power, etc. We only have to destroy them -- a much easier task even if we weren't a much stronger force. But the bottom line is, even under those conditions we could could have won Vietnam if we had ever decided to go on the offensive and wip out North Vietnam. It was a stupid and immoral conflict undertaken by our policos, but it makes a great litmus test for anything we are thinking about getting involved in today.

I think that there are three reasons.

1. The Talibans were an occupying power propped up by foreign troops. In effect, the peaple natives were squashed down by Arabs, Chetczens(sp?) and other foreigners.

2. The Talibans were really lousy rulers who imposed laws which the people hated.

3. The Talibans did nothing to improve the economic status of the ordinary citizen. The reason that the King was deposed was that the economy was in such dire straits.

I've been wondering how the USA has been able to destroy the rebels in a few months when the Soviet Union could not do it after years of fighting. What is different here?

Actually the Soviet Union had control of the major Afghan cities in a few DAYS, from reports I have read. Then the mujadeeen dug in for their guerilla ground war with assistance from the good ol' USA. Stingers we gave them sure took a toll on Soviet helicopter gunships. This thing isn't over gents. We will prevail, but the fighting hasn't really even started ....

We had the US military in Viet Nam and did not get the same results. The VC used a mixture of coventional and guerrilla tactics. The hard part is just starting winkiling the die hards out of there mountain retreats.

The disaster in Viet Nam was directly related to the rise of the 1960's radical liberal, American hating press. If you want to condense it down to a couple of words .....Dan Rather & Daniel Shor.

That is true, however, the U.S. military wasn't in control in vietnam. Their hands were tied by the politicians back in D.C. Our military leaders were rendered helpless by Johnson and his cronies.

I think we dropped the equivalent of 3 YEARS or Russia's gross domestic product ALREADY...

On their heads...

And now...

The gunships!