DeJe Vue all over again?

Posted By: Lars The Viking
Posted on: Jan. 29, 2007 at 12:28 PM

13 Comments

2.5 / 5

Based on 2 ratings.

Email Friend

Add to Favorites Add to del.icio.us

del.icio.us

Digg It!

Slashdot It!

In the nineteen eighties the Mujahideen insurgents resisted the Soviet Russian military that occupied their country. The United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and other organizations supported them with arms and training principally through their surrogate Pakistan.

The Soviet Hind helicopter was a wickedly effective gunship used against the insurgents. The insurgents began to get the upper hand with the first one that was shot out of the sky with CIA supplied Stinger missile.

Fast forward:

In the two-thousand zeros the Iraqi insurgents resisted the United States military that occupied their country. The Islamic radicals and others supported them with arms and training principally through their surrogate Iran.

The American Apache helicopter is a wickedly effective gunship used against the insurgents. The insurgents have upped the ante with the first one that was shot out of the sky with the Soviet surface-to-air (SAM-7) missile.

What goes around comes around?

Click here to view more articles by Lars The Viking

Rate This Article | Create Account

Anonymous commenting has been disabled, you must login to comment on articles.

Signup for an account

Comments:

1 2 Next »

prometheus

Jan. 29, 2007 at 06:59:36 PM

View Profile

wheres Rambo when you need him?

Report Abuse

indie616

Jan. 29, 2007 at 08:43:35 PM

View Profile

Good article Lars.
There are so many similarities to misbegotton wars of agression.

Report Abuse

Average American

Jan. 30, 2007 at 04:40:30 PM

View Profile

Rating for this article

Sad but true....

But there is a difference between agressors. The Soviets were trying to set up a Soviet Style communistic state to be yet another buffer from attack. We are trying to free a people once held back by a dictator and now held back by an insurgency. Right is right and wrong is wrong. While our war is based on the grounds of justice, the Soviets was based on their own personal security with little regard for how the locals felt.

Report Abuse

Phaedrus

Jan. 30, 2007 at 05:09:50 PM

View Profile

oh so the Iraqis are held back by an insurgency? Who (or whom?) makes up this insurgency? Dutch, Chinese, Kiwis, or hermaphrodites? Or is it primarily Iraqis Sunnis allied with Jordan, Kuwait and Syria? And has our glorious leader Dubya allied us with Iraqi Shiites, and by extension the Iranian Shiite Government? No, we're saber rattling with them... Anyone have a handle on this, call the WH, seek employment at State Dept or Pentagon, you'll be more qualified than the chimps working there now.

Report Abuse

Hunter

Jan. 30, 2007 at 05:23:41 PM

View Profile

AA, Stop right there you forgetfull little idiot.

This war was all about American Secutiry, and nothing else, so says your idiot President in his certification to congress when he asked for this murderous debacle.

STOP BEING A LITTLE p**** ASS WATERBOY!!!!!

Report Abuse

www.MoronInCharge.com

Jan. 30, 2007 at 07:42:55 PM

View Profile

Whoa. Hunter, you are wrong and AA is right!!!

There IS a difference between agressors.

The USSR invaded Afghanistan because they considered this country to fall within their sphere of influence, and geographically Afghanistan was perfectly situated in Central Asia to serve as a friendly Soviet satellite nation, essential southern trade route, and mountainous buffer zone. The invasion was entirely motivated by national security concerns.

The US invaded Iraq for the oil; first to control it and sell it for the profit of Americans in general, and subsequently to keep it in the ground for the profit of a select few. The only security concern was for certain CEOs to make sure they had redundant billions of dollars available to weather the upcoming Armageddon.

As AA says, right is right and wrong is wrong. We don't compare favorably to the Soviets in this analogy.

Report Abuse

Phaedrus

Jan. 30, 2007 at 07:43:57 PM

View Profile

Also this new nugget; apparently the US NAvy has been selling spare parts for F-14s by auction, and they've all been going through middlemen to Iran. Yes, the Iran that Georgie wants to go to war with next. So we are actually arming our enemies while Chuckle Nuts is beating the War drums.

Hunter, American security for the War justification is so very 2003. We are beyond that now. The reason now is to spread democracy, or end the insurgency. Of course, there was no insurgency or mass violence in Iraq before we went in. And of all the 400,000 Iraqis that Saddam is creditted by Amnesty Intl for killing, most of those were Iraqis who were involved in trying to overthrow his govt, ie Kurds in the north in the 80s, or Shiites in the south after the the Gulf War.

Report Abuse

	Cancelled Account Jan. 30, 2007 at 09:05:53 PM
This user has cancelled their account with Voice of North America.

Fdickie

Jan. 31, 2007 at 10:34:32 AM

View Profile

So Phadarus, by your wierd thought patterns the fact that Saddam killed thousands for the attempt to oust him, if our presidents (the ones that were killed or had pot shots taken at them) chose to wipe out the entire city of the individual that tried (or succeeded in) to kill them, that would be cool with you?

ohhhhh that could be the answer Bush is looking for... wipe out the cities the protestors come from (or the districts the Dems represent) that would liven things up a bit i guess...

or maybe the idea of Democracy still works here - even for the Dumbocrats

Report Abuse

www.MoronInCharge.com

Jan. 31, 2007 at 12:42:04 PM

View Profile

Well Fdickie,

No one can make the case that Saddam wasn't a very bad man. If our role in the world was to take out brutal dictators by force, he certainly would have made the list. He would not have been at the top of the list, but he would have been on the first page.

Of course, you know as well as I did that we did not go to Iraq because Saddam gassed Kurds and diverted water away from Marsh Arabs. I believe we invaded Iraq because the Bush Administration concocted the story that Iraq was a clear and present danger to the United States and our wake up call was going to be a mushroom cloud. Nothing found in Iraq since our invasion in 2003 supports this claim. The Downey Street memo and ever growing body of evidence from internal probes and leaks demonstrate that we were lied into war: for oil, for profit, for personal revenge, for misguided ideology, for the consolidation of executive power, for imperialism, for hubris, for the heck of it.

You need to open your eyes here Fdickie. You seem to be more intelligent than the average bonehead that recites s*** like we had to remove the Dictator and 9-11 was Clinton's fault.

Ironically, most Afghanis agree that the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 80s was fairly benevolent (as far as invasions and occupations go). They didn't hate the Russians personally so much as they were obligated to expel the infidels from their land. To wit, although the mujahadeen fought back with a vengeance, there was not the associated bloody sectarian violence, the likes of which we are witnessing in Iraq today.

By contrast, greater than 90% of the Iraqi civilians polled today absolutely hate us. Maybe we will finally learn from the lessons of Vietnam, and now Iraq, that we are not good at this occupation thing, and we really should try to avoid it in the future.

Report Abuse

1 2 Next »