Russia assaults Islamic separatist's base

[WABA]

Europe


Medvedev Follows Lethal Attack on Islamic Separatists With Warning

By MICHAEL SCHWIRTZ and ELLEN BARRY

Published: March 29, 2011




MOSCOW — A day after an unusual air attack on what officials here said was a militant base in Russia’s North Caucasus region, President Dmitri A. Medvedev warned separatist fighters in the mostly Muslim region to surrender or “be destroyed.”
Speaking on the anniversary of a suicide attack on the Moscow subway that killed 40 people, Mr. Medvedev noted with regret that the Islamist militant groups almost always responsible for such lethal suicide attacks were still active, and he ordered his security services to finish them off.
“We need to do this and bring this work to an end,” he said.
Russia has been battling Islamist separatists in the North Caucasus for nearly two decades, but violence in the region occurs almost daily, and attacks in Moscow and elsewhere are not uncommon.
Mr. Medvedev said Monday’s assault on the suspected terrorist base delivered “sufficiently impressive results.”
The operation, carried out in a wooded area of Ingushetia near the border with Chechnya, was remarkable in its scale and firepower. At least 17 suspected militants were killed when Russia’s air force bombarded the area, officials said. It was unclear whether fighter jets or helicopters were used. Three members of Russia’s security services were also killed.
Russia has rarely used air power against militants in recent years, said Tatyana Lokshina, who researches the North Caucasus with Human Rights Watch.
“It’s a huge operation by Russian standards,” Ms. Lokshina said, though she cautioned that the effectiveness of such assaults could be difficult to gauge.
Officials offered a measured assessment of the operation, saying only that they suspected that several militant commanders had been killed.
“Among the dead militants there should be the leaders of militant groups,” Nikolai Sintsov, a spokesman for Russia’s National Anti-Terrorist Committee, said Tuesday. “At the moment, an investigation is under way to determine the identities of the dead criminals.”
Several Russian news agencies, citing anonymous law enforcement officials, said that Doku Umarov, the self-proclaimed militant leader who has claimed a string of attacks, might be among the dead. But reports of his death have proved erroneous in the past, and there was no official confirmation of the latest.
In any case, the Investigative Committee, Russia’s top investigative agency, filed charges against Mr. Umarov on Tuesday for his role in a suicide bombing in January at Moscow’s Domodedovo airport that killed at least 35 people.
Mr. Umarov had previously taken responsibility for that attack, as well as for the subway bombings in Moscow last year, but had never been officially charged with a crime.
The Investigative Committee also released new details on Tuesday about two brothers arrested recently and charged with accompanying the suicide bomber in the Domodedovo attack.
Officials announced the arrest of the brothers, Islam and Ilez Yandiyev, on Monday. When detained, they had in their possession a suicide belt and two bombs, the agency said in a statement on its Web site.
“The presence of the explosive devices,” the agency said, “leads to the conclusion that they were preparing a terrorist attack.”

[odie072]

This will be interesting to see where the "or be destroyed" leads, because we know they aren't going to surrender. I wouldn't think Russia would pull an "Obama"(empty threat), but only time will tell.

odie

[WABA]

Yes Odie072, I agree in full with your conclusion.

There is one thing I will give the Russians, when they re-act to terrorist attacks they do not pull any punches, and hit these Islamic terrorists hard,Russian spetnaz forces are hard, brutal special forces who don't take prisoners.

I believe the 'Russian' way achieves the best results, pussy-footing around 'Gitmo' type rehabilitation of Islamic insurgent nutters is a disaster waiting to happen, ccheck out the ex-Gitmo terrorists in Lybia.

When you manage to corner the 'rats', turn them in to 'martyrs'.

[odie072]

Nothing but the upmost respect for the Spetsnaz forces.

Terror at Beslan, most of the 19 Spetsnaz were killed in protecting the children at the school(Terror at Beslan book, John Giduck) and at the Nord-Ost theater, some(it is argued the number that could have been vs the number that died in the theater, from gas poisoning) of the innocent civilians could have been saved if there had been adequate medical personnel on scene as they died from simple asphyxiation due to either the location of their heads or being placed on their backs(due to being gassed in the theater).

Most of the terrorist at the theater died from lead poisoning.

Sad, we have to be political enemies.

odie

[WABA]

Sad, we have to be political enemies.

================================================== =======

Yes Odie once again your totally correct.

What I can't understand is why Russia ( not the Russian people) is still in a state of 'belligerence' against the West.

