babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Afghanistan

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Afghanistan
Jay Williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11367

posted 21 December 2005 07:43 AM      Profile for Jay Williams        Edit/Delete Post
.S. to reduce forces in Afghanistan in '06

Seattle Times

Afghanistan lawmakers squabble in 1st parliamentary session

Chicago Times

Update 4: U.S. to Remain Committed to Afghanistan

Forbes

Canadian soldiers recount Afghanistan injuries

The Star

[ 16 February 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 21 December 2005 08:17 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, since that other thread about Afghanistan seems to have degenerated into an argument about whether the Soviets did a great job there or not, I'll leave this one open.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 10 February 2006 11:53 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Canada is sending 2250 soldiers to Kandahar, Afghanistan as part of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) under NATO. They will be fighting alongside 10,000 U.S. soldiers. General Rick Hillier says Canadians are going there to "kill detestable murderers and scumbags." But according to Human Rights Watch: "U.S. forces operating against Taliban insurgents continue to generate numerous claims of human rights abuses against the civilian population, including arbitrary arrests, use of excessive force, and mistreatment of detainees." The reality is that we are going to support some of the worst human rights abusers the country has ever seen.

Facts about the Canadian Afghan mission - Canadian Peace Alliance


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 16 February 2006 09:31 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As we revel in our commitment to free speech, we barely seem to notice the limited range of things we actually discuss with all this free speech. Take the question: Why are there so many suicide bombers in the Muslim world? Of course, there's a rote answer to this that we hear all the time: Muslims have a culture of death; their blind rage against our freedom leads them to sacrifice their lives to spite us. Another explanation — one you rarely hear — is that they're blowing themselves up to fight military incursions into their lands.

Is our Afghanistan mission all about helping the US? - Linda McQuaig


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 17 February 2006 09:38 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Linda says:

quote:
But what is the U.S. actually up to over there? Along with Britain, it has a long history of intervening in that energy-rich part of the world. Washington is currently beefing up its presence in the Middle East and central Asia, including 14 permanent military bases in Iraq and nine in Afghanistan, in order to increase its “forward presence” in areas it considers economically and militarily strategic.

Along with chasing down Al Qaeda, Washington has long been interested in securing a safe route for pipelines to move energy from the Caspian Sea area through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea.

So is Canada's mission in Afghanistan really about preserving our “way of life,” or about helping Washington extend its economic and military hegemony?



Well, I don't think our feds in Canada have national daycare in mind for Afghanistan or lowering child poverty. We know that's not what they want for Canadian's.

And I don't think they envision freely accessable higher education for women to become doctors, engineers and teachers as was the case in that country from the 1970's through 1989.

So I think Linda's door number two is the option our weak and ineffective lapdogs, heeling to Uncle Sam, have chosen.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 18 February 2006 03:25 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Afghanistan is not in the middle east.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 18 February 2006 01:54 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It isn't in the Far East either.

Maybe it's in the Far to Middlin' East?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 18 February 2006 01:58 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Afghanistan is Central Asia.

The Silk Road. The Great Game. The great romance.

For us, anyway. For the people of Afghanistan: disaster.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 18 February 2006 02:25 PM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Despite the intentions (and I don't think they're very good), Afghanistan cannot be tamed militarily. Both the British and the Soviets learned that the hard way. Even the US has pulled most of its forces out of the country. Why does Canada think things will turn out any differently for us?

The irony of course is that during the Soviet occupation, Canada was seen as an ally of the Afghani people because of our close relations with the US which armed the rebels to the teeth after drawing the Soviets into a trap from which there was no escape.

The Pathan people live by a centuries-old code called the Pukhtunwali - or "the way of the Pathans".

The first law is called "melmastia" which means the showing of hospitality to all visitors without hope of remuneration or favour.

The second law is called "badal" or revenge taken over time or space to avenge a wrong.

During my 1980 visit to Pakistan, I had the opportunity to experience "melmastia" from a number of Pathans including some Afghani "freedom fighters" who were also quite clear about "badal".

I feel for the Canadian troops who are in a no-win situation.


From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 18 February 2006 02:31 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Do they need us? Have they ever needed any of the invaders?

That question is now probably forever unanswerable.

A more practical answer might be that, yes, they might need us a bit at the moment if we were there to serve. To serve them. To de-mine their most over-mined country, eg.

But do they need us when we sound like this?

quote:
General Rick Hillier says Canadians are going there to "kill detestable murderers and scumbags."

I don't think so.

The man talks as though it is his country to rule. He shames me so deeply.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 18 February 2006 02:42 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
It isn't in the Far East either.

Maybe it's in the Far to Middlin' East?


And the billions of dollars in aid money for nation building promised Afghanistan just hasn't materialized. It hasn't materialized in the same way that not one thin American dime has been donated for reparations in Vietnam after that country, Cambodia and Laos were bombed to smithereens.

Imagine if the Soviets had poured billions of dollars worth of weapons and aid into El Salvador in the 1980's in propping up the rebellions throughout Central America in the 1980's. There were accusations to that effect - that the Russian's were fomenting rebellion off Uncle Sam's back doorstep - but it never happened.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 18 February 2006 03:25 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Polunatic:

The irony of course is that during the Soviet occupation, Canada was seen as an ally of the Afghani people because of our close relations with the US which armed the rebels to the teeth after drawing the Soviets into a trap from which there was no escape.

I think it was a matter of where in Afghanistan the opinion poll was taken.

quote:
One picture taken shortly after the Taliban takeover says it all: a trembling woman covered in a head to toe veil, her face completely obscured, sobs as she speaks with a Western reporter. Who is she? An impoverished peasant? A homeless woman? No, she's the recently removed chief surgeon at the country's largest hospital!

Glenn Sacks


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468

posted 18 February 2006 03:43 PM      Profile for sgm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The irony of course is that during the Soviet occupation, Canada was seen as an ally of the Afghani people because of our close relations with the US which armed the rebels to the teeth after drawing the Soviets into a trap from which there was no escape.

And what rebels they armed.

How about "freedom fighter" Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, reputed to have thrown acid in the faces of women who offended his deep religious sensibilities by their immodest dress.

And known to have been responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands civilians during the siege of Kabul.

Now a 'war criminal' (and, I assume, 'scumbag'), Hekmatyar received a fortune from the CIA and Pakistani intelligence back in the 1980s, when fostering a network of Islamic extremists and terrorists seemed like a good idea.


From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 18 February 2006 03:59 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post
The "Its all about oil" conspiracy theory does not stand up in the case of Afghanistan at present.

That is not to say that it will not appear should the current security situation improve but presently,the TAP project is the Turkmenistan,Afghanistan,Pakistan gas project to deliver natural gas from Turkmenistan to surrounding countries,including India.

When considering the motivation of Canadian involvement in Afghanistan,it is simple to connect the dots.

J.Chretien's daughter married to president of Power Corp...which is/was the largest shareholder of Total...which had a huge deal with S.Hussein.J.Chretien,company shill and shareholder in PetroKhazakstan which was recently sold to CNOOC,netting shareholders pleuacoup profits...etc..etc.

I have always (perhaps mistakenly) assumed that P.Martin's haste to join in the fun in Afghanistan was merely a craven ploy to suck up to soft CPC supporters but in hindsight,that simplistic view is naiive.He was and most likely still is Power Corporation's creature.

What is the solution for Canada's involvement in ISAF missions in Afghanistan?

Immediate withdrawl and leave the Afghanis to their fate?

Gradual disengagement and leave the Afghanis to their fate?

See the mission through but within the context of the ISAF mission without regard for US foreign policy objectives?


