Request of interesting thinks

Probably they are so based because you can see there the clear sky in the night as it should be.

So according to the file name the source is A Country of Cities A Manifesto for an Urban America page 47 DPRK lights myth. Thanks

Yeah that is what I saved it as

He alone? No, but him and his goons? Yes.
>quora.com/What-were-the-factors-that-forced-Gorbachev-to-initiate-the-reforms-of-the-USSR/answer/Chuck-Garen
>quora.com/Why-did-Mikhail-Gorbachev-seek-to-reform-the-Soviet-society/answer/Chuck-Garen
I already explained this in the last thread, that is a gross over-simplification of the situational differences. The soviets were not attempting to use military force to overwhelm the Mujaheds, they were attempting to suppress counter-revolutionary activity, because the Afghan government lacked the power to do so. The fact that the USSR resisted such activity on its own is partly due to sheer luck alongside hard work. In Vietnam the USA was fighting the people from the start, and the people, even in South Vietnam resisted them. Afghanistan's people largely welcomed the soviet influence. even if they had minor discrepancies, the majority of the Mujaheds were either CIA assets from across the Pakistan border or were rural youth who had not yet had the chance to learn what the Soviet's were doing and instead only heard the agitational horror stories by said Mujaheds. This was assisted by Western news articles about "the evul soviets putting bombs in toys" and "spraying them with poison gas". Even though both were proven untrue, people still claim this.
Your argument is literally the same argument that porkies use to claim that Iran or Guatemala or the CNT were failures even though they failed due to circumstantial global things. If the USSR removed all influence from the other Warsaw Pact states (as Gorbachev did in 1990) they would and did collapse too, despite stability because the CIA isn't just going to sit on its ass and let them be, they'll take advantage of it the first chance they get and take to breaking them down by inserting their assets and influencing the youth as they did in reality. The people in general supported the socialist government, but Afghanistan was not a powerful country and it's history of Islamic fundamentalism is very long meanig that it would take long years of enforcement to get things across. Inb4 "oppression" that is the same thing done by Lenin and Stalin during NEP and after. For long, LONG years after the revolution they attempted to keep the people from diverting in ignorance and preventing foreign powers from doing that. Afghanistan did not have a Lenin or Stalin, anyone who could have been one, was killed a while ago.

No problem

Some interesting stuff:
Afghan Orphan rescued by the USSR in the 80s is fighting in Donetsk:
>gumilev-center.af/archives/7209
Afghans prefer Soviet troops over US
>lenta.ru/articles/2017/12/11/afghan/
How the US provoked the USSR into Afghanistan
>williamblum.org/essays/read/how-the-us-provoked-the-soviet-union-into-invading-afghanistan-and-starting

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (604x379, 458.78K)

If that were the case then the Mujahideen wouldn’t have been able to operate at all. Geurilla armies need a critical mass of popular support to function, since sympathetic populations form critical networks of logistics and intelligence. Read Mao’s writing on the subject.
M8 the CIA can’t just pull countrrevolution out of its ass. It can’t just send agents among a pacified and content population and just magically make them irrationally angry over no real grievances. People in the Eastern Bloc were angry at their governments, which is why they did shit like lynch Ceaucescu. The same goes for Afghanistan.
That makes literally no sense. If the people in general supported the government then the government should have been able to stand up to a bunch of illiterate goat herders that made up the Mujahideen. No amount of CIA aid to them would have made them a match for a regular army, unless that army was massively unpopular and completely dysfunctional as a result. The Afghan people were massively spooked by religion, and as a result they hated their government even if it was objectively good. In order for your narrative to be true you would have to believe that the Afghan people would have just sat around and watched as the government they supposedly supported was destroyed by the terrorists they supposedly hated.

First thing to understand about Soviet-Afghan war is that it's not Soviet-Afhanistani war, but invasion of Afghanistan.

Was provided by Pakistan and CIA.

Pakistan and the CIA can’t replace the ability of the Mujahideen to blend into the population at will, operate freely among them, and recruit from them. Read Mao’s “On Guerrilla Warfare”. A force like the Mujahideen literally cannot function among a sufficiently hostile population.

