English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

The Soviet war in Afghanistan was a nine-year conflict involving Soviet forces supporting Afghanistan's Marxist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) government against the largely Islamic fundamentalist Mujahideen insurgents that were fighting to overthrow Soviet rule. The Soviet Union supported the government while the rebels found support from a variety of sources including the United States, Pakistan and other Muslim nations in the context of the Cold War. This conflict was concurrent to the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the Iran-Iraq War.
The initial Soviet deployment of the 40th Army in Afghanistan began on December 25, 1979. The final troop withdrawal began on May 15, 1988, and ended on February 15, 1989. Due to the high cost and ultimate futility of this conflict for this Cold War superpower, the Soviet war in Afghanistan has often been referred to as the equivalent of the United States' Vietnam War.
Some observers believe the economic and military cost of the war contributed significantly to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991[5].

Material losses were as follows:
118 aircraft
333 helicopters
147 tanks
1,314 IFV/APCs
433 artillery guns and mortars
1,138 radio sets and command vehicles
510 engineering vehicles
11,369 trucks and petrol tankers

The total irrecoverable personnel losses of the Soviet Armed Forces, frontier and internal security troops came to 14,453.

Soviet Army formations, 13,833,
KGB sub units lost 572,
MVD formations lost 28
10,751 men were left disabled
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2007-08-20 03:21:34 · 10 answers · asked by fua57 2 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

10 answers

nooo and they never will if bush ( the coward and ******* ) keeps atakking arab people

2007-08-20 03:25:50 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

Its fine to copy slabs of text off some website but please add your source for respect to their property. (wikipedia????????)

You seem to have one question and a heap of text that has no relevance to your question but anyway, The USA will leave the Iraq ans Afgan countries within the next presidential term most likely. The American governmet has put itself in a ver difficult position, many arab nations are not very democratic in their government methods, the Americans are trying to impose a western style democracy in places that will never adopt this type of rule as such because it is historically so abnormal. Muslim culture shows the type of ruling and subordinance of there people the way men and women are so different. We in the west will not be able to leave these two countries as democracies as we hoped so the Americans will have to pull out in an embarrasing way only to save the financial and human cost continuing.
Good luck to these countries but lets hope they dont harbour terrorism in the future......

2007-08-20 03:40:30 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

If terrorists are given a safe haven from which to attack us, the cost of THAT will make the cost of these wars look like a pittance! Which of you want to sacrifice their community or loved ones to another terrorist attack? These wars were not just an "attack on the arabic people" the were in response to an unprovoked large scale attack on the USA. There has not been another attack since 9/11. Ever wonder why? Maybe it is better to fight these monsters on their own soil, rather than ours?

2007-08-20 03:38:38 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Considering that the U.S. still has forces stationed in Germany and Japan a full 62 years after WWII, not to mention the armed barrier between North and South Korea, I'd say it is a safe bet that U.S. tropps will be in both Afghanistan and Iraq for quite a while.

2007-08-20 03:29:48 · answer #4 · answered by fangtaiyang 7 · 0 1

Yes, eventually the US will leave, though will still have an interest in the direction in which the countries are headed.

The US is not the USSR; the analogy is only superficially valid.

A better question is, perhaps, why is there no pan-Arab coalition interested in brokering and maintaining peace in these war torn countries?

2007-08-20 03:29:00 · answer #5 · answered by Curious1usa 7 · 1 0

Wow quickly as our employ replaced into up at Subic we ran out of there.. they like the money in spite of the undeniable fact that and Japan Loves the unfastened protection gadget they use the protection budget to make autos greater fee-effective on the industry and Make Anime video clips low priced for previous perverts.

2016-10-16 05:28:23 · answer #6 · answered by gustavo 4 · 0 0

There were some people in my church from Iraq last weekend. They said since the American military has beent here, their lives have more hope.

I'm thinking we have no idea what is good or bad for Iraq. Unless you're there or have been there recently . . . shutup!

2007-08-20 03:29:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Uh, I just saw the documentary "No End In Sight" and so I'm going to say, "No." Sad, but true.

2007-08-20 03:25:52 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

US will not leave if the leaders continue to benefit from the arms sales and oil.

2007-08-20 03:27:05 · answer #9 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0 2

troops home tonight

2007-08-20 03:26:18 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers