The US supported and armed muhajeedeen (Fighters of Islam) during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. One of which was Osama Bin Laden. There is even evidence to suggest that Islamic extremists, in opposition to the leftist government, were being trained by the US as a tactic to raise tensions and spark the Soviet intervention.
The US was supporting the Taliban even after their overthrow of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan.
Afghanistan has been through war for practically 30 years now. Continuous war, especially one engaged by imperialists, isn't going to improve its situation.
Besides tanks the VC and NVA we're given relatively modern weapons by China and the Soviet Union.
Most of the weapons that actually killed US soldiers wasnt the high tech stuff, whch was mostly used to shoot down US war planes, but very low tech stuff, like guns, grenades, booby traps etc.
Britain and France paid a heavy toll for their victory, both in money and lives.
True, but relative to what was at stake - the retention of being a world power and power over europe, the victory for the french and the british was a very significant one. Also i should say that in britain civil unrest was minimal. Movements like the suffragettes and the irish republicans went on hold to help with the war effort.
Actually the majority of Texans didn't want to be part of Mexico. Texas, back then, didn't look like it does today. The area in which there was a very large US born population eventually became the Republic of Texas and later the State of Texas.
Im curious as to know the number of actual rebels though, specifically those who rose up against the mexican government as a proportion of the population.
Congress had nothing to do with Texas fighting a war of independence.
They certainly supported them, and probably could have given the mexican government more of a role in the negotiations, seeing as it was still technically under their sovreignty.
If they had had congressional support in deed and not just word then we would have sent troops there and Texas would have been annexed immediately instead of sitting around waiting for the US to accept them for as long as they did.
If they had had congressional support in deed and not just word then we would have sent troops there and Texas would have been annexed immediately instead of sitting around waiting for the US to accept them for as long as they did.
Support can come in many forms, not just militarily. By not condemning an internal uprising, they were implictly supporting the texan separatist movement. Not to mention their subsequent action of annexing texas shows where ther sympathies lay pretty clearly.
Once the Texans had already driven out the Mexican Army what do you expect us to do, just let them remain independent so that Mexico can go after them again?
Once the Texans had already driven out the Mexican Army what do you expect us to do, just let them remain independent so that Mexico can go after them again?
If the Texans wanted statehood, then they should have been prepared for all the things that go with that, like the defence of their borders. I see no reason why the mexicans shouldnt have been able to try and win it back, seeing as it was taken from them by force in the first place.
Most of the weapons that actually killed US soldiers wasnt the high tech stuff, whch was mostly used to shoot down US war planes, but very low tech stuff, like guns, grenades, booby traps etc.
Yes, of course, but the guns and grenades were relatively modern. Regardless of how modern, to a point, the guns were a gun is a gun.
True, but relative to what was at stake - the retention of being a world power and power over europe, the victory for the french and the british was a very significant one. Also i should say that in britain civil unrest was minimal. Movements like the suffragettes and the irish republicans went on hold to help with the war effort.
A lot of it had to do with the fact that news from the front was censored and spun in their favor. The French and Germans we're even more notorious for that.
I'm not saying it wasn't worth it but any way you look at it, it would have been better if WWI only lasted a few months. Provided the Germans still lost, of course.
Im curious as to know the number of actual rebels though, specifically those who rose up against the mexican government as a proportion of the population.
"By 1834, it was estimated that over 30,000 Anglos lived in Texas, compared to only 7,800 Mexican-born citizens." according to Martha Menchaca, who is apparently a Professor at the the University of Texas. That doesn't entirely answer your question but I'm sure almost all of the 'Anglos' supported the Texas Revolution.
More troops NEED to go to Afghanistan. The President has no spine. This is obvious. What is not obvious however is the strength of the taliban. They grow each day and better equip themselves. Our troops, due to poor presidents, have been sitting in a desert wasteland scratching themselves for seven years.
Go big, or go home.
It is time to take action and eliminate the taliban, that cannot happen with the number of troops we currently have. The general in charge of current operations wanted 50,000 troops, and he was going on the small end, and Obama gave hi 30,000. Mister president go big or go home. Give the general what he needs in order to do his job so that we can get the war over with and come home. Sitting around is doing us absolutely no good. It costs money to stay there and it is not cost effective due to the amount of inaction. It is time to win and leave, that is what America does and that is what it will do now.
If not my friends, I fear worse things may come...
The only reason it costs us that much money is because we have presidents who refuse to do anything. If the United States went on an all out offensive the war could have been over in 3 years or less. It has nothing to do with Imperialism you moron. It has more to do with not wanting to do anything to stop these madmen.