AS I SAID the Mujaheds were not regular guerillas By yoru logic the Contras in South America ought to have had no traction whatsoever. Mao was writing about people's geurilla movements.
Also the mujaheds were LOSING. I dare say that if they hadn't pulled out another 2 years would have crippled them enough to get rid of them.
Strawman. There is no such a thing as a completely pacified and content population, there will always be people who are weak-willed or petty enough to become CIA assets, because people are human and thus fallible. Without a support structure to counter this it would infest and manifest itself in society and destroy it. That's what happened. Not because the structures were inherently weak, but because they must be maintained in a world of aggressive global capitalism.
Yes, after Gorbachev (and his goons) destroyed everything with their liberal bullshit. The same goes for Afghanistan.
It makes plenty of sense. Many Americans support communist ideas, but many americans would also be unwilling to even say they support it, why? Because there has been a century of anti-communist culture there. In Afghanistan this is magnified 100-fold because throughout history, Afghanistan has been under the influence of Islamic Fundamentalism, which goes against many of the root ideas of Socialism. The reason socialism began to rise in Afghanistan was because people in the cities became educated and thus realized the problems of their society, with soviet support they began to try and change their backwards country, educating the youth. However many rural areas took time to educate, because Afghanistan is MASSIVE and also sparsely populated relative to land-mass. Many older people were against these changes because they were set in their ways. Many youths, impressionable and ignorant fell prey to this religious farce and became opposed to it. Combined with the instability of politics (see ) it became an area of interest for the USA. It was not yet an established socialist government and its people had not yet been educated, perfect for creating a false dichotomy in the population.
Except that you're thinking of this from the point of view of logic. Think about Zig Forums, /leftypol has debunked their shit time and again, however long, but objective arguments are less motivating to ignorant people as compared to loud, simple slogans and ideas, especially those that are familiar. When the USSR first formed the majority of support was FOR the Bolsheviks, HOWEVER to prevent counter-revolution they had to enforce their ideas, because the situation was raw. FFS they inherited a famine the year they became a country, and had to combat outright cannibalism. It took DECADES for the USSR to repress the sexist, racist, xenophobic idpol of rural areas, backed by the Western Capitalists. Afghanistan was the same thing except modernized.

They really didn't. Usually they just fled over the Paki-Afghani border or hid in the mountains. When they DID rarely integrate, frequently it would be in rural areas where people were distrustful of strangers in general and would help "their own" out of sheer ignorance and bullshit ethno-nationalism due to how raw the country was.
They didn't.
Cherry picking, the Afghan army also recruited plenty of Afghanis.
Mao was speaking of people's movements. He wasn't talking about artificially created mercs who agitated ignorant rural people. Moreover. The Mujahideen DIDN'T function. They literally functioned at all only because the USA poured millions upon millions into funding them, giving them the newest tech, and providing a place to hide when they got beaten back.

Except the Contras lost. The Mujahideen didn’t.
Both revolutionary and reactionary guerrillas operate using the same tactics. Mao’s observations hold true for both.
M8 you’re basically saying that “we would have won if it weren’t for enemy propaganda” which is like saying “we would have won if the enemy didn’t have guns”. Propaganda is a core part of all political conflict. Losing the propaganda was is as good as losing the shooting war, either way it’s losing.
Socialism never really took root in Afghanistan. The communist party basically staged a Blanquist coup and never had much influence with the people. Historically speaking no central Afghan government has ever controlled much beyond Kabul. The idea that Afghan society was anywhere near ready to accept socialism is fundamentally at odds with histmat and Marxism. Afghanistan was and is so backwards that pre revolutionary Russia and China were enlightened by comparison, its basically a pre-feudal tribal society. Any Marxist would know that trying to implement socialism there would be doomed to fail.
Read Marx ffs, people’s social consciousness reflects their conditions of existence. Socialism and enlightenment values were completely alien to the vast majority of Afghans, while Islamic Fundamentalism had been a part of their culture for centuries, and reflected their conditions of life. If what you’re saying is true, it would basically disprove Marxism.
If that were true then the insurgency would have been contained to the border region, when in reality it operated in most of the country.
Yes they did. Read actual accounts of the war. Soviet troops would clear an area only to have the insurgents return as soon as they left. Soviet troops would move in to engage insurgents only to find that they had apparently disappeared, even hundreds of kilometres from the border regions. The same thing happened continuously in Vietnam.
The results of the war would disagree. If the Mujahideen were as unpopular and dysfunctional as you say they were, then how did they win? How did they overcome the larger and better equipped Afghan army? There is no way foreign aid gave them material military superiority, so how could they possibly have overcome the Afghan government even after the Soviets had pulled out?

