Terrorist Victory In Spain

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by GePap


Yes, it did, which was destroyed during the war that the west and the saudis helped bankroll. A lot of that infrastructure had been paid for by the soviets, as both the US and USSR helped build p afghanistan to curry favor.

Excuse me, the USSR invaded and used force.. causing the Afghans to backlash.

Also take the airport I think it is in Kabul (or Kandahar) it is US built (and still is standing and has a 50s/60s era look to it).

[GePap]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
Excuse me, the USSR invaded and used force.. causing the Afghans to backlash.]

How perceptive of you...

Also take the airport I think it is in Kabul (or Kandahar) it is US built (and still is standing and has a 50s/60s era look to it).

And since I already addressed this point in my post....

[Az]

Somebody had to fight against the Soviets. Sorry that was how the situation was. That last part about the Soviets turning it into a second world country is questionable... like Somalia? Angola? Or how about some of the other soviet backed regimes in Africa?

You mean the other war-torn countries, due to generous funding of "freedom fighters" like UNITA?

Had the Soviet Union suceeded, Afghanistan would have it much better actually, than those. It was connected by land to the Soviet Union.

And it's not like the US didn't know what was going to happen. Let me remind you, these are the times of Saddat Assassination, and the revolution in Iran that was a major blow for BOTH the USSR, and the USA. The USA was wise enough to realise this by supporting Saddam as the smaller of the two evils, but just couldn't resist the temptetion to **** the Soviets, and with them, a country of 20 Million people.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Azazel
You mean the other war-torn countries, due to generous funding of "freedom fighters" like UNITA?

I don't support either the corrupt Angolan regime or UNITA as both committed horrible atrocities. But it was mostly started by the Soviet Union

Had the Soviet Union suceeded, Afghanistan would have it much better actually, than those.

Nope.

The USA was wise enough to realise this by supporting Saddam as the smaller of the two evils, but just couldn't resist the temptetion to **** the Soviets, and with them, a country of 20 Million people.

The USSR also supported Saddam hence his military was mostly Russian built and supplied.

[Az]

I don't support either the corrupt Angolan regime or UNITA as both committed horrible atrocities. But it was mostly started by the Soviet Union

what was started? a break from the usual Corporation-pandering dictatorship, and turning into a more egalitarian, and a less-murdering dictatorship? Yes, this cannot be forgiven. The USA simply HAD to start a 20 year lasting civil war with millions dead.

Nope.

Good rebuttal of my arguments. You truly are a cunning debater.

The USSR also supported Saddam hence his military was mostly Russian built and supplied.

No denial of that.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Azazel
what was started? a break from the usual Corporation-pandering dictatorship, and turning into a more egalitarian, and a less-murdering dictatorship? Yes, this cannot be forgiven. The USA simply HAD to start a 20 year lasting civil war with millions dead.

WOW. You really are full of bullshit. Now you are supporting the USSR... sad.. really sad indeed. The USSR started the war in Angola, more specifically Cuba, a satellite state of the USSR. The big bad US did this, did that.. blahblahblahblah.. do you have anything new to say other than the typical anti-capitalist rants (even though you use the system yourself hypocrite)?

[Az]

WOW. You really are full of bullshit. Now you are supporting the USSR... sad.. really sad indeed. The USSR started the war in Angola, more specifically Cuba, a satellite state of the USSR. The big bad US did this, did that.. blahblahblahblah.. do you have anything new to say other than the typical anti-capitalist rants (even though you use the system yourself hypocrite)?

Try actually adressing my arguments.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Azazel

Quote:

WOW. You really are full of bullshit. Now you are supporting the USSR... sad.. really sad indeed. The USSR started the war in Angola, more specifically Cuba, a satellite state of the USSR. The big bad US did this, did that.. blahblahblahblah.. do you have anything new to say other than the typical anti-capitalist rants (even though you use the system yourself hypocrite)?

Try actually adressing my arguments.

Try by actually making an argument.

[GePap]

Afghanistan would most certainly have been better of had the soviet backed communist government had won over a coalition of religious fundamentalist tribal chiefs. Much of afghanistan was destroyed after the USSR pulled out-for example, the city of Kabul, than while the soviets were there. Women in communist countries generally do not have to wear head to toe robes.

NOw, might the Soviet union lasted abit longer without a deblacle in Afghanistan? Who knows-but certainly, if we assume the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan as a given, the people there would have been better of with the other side winning. Only Fez' twisted black and white view of the world - and a general ignorance, drives him to say they were better of the other way.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by GePap
Afghanistan would most certainly have been better of had the soviet backed communist government had won over a coalition of religious fundamentalist tribal chiefs.

Much of Afghanistan was destroyed during the invasion.

Only Fez' twisted black and white view of the world - and a general ignorance, drives him to say they were better of the other way.

You think a stupid commie view like the one you hold is better? I think not.

[Az]

I say:

Had the Soviet Union suceeded, Afghanistan would have it much better actually, than those. It was connected by land to the Soviet Union.