Both the West and Russia have so much in common its ridiculus, we are both basically ethically and religously Christian, we have the same enemy of Islamic fundamentalism, neither the West nor Russia have any major 'land/border' claims against each others territories, we both have the same drug and criminal cartel problems, and 'corruption' in Russia is a major internal problem a lot worse than that in the West.

Now that the 'Cold War' ( with the USSR ) is now well and truly defunct, there is no reason at all for the West and Russia not to become the best of buddies., economically and military it is a win-win state for all of us.

What I would like to see is Russia join NATO and the European Community/Market, this would create a common set of legal rights and standards right across Europe/Russia, this would totally eliminate any prospect of hostilities forever between the West and Russia.

The West is no threat to Russia, the military threat Russia faces is the growing might of China, who is actively claiming and pursuing by veiled threats, any past territories in both S.E. Asia and Russian Siberia that it claims historically belongs to China.

By joining Nato/USA, Russia would have complete protection from any Chinese aggression, and the combined military and economical might of the USA/NATO/Russia would be an unbeatable bulwark against the insanity of the Islamic fundamentalist nutters nightmare of a world wide sharia Caliphate.

[odie072]

I'm no expert, but I believe the problem lies in the fact that Russia was for too many years, Communist, a major world power, and "lost" the Cold War due to going bankrupt against the US and Capitalism. It made them look bad in the eyes of the world, and the older ones in power, still remember that.

Putin, being ex-KGB, still wants to be on top and take the US down a peg or two.

Just my opinion.

odie

[Knaur]

Isn't it interesting that almost anywhere in the world there is terrorism, from Thailand to US, from Malaysia to Russia, Australia to South America, India to UK, Sudan to Germany there is always a Pakistani somewhere behind it?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-Pakistan.html

[janetnjohn]

too true Knaur! Pakistan is a cess pit of hatred.

[deut_20-21]

Reading this thread, I am consumed with agreement.

I'm not sure I have anything to add that is new, but I will wonder aloud,

"What is status of the relationship between Israel and Russia?"

I ask not only because I've read Ezekiel but also because it's important that Israel do everything it can to promote the legitimate common interests of Russia and Israel -- in this case, helping Islamic militants get the Virginian's that await them;

(that's right, Virginian's, won't they be surprised!)

The US, China, and Russia, (apparently,) have a common pact to work together wrt Islamic terrorists, holding each others prisoner's as necessary, providing intelligence, and generally cooperating with each other.

I say "apparently" because I see the evidence of partnership but have not seen announcements of meetings and the like. This isn't something that they would want to discuss openly.

[odie072]

Interpretation of the Bible is best left to the one's who understand the symbolism. Every war Israel has been in, has been the end of times according to doomsdayers of the day. I remember in 1973, flyers being handed out by certain churches in the US because it was the "end of times."(are you ready??) Not arguing the "if" because it is foretold, but the "when," we won't know, we just have to be ready and the "who," well, it can be symbolic language.

As far as cooperation, Russia may disagree with you on that one, since, in 2002, the US granted asylum to Chechen ex-foreign minister Ilyas Akhmadov, who was considered by Russia to be a terrorist leader. Russia see's that as the same, if they have given asylum to Usama bin Laden(Terror at Beslan, John Gudick). Great Britain has allowed this same person(and others considered terrorist by Russia) to travel freely.

Chechnya learned a lot from Muslims in the Balkans and how the US supported them.

Great Britain has also allowed political asylum to Andrei Krotowv, a Russian conscript soldier fighting in Chechnya(2004). The immigration appeal tribunal accepted his asylum citing "Numerous credible reports of human rights abuses and atrocities commited by Federal(Russian) forces(Same book as above).

If you have any other information on a "common pact" between Russia, United States and China, I'd like to hear it.

odie

[Knaur]

Moscow Says Islamist Leader Killed In Daghestan


April 18, 2011
Russia's federal authorities say security forces have killed an Islamist militant leader who masterminded attacks in the North Caucasus and threatened Moscow.

Russian news agencies quoted the National Couterterrorism Committee (NAK) as saying security forces shot dead Israpil Velijanov and three other people today in Daghestan.

It said the militants had opened fire on members of the security forces who tried to stop their car.

Velijanov was the top representative in Daghestan of North Caucasus insurgency leader Doku Umarov, who claimed responsibility for a bomb attack on Moscow's busiest airport in January, in which 37 people were killed.