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 18 February 2006 04:01 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Look, Fidel. There's no point in defending Yuri Andropov and his KGB thugs. The very best that can be said is that he botched this one good, even if you were to consider his activities in Hungary in 1958 and in Czechslovakia in 1968 "successful."

Surely, it can be said that the urban intelligencia and professional people in Afghanistan were better off then than now. But, there's no way that we can tell that the Soviet puppet regime bettered the lives of ordinary Afghans in any measurable degree or had their support.

It seems pretty clear to me that the tensions that resolved themselves in the Soviet invasion and the revolt were not entirely caused by US intervention and had as much to do with the internal societal tensions caused by trying to enforce a very advanced modernist conception of society upon a population whose culture and attitudes were simmply not condusive to those ideas or to have them imposed on them by force. If this were not the case, there is no way that the Afghan allies of the Soviety Union, backed with the full weight of the military power of the USSR could have been defeated.

The Vietnamese fighting without the direct intervention of any major power on their behalf were able to defeat the regular forces of the USA and their indginous allies. Reasonably we can assume that this is because the revolutionary movement had the largest part of the suupport of the people. Clearly, in comparison to the amount of direct support the USSR supplied to its Afghan allies, domestic support for the Communist regime in Afghanistan must have been very slim --otherwise, they would not have lost.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 18 February 2006 04:07 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jester:
The "Its all about oil" conspiracy theory does not stand up in the case of Afghanistan at present.

That is not to say that it will not appear should the current security situation improve but presently,the TAP project is the Turkmenistan,Afghanistan,Pakistan gas project to deliver natural gas from Turkmenistan to surrounding countries,including India.

When considering the motivation of Canadian involvement in Afghanistan,it is simple to connect the dots.

J.Chretien's daughter married to president of Power Corp...which is/was the largest shareholder of Total...which had a huge deal with S.Hussein.J.Chretien,company shill and shareholder in PetroKhazakstan which was recently sold to CNOOC,netting shareholders pleuacoup profits...etc..etc.

I have always (perhaps mistakenly) assumed that P.Martin's haste to join in the fun in Afghanistan was merely a craven ploy to suck up to soft CPC supporters but in hindsight,that simplistic view is naiive.He was and most likely still is Power Corporation's creature.

What is the solution for Canada's involvement in ISAF missions in Afghanistan?

Immediate withdrawl and leave the Afghanis to their fate?

Gradual disengagement and leave the Afghanis to their fate?

See the mission through but within the context of the ISAF mission without regard for US foreign policy objectives?


How about leave the Afghans to themselves.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 18 February 2006 04:17 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post
The same can be said for the American chances in Afghanistan.

AE says that Afghanistan is not even on the radar in the US.That is supported by military links U have perused where SF commanders are struggling to stop the reduction of SF forces in Afghanistan.

The US wants to get out by the backdoor and leave ISAF to hold the bag.

After reading up on the Pashtuns straddling the border(thx,cueball) I can see why.The Americans do not stand a chance of success.The best they can hope for is maintaining the status quo by expending considerable resources for marginal temporary success.


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 18 February 2006 04:22 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My take on Afghanistan is that it is a worthless dustbowl as far as any major geopolitcal value is concerned, and thus despite whatever good intentions any interlocutors might profess about its future, genuine interest, as based in its economic or geopolitical values is small, and as such it will soon enough be reprioritized to a vert low status. The primary concern of any of the powers that have intervened there from the 1830's on forward, is that the other guys shouldn't get it.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 18 February 2006 04:24 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Surely, it can be said that the urban intelligencia and professional people in Afghanistan were better off then than now. But, there's no way that we can tell that the Soviet puppet regime bettered the lives of ordinary Afghans in any measurable degree or had their support.

I think you're ignoring the fact that the PDPA had the support of the inner city population in Kabul and Jalalabad. This was not comparable to GTA deciding who should rule Ontario, or for that matter, the rest of Canada with a disproportional representation. At some point, the Anti-Soviet argument has to point to that group of Afghani's who opposed women's rights and land redistribution the most - militant Islamists and religious whackos - and not the average Afghani's who stood to gain from Islamo-Marxist plans for a more equitable society.

You say no conclusions can be made for a continued PDPA rule in Afghanistan. Well that's blather. We know that infant mortality was on the decline - that women were being made physicians, engineers and teachers like never before in that country's history - and that land reform was on the Marxist's agenda.

What's the level of infant mortality in Afghanistan today, Cueball ?. Literacy ?.

And RAWA's site says that its a matter of speculation over who murdered Meena. Was it the "KGB", or was it down to a group of women-hating religious whackos in that country who've been known to cap women in the back of the head for wearing nail polish ?.

The Taliban and militant Islamists are really bad, bad bunch of bastards, Cueball. They're indefensible. I've read some really awful appraisals of them here on this site, and I think it's ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous. They murdered thousands of women with aegis of the Northern Alliance and other drug-dealing warlords.

[ 18 February 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468

posted 18 February 2006 04:25 PM      Profile for sgm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Speaking of Afghanistan, Peter Mansbridge interviews a Pakistani-based journalist named Ahmed Rashid about the Taliban and the situation facing Canadian troops in Afghanistan.

It aired this afternoon, and will air again tonight at 6pm Eastern.

quote:
Ahmed Rashid is a respected journalist based in Pakistan. He's the author of the best-selling book, "Taliban: Islam, Oil and the new Great Game in Central Asia." His latest book is "Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam in Central Asia."

Mansbridge One on One.

The interview did not fill me with hope. Rashid said that Canadian/NATO troops would have to quite quickly perform a 'show of force' that would have a 'demonstration effect' on the Taliban in the south. At the same time, they'll also have to adopt a 'softer' approach than the Americans took towards the population.

Mansbridge asked how to coordinate the two distinct approaches, but didn't get much of an answer, apart from the admission it would be difficult to do so.


From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 18 February 2006 04:26 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

How about leave the Afghans to themselves.


Ok..Reading about the latest meeting on the TAP pipeline,I can ascertain that the central asians are capable of tending to their own needs.

By leaving Afghans to themselves,there will be a power struggle that is sure to cost lives but perhaps less lives than the current situation.

If Afghanistan becomes either a secular democracy or a fundamentalist state,its for the Afghans to decide.

Will the US tuck tail as in VN or will they send in the CIA again to support US foreign policy objectives?


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 18 February 2006 04:40 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, my primary view is that they are wonderful people with a civilization all their own who have not deserved two centuries of trauma, but got them anyway.


quote:
Originally posted by sgm:

And what rebels they armed.

How about "freedom fighter" Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, reputed to have thrown acid in the faces of women who offended his deep religious sensibilities by their immodest dress.

And known to have been responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands civilians during the siege of Kabul.

Now a 'war criminal' (and, I assume, 'scumbag'), Hekmatyar received a fortune from the CIA and Pakistani intelligence back in the 1980s, when fostering a network of Islamic extremists and terrorists seemed like a good idea.


sgm, I would not add this qualifier if we did not have posters here who take the CIA/Saudi/Pakistani interventions to be justification for the Soviets. Unfortunately, though, we do. So. I feel I have to say this again.

The war in Afghanistan through the 80s was certainly a proxy war for the Soviets and the U.S., no question. They were equally guilty of raping a great culture that neither one respected (and that many here seem still not to respect). Maybe the U.S. was worse: there is evidence that the Americans provoked the Soviet invasion.

But it is a mistake to think that all the mujahedeen were CIA controlled, and even where they were, that they much cared who was supplying them. The Soviets were bombing their villages and so they fought back. They took help where they could get it. Fidel, who calls them "hillbillies," cannot seem to grasp that basic human truth.