Thus I mean that through easy transportation, the SU could've raised the infrastructure much easier than in Angola, for example.

your answer to that argument is:

Nope

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
So what happened to the Mujahedeen? Where did they go? was OSL a Mujahedeen?

Yes he was. Most of them went back to their homes after the Soviets were driven out. Afterall, that was the point of them going. I am speaking of the people from all over the world who went to fight the Soviets, not the home grown war lords.

It was a jihad. Many people went who wanted to fight real soldiers with weapons who were invading a Muslim state. That does not mean they all were predisposed to becoming butchers of civies with homicide bomings. Yes, some of the homicidal bent went as well, that does not mean that the lot of them or their cause in that case should be painted with the terrorist brush.

Just a question, do you consider the VC who took on American combat troops to have been terrorists?

[Giancarlo]

nevermind.. I have a bf to attend to.. later..

[Az]

Yes he was. Most of them went back to their homes after the Soviets were driven out. Afterall, that was the point of them going. I am speaking of the people from all over the world who went to fight the Soviets, not the home grown war lords.

It was a jihad. Many people went who wanted to fight real soldiers with weapons who were invading a Muslim state. That does not mean they all were predisposed to becoming butchers of civies with homicide bomings. Yes, some of the homicidal bent went as well, that does not mean that the lot of them or their cause in that case should be painted with the terrorist brush.

Just a question, do you consider the VC who took on American combat troops to have been terrorists?

That's the whole point: from the point of view of the rights of women, personal freedoms, egalitarian society:

North Vietnam > South Vietnam.
Soviet State >> Mujahedeen.

It's THAT simple.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
Much of Afghanistan was destroyed during the invasion.

You really are ignorant.

"the invasion" was done and over with in a few days. The soviets came in, installed the member of the communist party they wanted in power, and secured most of the country. It was AFTER the soviets had secured most cities that IN THE COUNTRYSIDE conservative villagers objected to the foreing troops and the liberalizing commie ideas (like women reading) and begun to strike back. During the war that followed a lot of villages were destroyed, as well as roads and so forth-but the cities remained in the control of the soviets and their puppets the whole time. After the USSR pulls out in 1989 the Mujahadeen leaders then march of the remants of the communist government take the cities. THEN they begin fighting among themselves, and this is when places like Kabul get destroyed. In 1979 there were over 240 factories in Afghanistan. BY 1999 there were 2.

You think a stupid commie view like the one you hold is better? I think not.

No, I think my ability to actually make a coherent point, give suporting evidence or an arguement that is not simply an assertion makes me better.

[notyoueither]

The real point to me, Az, is what the combatants do, not whether we agree with their cause or not. I dislike the VC but can not quibble with their targetting of the US and SV military.

Whether I agree with the Mujahadeen or not, their conduct was acceptable when they went after the Red Army.

Under no circumstances will I ever find it acceptable for a bunch of clowns to go about planning and carrying out terror campaigns against civies.

[Az]

myself:

That's the whole point: from the point of view of the rights of women, personal freedoms, egalitarian society:

North Vietnam > South Vietnam.
Soviet State >> Mujahedeen.

It's THAT simple.

This doesn't mean that I think that the Mujahedeen were terrorist, but just that they were terribly wrong.

[notyoueither]

Afghanistan was part of the Liberal Democratic West engaged in a struggle for survival with the Soviet system of totalitarian, undemocratic regimes. So was Vietnam.

There may be cases where a good guy from 'their' side got screwed, and there are certainly cases where good people from 'our' side got screwed. It wasn't a matter of picking and chosing what would be better here or there, it was a matter of not letting the other side win. It was brutal, but both sides played the game because losing was not considered to be an option.

btw, the Mujahedeen who went there to toss the Soviets out were not wrong. The people who turned the country into a scrap pile after the Soviets left would be the culprits there.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
I take Ned serious because I'm sure that too many people agree with him too not take serious.

PAX, indeed. If you listen to Rush Limbaugh, you will find that my views are very consistent with mainstream conservative thought on foreign policy -- although I seem to align much better with Schwarzenegger on social issues.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
Read the article 1/3 Arabs feel liberated. That means the majority do not. Majority rule=democracy. Please stop using the word liberated until 50.0000000001 percent of the Iraqi's feel that you are right.

Gen Franks(American) outlawed a foreign countries political party. democracy?

Mr.Bremer threatened to vetoe the governing council plans to establish an islamic constitution. democracy?

I think not. What would the founding fathers have said about foreign rule? Ned are you a Patriot or a Tyrant?

All true.

One of our purposes is to maintain the right to vote beyond the first vote. Protection of minority rights is critical to democratic governments. Our own founding fathers paid most attention to this single factor in structuring our original constitution.

Being a minority yourself, I assume you more than wholeheartedly support this basic rule of "democratic" governments. Therefor, I urge you, respectfully, PAX, to reconsider our position on the issue of a cleric veto or allowing a party to participate that historically permits only a single-party, police state.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Lancer
The Spanish troops leaving Iraq must be embarrassed as hell. Given a sector where nothing much happens, they are quitting with the job unfinished. Other countries with tougher sectors are in it to win and have what it takes to stick with it.