Velijanov was known among insurgents as Emir Khasan.

http://www.rferl.org/content/moscow_...n/9497576.html

[air-on]

Originally Posted by Knaur

Isn't it interesting that almost anywhere in the world there is terrorism, from Thailand to US, from Malaysia to Russia, Australia to South America, India to UK, Sudan to Germany there is always a Pakistani somewhere behind it?

Exactly, Knaur. And what is even more interesting is how all and every government acts as an ostrich, pretending that the darn thing that walk, and quacks and smells like a duck is not a duck!
Our unavoidable tendency to justify or understand things around us makes us blame post-modernism, the european relativism, even a supposed pro-islam inner self of the current POTUS and such excuses for the general lack of intestinal fortitude against the obvious: there is a war being waged against the judeo-christian world, and its rules have nothing to do with the rules developed by our civilization.
Robert Spencer and others have been claiming that the koran is a political book, a transvestite of religion that seeks world domination, but alas political correctness does exactly what the enemy always wanted: bend over backwards to accomodate their growing demands, while they breed like rats fed by the western social security.
And as you said in another post, Knaur, nowhere it is possible for moslems and non-moslems to cohabit in peace. The moment they reach meaningful numbers and become a larger minority, they begin to impose their way, like the streets taken in France every friday, so they can put their asses up and sniff the next fellow's behind. Excuse my rude words, but I do not see "that" as a religion, therefore they do not deserve any respect from me.
And to think that it is with this filth that the world expects my tiny, little, insignificant Israel to "make peace"... Israel is arguably the only country, or one of the very few (I can't remember any other now, if you do let me know) to call a spade a spade, and to make a stand, because there is nowhere to run. To none of us.
* * * * * * *
Deut, Odie's comment is justified. We are all entitled to our opinions, as I have just done above. However, whenever you state any facts or supposed facts, it is always useful (and generally recommended) that you back up your affirmations with links, citations, etc.
I am just saying, please do not feel put down. All of us can learn, all of us are a band of brothers.

[air-on]

One more thought I would like to add: I fear all the truckload of money the arab countries have been extorting the world since 1973 (second oil shock, revenge against Israel) will be put to the service of this clash of civilizations sometime in the future. Am I going insane to think this?
Saudi Arabia has just rejected a US$60 billion deal with the US, and has apparently turned to China for long range missiles, for use against Iran. Sunnis x shiites, ok, but are they so different from each other? don't they pray by the same book?
I do hope Russia does better now at their pest extermination. They didn't in the past, and we got bin laden and the taliban as "by product".

[odie072]

Air-on I feel your exactly right about the money, it's what drives the world today. The arabs have held us hostage since the first oil crisis back during the Carter admin and they learned from the long lines at the gas stations in the US. Bin Laden learned from the history of the US in conflicts since Korea, plus he learned what defeated the Soviets in Afghanistan(Money and public opinion, which is what has driven the US since the end of WWII).

The difference between the terrorist and the Western world is the terrorist have learned patience from their own and others(mainly Western) past involvement in conflicts. The US and Western world, wants results now and are unwilling to accept that some things take time.

And I'll go out on a limb here with a conspiracy theory. I fully believe Bin Laden knew, when he executed 9/11 what it would start. He knew the US would retaliate in some way that would pull us into a conflict. I honestly believe he knew we would become engaged in Afghanistan, just not to the extreme that we went in.(Look at the past Vietnam, even to a lesser extent Korea, the US did a gradual build up, and it took several years to get rolling, Korea, we got to rolling, but when we ran up against the Chinese, we balked and backed off. I believe the ferocity that President Bush hit with was the surprise). I also believe he knew we would engage Iraq somehow, but on a smaller scale, the ferocity was also a surprise, but, played into his hands perfectly.

Why do I think that, because he hit the World Trade Center, self explanatory to what that means, and the Pentagon(war center). He knew we were going to engage, his strategy was to drag it out like he did with the Soviets, which would help in bringing the US down financially. Bush surprised him with the hard hits, but, when Bush slowed down and started doing the same strategy as Vietnam(win hearts and minds, restricting rules of engagement), we fell into the trap. He knew the American public would not stand for a long term war, we didn't and even went to the extreme of electing liberals into office in response.

Am I saying that Bin Laden planned everything that has happened up to this point? By no means, but, he got the ball rolling knowing if the US got involved in a war in the mid-east(asia's close), and Al-queada(sp?) could keep carrying out terrorist attacks against the west(which was twarted by his lack of belief that the US would respond with the force that it did), he would be able to affect the finances of the US, but I don't believe he expected the quickness that the finances of the US went south(caused by the level of the wars we were engaged in, plus, the turn to liberalism, even by Bush in his last year or two(financially).