Hekmatyar and Dostum are murdering thugs, but the warlords were not the whole story of the opposition, nor were the Islamist imports. And it is disgracefully disrespectful of the people who actually live in that country to imply that the great-power games are the only games that have ever mattered there. The people certainly have been victims. But many of them have been heroic as well, and not because any imperial power from outside made them so.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 18 February 2006 04:42 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:

I think you're ignoring the fact that the PDPA had the support of the inner city population in Kabul and Jalalabad. This was not comparable to GTA deciding who should rule Ontario, or for that matter, the rest of Canada with a disproportional representation. At some point, the Anti-Soviet argument has to point to that group of Afghani's who opposed women's rights and land redistribution the most - militant Islamists and religious whackos - and not the average Afghani's who stood to gain from Islamo-Marxist plans for a more equitable society.

You say no conclusions can be made for a continued PDPA rule in Afghanistan. Well that's blather. We know that infant mortality was on the decline - that women were being made physicians, engineers and teachers like never before in that country's history - and that land reform was on the Marxist's agenda.

What's the level of infant mortality in Afghanistan today, Cueball ?. Literacy ?.

And RAWA's site says that its a matter of speculation over who murdered Meena. Was it the "KGB", or was it down to a group of women-hating religious whackos in that country who've been known to cap women in the back of the head for wearing nail polish ?.


It doesn't matter what the literacy rate and infant mortality rate are. The fact is that those things were severely damaged by the socviet intervention, and it was the KGB that destablized the previous regieme by medling in their affairs. The Americans saw their opportunity and took it. It is very likely had the Russian not been alternately suporting one faction against another, and had simply left the country to itself the regieme would have remained stable.

But no, they had to pick exactly which left of center leader they wanted to lead the government. The KGB was even lying to the Soviet ambassador about what they were doing. They went right of the deep end playing politics and they fucked it up as much as anyone.

And if there had been no destabalization by either the USSR or the USA, then no intervention, no war, no gigantic refugee problem, no severe decline in literacy, no increase in infant mortality rate, and as much as anything else, no increase in maimed adults, and dead ones either.

It is way to simple to take statistics from 1970, and then 2006, like cutting down a tree and looking at which years had the best growth, but that does not tell you much about how the situation got to where it was today.

It proves nothing without a historical analysis to go with it, and results in a series of "what if" questions.

Asigning blame, may be of historical interest if you are ideologically firm in a set of beliefs, but we can see just by looking at the history that the Soviet approach failed, numerously and often, and there is no point in backing off making crticism when critcism is due.

And it is definitely due here, as much because the policy was an obvious failure. And this latter has nothing to do with its moral objectives, literacy rates, or infant mortality rates.

[ 18 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 18 February 2006 04:44 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What would have been said if the Soviets propped-up whacko militia groups and Ku Klux Klan in the States with billions of dollars worth of shoulder missiles, five dollar bullets and terrorist training schools from Mexico to Guatemala?. My god!
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 18 February 2006 04:51 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't care what would be said. Those wackos were the people of Afghaistan, and it was there country. End of story.

I mean look at it. If the Vietnamese can beat the french and the Americans, without the direct intervention of either the Chinese or the Russians, then how can you explain the drubbing the Russian got in Afghanistan by a bunch of hillbillies, however they were armed.

You have to be able to explain why the USSR lost the war.

My conclusion is that unlike Vietnam, the people did not support the red side, and it does not matter wether they were wrong or weird or had backward ideas. What counts is wether they support you or not.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 18 February 2006 04:54 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A more sensitive policy was in order.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 18 February 2006 04:57 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

It doesn't matter what the literacy rate and infant mortality rate are. The fact is that those things were severely damaged by the socviet intervention, and it was the KGB that destablized the previous regieme by medling in their affairs. The Americans saw their opportunity and took it. It is very likely had the Russian not been alternately suporting one faction against another, and had simply left the country to itself the regieme would have remained stable.



I can't believe you said that. I'm shocked. Utterly shocked.

quote:
And it is definitely due here, as much because the policy was an obvious failure. And this latter has nothing to do with its moral objectives, literacy rates, or infant mortality rates.

[ 18 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


The policy was helped along the road to failure like the cold war instrumental in preventing domino effect. Trillions of dollars spent on Keynesian-militarism is what the distracted a Soviet system from its agenda. And several billion dollars in Keynesian-militarism, paid for by American taxpayers, is what propped-up militant Islam in Afghanistan.

None of Yuri, the KGB or the Soviets had anything to do with propping-up Taliban and mujihaden right-wing death squads in Aghanistan, Cue.

It wasn't the Soviets who rounded up women in a football stadium.

It wasn't the Soviets who shot women in the back of the head for the mere act of seeking the light of day.

The Soviets trained Afghani women to be doctors, engineers and teachers. US-backed Taliban and mujihaden did not. What part of that don't you people un-der-stand ?.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 18 February 2006 05:02 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

It doesn't matter what the literacy rate and infant mortality rate are. The fact is that those things were severely damaged by the socviet intervention, and it was the KGB that destablized the previous regieme by medling in their affairs. The Americans saw their opportunity and took it. It is very likely had the Russian not been alternately suporting one faction against another, and had simply left the country to itself the regieme would have remained stable.

But no, they had to pick exactly which left of center leader they wanted to lead the government. The KGB was even lying to the Soviet ambassador about what they were doing. They went right of the deep end playing politics and they fucked it up as much as anyone.

And if there had been no destabalization by either the USSR or the USA, then no intervention, no war, no gigantic refugee problem, no severe decline in literacy, no increase in infant mortality rate, and as much as anything else, no increase in maimed adults, and dead ones either.

It is way to simple to take statistics from 1970, and then 2006, like cutting down a tree and looking at which years had the best growth, but that does not tell you much about how the situation got to where it was today.

It proves nothing without a historical analysis to go with it, and results in a series of "what if" questions.

Asigning blame, may be of historical interest if you are ideologically firm in a set of beliefs, but we can see just by looking at the history that the Soviet approach failed, numerously and often, and there is no point in backing off making crticism when critcism is due.

And it is definitely due here, as much because the policy was an obvious failure. And this latter has nothing to do with its moral objectives, literacy rates, or infant mortality rates.

[ 18 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


You have to understand Cueball that some people can't make it 2 posts without bringing up infant mortality.

You just have to take it in stride when you realize that such posters are also apologists for the murderous Soviet regime.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 18 February 2006 05:08 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I understand that after 50 years of sound, if not always benign foreign policy, and without signifcant military failure, against more or less the same enemies, with more or less the same resources at hand, they blundered into Afghanistan, and they lost.

Yet, in Vietnam, against way a more sophisticated enemy, using far less material resources, the side that they backed won.

Trying to pin it all on US perphidy, is a loser attitude. The point fidel, above all other points, is that if you are going to engage in expensive military ventures, and kill numerous people, and have many of your own people killed you must at the very least win. No amount of whining about American dirty tricks revereses that fact.

So again, why the victory in Vietnam, in which the US committed its own army, and spent far more money, and why the loss in Afghanistan?

[ 18 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 18 February 2006 05:14 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
I don't care what would be said. Those wackos were the people of Afghaistan, and it was there country. End of story.

And those whackos continue raping Afghani women and force them to be subserviant, fourth class citizens in their own country. The betrayal of Aghanistan by the western world allowed a grotesque form of militant Islam to form into something that otherwise would have been relegated to taking pot shots at progress from their hillbilly lairs.

quote:
I mean look at it. If the Vietnamese can beat the french and the Americans, without the direct intervention of either the Chinese or the Russians, then how can you explain the drubbing the Russian got in Afghanistan by a bunch of hillbillies, however they were armed.