Uhhh no, they didn't
They won almost now major battles took far higher casualties and only gained control because Gorbachev pulled out right when they were on the brink.
No, no they don't. One operate from bottom up. The other is artificially implanted, like a parasite that infects the brain
No, I'm saying that you're being obtuse. No state is absolutely pacified and content, because that is an idealist delusion that ignores the fact that humans are not static beings, we are dynamic, have emotions and take a long time and generations to change our views sometimes.
But they didn't. You're basically ignoring the key details about Afghan society and cherry-picking others to present this strawman of "the people didn't like the soviets". Which is factually untrue.
EXACTLY, that is why the CIA collapsed the Afghan government, it lacked the advancement or the unity to prevent this. And as a newly established state it was helpless against global capitalism, unless it had the backing of a superpower like the USSR.
By what standard? The same could be said of the October Revolution if we're going to play coy here.
YES, but that doesn't mean you abandon a strategically important country and attempt to speed up the process. Anarchists do it all the time by trying to skip straight to stateless communism. Hell, by technicality Russia was not ready for socialism by Marx's standards, and neither was China or Vietnam or Cuba, or Korea but they did it any way. Afghansitan's socialism was independent, however in the Cold War, without further help they'd end up like Chile or Guatemala because the power of united global capitalism was under-estimated by Marx.
No, not really. China and Russia were, in their most advanced areas, pre-industrial revolution levels of capitalism. As in, the transition period between Feudalism and capitalism. The rural areas of both countries were comparable with Afghanistan in terms of organization (or lack thereof) and absolute barbarity.
Except it was succeeding in many key areas. Had they kept fighting the Mujaheds would have been pushed out and through hard work, change could be brought. It may take a few decades, but that's better than waiting the century or so for when they'll be 'ready', even as global capitalism grew stronger. Waiting for capitalism's collapse idly is not how it will be done. Unless active effort was undertaken, the world would become a typical cyber-punk dystopia but boring - just like it is today.

Social rationale is hard to break. It's hard to just say, "oh yeah, that thing we've been doing for centuries? It's wrong" It takes time and effort for people to accept that, and the Afghan government was trying to help in that. Until that happened, however, they were open to the same shit that happened in Iran, in 1953. This time, however, the USSR decided to back them up and push back.
Ehem: The Durand Line is the 2,430-kilometre international border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. You cannot physically keep track of every inch of that border 24/7, especially when they traveled at night and traveled in disguised caravans.
No, they operated largely near Pakistan, and in the mountain areas, where they could hide. Anywhere outside that would be raiding activity.
I have, moreover I know an actual Spetsnaz Afghan war vet. They didn't operate freely in the population. Stop falling for Burger lies.
No they disagree with YOU. The Mujaheds suffered terrible losses despite getting the best tech there was to offer, (the Viet Cong and NVA used mostly old stuff from Soviet surplus like SA-3s and T-55s, when the USSR already had T-62s and T-64s and SA-6s). Moreover the soviets won almost all major battles and had a far smaller loss ratio, ESPECIALLY compared to the USA in Vietnam. The soviets left a positive impression in Afghanistan, with many regretting them leaving, while Vietnamese do not regret the USA leaving. The USSR had essentially driven the Mujaheds back and if they had held out for a few years more (and they easily could have), the war would have been won. This was basically Gorbachev being a bitch and pulling out at the crucial moment.

Yes there is, military discipline is important, and the Mujahideen got plenty by the CIA instructors. Their Stingers were the newest MANPADs the USA had and they carrier out torture and terror attacks as the CIA directed. They were an efficient and prepared fighting force that attacked and fought with the Afghan government for months before the USSR stepped in. You keep talking about them as if they're some isolated grassroots group like the VC was, they were not. They had direct backing, the VC got limited secondary support through arms, not even training, and the NVA got a crash course in using weapons before going to fight.

Say someone is breaking a hole in a wall and you have to patch it up. If it were one on one, you'd probably keep up. But if that guy was given a pair of sledge hammers from a rich benefactor, you cannot. So you call for the help of YOUR benefactor, who gives you tools and also joins in on fixing the wall. But the guy with the sledge hammer gets replaced by another and another. With you and your benefactor, however you're slowly wearing them down. However if your benefactor leaves before they're worn down, they start overwhelming you. This is simply the USA using discount mercs and outspending a country that lacks the money to compete (Afghanistan) while the country that CAN compete, pulls out because of Gorby.