So, all this unrest in the Mid-East and Arab oil, is just a by product of what he started back in 9/11.

Do I have any evidence, no, not really, I can only point to the level of violence that was carried out on 9/11. 3,000 Americans in one attack? That's a hell of a terrorist statement, that when examined against the "reasonable man" theory, he had to have known we would engage. He was just able to have all the cards fall his way in this "game of poker."

Could be wrong, it's happened once or twice in my 47 years.

Just look how the cards have fallen, and where they have led too. I just don't believe he planned on Bush initially hitting as hard as he did, then follow up with boots on the ground.(Look at Bush Sr., stopping on the road to Bahgdad, and in Bin Ladens eyes, not finishing, especially since the attempt on Bush's life by Saddam).

odie the Conspiracy Theorist!!

[Knaur]

Originally Posted by air-on

there is a war being waged against the judeo-christian world, and its rules have nothing to do with the rules developed by our civilization.

Not just the Judeo-Christian world friend, but against the civilised world and against all civilised peoples' in in general, even those in these extremists' own countries who dare raise a voice against their prophetic genocidal mumbo jumbo.

Originally Posted by air-on

I do hope Russia does better now at their pest extermination. They didn't in the past, and we got bin laden and the taliban as "by product".

Indeed, the Taliban and Mujahideen, another thing we have our friendly neighbour towards the NW of the country to thank for.

[Knaur]

Originally Posted by odie072

The US and Western world, wants results now and are unwilling to accept that some things take time.

Odie,

OEF has been going on for a decade now, OIF for 8, surely it goes on to show that there are people out there committed to give it as much time as it takes.

[odie072]

Originally Posted by Knaur

Odie,

OEF has been going on for a decade now, OIF for 8, surely it goes on to show that there are people out there committed to give it as much time as it takes.

Maybe I should have worded that different. It's not the total amount of time their against, but the escalating if the current plan isn't working. How many times have we heard dates being set for the withdrawal of troops?? Public opinion drives the politicians to make decisions to see how quick we can get out, rather than look at what really needs to be done. I have said it is time to go from Afghanistan, but that is because we are just maintaining, not making progress. As long as Pakistan is harboring the Taliban and protecting them, and the continuing problems that Afghanistan is having with the Military and Police, we will continue to just maintain and lose troops. This is where the politics is starting to look like Vietnam. One of the issues we were having there was the VC were using Cambodia and Laos to move supplies and provide safe haven. That's the same thing Pakistan is doing. So we have a tough decision to make. Do we keep our troops doing the same thing, or do we get tough with Pakistan. Bin Laden learned from the way we operated in Vietnam(our politicians, not the troops). The terrorist have the patience to wait, make the hit and run, wait again, till we start setting dates for withdrawal.

It can be argued that Obama put 30,000 more troops in, but what did that do?? It re-enforced Afghanistan, but done nothing about the Taliban that are operating out of Pakistan. Now Pakistan is talking about limiting their co-operation with the US(like we were getting too much to begin with).

I'm rambling, but bottom line is, Westerners want to go in and see how quick we can start pulling out. WWII, was an escalation till we had enough troops to take the fight to the enemy, into their heartland. Now, we want to do the quick operations and then come home, not escalate till we are able to take out the enemy.

And I fully realize it's complicated with Pakistan having nukes, but that goes back to my statement, if we weren't willing to do whatever was necessary to win the war, we shouldn't have done what we did. Pull out, draw a line, and the next time we are attacked, whoever is harboring the enemy, they pay with their infrastructure being taken out, to include their nukes if they have them.

I hope that made sense, it's late and I'm tired, but too many Americans have lost their stomach for the fight and our troops suffer because of it. Just look at how quick we call for Israel to stop their operations when they go into Gaza or attack Lebanon. If you don't take your enemy out, when you do finally pull back, he'll come right back and fill the void.

hope that made sense

odie

[Knaur]

Originally Posted by odie072

How many times have we heard dates being set for the withdrawal of troops?? Public opinion drives the politicians to make decisions to see how quick we can get out, rather than look at what really needs to be done.

I agree, this is due to the noble but fanciful goals of democratisation which began halfway through the campaign, it should have been restricted to just effectively killing off terrorists and anyone, anywhere in the region who dared shelter them, due to whatever reason.