I don't think they beat the French and American's so much as they outlasted them and the political will of the American people. Nixon had to resign in the end. His aids suggested there was a possibility for civil war in the States if he continued on. The doctor and the madman bombed the hell out of Vietnam and Cambodia. Neither the Vietnamese or Cambodian's had an airforce, Cue. They took a shellacking for a number of years and millions lost their lives. They're still recovering from that war like the Russian's took decades to recover from WWI and WWII with massive loss of life and destruction and constant war waged on them by fascists from afar.

The Chinese and American's propped-up the Khmer Rouge, not the Russian's.

The Russian's didn't supply Ho Chi Minh with several billion dollars in military hardware.

You have to be able to explain why the USSR lost the war.

quote:
My conclusion is that unlike Vietnam, the people did not support the red side, and it does not matter wether they were wrong or weird or had backward ideas. What counts is wether they support you or not.

The PDPA had support in the largest cities, including the capital. It was the first civil war in history instigated by a women's rights movement. Women's rights in Afghanistan took a step back to mediaeval times in 1992. There were war crimes comitted.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 18 February 2006 05:15 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'll end my part in this dissucussion with a lesson in geography, which is where I started.

Afghanistan is not in the Middle East. More pointedly it was not part of the Soviet Union, nor was it even ever part of the Imperial Russian empire, nor is it part of the USA.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468

posted 18 February 2006 05:16 PM      Profile for sgm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
from skdadl:

But it is a mistake to think that all the mujahedeen were CIA controlled, and even where they were, that they much cared who was supplying them. The Soviets were bombing their villages and so they fought back. They took help where they could get it. Fidel, who calls them "hillbillies," cannot seem to grasp that basic human truth.

Hekmatyar and Dostum are murdering thugs, but the warlords were not the whole story of the opposition, nor were the Islamist imports. And it is disgracefully disrespectful of the people who actually live in that country to imply that the great-power games are the only games that have ever mattered there. The people certainly have been victims. But many of them have been heroic as well, and not because any imperial power from outside made them so.


I take your point, skdadl, and certainly intended no disrespect.

I simply mentioned Hekmatyar as an instance of how 'arming rebels' didn't necessarily mean being a 'friend' to the people of Afghanistan.

If the US, Russia and others who've done such damage to Afghanistan over the years were serious about 'friendship,' they'd be discussing the payment schedule for massive reparations--not aid, reparations--for what they've done.


From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 18 February 2006 05:24 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Your saying the Mujahideen won because they committed war crimes? Oh if Hitler had only known to use war crimes world war 2 would have ended much differently.

War crimes are available to everyone. It is not the reason that the Russians lost the war.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Winston Smith
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11963

posted 18 February 2006 05:25 PM      Profile for Winston Smith        Edit/Delete Post
Thing is, Afghanistan is much better off today than it was 5 or 20 years ago. The West has brought some stability that allows the Afghanis to chart their own course.

If they elect a fundamentalist hard-core Taliban style gov't, we'll probably leave. But it will have been THEIR CHOICE to elect them. Maybe they'll go communist, or something else. Who knows?

What we're doing in Afghanistan, and the way we're doing it, is good. Most Afghans WANT us there. The ones who don't are the tyrants, scumbags, warlords, and murderers.


From: Oshawa | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 18 February 2006 05:25 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's always been understood by the west that Afghanistan is considered a crucial buffer zone between Russia and Islamic fundamentalist nations. The Taliban and mujihaden were taught modern methods in terrorism and armed to the eye teeth by the west over several years.

Afghanistan lies in the heart of an ancient spice route extending from east to west. Spice has given way to illegal drugs and designs on oil and natural gas routes by western fascists and Asian interests. Billions of dollars worth of opium are funelled into western bank accounts to fund right-wing political campaigns and the CIA's dirty bag of tricks every year. Any chance for social democracy in Afghanistan was extinguished by the unnatural rise of militant Islam.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 18 February 2006 05:30 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
It's always been understood by the west that Afghanistan is considered a crucial buffer zone between Russia and Islamic fundamentalist nations. The Taliban and mujihaden were taught modern methods in terrorism and armed to the eye teeth by the west over several years.

Afghanistan lies in the heart of an ancient spice route extending from east to west. Spice has given way to illegal drugs and designs on oil and natural gas routes by western fascists and Asian interests. Billions of dollars worth of opium are funelled into western bank accounts to fund right-wing political campaigns and the CIA's dirty bag of tricks every year. Any chance for social democracy in Afghanistan was extinguished by the unnatural rise of militant Islam.



Of course there was never a criminal element in the Soviet Union benefiting from this.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 18 February 2006 05:33 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Guy Incognito:
Thing is, Afghanistan is much better off today than it was 5 or 20 years ago. The West has brought some stability that allows the Afghanis to chart their own course.

If they elect a fundamentalist hard-core Taliban style gov't, we'll probably leave. But it will have been THEIR CHOICE to elect them. Maybe they'll go communist, or something else. Who knows?

What we're doing in Afghanistan, and the way we're doing it, is good. Most Afghans WANT us there. The ones who don't are the tyrants, scumbags, warlords, and murderers.


That is more or less the justification that fidel is using in his support for Soviet intervention. And it is just as wrong. I would say it is the purest kind of crap, fed on the same kind of bullshit the editors of Pravda used to spout, but I am too polite for that.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 18 February 2006 05:35 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Right. One of its borders is with China. I'm always puzzled that the Chinese have stayed out of Afghan problems; or have they?

Embassy.

quote:
As its neighbour, China has always closely followed the development of the situation in Afghanistan.

We can be sure of that.


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 18 February 2006 05:35 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post
So again, why the victory in Vietnam, in which the US committed its own army, and spent far more money, and why the loss in Afghanistan?

The Soviets lost in Afghanistan for indiscriminately bombing villages and sending Hind gunships after the survivors

Soviet troops were not safe outside their bases and any soviets captured were mutilated by locals.

In one case at least,locals sheltered an American seal from the Taliban at no little risk to themselves and assisted his rescue.

It proves that the Americans have not earned the enmity of the entire country while the Soviets did.


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 18 February 2006 05:36 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Truthfully the only period in the last 20 years that the Afghans have had anything close to stable goverment, with anything nearing a popular mandate was the period from 1996 to 2001.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 18 February 2006 05:37 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cougyr:
Right. One of its borders is with China. I'm always puzzled that the Chinese have stayed out of Afghan problems; or have they?

Embassy.

We can be sure of that.


Ahh, someone who is observing what is going on....


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 18 February 2006 05:38 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Your saying the Mujahideen won because they committed war crimes? Oh if Hitler had only known to use war crimes world war 2 would have ended much differently.

War crimes are available to everyone. It is not the reason that the Russians lost the war.


It was a lopsided war, Cue. The Russian's went home while the CIA continued to prop-up one side against the other. The mujihaden and Taliban were being supplied mercenaries and billions worth of weapons and aid from Pakistan and all over.

The PDPA weren't holed-up in the hills like the hillbilly warlords. The PDPA didn't have a Ho Chi Minh trail or jungle as cover. They couldn't hit and run back to the hills. They held the capital city for two and half years though and still beat a superior mujihaden at Jalalabad. Not every battle enjoys the exact same logistics as the one before or after it. Eventually, billions in military aid and enough ignorant hillbilly's may well overcome a smaller holdout army consisting of men and women, yes. But I don't equate that victory with good winning over evil, or progress having been made, no. I think it was a step back in time for Afghani's,

Doctors, Cue. Doctors, engineers and teachers. How many women in Afghanistan became professionals in that country between 1996 and 2001 ?.

What was the infant mortality rate. Never mind that it was appallingly high - what was the trend for the numbers from year-to-year ?.