Yes they did. The Sandinista government was never toppled by armed struggle. They lost an election and returned to power several years later. The Somoza regime never returned to power which was the aim of the Contras.
Same story with the NLF and PAVN
You’re implying that a people can’t be gripped by reactionary spooks and lead a grassroots reactionary insurgency.
No that’s what you’re doing. The communists had some sympathy in the cities but the vast majority of the population (ie rural people) were deeply, deeply reactionary.
Not even close. The 1978 revolution was literally a coup by military officers. The 1917 revolution by contrast grew out of a mass movement with connections to trade unions, a majority in the Petrograd Soviet, and support from other parties.
I didn’t say abandon it. I said that a full scale troop deployment was a mistake and doomed to fail. In fact all evidence points to the USSR being heavily reluctant to get involved at all. They denied several requests to send troops because they were highly sceptical of the possibility of success.
No they weren’t. Russia especially was industrialized in the cities FAR more than Afghanistan was.
Doubtful. Russian and Chinese rural communities were feudal or semi-feudal, whereas Afghanistan was mostly pre-feudal. Their society was organized around tribal and family loyalties rather than relations of landowner/peasant.
Burgers say the same thing about Vietnam, but do you have any evidence to back that up?
“Mountain areas” makes up almost the entire country. For most of the war up to 80% of the country was outside government/Soviet control.
A handful of stingers is not “the best tech”. Most of the fighting was done with rifles, mortars, and RPGs. Losses have nothing to do with whether or not they had popular support. What does have to do with that is the Mujahideens ability to disperse among the population when the Soviets came and re-occupy a region as soon as they left.
They were literally busy fighting each other half the time. They weren’t particularly disciplined or well equipped compared to the Soviets. The only reason they won was because the Afghan government was even more dysfunctional and plagued by infighting than they were. The Afghan army literally suffered tens of thousands of desertions a month.
Neither were the VC. They were receiving substantial aid from both China and the USSR, and after 1968 much of the fighting was done by PAVN regulars.

Holy fuck you are stubborn. Like a child going "NO!!! Bla Bla BLA!". I'm not going to continue arguing with someone who is intentionally obtuse on one thing and excessively pedantic in another while also arguing strawmen and false equivalencies. Most of your claims that are either asspulls or completely out of context, and address little of what I say, instead pulling MY WORDS out of context.

Women are all sluts and whores for the right guy or the right price. It doesn't matter the part of the earth they are from–they are all the same.
Even the women you think are "unicorns" will be down to fuck if the circumstance is convenient—there tools for her to evade consequences if caught, the guy is hot enough, and there's something for her to gain–maybe just the pleasure from sex as the case is with sluts.
Investing in women is just foolish for men. They have just one use–fuck holes–and they'll lose that when sexdolls/sexbots improve and become more popular. Feminism is making them feral. The West is a place full of feral women with zero impulse control and cultured men.

Nice bait you have there faggot

Not with you though, apparently

Realistically it all comes down to the claim that the Soviets were on the brink of victory. If you actually have some evidence to back that claim then we can talk about it.

I don't think the US would have supported Osama bin Laden unless they believed the Soviets were going to take Afghanistan.
The mujahedeen didn't start winning against the Soviets untill the US started giving the MANPADS (Man Portable Air Defense System) in the form of Stinger missiles, which the US was HIGHLY reluctant to do, for fear of retaliation from the mujahedeen after they were done with the Soviets.
Now MANPADS are everywhere, but back in the 80s NOBODY but nation states had them.
As an aside many people believe the wide proliferation of MANPADS is due to that original sin of the US giving Stingers to the mujahedeen, that some stingers were sold to the black market or North Korea and reverse engineered. No evidence of that though, so all conspiracy theory level speculation.

So does China and the USSR supporting North Vietnam believe that they thought the US would win? Fighting proxy wars was standard practice for the Cold War.
The stinger effect has been disputed, especially by Russian sources.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Afghan_War

Not equivalent, namely the Chinese and Soviets were aligned ideologically with their proxies, while the US and the mujahedeen were ideologically opposed (something that would bite them in the ass on September 11th, 2001). Also seeing as how both proxies ultimately prevailed I would say yes the USSR and China believed their proxies would win.
Well what's not in dispute is the effectiveness of MANPADS themselves. They have absolutely been a game changer in guerilla warfare, and conventional forces are terrified of them.
They had no effective defense against Soviet air like the Hind-D, arguably the most effective anti infantry aircraft ever built, then they got stingers, then they won the war shortly thereafter. History doesn't reveal it's alternatives so there's no way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the stingers did or didn't win the war. But the fact of the matter is its clear evidence that at least the US BELIEVED the Soviets could win Afghanistan. The decision to give Stingers to the Mujahedeen was extremely contentious, and they're worries were ultimately proven right with the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

raytheon.com/capabilities/products/stinger

Uh yes, seeing as how the Vietnam war started in the fucking 50s and didn't end till the 70s, yes they probably did think the US could win.
The US built up south Vietnam to unprecedented levels, its called "The Construction Miracle", the build up of south Vietnam is still one of the largest fastest construction build ups of all time.

Not really related to the topic of this thread, but now that photos from the Soviet-Afghan war are mentioned, have this classic pic. Valintatalo used to be a Finnish grocery store.

Attached: Valintatalo_Heinapaa_20100920[1].JPG (368x614 876.32 KB, 126.39K)

FinBol is not going to like this.

He's a smart guy. I doubt he ever bought anything from that overpriced shitty store.

That NK pic is pretty damning considering even the pictures on NASA's site of the korean peninsula are doctored.

How do you think North Korea looks like?

Attached: beauty.mp4 (960x720, 4.42M)

Better than Indonesia that's for sure.

Uhuh, sure, not because he was a traitorous scumbag.

Against what, a UH-1?
citing the official company's capability stats, moreoever an imperialist warmongering one that is part of the military industrial complex… I don't believe it, especially going by the results of Afghanistan. Following this, that would mean the soviet Igla has a 95% kill rate because they judged the Stinger to be worse than it in performance tests with captured ones.

Solid materialist analysis fam.

MANPADS work, and the stinger missle has a good reputation inside and outside burgerland.
All SAMs and MANPADs have an inherent advantage against aircraft. And the guerilla tactics they enable have an inherent advantage against conventional forces. Can't believe you can't see the conflict of interest in believing the Soviet account of how effective stingers were.

Then you're an idiot that doesn't believe physics, or the footage of Hin-ds being shot down by stingers.
The stingers denied the Soviets air surpermacy, which is why the US gave them to the mujahedeen in the first place. 30 aircraft is a lot especially when you are talking about an insurgency force that didn't even have an industrial base like the Vietcong did.

Pizza Man was evil.

It has already posted how and why Gorbachev was a a traitor to the USSR who intentionally dismantled it. Pulling out of Afghanistan being part of that.

Yeah, but a 90% kill rate is ridiculous to take seriously. FFS The Patriot SAM system was stated to have the same 90% kill rate, yet in real life it failed to shoot down aging, export-type Scud-Ds launched by Saddam, despite the Patriot being designed SPECIFICALLY to shoot down short-range Ballistic Missiles like the Scud-D. They literally failed to shoot down a single one. So much for their 90% kill ratio.
Citation needed. Regardless 90% is a ridiculous number, good missile or not.

What does PHYSICS have to do with this? A missile can be good, but a stinger is not a 90% kill ratio against targets like a Mi-24 or in fact ANY helicopter of the 80s onward. The statistics in the Afghan war speak for themselves, training isn;t necessary to fire a Fire-and-forget missile, so the fact that the number of downed aeroplanes and choppers is low compared to the number of stingers used shows that this 90% is nothing but jacked up numbers from rigged tests for marketing purposes, that's how capitalism and its military-industrial complex works.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, the majority of soviet aircraft were out of range of the Stinger in the first place. The Mi-24 and Su-25 showed repeatedly the ability to be hit by SEVERAL missiles and keep flying and the Su-17was so fast that it usually struck and climbed back out of range before the Mujaheds could even fire a missile.
When the soviets got their hands on the Stinger, they found it wasn't that much better than their own SA-14, and was not even as good as the simple downgraded SA-16 they were selling to their Warpac allies. The SA-18 that was being fielded by the Soviet army at the time was superior in every way to the Stinger.
HAHAHA what? What are you even talking about? 30 aircraft is NOTHING compared to what the US lost: see
The USA also used it's full airforce capability, AWACs, Electronic suppression and all sorts of other aircraft. the soviets literally used strike bombers with a light fighter-fighter escort. Built in electronic suppression and missile evasion systems.
No, you twat. The Vietcong did not have a base of operations, they operated in South Vietnam as guerrillas, largely cut-off from any NVA support. The Mujaheds had it better than the Viet Cong because they regularly fled into Pakistan, where the Soviets did not enter on diplomatic grounds. Meanwhile the VC, even if they went to North Vietnam for supplies and safety (Or Cambodia or Laos) would still get bombed and attacked there as well.
Anecdotal footage of a few choppers shot down is not proof of a 90% kill rate. The Stingers shot down some, but that's not what I was arguing against you strawmanning burger baby.

bump