I have said it is time to go from Afghanistan, but that is because we are just maintaining, not making progress. As long as Pakistan is harboring the Taliban and protecting them, and the continuing problems that Afghanistan is having with the Military and Police, we will continue to just maintain and lose troops.

Yes, and I am also not a believer in all this talk of training afghan forces, IMHO the only lesson they needed and the only lesson which was feasible for the coalition to teach them should have been something clear and crisp along the lines of - We ll remove the Talibs from power once only, you are free to do whatever crap you wish to do with your country afterwards, but be assured that whichever valley/village/clan dares give safe haven to terrorists, their supporters or even supply them with essentials will be blown to smithereens, no excuses, all collateral damage will be on your heads, not ours.

This is where the politics is starting to look like Vietnam. One of the issues we were having there was the VC were using Cambodia and Laos to move supplies and provide safe haven. That's the same thing Pakistan is doing. So we have a tough decision to make. Do we keep our troops doing the same thing, or do we get tough with Pakistan.

Sir, the choice boils down to this, VC were brutal but they were not flying planes into buildings, or blowing up trains etc. in countries all across the globe, once they won, they were content to rule their country, they did not wish to become masters of the whole world by using brute force against civilians in foreign lands.

Bin Laden learned from the way we operated in Vietnam(our politicians, not the troops). The terrorist have the patience to wait, make the hit and run, wait again, till we start setting dates for withdrawal.

Colossal mistake in trusting their ally Pak and the natives, if Bin Laden had not been allowed to escape across the border into the hospitality of Pakistan at the Battle of Tora Bora, the back of the militants' would'ev been broken then and there, OPOBJ's accomplished and we would not need to have this discussion at all.

It can be argued that Obama put 30,000 more troops in, but what did that do?? It re-enforced Afghanistan, but done nothing about the Taliban that are operating out of Pakistan. Now Pakistan is talking about limiting their co-operation with the US(like we were getting too much to begin with).

The US is now a cash cow to Pak's begging bowl economy, to put it bluntly. Their only goal is to milk it for as much cash and weapons as it can before the war is over and they start re-deploying their Talibuddies to power in afghanistan and in jihad in Kashmir.

I'm rambling, but bottom line is, Westerners want to go in and see how quick we can start pulling out. WWII, was an escalation till we had enough troops to take the fight to the enemy, into their heartland. Now, we want to do the quick operations and then come home, not escalate till we are able to take out the enemy.

Perhaps so, liberal propaganda seems to have convinced a lot of people that these wars are somehow unnecessary, and the screwed up strategy, failure to fully make use of the populations' support in the aftermath of 9/11 have degraded things further. The tactical prowess of the US forces deployed far away into hostile populations, is however, commendable. If only the strategic foresight was there, things could be so different. It has been a failing to convince larger sections of the pop. regarding the righteousness of the cause, and many a times the liberal media has outrageously lied due to vested interested. However, the tens of thousands of body bags returned from the fronts till date bear testimony to the commitment of the armed forces'. I don't know what it ll take for the Emirate of Europe or US Dhimmi Carter types to see the light, but history has shown time and again, that there is no fiercer opponent than a bloodthirsty anglo-saxon willing to kill and be killed for what he believes in.

And I fully realize it's complicated with Pakistan having nukes, but that goes back to my statement, if we weren't willing to do whatever was necessary to win the war, we shouldn't have done what we did. Pull out, draw a line, and the next time we are attacked, whoever is harboring the enemy, they pay with their infrastructure being taken out, to include their nukes if they have them.

The initial policy which worked best was not one of appeasement sir, not one of trading weapons and money for flimsy promises of support. It was this - http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...n-memoir_x.htm

That is exactly the line which should have been followed. The most Pakistan could have done was self-destruct by attacking India, they could not attack the US, and the thought of ending up without power, their army and nuclear labs wasted, their nation bludgeoned back to stone age was what prompted Pak's decision. Later on of course, when US temper had cooled down, the Pakis realised that there was much to be gained by blackmailing the US and taking advantage of an increasingly softer strategy.