[ 18 February 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 18 February 2006 05:47 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We are looking a the whole thing from start to finish. The situation after the Soviets realized they had lost and left their allies in the lurch is an exact analogy to the sitution of the ARVN in 1973.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 18 February 2006 05:49 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
My take on Afghanistan is that it is a worthless dustbowl as far as any major geopolitcal value is concerned, and thus despite whatever good intentions any interlocutors might profess about its future, genuine interest, as based in its economic or geopolitical values is small, and as such it will soon enough be reprioritized to a vert low status. The primary concern of any of the powers that have intervened there from the 1830's on forward, is that the other guys shouldn't get it.


Control of the "worthless dustbowl" would give the Soviets access to a warm water seaport for their (at the time) powerful navy.Mischiefmaking in the Indian Ocean/Arabian sea would have been increased exponentially.

The US countered the attempt and Afghanistan suffered.


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 18 February 2006 05:52 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

That is more or less the justification that fidel is using in his support for Soviet intervention. And it is just as wrong. I would say it is the purest kind of crap, fed on the same kind of bullshit the editors of Pravda used to spout, but I am too polite for that.


So now that a band of hillbilly's has grown to become a grotesque form of militant Islam and threatening human rights in that country like never before, you're saying we should leave them to their own devices ?. I don't agree with that, sorry.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 18 February 2006 05:52 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Control of the "worthless dustbowl" would give the Soviets access to a warm water seaport for their (at the time) powerful navy.Mischiefmaking in the Indian Ocean/Arabian sea would have been increased exponentially

Not to mention being able to aid the infant mortality rate in yet another nation.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 18 February 2006 05:55 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So now that a band of hillbilly's has grown to become a grotesque form of militant Islam and threatening human rights in that country like never before, you're saying we should leave them to their own devices ?. I don't agree with that, sorry.


Oh yeah, that Soviet Union was all about human rights.

That is the same justification the USA is using.

Do you not see your hypocrisy?

I guess not.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 18 February 2006 05:56 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cougyr:
[QB]Right. One of its borders is with China. I'm always puzzled that the Chinese have stayed out of Afghan problems;

[end quote]

The Chinese were weapons suppliers to the mujehadeen before CIA largesse and IIRC were mightily miffed when the CIA upped the ante by providing sophisticated Stinger missiles to the mujehadeen.

Sophisticated missile technology in the hands of insurgents along the Chinese border was not in the Chinese destabilisation plan.


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 18 February 2006 06:09 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jester:


Control of the "worthless dustbowl" would give the Soviets access to a warm water seaport for their (at the time) powerful navy.Mischiefmaking in the Indian Ocean/Arabian sea would have been increased exponentially.

The US countered the attempt and Afghanistan suffered.


I think that's a little far fetched. Although, this idea obstensibly goes back to Czar Nicolas 2, who was the one of the prime movers of Russian interest in Afghanistan. But that was back before the Russian and the British cut the Pashtu lands in two along what was called the Durand line, a line negotiated by the British and Russian to demarcate spheres of influence. The line later became the northern border of Pakistan.

Hence the warm water port we are talking about is really Karachi, which is the capital of Pakistan. That idea is the kind of doom and gloom worst case scenario, which Pentagon budget demands are founded on.

Also they had Cam Rhan Bay, so the point was moot. I think.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 18 February 2006 06:12 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cougyr:
Right. One of its borders is with China. I'm always puzzled that the Chinese have stayed out of Afghan problems; or have they?

Embassy.

We can be sure of that.


The Chinese are definitely not out of the picture.

Nor are the Russians.

See the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation, whereby China and Russia are doing their best to counter American influence everywhere in the Central Asian republics.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 18 February 2006 06:18 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fidel, every time you refer to the people of Afghanistan as "hillbillies" (which you also always misspell), you simply disgust me.

I cannot understand how you can continue to feel loyalty to any political creed that would authorize such a disgusting attitude to any living creature, much less the nationals of a country that is not yours and is certainly not the Russians'.

Fidel, I am a socialist, but I cannot tell you how glad I am that the Communist Party has been thoroughly discredited by any means possible everywhere on earth. You are giving your allegiance to people with a talent for nothing better than shooting themselves in the feet.

How dare you speak of another human being, in his own country, that way, Fidel? Have you no shame? You are an imperialist. One day it is going to hit you: you are an imperialist. You are no better, no different from the bastards in the CIA. No different at all.

[ 18 February 2006: Message edited by: skdadl ]


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 18 February 2006 06:18 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by C.Morgan:

Oh yeah, that Soviet Union was all about human rights.

That is the same justification the USA is using.

Do you not see your hypocrisy?

I guess not.


There were glaring differences between 1985 and 1996 Afghanistan that you're just not considering in your non-case for abandoning Afghanistan.

Imagine aiding and abetting whacko militia groups and KKK in the U.S. to takeover the country ?. Now imagine the world standing by and saying, they have to do it themselves. That's preposterous.

What's stopping us from helping Afghani's put the run on feudal warlords who profit from cash crops in opium?.

What's stopping us from aiding and abetting the enemies of the Afghani KKK who were propped-up by the CIA ?. Hey, that rhymes. Could be a new slogan for freedom in that country.

Viva la revolucion!


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 18 February 2006 06:27 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:


Imagine aiding and abetting whacko militia groups and KKK in the U.S. to takeover the country ?. Now imagine the world standing by and saying, they have to do it themselves. That's preposterous.


It is not entirely clear to me that something of this kind has not already happened.

Vive La C'est Va!

[ 18 February 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 18 February 2006 06:28 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
How dare you speak of another human being, in his own country, that way, Fidel? Have you no shame? You are an imperialist. One day it is going to hit you: you are an imperialist. You are no better, no different from the bastards in the CIA. No different at all.

[ 18 February 2006: Message edited by: skdadl ]


Well that's a tad over the top, Skdadl, and you know the left and imperialism are oil and water.

What imperialists in history made higher education freely accessable to the prole's.

What imperialist regime in history embarked on a a program of socialized medicine for the people?.

What imperialist regime in history ever took land from feudal warlords and redistributed it to peasants ?.

It's true that mujihaden employed illiterate men and boys in the beginning. But then came hired mercenaries and militant Islamists from all over Pakistan and Central Asia. The CIA are said to have recruited young men from Islamic schools that were within line of sight of the world trade towers for terrorist activities across Asia and the Balkans.

It wasn't their country either, Skdadl. Address those points head-on, please.

[ 18 February 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 18 February 2006 07:11 PM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I think it was a matter of where in Afghanistan the opinion poll was taken.
Well as I said, it was in Pakistan and it wasn't an opinion poll, just the opinions of the Mujahedeen who were re-arming and the local Pathan people whose solidarity was pretty evident.
quote:
But it is a mistake to think that all the mujahedeen were CIA controlled, and even where they were, that they much cared who was supplying them. The Soviets were bombing their villages and so they fought back.
You're absolutely right Skdadl. The main message I got from these fighters was that Afghani women and children were being killed by the Russians and that they were fighting for them (and god of course).

I was but a tourist who happened to be in Peshawar at that time but was more predisposed at that time to believing that there was an organic socialist movement in Afghanistan and that Soviets were showing "solidarity". Reality is not so simple.

Needless to say, for a variety of reasons, I turned down the Mujahadeen's invitation to go back to Afganistan with them as their photographer to get the word out to the world.

As for infant mortality and literacy, I cringe when I hear that argument made against Cuba as if it doesn't matter for as long as the Cuban people can't buy Levis and work in gambling casinos. To those who like to make that heartless argument, take a hike to some other board more welcoming to your retrograde ideas.