If I'm Spanish army, when my enlistment is up, I'm gone. I mean what's the point of having an army, being in it, if your country is an appeaser? Might as well train in planting pansies....

Lancer, they remobilizing to Spanish territory as they know that al Qaeda's number one objective is the recovery of Andalucia. They believe the only defense against al Qaeda is to dig a moat and raise the drawbridges.

[Giancarlo]

WE all know going on the defensive never works.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Ned


All true.

One of our purposes is to maintain the right to vote beyond the first vote. Protection of minority rights is critical to democratic governments. Our own founding fathers paid most attention to this single factor in structuring our original constitution.

Being a minority yourself, I assume you more than wholeheartedly support this basic rule of "democratic" governments. Therefor, I urge you, respectfully, PAX, to reconsider our position on the issue of a cleric veto or allowing a party to participate that historically permits only a single-party, police state.

It';s not that I don't want all of the people in any part of the world to be free. To not have to worry about all the ills of the Tyranny. To have their civil and human rights respected. I just feel that either the government has to give them these rights freely, the majority has to vote to protect the minority, or the minority has to fight for these rights. To have things forced on them will not only diminish the value of these rights but also bring into question their legitimacy. You may even have people eventually voting to go back to "traditional" values even if these values never benefitted them.

[Az]

Afghanistan was part of the Liberal Democratic West engaged in a struggle for survival with the Soviet system of totalitarian, undemocratic regimes. So was Vietnam.

Do you believe in what you've just written?

[Oncle Boris]

Don't worry, even Ned couldn't say this and believe himself.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
It';s not that I don't want all of the people in any part of the world to be free. To not have to worry about all the ills of the Tyranny. To have their civil and human rights respected. I just feel that either the government has to give them these rights freely, the majority has to vote to protect the minority, or the minority has to fight for these rights. To have things forced on them will not only diminish the value of these rights but also bring into question their legitimacy. You may even have people eventually voting to go back to "traditional" values even if these values never benefitted them.

PAX, if you really believe this when a regime is as bad as Saddam's was, then you have to believe that our cause of fighting the NAZI regime during WWII was wrong.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Azazel

Quote:

Yes he was. Most of them went back to their homes after the Soviets were driven out. Afterall, that was the point of them going. I am speaking of the people from all over the world who went to fight the Soviets, not the home grown war lords. It was a jihad. Many people went who wanted to fight real soldiers with weapons who were invading a Muslim state. That does not mean they all were predisposed to becoming butchers of civies with homicide bomings. Yes, some of the homicidal bent went as well, that does not mean that the lot of them or their cause in that case should be painted with the terrorist brush. Just a question, do you consider the VC who took on American combat troops to have been terrorists?

That's the whole point: from the point of view of the rights of women, personal freedoms, egalitarian society:

North Vietnam > South Vietnam.
It's THAT simple.

Come to the corner of Arlington Boulevard and Leesburg Pike here in Northern Virginia and say that. A lot of people with a much more intimate knowledge of South Viet Nam than you or i will ever have would be happy to correct you.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Afghanistan would most certainly have been better of had the soviet backed communist government had won over a coalition of religious fundamentalist tribal chiefs. Much of afghanistan was destroyed after the USSR pulled out-for example, the city of Kabul, than while the soviets were there. Women in communist countries generally do not have to wear head to toe robes.

NOw, might the Soviet union lasted abit longer without a deblacle in Afghanistan? Who knows-but certainly, if we assume the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan as a given, the people there would have been better of with the other side winning. Only Fez' twisted black and white view of the world - and a general ignorance, drives him to say they were better of the other way.

Some afghans thought their country would be better off with the Soviets winning. SOme thought it would be worse off. The number of the latter increased as the war proceeded and Soviet tactics became 'harsher'.
Under those circumstances, given the need to address Soviet expansionism, US support for the Mujahadin was justified.

Need i remind you that it was NOT just a US, or Saudi policy. It was supported by the entire Muslim world, by our NATO allies, and by China for that matter. In short by the entire world outside the Soviet block and its allies. Because the ENTIRE world was worried about Soviet expansion.

The people of Afghanistan had pretty good possibilities in 1991. Unfortunately the West (not just the US, BTW) turned away from them. A shame, and a mistake we will not repeat, I hope. Certainly the course they are on NOW, under Karzai promises better for them than they could EVER have achieved under Communist rule.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Azazel

Quote:

Afghanistan was part of the Liberal Democratic West engaged in a struggle for survival with the Soviet system of totalitarian, undemocratic regimes. So was Vietnam.

Do you believe in what you've just written?

What do you describe the Cold War as? Gentlemens poker?

[CharlesBHoff]

Poland is going to pull out early next year as Bush lie about the WMD in Iraq. Poland government or any foreign government doesxnot like being lie in away that would be call prejury in a court of law. I think Japon might be thinking of pulling out soon to.