I hope that made sense, it's late and I'm tired, but too many Americans have lost their stomach for the fight and our troops suffer because of it. Just look at how quick we call for Israel to stop their operations when they go into Gaza or attack Lebanon. If you don't take your enemy out, when you do finally pull back, he'll come right back and fill the void.

hope that made sense

Yes that makes sense sir, this however doesn't -

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-n...forces/779297/

Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff who was on a visit to Pakistan yesterday, referred to the military-run ISI's links to the Taliban faction led by militant commander Jalaluddin Haqqani that is based in the country's North Waziristan tribal region. "It's fairly well known that the ISI has a long-standing relationship with the Haqqani network and addressing the Haqqani network from my perspective is critical to the solution set in Afghanistan... that's at the core – it's not the only thing but that's at the core, that I think is the most difficult part of the relationship," he had said.
"Haqqani is supporting, funding, training fighters that are killing Americans and killing coalition partners. And I have a sacred obligation to do all I can to make sure that doesn't happen," Mullen told the Dawn newspaper.
The daily said, Mullen was in a "mood to name and shame" and made it clear that the ISI's links with the Haqqani network were at the core of problematic bilateral relations.



Mullen, often criticised for being soft on the Pakistan military, is not the first US official to accuse elements of the ISI of having links to the Haqqani network.



Pakistan, which has denied such ties, has consistently spurned US demands to move troops into North Waziristan Agency to flush out the Haqqani network.
The Haqqani network does not carry out attacks within Pakistan and uses North Waziristan as a base for launching strikes on US and foreign troops in Afghanistan.
Analysts believe the Pakistani military wants to use Haqqani to project its influence in a future political set-up in Afghanistan after the withdrawal of US troops.

This simple visit goes on to highlight the problem, here you have the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff admitting to knowing and openly accusing their frontline partner in the WoT of continuing to support the very people they are supposed to destroy, the very people who kill Coalition servicemen everyday, and yet, Pakistan is supposedly a key ally?

[odie072]

And that is why I said it is the politicians, not the soldiers. Soldiers know how to fight wars, politicians just know how to start them. This is why I don't like the discussions, when it clouds the line between politics and the boots on the ground. I support our troops 110%!! And always will, but the problem is, the war has yet again been taken out of the hands of the military, by the politicians.

The correlation between the VC and the Taliban is just that, no, the VC didn't fly into the Towers, but they did kill and relish in torturing our troops on the ground, then run back into the relative safety of the borders of the Countries that surround them, or, back into the local village, where they were farmers by day. Did Laos or Cambodia do anything to prevent that other than let our troops operate under the radar?? Same as Pakistan, except now, they are starting to be more vocal about the US pulling out of Pakistan. The act that Al-Quada did, the VC didn't do, but, the US also lost 58,245 KIA, 153,452 wounded and 1,711 MIA in Vietnam.

Did Laos and Cambodia offer refuge to the VC and NVA. Officially, I don't know, but they didn't do a lot to stop them, other than let us operate. And what happened there?? The American people and the Politicians lost their nerve. Should we have been there? Should we have left earlier than we did?? That's a whole 'nother argument, but the bottom line is we were there, we left when we did. But, why are we starting to go down that same road again?? Our Politicians are showing they learn nothing from history.

As far as the Military and Police. Does it take ten years to train the trainers?? We should be turning over the training to the Afgans at some point in time. Hell, 10 years is halfway to retirement in our Military, if they(Afgans) haven't learned how to do the job by now, another year or two isn't going to matter. And what is the problem?? Corruption and the fact they don't know who is friendly and who is a terrorist. Sounds pretty much like the same events we faced in Vietnam. The only difference, the South Vietnamese were already established, but weak when we arrived. But it still reeked of corruption. Does that mean all were corrupt, by no means, but when one recruit can walk in and blow himself up or shoot and kill other military and police, how do we know who is friendly??

One more thing, the VC may have been content with their own country, but Cambodia fell to the Khmer Rouge(Communist) in 1975 and over 4 years, killed over 1 million Cambodians. Then Vietnam and Cambodia started a war, till China went into Vietnam. Also in 1975, the Pathet Laos overthrew the govt there. So, while the VC may have stayed in Vietnam, Communism was the Islam of the day. 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. We went into Afghanistan because of a terrorist act and went into Vietnam to try and stop the spread of Communism. We were trying to contain and kill as much of Al-quada as we could, we were trying to kill as many VC and NVA as we could.

Bottom line, we(politicians and public opinion) have to relearn how to fight a war, and what the objective is in the war, and what we are oing to do when the plan that we have isn't working. Not the troops but the ones in Washington that are pulling the strings. Just look at the Army women, who are "suggested" to where the Burka when they are in public. Politics may be the death of our Women over there due to head injuries.

Politics ruin any war, if it isn't controlled, but, I think we agree on everything but the Vietnam connection, we started out right in Afghanistan, but Politics are taking us in the same direction.

odie

[Knaur]

Odie,

I agree with almost all you said.