From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 18 February 2006 07:18 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I just don't think it is very revealing, or says very much as an indicator of the dynamic processess in society. I mean it strikes me as a kind of Hitler made the trains run on time truism. It is only a small part of the puzzle.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 18 February 2006 07:21 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:

Well that's a tad over the top, Skdadl, and you know the left and imperialism are oil and water.

What imperialists in history made access to higher education freely accessable to the prole's.

What imperialist regime in history embarked on socialized medicine for its people?.

What imperialist regime in history ever took land from feudal warlords and redistributed it to the peasants ?.

Address those points head-on, and I'll take you seriously.



What a load of crap Fidel.

Try and sell that garbage to Eastern Europeans who lived under the Imperialist Soviet yoke.

I have never seen one so willfully blind.

And there is no infant mortality rate that can justify the millions slaughtered by the Soviet regime.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 18 February 2006 07:22 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
I just don't think it is very revealing, or says very much as an indicator of the dynamic processess in society. I mean it strikes me as a kind of Hitler made the trains run on time truism. It is only a small part of the puzzle.

Come on, Cue. Who funded Hitler to take a run at the Soviets then ?

And who funded Osama bin Laden in creating al Qaeda and Taliban ?.

Are we willing to side with the devil too in order to put one over on our former WWII allies ?

[ 18 February 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 18 February 2006 07:30 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by C.Morgan:

I have never seen one so willfully blind.

And there is no infant mortality rate that can justify the millions slaughtered by the Soviet regime.


Have an eye-full, C.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 18 February 2006 07:39 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:

Have an eye-full, C.


Ummm Fidel.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

No matter how many evil right wing empires there have been, it does not excuse the slaughter of millions carried out by the Soviet Regime for which you are an apologist.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 18 February 2006 08:01 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So why then are you an apologist for Osama bin Laden, Hitler and their remote control imperialists in the west ?.

And back to the topic on hand. Something happened that the Taliban tookover Afghanistan in 1992.

They began by staging public executions of educated women in a soccer stadium while throngs of hillbillys cheered their approval.

And this happens a little over a decade after thousands of socialists, government workers and union leaders are executed on a daily basis at Santiago de Chile soccer stadium.

They executed not-so educated women in public view.

The Taliban ordered women buried alive for wearing nail polish.

They raped and beat women to death with silent approval of other warring factions and drug barons and with tacit approval of the Northern Alliance, another bad choice of the west.

Why are you defending those imperialists now, C.Morgan ?.

What is it with supporting militant Islam in this thread ?. You people are betraying Afghani women, if only in in mock, for the second time since the last century. Why ?.

[ 18 February 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 18 February 2006 08:05 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
So why then are you an apologist for Osama bin Laden, Hitler and their remote control imperialists in the west ?.

And back to the topic on hand. Something happened that the Taliban tookover Afghanistan in 1992.

They began with public executions of educated women in a soccer stadium while throngs of hillbillys cheered their approval.

They raped and beat women to death with silent approval of other warring factions and drug barons, including the Northern Alliance.

Why are you defending those imperialists now, C.Morgan ?.

What is it with supporting militant Islam in this thread ?. You people are loons.


Ummmm No Fidel.

Nobody here so far has been defending Bin Laden or Hitler.

In fact, most if not all agree that those people comitted atrocities.

You however seem to feel that the atrocities comitted by others somehow justify those committed by the Soviet Union in your weird little apologist world.

Keep trying to defend the indefensable though. It is entertaining.

Hell, let us all in on the world infant mortality rates while you are at it.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 18 February 2006 08:05 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
1996 the Taleban took over.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 18 February 2006 08:12 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
1996 the Taleban took over.

And what a fine day that was.

[ 18 February 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 18 February 2006 08:17 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:

And what a fine day that was.

[ 18 February 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


It's just too bad those Imperial Soviets weren't there to save them from themselves eh?

Do you read your own postings Fidel?

You are using the same logic to invade sovereign nations that the USA uses only you somehow feel that it is justfied under the murderous Soviet Union.

Then screaming at everybody who differs with you that they are imperialists.

Both are wrong Fidel.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 18 February 2006 08:21 PM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well not exactly. The Soviets were ostensibly invited to Afghanistan by the socialist government of the day. Some may argue it was a "puppet" regime but it was much more of an invitation than the US ever got from Iraq.
From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 18 February 2006 08:21 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by C.Morgan:
Hell, let us all in on the world infant mortality rates while you are at it.

Afghanistan infant mortality - 142 per 1000 live births. Bottom of the barrel.

The WHO and UNICEF are having some difficulty with numbers reported from rural and remote areas of Afghanistan, mind you.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 18 February 2006 08:24 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Polunatic:
Well not exactly. The Soviets were ostensibly invited to Afghanistan by the socialist government of the day. Some may argue it was a "puppet" regime but it was much more of an invitation than the US ever got from Iraq.

I was afraid to even mention this here considering the amount of anti-Soviet humour and pro-(they're not sure but we'll know in a minute) rhetoric and who probably don't realize the source of.

[ 18 February 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 18 February 2006 08:27 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:

I was afraid to even mention this here considering the amount of anti-Soviet humor and pro-(they don't wanna say) rhetoric which they don't realize where it's coming from.


Well, that explains the mass outpouring of support that Afganis showed for the imperialist Soviet occupiers in the following years.

Keep trying Fidel.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 18 February 2006 08:32 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by C.Morgan:

Well, that explains the mass outpouring of support that Afganis showed for the imperialist Soviet occupiers in the following years.

Keep trying Fidel.


If the Soviets left in 1989, why did Kabul not fall to the mujihaden until 1992?. Jalalabad ?.

With billions of dollars in aid and weapons and terrorist training schools in Pakistan and USA, don't you think the hired mercenaries and foreign-based terrorists took their sweet time in toppling the PDPA ?.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 18 February 2006 08:36 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Polunatic:
Well not exactly. The Soviets were ostensibly invited to Afghanistan by the socialist government of the day. Some may argue it was a "puppet" regime but it was much more of an invitation than the US ever got from Iraq.

Actually the Spetsnaz dressed up as regular Afghan army soldiers stormed the presidential palace assassinated the president, and then had his replacment invite them. More or less the same scenario, as when the US green lighted the assassination of President Diem in Vietnam.

quote:
On December 22, the Soviet advisors to the Afghani Armed Forces advise them to undergo maintenance cycles for tanks and other crucial equipment. Meanwhile, Telecommunications links to areas outside of Kabul are severed, isolating the capital. Viewing this, Amin moves the offices of the president to the Tajbeg Palace, believing this location to be more defensible during invasion.

Five days later, on December 27, elements of the KGB Spetsnaz (Alpha Group), in Afghan uniforms storm the Presidential Palace in Kabul, taking relatively few casualties, killing President Hafizullah Amin and his 200 elite guards in the process.

The Soviet Spetsnaz blew up Kabul's communications hub, paralyzing the Afghani military command, at 7:00 P.M. By 7:15 seized the Ministry of Interior. The Soviet military command at Termez did not wait until Amin's capture to announce on Radio Kabul (in a broadcast prerecorded by Babrak Karmal) that Afghanistan had been liberated from Amin's rule.

According to the Soviet Politburo they were only complying with the 1978 Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Good Neighborliness that former President Taraki signed. The execution of Hafizullah Amin was, according to the Soviets, the action of the Afghan Revolutionary Central Committee. That committee then elected as head of government Babrak Karmal, who was in exile in Moscow.


Wikipedia


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 18 February 2006 08:39 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:

If the Soviets left in 1989, why did Kabul not fall to the mujihaden until 1992?. Jalalabad ?.

