sorry about the language in that last post wasn't meant to make it in there.

Indeed the Soviets lost to the pond scum. The Soviet Army was weak by that time. NATO could drop the Warsaw Pact blindfolded by then. Well not that easy but you get my point. The Russians lacked many things, not resolve. They lacked good leadership and good soldiers. Also the commies failed to learn from history. They should of been merciful to the people of Afganistan, they wouldnt have rised up as they did. Osama probably is only a figurehead then and now. Hes running a guerilla war without a command structure, the NVC were superior to the terrorists now. Veitnam is extremely different than Afganistan (for us or the Reds) and Iraq. SE Asia was jungle, we couldnt use our armor well, compared to desert terrain. Also the enemy in 'Nam was battle hardened againt a Western force (fighting the French). The Taliban was ready to fight another Russia. Also Veitnam created tactics we havent fought, the terrorists used nothing new. Our commanders in 'Nam like the Russians in Afganistan wernt that great. As someone said, they were only concerend with holding a peice of real estate than going out and fighting the enemy. Also in 'Nam we had drafted soldiers, we dont now. In Iraq, the enemy thought, or hoped, that they could beat the US in trench-moble warfare mix. They learned that it was foolish. A T-72 tank is inferrior to a M1A1 Abrams or maybe a M60 Patton. Fixed postions, as always, proved fatal. The paramilitary group that Saddam created (cannot remember the name) didnt fare so well. They were poorly led. And at the home front of America, the hippies were weak, pathetic and foolish; Americans now are stronger. Also you mention the laser guided bombs, they were first used in Veitnam to blow apart bridges and other objectives. So they probably been invented earlier.

the crusader was pretty good, PLA was pretty good, if you don't mind me saying, bin laden is pretty good.

US Vietnam and Russian Afghanistan don't compare that well once you look past the guerilla surface. The US lacked resolve, lacked purpose, reliable indigenous support, and clear strategic objectives. They did not lack in technology at all then, and yes they did have LGBs for the latter portion of the war. Even then they had extremely reliable CAS support from helo gunships and Sandys, packing napalm and many other "peoplekillers."Probably ultimately more effective than a few JDAMs at CAS. In Russia, the Russians did not lack reliable indigenous support, there was a fairly significant minority that supported them through and through. The Russians, while they didn't exactly have JDAMs, etc. still had a massive technological edge over the Afghans who were then(and still do today) riding horses around, wielding old bolt action rifles and melee weaponry. The Russians also had superior tactics. Russia also had the Hind choppers which slaughtered the Afghans. Furthermore, the Russians had a clear objective, total pacification of the Afghan rebels. In addition, unlike the US in Vietnam, the Russians had the advantage of being able to utterly crush the rebels with little regard to friendly fire, or provoking a World War III, an issue for the US.

Uncle Sam has the most feared modern army for a number of reasons. I think this should be obvious, but... 1) Despite having great teeth and great PR, Americans have always known how to be coldblooded killers when they want to be. I mean, really, even Mr. Clinton had no problem beating Serbia down like a dog, albeit from altitude. Despite being so nice, I think Americans enjoy knowing that they can pour it on when they need to. Face it: all USA action movies are revenge fantasies of one type or another. The culture is just steeped in it. The first flag US had was a snake saying, "Don't tread on me." So, image aside, Yanks can bring it. Just because they like the good life, they are always accused of being soft. Completely false! The fact that they feel sorry for the folks they are blowing up and then will rebuild the place later just makes it weirder. And please do not tell me that USMC could not compete with Imp. J. Army in WW2 for savagery! And US forces will gripe but basically have the mental toughness to win on the road all the time... try being in Pacific Theater all those months with no phone or email. 2) OK, ridiculous that somebody said Arabs outnumber US 10 to 1. What is that about? USA has pop. of 290 million, last I checked. Making them #3 in the world, and less fractured than India - or even PRC for that matter. The USA is ponderously huge and its armed forces are larger than the entire population of many troublesome little places they have felt it necessary to crunch. So, you have the steamroller effect. 3) OK, savagery, size. Let's talk competence. There really is something to USA ingenuity and cleverness. How many nations can allow such initiative to smaller units, junior officers, etc.? In actual practice, how many countries produce people who can function well after the plans fails to survive intial contact with the enemy? It's more than just doctrine for USA as they have young people they can turn loose when they have to. Multiply that by the larger relative size of US forces and it's frightening. 4) Having a lot of cool stuff helps, too. And knowing how to use it helps even more. Russians can make Grozny look like the moon and accomplish nothing. Yanks can waste Iraq in weeks, take the lice out of Saddam's hair on world TV, and then fix his electrical grid all in 12 months. When you see Uncle Sam building up forces on your doorstep, it's game over.

What exactly do you mean by "less fractured than India/PRC" ? I din't comprehend that part of the statement , I would be obliged if you could clarify ... thanks ,

Probably means that the population is fairly well united/connected. India and China are somewhat out of touch with their smaller, less significant out of the way provinces. Well China anyway. I don't really know about India.

I agree with almost USN-MID said. The Russians were foolish in their tactics. They thought slaughtering the Afgans would break them. If they did any research into Persian/Afgan history or general history they would have found that being nice and being generous makes people not fight. Osama and his fruit cake panzy waist murderers are pathetic. They have yet to win a battle. Sure they kill a few hundred soldiers and a few thousand civilians. We have killed many thousands of them and they are retreating to their God forsaken hell holes. Everytime they attack us, we steel our resolve. The PLA relies on wave attacks. Their Navy is sad and so is their airforce (generaly).

I totaly agree with you quiberon bay. Like I said prevous, America is built opon war. We were forged in the fire of battle and our society is based opon conflict. What makes us more frightning is that we can push aside almost any military and we can make it look nice. We make the enemy think we are weak then we give them a lesson that they wont get the chance to learn from the mistake.

Face it! We;re talking about infantry here and when it comes to that, we can clearly list the Americans in the most cowardly bracket.... or even the most unfeared category. 1. The guys in camourflage pyjamas are unable to enter any conflict zone without having air support and artillery wipe out all traces of human life in the area first. 2. In Iraq, the Infantry was unable to make any headway whatsoever against the most irregular of the largely untrained Iraqi resistance, untill they werecvered by a generous helpng of chopper gunships, Aerial bombardment and armoured tank muscle. 3. The US army's infantry has never (never after WW2) been used against an equal force. It has never dared to fight a force that was superior to itself. But Cut to 1987, Sri Lanka. The Indian Army (operating as an intervention in the Republic of Sri Lanka) was faced with the prospect of having to wrest the city of Jaffna from the hands of the LTTE rebels force. Indian PM Rajiv Gandhi was very clear in his mandate: Capture the city with MINIMAL COLLATERAL DAMAGE to civilian life and property. The orders meant that no artillery or air support was to be used other than the restricted use of helicopter gunships. Tanks could not be used further than the main city roads. But, not one to bat an eyelid, the Indian infantry moved in armed with little more than automatic rifles and small vehicles. The LTTE had hoped to use the civilian population of Jaffna as human shields, and were horrified to see the Indians moving in without any kind of cover whatsoever. The LTTE had enormously hairy defences and there was a fierce fire fight for hte first one week, which then died out as the LTTE melted away and fled the city. THAT makes the world's most feared infantry! Guts and daring, not the ability to walk in after opposition has been wiped out.