In response to:

The New World Disorder

Missouri Confederate Wrote: Aug 21, 2012 3:51 PM
IMO the Soviet's lost in Afghanistan due to our supplying the opposition but mostly because Gorbachev did not have the tenacity to win at all cost as did Stalin or Kruschev. They would have laid waste to the whole country as happened to Germany in WWII. Fortunately for the Afghan people that did not happen. Unfortunately for them the Taliban came to power which was more repressive than the Soviets.
Georgia Boy 61 Wrote: Aug 21, 2012 11:07 PM
Dennis1207, the Soviets lost in Afghanistan for the same reason we cannot win there - being in an unwinnable war in the wrong place, at the wrong time, against the wrong enemy. The only way they could have "won" anything was to resort to nukes, and we would not have allowed that. Besides, what is the point of "conquering" territory that will remain radioactive for years to come?
Ed52 Wrote: Aug 21, 2012 9:18 PM
What is the definition of "winning" in Afghanistan? What event or condition would allow the proclamation of "Victory"?
Kali_Fred Wrote: Aug 21, 2012 5:04 PM
D1: given that Afghanistan isn't that far removed from the stone age, I'm not sure they would have noticed the Soviet's laying waste...
After his great victory in Desert Storm, George H.W. Bush went before the United Nations to declare the coming of a New World Order.

The Cold War was yesterday. Communism was in its death throes. The Soviet Empire had crumbled.

The Soviet Union was disintegrating. Francis Fukuyama was writing of "The End of History." Savants trilled about the inevitable triumph of democratic capitalism.

Yet, in 2012, sectarianism, tribalism and nationalism are all resurgent, reshaping a world where U.S. power and influence are visibly receding.

Syria is sinking into a war of all against all that may end with a breakup of the...