With billions of dollars in aid and weapons and terrorist training schools in Pakistan and USA, don't you think the hired mercenaries and foreign-based terrorists took their sweet time in toppling the PDPA ?.


Well the fact that the South Vietnamese government hung on for 2 years after the US left, so that indicates that they had massive popular support, ane the only reason they lost was because of massive Soviet and Chinese assistance to the NVA. Right?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 18 February 2006 08:39 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:

If the Soviets left in 1989, why did Kabul not fall to the mujihaden until 1992?. Jalalabad ?.

With billions of dollars in aid and weapons and terrorist training schools in Pakistan and USA, don't you think the hired mercenaries and foreign-based terrorists took their sweet time in toppling the PDPA ?.


You dont get it do you Fidel?

None of your ramblings are excusing the Imperialist Soviet occupation of Afganistan.

Both occupations are wrong.

Despite your dogged and lame defense of the murderous imperialist Soviet regime.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 18 February 2006 09:00 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

Well the fact that the South Vietnamese government hung on for 2 years after the US left, so that indicates that they had massive popular support, ane the only reason they lost was because of massive Soviet and Chinese assistance to the NVA. Right?


Saigon was already in the hands of the NVA at that point. The PDPA, with volunteer help from the women's auxiliary, held the capital city from mujhaden armed to the eye-teeth for over two years and beating them back at Jalalabad.

The American's were still supplying South Vietnamese with $700 million dollars for armaments up to 1974 through the bitter end. Of course, the NVA at that point had become one of the largest armies in the world. The NVA were readying for a two year battle with the South in Jan. 1975 but S Vietnamese forces succumbed within 55 days.

The Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan. The mujihaden were bringing down Soviet supply planes and helicopters with sophisticated weaponry. There were no sea ports to dock at. Kabul was laid siege to for over two years while the world stood by and watched as if it were a stranger being beaten by juvenile delinquents on the sidewalk for his money. Like our politicians stood by and did nothing when Stalingrad was under siege for over two years by an enemy at their gates.

ETA: On China "helping" Vietnam, Cue:

The Viet Minhguerillas did receive help from non-communist China in their war against French occupation. The non-commie Chinese treated North Vietnamese very badly and support for Ho Chi Minh grew.

Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge(who fought against the Vietnamese) were aided by China as well as the U.S., by what I know. Reaganites were still defending Pol Pot's memory in the 1980's.
Pol Pot took refuge in China.

The Viet Cong had years to practice warfare and were trained by commander Giap who learned battle tactics used by Mao's communists in their fight against Chiang Kai Chek's Nationalist forces. And they were backed by British and American militarists all along.

When the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia, China amassed an army of about a million troops on Vietnam's northern border in 1979 and began attacking. The Chinese took heavy casualties and were held off by the NVA.

[ 18 February 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 18 February 2006 09:16 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fidel blathered:
quote:
Like our politicians stood by and did nothing when Stalingrad was under siege for over two years by an enemy at their gates.

Ummm Fidel.

I think our countries were fighting Hitler on the Western Front at the time.

What planet are you on?


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Winston Smith
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11963

posted 18 February 2006 09:22 PM      Profile for Winston Smith        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by C.Morgan:
Fidel blathered:

Ummm Fidel.

I think our countries were fighting Hitler on the Western Front at the time.

What planet are you on?


Well, Allied ground troops were not on the ground in Western Europe until June 1944 (Italy in 1943). Stalingrad had been retaken by then.


From: Oshawa | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 18 February 2006 09:25 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
They were hardly vacationing either.

The USSR only held out as long as it did due to the lend/lease program from the west at the time anyway.

That all aside, this still does not make the Soviet occupation of Afganistan OK as Fidel is contending.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Winston Smith
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11963

posted 18 February 2006 09:34 PM      Profile for Winston Smith        Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, but from the Soviet's point of view, it was OK. Who's to say that their point of view is less valid than the USA's, or Afghanistan's? What we're dealing with here is moral relativism. Soviet morals said that defending the revolution was a valid reason to wage war. Who can argue with that? We'd just be saying that our way is the right way, which in other threads has been determined to be an incorrect approach to international relations.

[ 18 February 2006: Message edited by: Winston Smith ]


From: Oshawa | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 18 February 2006 09:37 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by C.Morgan:
They were hardly vacationing either.

The USSR only held out as long as it did due to the lend/lease program from the west at the time anyway.


Bullshit. Newly forged Stalin guns, the will of the people and General Zhukov won the Russian front. The west was afraid that the Russian's would liberate Europe by themselves. For every allied soldier killed during "the sideshow in the Mediterranean" and minor skirmishes in Europe, 25 Russian's died. Stalin was the biggest winner of the last century. And Mao.

[ 18 February 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Winston Smith
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11963

posted 18 February 2006 09:42 PM      Profile for Winston Smith        Edit/Delete Post
Right on! Uncle Joe was totally focused, man. He never let sentimentality get in the way of his goals.

The Stalin Solution was quick and effective. Two villages, one for Stalin, one against. Stalins robs all the food from the dissenters, and gives it to his allies. Result: One village full of fat and happy Stalin lovers.


From: Oshawa | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 18 February 2006 09:42 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:

Bullshit. Newly forged Stalin guns, the will of the people and General Zhukov won the Russian front. The west was afraid that the Russian's would liberate Europe by themselves. Stalin was the biggest winner of the last century. And Mao.

[ 18 February 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]



OK I guess the whole lend/lease thing was just a myth Fidel.

Actually, I heard that Stalin stood them off at the gates of his namesake all by himself.

Either way, how does this justify the Soviet occupation of Afganistan?


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 18 February 2006 09:56 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:

Stalin was the biggest winner of the last century. And Mao.


How did you so quaintly put it? His little petty civil war or something like that?


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 18 February 2006 09:59 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by C.Morgan:


OK I guess the whole lend/lease thing was just a myth Fidel.

Actually, I heard that Stalin stood them off at the gates of his namesake all by himself.


It may have offset somewhat the massive investment in the buildup of Nazi Germany by American corporations in preparing for Nazi operation "barbarossa."

Standard Oil of New jersey, IBM, General Motors, Ford Corporation, Prescott Bush, John Rockefeller and more. In fact, there were so many American businessmen tripping over one another in Germany leading up to late 1942 that the American ambassador in Berlin said he was embarrassed. He was embarrassed because he knew that the American economy was still in recovery mode after the collapse of laissez-faire capitalism in the 1930's.

[ 18 February 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 18 February 2006 10:26 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am currently reading a book called “Afghanistan: A History Of Conflict” by John C. Griffiths.

He mentions several interesting points throughout the novel.

1. That several of the current warlords were educated at the Kabul University during the 1960s and 1970s.

2. The PDP only had 5000-6000 members before the Soviet Invasion.

3. The Soviet military had three Battalions of troops in Afghanistan by 17 September 1979.

4. A majority of Afghan pilots were taught by the USAF and equipped by the Soviet Air Force.

5. During the first phase of the Soviet Invasion, whole Battalions of Afghan soldiers deserted to the Mujehadin along with all their weapons and equipment.

6. By 1976 an estimated 2.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas was being exported to the Soviet union per year.

7. Any loans given to the Afghanistan by the Soviets were seen to benefit the Soviets more than the Afghans.

I am 80% done the book, it has been an excellent read thus far.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 18 February 2006 10:37 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It began as a rebellion against a corrupt and incompetent Afghani regime. Rebellion turned to civil war.

Former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, said in, "From the Shadows", that American intel agents began colluding with opposing factions in Afghanistan six months before the Soviet invasion. On the advice of Zbignew Brezinski and CIA/NSA, Jimmy Carter signed a directive authorizing the CIA to conduct covert propaganda operations against the People's Democratic government of Afghanistan. Billions of dollars in aid and mercenaries from across Asia, Europe and USA poured into Afghanistan in the following years.

That the evil Soviets were in Afghanistan for the natural gas is hilarious. They already supply Ukraine and much of Europe.

Find the part in Griffith's book that talks about blood for oil wars, and note which country tops the list in dire need of [the Humungous]the guzzoline![/Sci-Fi bad guy character off]

And find the chapter where it discusses the Afghani men and women's auxiliary volunteers and female troops who were not AWOL from the PDPA army from 1989 - 1992. If it's vague or completely absent, webgear, I'd put the book down and look for another one.

[ 19 February 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Vigilante
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8104

posted 19 February 2006 01:43 AM      Profile for Vigilante        Edit/Delete Post
What's scary is that up untill 1989 there were still an interesting amount of Fidels on this planet. Nowadays people like him are the intellectual museum freakshows. He's the worst of what Marxism(that objective/real side that I mentioned in the other thread)can bring out in all its red fascist hell.People like me certainly became corpses. You can see the instrumentalism inherent in Fidel that killed alot of indigenous peoples(those backward hillbillies, they need some developement forced on their asses to save their soals) Reverse developement with Christ or Islam and Fidel's fetishized ideology does the same thing. Ideology at its worst, people have an idea what I go through whenever I try to get through to the guy.

I hold out some hope that he can at least get around to reading some socialism or barbarism thought and beyond.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 19 February 2006 01:49 AM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fidel

A great Afghan General working for the PDPA.

Lieut. Gen Shahnawaz Tanai

"A pillar of the Communist Regime, Tanai later attempted a coup against his former friend and President Mohammad Najibullah, seeking refuge in a hostile Pakistan and working with fundamentalists such as Engineer Gulbadin Hekmatyar."

"Tanai escaped by helicopter to Pakistan where he was greeted and publicly accepted as an ally by Hekmatyar, but when the rebellion was losing strength, Tanai defected to the Taliban."

Can you provide any links to the number of women working and the type of work they did in the Afghan Army in 1989-1992.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 19 February 2006 01:59 AM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fidel

There were large amounts of natural gas exported from Afghanistan to the USSR during the 1970s and 1980s.

The USSR helped the Afghans develop these natural gas production centres and gas pipelines.

The USSR helped raped Afghanistan of its natural resources. The Afghans got little in return for the resources except becoming another puppet state under the control of the USSR.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 19 February 2006 02:12 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't know how many women fought for the PDPA. I understand that many of them did not desert. I don't think they made pledges to the Taliban high priests and seminaries from Pakistan, no


How U.S. destroyed progressive secular forces in Afghanistan - By Deirdre Griswold, Workers World, 27 September 2001


quote:
The Pentagon puts out what it calls country study books on almost every country in the world. They are updated every few years. These books contain basic information for the use of U.S. personnel traveling or working abroad.

There's nothing classified in them. They're available in most libraries.

Afghanistan—a Country Study for 1986 has of course the anti-communist line expected of a Pentagon publication. But it also contains much useful information about the changes instituted by the Afghani Revolution of 1978.

Freeing women and peasants
Before the revolution, 5 percent of Afghanistan's rural landowners owned more than 45 percent of the arable land. A third of the rural people were landless laborers, sharecroppers or tenants.

Debts to the landlords and to money lenders were a regular feature of rural life, says the U.S. Army report. An indebted farmer turned over half his crop each year to the money lender.

When the PDPA took power, it quickly moved to remove both landownership inequalities and usury, says the Pentagon report.

Decree number six of the revolution canceled mortgage debts of agricultural laborers, tenants and small landowners.

The revolutionary regime set up extensive literacy programs, especially for women. It printed textbooks in many languages—Dari, Pashtu, Uzbek, Turkic and Baluchi. The government trained many more teachers, built additional schools and kindergartens, and instituted nurseries for orphans, says the country study.

Before the revolution, female illiteracy had been 96.3 percent in Afghanistan. Rural illiteracy of both sexes was 90.5 percent.

By 1985, despite a counter-revolutionary war financed by the CIA, there had been an 80-percent increase in hospital beds. The government initiated mobile medical units and brigades of women and young people to go to the undeveloped countryside and provide medical services to the peasants for the first time.

Among the very first decrees of the revolutionary regime were to prohibit bride-price and give women freedom of choice in marriage.

Historically, said the U.S. manual, gender roles and women's status have been tied to property relations. Women and children tend to be assimilated into the concept of property and to belong to a male.

Also: A bride who did not exhibit signs of virginity on the wedding night could be murdered by her father and/or brothers.

The revolution was challenging all this.



Deirdre Griswold: How U.S. destroyed progressive secular forces in Afghanistan


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 19 February 2006 02:31 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Khaled Ahmed Interview: Conversations with History; Institute of International Studies, UC Berkeley

quote:

Interviewer: One gets the sense as a neophyte to the history of your country that there was a major turning point in the eighties with the emergence of the Reagan administration and the Afghan War, the Soviet invasion, and so on, and Pakistan's role through its ISI in that whole process. Would you comment on the extent to which a major downward spiral in your country began in that period?

What was really unfortunate in the beginning of the Afghan War was that our democracy was overthrown. The process in Pakistan is that democracy becomes extremely destabilized and there are internal disturbances, and then finally the army overthrows the civilian government, and that's what happened at the beginning of the Afghan War. And we had a general running the country who was reacting against what had gone before.

This is General Zia.

General Zia. Together with the religious parties, he thought that he should once and for all extirpate all secular socialist thinking, and to ensure that, he enforced the Sharia in Pakistan.

At the same time, he participated in the Afghan War through an army of surrogates. That was a grave mistake that we made, that our army, which in 1971 had fought in India, surrendering about 90,000 soldiers as POWs, this time fought a covert war -- a deniable war in Afghanistan -- through people who were actually mercenaries. That tended to change Pakistan's society, because these warriors lived in civil society and were exempted from the law because they carried arms and were trained as military people. They were also protected against the normal process of law by the intelligence agencies. That led to a gradual diminution of the writ of the state in Pakistan. Then we reached a point when the state did not exist at all in certain cities. For instance, in Karachi we got used to having no state jurisdiction at all. The "exempted" militias ran the city and also ran the government.

Let's explicate this a little. These warriors, these surrogates, were fighting the Russians in Afghanistan. Is that how this process begins? And Zia, in terms of his strategic concept, thought that by winning in Afghanistan, he would acquire for his country strategic depth.


That came along as the war progressed. He definitely benefited from the largess of the United States. The economy was in a crisis when he took over, and the money that came later was a price for his cooperation in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, he encouraged the formulation of religious militias, headed by people who were of dubious character but who served his purpose. Pakistan also chose its favorites, which I think was a shortsighted policy, which finally fragmented Afghanistan as a country. If there was a feeling that Afghanistan should become the strategic depth for Pakistan, that was defeated, because we allowed that country to become disunited. As events later shwed, it was Pakistan which became the strategic depth to the Taliban ideology.


IIS, UC Berkeley Interview

[ 19 February 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 19 February 2006 03:36 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh here's a good one. It seems that over 60 "former" Taliban government officials and mullah Omar are attempting to negotiate a return to Afghan civilian life. I thought that Omar and bin Laden were committed to making life hell for imperialist invaders?. I guess living out of a cave and eating Alah's manna wasn't all that tempting for the former CIA associates.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 19 February 2006 09:07 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Actually, since that other thread about Afghanistan seems to have degenerated into an argument about whether the Soviets did a great job there or not, I'll leave this one open.

From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 February 2006 09:15 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah. Good point.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca