Soviet Occupation of Afghanistan

[Comrade Hector]

On Christmas eve of 1979 Soviet forces cross the border into Afghanistan. A move not known to the world until after it happened. The entire capitalist world screamed "INVASION", and called for an immidiate withdrawal of all Soviet troops from Afghanistan. The Capitalist nations led by the Western imperialists saw this as the Soviet Union trying to incorporate a sovereign nation with annexation and/or subjugation of the Afghan people. This was far from true. It was not the Russians who brought Socialism to Afghanistan, but Afghan workers led by the PDPA(People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan). The April Revolution happened in 1978 which smashed the old feudal Afghan state, where women were regarded as property, the illiteracy rate was very high, jobs and consumer goods were scarce. The new Afghan Socialist state bagan a process of economic reform to where every Afghan has the right to an education, medicine, women had rights to any job, industrialization, and consumer goods to be spread equally. However this was an outrage to the supporters of the old Afghan state, along with religious leaders, and those whom had held military power before the Revolution, all of whom had fled to Pakistan. This was also an outrage to the USA, and the imperialist powers. In Pakistan the CIA began training and arming the counter-revolutionary force known as the Mujahideen for a jihad to overthrow the Afghan Socialist state. When the Afghan leadership learned of this they asked for Soviet military assistance, to quell the Mujahideen threat. The Soviets respond to their comrades' call.

By 1980 fierce had erupted between the Soviet Army and the Mujahideen. Afghan workers and women would enlist in the Afghan Army or form their own militias to defend the achievements made by the April Revolution against the Mujahideen cut-throats. Jimmy Carter loathed the thought of a people adopting Socialism, and took every method necessary to "give the Soviet Union it's Vietnam" as his national security advisor Zbigniew Bzerzinski put it. The USA and their NATO allies poured in money for weapons, and supplied the Mujahideen with explosives, guns, mortars, and anti-tanks rockets. Despite this the Soviet and Afghan forces still continued to fight successfully against the Mujahideen. When Ronald Reagan became president he would continue to pour even more money into the cause of the Afghan "freedom fighters" in the hopes of killing as many Soviet soldiers af possible. By 1986 the Mujahideen "freedom fighters" had become demoralized and were very close to being defeated. But now it was the Gorbachev area. In the name of glasnost and perestroika Gorbachev promised the US imperialists to withdraw from Afghanistan by 1989, which therefore eliminated the cause to smash the reactionary Mujahideen. The only goal now was merely to keep them at bay temporarily. This caused demoralization amongst the Soviet soldiers. In spite all this the Americans wanted to uphold the cowboy image and continued to to give weapons to the Mujahideen for the purpose of killing as many Soviet soldiers as possible, as they gave the Mujahideen the shoulder held Stinger missile which was very accurate in destroying Soviet aircraft. In 1989 in accordance with Gorbachev's promise of betrayal, the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, and in a few years Afghanistan fell to the US darling Mujahideen fanatics (Taliban and al-Qaeda).

The Soviet war in Afghanistan was an example of workers solidarity, defense of revolutionary gains, and in this case a defense of women's rights. Therefore I support what the Soviets did in Afghanistan. This was also a fight against US imperialism. The Russian army was supported world wide by all true Communists. The choice was very simple: supporting the Soviet Army was supporting social-progression, and to support the Mujahideen would be to support US imperialism.

WHO SUPPORTED THE MUJAHIDEEN?
It is well known that the Mujahideen was hailed and praised as "Freedom Fighters" by the conservatives, the liberals, Christians, Muslims, Fascists, and other Capitalist trash. But much of the left also stood by their own imperialist governments and denounced the Soviet Union: Social-Democrats, Pacifists, tree-huggers, Anarchists, pseudo-Marxists, and even feminist and women's rights groups. All who claim to be anti-Capitalist.

The only thing amusing is that today American Patriots say about the Taliban is "We're gonna get the motherfuckers". But yet during the eighties they were all in church crying and saying "[SOB SOB] Please God help president Reagan while he struggles for the freedom of Afghanistan and helps the Afghan freedom fighters win against those evil Russian invaders and their Afghan collaborators. Let freeom ring, Amen. [SOB SOB]"

To all Capitalist pro-US garbage contaminating this forum: You built the Taliban and al-Qaeda. How do you like your freedom fighters now that they are against you? I mean aren't you guys proud for creating something so lethal?

Any other opinions on the Soviet War in Afghanistan?

HAIL RED ARMY!
SLAVA KRASNOY ARMII!

[HankMorgan]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 3 2004, 09:16 PM
To all Capitalist pro-US garbage contaminating this forum: You built the Taliban and al-Qaeda. How do you like your freedom fighters now that they are against you? I mean aren't you guys proud for creating something so lethal?

Taliban? al-Qaeda? I'm an American and I thought we were still at war with the Redcoats or was it the Germans. Times and people change. I can't keep it straight.

[elijahcraig]

The reason the USSR invaded Afghanistan was NOT to "liberate" them towards socialism. The reason is that the Islamic community in certain Russian villages, towns, cities was on the verge of turning to Islamic fundamentalism along with the Moujadeen. This was an act to ensure their state power.

[TC]

Maybe the Soviet Union helped to protect their own workers rights too. It doesn't matter what additional positive motivation the Soviet Union might have had, they clearly had enough positive motivation. If the only positive thing the Red Army brought to Afghanistan was women's rights to be regarded as human beings and not slaves, and the mujahadeen brought the opposite, then that is enough of a reason to support the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan.

[BOZG]

Hail Red Army in Afghanistan!!!


The intervention of Soviet troops into Afghanistan would have been a great advancement for the Afghan workers extending the social gains of the Soviet Union to the country.

[Robert Edward Lee]

The US support of the Afghan fighters was simply the lesser of two evils. Say what you want about the Soviet Union, but every left-winger I've ever spoken to (including many of my friends) is adamant to point out that it wasn't real Communisn anyway - so I really can't see what you're gaining in supporting its cause. If anything, the USSR was equally as Imperialistic as the States during the Cold War. It's economic 'empire' stretched to places such as Cuba and it simply invaded anyone who was small and wanted a bit of independence - read Czechoslovakia. Basically the same as the US then.



by the conservatives, the liberals, Christians, Muslims, Fascists, and other Capitalist trash

Pretty much the entire political spectrum of the UK then. I also wasn't aware that Muslims were 'Capitalist Trash', but there you go.



pro-US garbage contaminating this forum

I thought the left was adamantly against racism? One rule for you and another for the rest of us, is it, Comrade?


On a side note, I actually collect Soviet uniforms and medals. I currently have a 1969 model parade uniform of a Colonel of Armoured Troops (complete with breeches, cap and awards - including Order of the Red Banner) and a 1936 model Prosecutor's Uniform (complete with 'wound' stripes' and ID booklet). There's a few other things as well, such as caps and medals.

[BOZG]

Originally posted by Robert Edward [email protected] 4 2004, 11:01 AM
Say what you want about the Soviet Union, but every left-winger I've ever spoken to (including many of my friends) is adamant to point out that it wasn't real Communisn anyway - so I really can't see what you're gaining in supporting its cause.
They're correct, the Soviet Union was never communist and was not even socialist, following its first few years of existance. This does not mean that it was not progressive and that the social gains made by the USSR are not worthy of being defended. The USSR had gone through an economic and social revolution which was necessary to defend, while still being able to criticize the bureaucracy.

[Y2A]

Ha!!!!!!! This proves that you people aren't true communists! Indeed, Comrade Hector is the kind of person that hates anything American. Even siding with the Soviet Union to attack the U.S. It's ridiculous. And you wonder why people don't take American Communists seriously. Another tragic case of rebeling against your parents gone wrong! Oh well, at least there are some here that condemn it.

[Y2A]

The Soviets kill a million Afganis and yet he somehow blames the U.S. Remember guys the U.S is the ultimate evil. If the Soviets would have won the Cold War we'd be living in a socialist paradise.............tards.

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 07:27 PM
The Soviets kill a million Afganis and yet he somehow blames the U.S. Remember guys the U.S is the ultimate evil. If the Soviets would have won the Cold War we'd be living in a socialist paradise.............tards.
I agree, one can compliment the Soviet backed government before the intervention, but the Soviet intervention was merciless and shameful. Anyone who backs it is an Imperialist.

[Enver Hoxha]

Maybe the invasion would of been justified if the USSR was still Socialist, if the USSR wasn't motivated by Imperialist rivalry with the U$ and was actually with the will of the Afghan people.

The fact is the USSR was no longer Socialist, was just as bad as the U$A in terms of economic Imperialism and did not have the backing of the Afghan people. Socialist aid should be like the examples of the USSR giving to Spain, China and Vietnam.

This is not to say there were not progressive steps taken in the 'April Revolution' in Afghanistan. It was a National-Democratic revolution against the remnants of feudalism and such. Also many important steps were taken towards creating a better society for women, students, peasants and such. But this doesn't make Socialism or even Communism.

I have no doubt that the Afghan people were in favor of these changes, even before the Soviet invasion the Fundamentalist elements were being funded by the CIA. And the fact that the pro-Soviet forces were able to hold out for a number of years after the withdrawal and btw breifly have a surge in popularity (Afghan women in Kabul holding AK-47's theyt knew what was coming) shows this.

Anyway I'll post a article on why the invasion was wrong.

[Enver Hoxha]

Workers of the World Unite Against the Soviet Intervention in Afghanistan!
‘And at Sarai Komar, the Centre for the development of Egyptian cotton in Tadjikistan, I saw a delegation of Afghans who came from across the Pianj to ask the local Soviet authorities to help them organise a collective farm.

‘But you are not Soviet citizens’, protested the Tadjik official. ‘Your country is Afghanistan. We can’t come there and organize collective farms’.

‘Why not?’ asked the naive Afghans. ‘You have a strong army.’

The thing appeared quite simple to the applicants – come with your army and organize collective farms.

‘It’s a long and very complicated story – why not,’ dodged the official. ‘But why not get together your belongings and come to us? We’ll organize you in a kolkhoz all right. We’ll settle you on good land, and give you credits, Remember we can use here another million and a half willing workers, first go back and think it over’.

Disappointed, the Afghans left.....’

(Joshua Kunitz: ‘Dawn over Samarkand’, Calcutta, 1943.)

What even the local Soviet Tadjik official understood in the time of Stalin that socialism cannot be exported by the Soviet army today the leaders of the Soviet Union do not understand. Kudos to revisionist dialectics.

According to the press reports 50,000 Soviet troops have entered into Afghanistan, captured all key towns and frontier posts and have liquidated the government headed by Hafizullah Amin and have replaced it by a new pro-Soviet government headed by Babrak Karmal.

The USSR has justified its military action on the grounds that they are giving support to socialist forces in Afghanistan. And in India the two major pro-Soviet parties, the CPI, and the CPI(M) have endorsed the Soviet action.

Many militant workers today still regard the Soviet Union, which was the first land of socialism, the land of Lenin and Stalin, as a leading socialist country.

The foreign policy of a socialist country is conducted on the basis of the principle of proletarian internationalism and a fundamental element of this principle is the recognition of the right of nations to self-determination. J.V. Stalin pointed out that those who do not recognize this principle cannot not only be considered Marxist they cannot even be considered democrats. Marxism-Leninism subordinates the national question to the class question:

‘Proletarian Internationalism demands (i) subordination of the interests of the proletarian struggle in one country to the interests of the struggle on a world scale; (ii) that the nation which achieves victory over the bourgeoisie shall display the capacity and readiness to make the greatest national sacrifice in order to overthrow international reaction.’

(Communist International: ‘Theses on the National and Colonial Questions’, 28th July, 1920).

The Soviet Union in the time of Lenin and Stalin respected the right of nations to self-determination and only in particular instances where the higher class interests of the international proletariat were at stake were Soviet troops to be found outside the territory of the USSR. In this period the Red Army was regarded by the world working class as not only the army of the Russian Socialist Republic but also the Red Army of the Communist International.

When the Red Army entered into Polish territory in 1920 it did so after destroying the reactionary attack of the Polish bourgeoisie and landlords upon the Russian Socialist Republic. Lenin described Poland as the last bulwark of reaction against the Bolshevik revolution. The Red Army crossed the borders of Poland as a counter-offensive against the counter-revolutionary white forces. At that moment the world proletarian revolutionary upsurge was at its peak: The offensive of the Red Army was also designed to link up the Soviet proletariat with that of Poland and Germany. The alliance of Soviet Russia and a Soviet Germany would have decisively breached the world imperialist front. At that time the interests of the proletariat in any one nation was subordinate to this key question. This counter-offensive against Poland was launched keeping in view the revolutionary upsurge of the Polish proletariat to the rear of the reactionary Polish troops. This heroic action of the Red Army was a great sacrifice by the Soviet workers and peasants to assist the world revolutionary process.

One of the first acts of the Russian Revolution was the recognition of the secession of Finland from Russia. When the Soviet Union was involved in preventative war with Finland in 1939 that country had become a base for international reaction directed against the USSR at a time of impending world war. The USSR proposed the exchange of strategic territory belonging to Finland required to protect the city of Leningrad in return for double the territory to be ceded by the Soviet Union. The President of Finland recognised that the Soviet proposal did not affect the integrity of Finland. Soviet troops marched into Finland in November 1939 after Finnish military provocations had taken place backed by world reaction. In the peace terms signed in Moscow in March 1940 the USSR ceded all territory beyond the requirements of the security of Leningrad. The Soviet-Finnish war and the subsequent peace treaty proved to the world the strength of the Soviet Union and its determination to uphold the principle of self-determination of nations and peaceful coexistence. The crucial importance of this was clear to the world proletariat in that it sabotaged the attempt of Anglo-American imperialism to turn the tide of Nazi imperialism against the Soviet Union and so compelled Anglo-American capital to form an alliance with the Soviet Union against Germany. During the course of the Anti-Fascist War the Soviet Army in alliance with the working class and democratic forces of these countries liberated many of the Eastern European states, North Korea and Northern China. Clearly the entry of Soviet troops into those countries was necessitated by the requirements of smashing the states linked with and subjected to German and Japanese imperialism and fascism. The territories liberated during the course of the antifascist war were handed over to the local democratic authorities upon the withdrawal of Soviet troops. In these instances, too, the USSR in the time of Stalin acted in such a fashion that the fundamental national right to self-determination was not violated.

Each of these instances reveals that, in the time of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Soviet Union, the Soviet Army entered into foreign territory when an offensive had been launched against the Soviet Union by the ruling classes of particular states, at a time when such states had became the focal base for the world capitalist offensive directed against the Soviet Union and when thus the reactionary ruling classes of a particular state had become the enemy of not just one national section of the world proletariat but an enemy of the world proletariat as a whole.

Even if it is supposed that the Soviet Union today is a socialist state it is not possible to justify the military intervention by the Soviet Union in Afghanistan; for the Hafizullah Amin government could not be considered as a bulwark of world imperialism which is being utilized as a base for launching war upon the ‘socialist’ Soviet Union. Indeed the USSR itself recognised the government of Hafizullah Amin as a democratic government and only after overthrowing it declared it to be an agency of imperialism. Such is the eclectic logic of Soviet revisionism designed to serve the pragmatist interests of Soviet neo-imperialism.

It is the bounden duty of the international proletariat and the socialist camp to render assistance to the revolutionary democratic forces in the colonial, semi-colonial and dependent countries. But this fraternal assistance should never be rendered in such a manner so as to violate the rights of self-determination of the nation thus assisted. During the course of the great national-revolutionary war of the Spanish people 1936-39 the Spanish government and people called for international fraternal assistance from the world working class and the democratic forces in their struggle against the fascist armed forces headed by Franco and backed by Hitler and Mussolini. In response to this call the Communist International formed the International Brigades and the Soviet Union rendered military assistance to the Spanish Republic. All volunteers were placed under the command of the General Staff of the Spanish democratic government. This reveals in a clear manner the principled approach of the world proletarian forces in not violating the sovereignty of the Spanish democratic state.

Has the Soviet Army intervened in Afghanistan in such a manner as to respect the right of the nationalities of Afghanistan to self-determination and the sovereign rights of the Afghan state? In reality the Soviet military forces overthrew the government of Hafizullah Amin which it had only recently regarded as representing the democratic forces of Afghanistan and instated the puppet Babrak Karmal government to state power. In acting in this fashion the Soviet Union of Brezhnev has violated the national sovereignty of Afghanistan. Subsequently, the Soviet Union has sought to legitimize its military occupation by arguing that it was rendering assistance to the socialist forces represented by the Babrak Karmal government. In its entire action in Afghanistan the government of the Soviet Union has not acted in the manner of the Communist International and the Soviet Union of the time of Stalin as exemplified in the case of the Spanish democratic revolution which would have required the ‘International communist movement’ and the Soviet Union to call for international assistance to the national-revolutionary forces in Afghanistan: assistance which would have been placed at the disposal of the government of Afghanistan and so respecting the sovereign right of the Afghanistan state. A cardinal principle of a socialist state is the recognition of the right of nations to self-determination. By consistently violating this principle the Soviet Union since the death of Stalin has forfeited the right to call itself the land of socialism.

The most clear expression of the violation of the Leninist-Stalinist understanding of the right of nations to self-determination by the Soviet Union subsequent to the death of Stalin was the invasion of Czechoslovakia by the Warsaw Pact states in 1968. At that time, too, the modern revisionists justified this aggressive act as being necessitated by the requirement of preserving ‘socialism’ in Czechoslovakia which was endangered by the pro-imperialist machinations of the Dubcek clique. Of the forces of modern Indian revisionism the CPI(M) stood in the van of those who defended the alleged right of the ‘socialist’ Soviet Union to militarily intervene in Czechoslovakia, This was, of course, in opposition to the principles and practices of Leninism-Stalinism. It need only be recalled that in 1948 when the Yugoslavian revisionists headed by the Tito-Rankovich clique revealed themselves as social-fascist agencies of US imperialism and when this clique tortured and killed 80,000 Communists and workers in the concentration camp of Goli Otok, the Cominform and the Soviet Union headed by J.V. Stalin did not react by sending the troops of the Soviet Union to restore people’s democracy in Yugoslavia but rendered political assistance to the Yugoslav Communists with the end objective of exposing to the working class and working people of Yugoslavia and the world proletariat the social-fascist policies of the government of Yugoslavia. In essence modern revisionism seeks to build and defend ‘socialism’ on the point of ‘Soviet’ bayonets and not on the basis of raising the consciousness of the working class to its historical destiny.

The workers of the world have to face the painful reality that socialism exists no longer in the Soviet Union after the temporary defeat of the Marxist-Leninist forces headed by J.V. Stalin and the replacement of the dictatorship of the proletariat by the dictatorship of the new bureaucrat state capitalists. Today the neo-imperialist Soviet Union speculates on the socialist past and pursues its imperialist design of bringing the national democratic revolutions in the colonial, semi-colonial and dependent countries into the sphere of Soviet neo-imperialism through its ‘socialist aid’. The tragic events in Afghanistan can only be seen in this perspective. The exposure and defeat of Soviet revisionism and neo-imperialism and its allies is of prime importance to the world working class and democrat forces. The working class and democratic forces in Afghanistan as elsewhere in the colonial type countries during the course of the revolutionary democratic process will have to fight on two fronts against both the two major imperialist blocs headed by the Soviet Union and US imperialism.

Long Live the Struggle of Afghan People for National Self-Determination!

Long Live the Struggles of the World Working Class and Working People Against Imperialism and Social Imperialism!

Long Live Proletarian Internationalism!

Revolutionary Workers’ Co-ordination Committee

[Capitalist Imperial]

I loved failed Soviet war in Afghanistan, it was the beginning of the end for the Soviet Pukes!!! We were happy to pay-back the Reds for Vietnam by helping the Mujahadeen! After the USSR withdrew. the imminent downfall of history's worst empire had started!


A Mujahadeen field officer was quoted as saying:

"We only need two things to defeat the Soviets, The hand of God, and more Stingers."

That rules!

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 07:21 PM
Ha!!!!!!! This proves that you people aren't true communists!
Yeah, because the opinion of one person must representative of everyone else on the entire forum.

[Comrade Hector]

To Robert Edward Lee: The statement about me saying "Capitalist pro-US garbage" is directed at Reaganites and Bushites like that Capitalist Imperial asshole. I don't mean just any American. Just for the record I am American, and I also collect Soviet and East Bloc badges, uniforms, and medals.

To Capitalist Imperial: I'm surprised at your stupid ass! You gloat at the US helping those fanatics against the Soviet Army, but yet on September 11th 2001 people like you were calling your beloved "Freedom Fighters" who committed the atrocity "terrorist" ", and saying "Bush, kill the motherfuckers". Afghanistan was a winable for the Soviets, it was Gorbachev who betrayed the Afghan workers and the Soviet effort. The US was merely a minor nuisance. It was Gorbachev's betrayal to please the western imperialists which resulted in the great USSR falling apart. Sadly this enabled the true evil empire: the USA and NATO the ability to march all over the globe. Let me simplify Vietnam and Afghanistan for you, asshole:

Vietnam -The US military with all of its might and technological superiority suffered a defeat by a guerilla army formed of merely Vietnamese workers and farmers. History has shown that if the workers peasants are mobilized any imperialist and their puppets can be crushed.

Afghanistan -A popular Revolution in 1978 forms a workers state. Mujahideen reactionaries come back and fight the Afghan Army and irregulars. The Afghans call for Soviet assistance. When a Mujahideen defeat was underway, Gorbachev decides to make Reagan happy and calls a withdrawal.

What an unbelievably stupid idiot!

[Comrade Hector]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 07:21 PM
Ha!!!!!!! This proves that you people aren't true communists! Indeed, Comrade Hector is the kind of person that hates anything American. Even siding with the Soviet Union to attack the U.S. It's ridiculous. And you wonder why people don't take American Communists seriously. Another tragic case of rebeling against your parents gone wrong! Oh well, at least there are some here that condemn it.
What the hell are you talking about? I don't hate everything American. I don't hate Americans, after all I am American. I don't use phrases like "American imperialism", "American aggression", "American domination", etc. I use "US imperialism", "US aggression", "US domination", etc. American=nationality, US=political. The Soviet Union attacking the United States? Thats a laugh! Where would the mobilization of the working class be in such an attack? There would be none. So there was never any threat of a Soviet attack on the US, except for the Cuban missile crisis. But that was for the purpose of defending Cuba from a US attack which the Kennedys were planning. The USSR prevented this attack. You watch to much Red Dawn!

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 07:21 PM
Ha!!!!!!! This proves that you people aren't true communists! Indeed, Comrade Hector is the kind of person that hates anything American. Even siding with the Soviet Union to attack the U.S. It's ridiculous. And you wonder why people don't take American Communists seriously. Another tragic case of rebeling against your parents gone wrong! Oh well, at least there are some here that condemn it.
It should be clear that the USSR wasn't Communistic. The Party Leaders betrayed the principles of Communism just like the racist and facist Presidents of the US do and did with the constitution.

Furthermore real Communists do not hate everything American, they hate Capitalism. The United States of America is (unfortunatly) the leading Capitalist force and therefor a lot of critique and hate caused by Capitalism is aimed at the USA. The American laborer is just as wel proletariat and exploited as South African comrades.

Furthermore the "average Joe's" knowledge on Communism doesn't stretch further then a list of negative words; authoritian, anti-freedom, murder etc. and isn't capable of judging Communism let stand understanding the American Communists.

But I have to admit, I would have to get extremely desperate before collaborating with the US. The USSR isn't a favorite of me either.

As an Afgan citizen I would have rather seen that the USSR hadn't invaded Afganistan, even when they knew that the US was supplying mujahideen (even before the USSR invaded). And after the invasion it would have been better that the US had stopped supplying the future Al'Qaida, but what can you expect from a moralless Imperialist?

[Y2A]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Apr 5 2004, 07:23 PM
It should be clear that the USSR wasn't Communistic. The Party Leaders betrayed the principles of Communism just like the racist and facist Presidents of the US do and did with the constitution.
Indeed, so by stating this you prove my point that after revolution a Marxist-Leninist state is inevitible.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Indeed, so by stating this you prove my point that after revolution a Marxist-Leninist state is inevitible.




Of course it is. According to Marx himself, a post revolution socialist state will remain in power until the time that the transition to communism is possible.



It should be clear that the USSR wasn't Communistic. The Party Leaders betrayed the principles of Communism just like the racist and facist Presidents of the US do and did with the constitution.


Agreed, post 1953 the party in the USSR was unlike anything Marx would consider
communist.

[elijahcraig]

Maybe the Soviet Union helped to protect their own workers rights too. It doesn't matter what additional positive motivation the Soviet Union might have had, they clearly had enough positive motivation. If the only positive thing the Red Army brought to Afghanistan was women's rights to be regarded as human beings and not slaves, and the mujahadeen brought the opposite, then that is enough of a reason to support the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan.

I support on intervention by any Capitalist power—EVER.

When the USSR invaded, they had no longer any strand of socialism in their country (maybe a little), and they were functioning as any other state—out to broaden power and destroy the working class.


If anything, the USSR was equally as Imperialistic as the States during the Cold War. It's economic 'empire' stretched to places such as Cuba and it simply invaded anyone who was small and wanted a bit of independence - read Czechoslovakia. Basically the same as the US then.

The USSR had nowhere near the power the US had in the world. But they were most definitely Imperialistic in the same respect.


Afghanistan -A popular Revolution in 1978 forms a workers state. Mujahideen reactionaries come back and fight the Afghan Army and irregulars. The Afghans call for Soviet assistance. When a Mujahideen defeat was underway, Gorbachev decides to make Reagan happy and calls a withdrawal.

The so-called “formation of a workers state” NEVER occurred. Even to assert that they EVER had the ability to do so amidst the two powers and their inside gang marauders killing and terrorizing, is idiotic. The Afghans never called for Soviet assistance.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 5 2004, 06:41 PM

To Capitalist Imperial: I'm surprised at your stupid ass! You gloat at the US helping those fanatics against the Soviet Army, but yet on September 11th 2001 people like you were calling your beloved "Freedom Fighters" who committed the atrocity "terrorist" ", and saying "Bush, kill the motherfuckers". Afghanistan was a winable for the Soviets, it was Gorbachev who betrayed the Afghan workers and the Soviet effort. The US was merely a minor nuisance. It was Gorbachev's betrayal to please the western imperialists which resulted in the great USSR falling apart. Sadly this enabled the true evil empire: the USA and NATO the ability to march all over the globe. Let me simplify Vietnam and Afghanistan for you, asshole:

Vietnam -The US military with all of its might and technological superiority suffered a defeat by a guerilla army formed of merely Vietnamese workers and farmers. History has shown that if the workers peasants are mobilized any imperialist and their puppets can be crushed.

Afghanistan -A popular Revolution in 1978 forms a workers state. Mujahideen reactionaries come back and fight the Afghan Army and irregulars. The Afghans call for Soviet assistance. When a Mujahideen defeat was underway, Gorbachev decides to make Reagan happy and calls a withdrawal.

What an unbelievably stupid idiot!
Talk about stupid, I can't believe that you just tried to convince me that somehow the Soviets did better in Afghanistan that the US did in vietnam.

Talk about a freaking imbecile, you are pretty much delusional, lets look at the facts:


Vietnam -The US military with all of its might and technological superiority suffered a defeat by a guerilla army formed of merely Vietnamese workers and farmers. History has shown that if the workers peasants are mobilized any imperialist and their puppets can be crushed.

TRUTH: How nice of you to leave out that besides the guerilla army, the US also fought the large and well seasoned NVA, which was battle-hardened, experienced, and armed with the best soviet equipment, including soviet Mig 15's (and we know there were some soviet pilots in those planes), AK-47's, T-series tanks, Artillery, AAA, and soviet SAMS. There were 3 concentric circles of SAMs around Hanoi, It was the most heavliy defended city against the air in the 20th centrury. When did the muhahadeen ever have anything close to defenses or weapons like this? The vitnamese were much larger, better organized, and better armed than the mujahadeen. They were basically a soviet-ized military, not a 3rd-word guerilla force. Still, most battles were actually US victories, 1000's of tons of bombs were dropped on target, and even against the better mig-15 the american f-86 pilots enjoyed a better kill ratio. The US lost in vietnam due to poilitical reasons, not military defeat. Quite frankly, US forces won the vast majority of battles in vietnam, kill ratio and attrtion figures will attest to this.



Afghanistan -A popular Revolution in 1978 forms a workers state. Mujahideen reactionaries come back and fight the Afghan Army and irregulars. The Afghans call for Soviet assistance. When a Mujahideen defeat was underway, Gorbachev decides to make Reagan happy and calls a withdrawal.

TRUTH: The world's largest land force, even with afghan army help, is defeated by a true rag-tag band of freedom fighters, not even an organized army, with very little US help. We didn't even give them tanks, artillery, aircraft, or SAMS, all of which the soviets gave the vietnamese. We just gave them a few shoulder--launched missles and some advisors. Still, the soviets were defeated.

After vietnam, America was pretty much fine as far as its military, political structure, and economy went. Besides a little social upheaval that eventually waned, America wasstronger than ever.

As far as the USSR goes, most historians will agree that afghanistan was the beginning of the end of the empire.

How can you compare the two wars, Comrade Hector? The facts show that the USA obviously fared better in the long run! You are so unbelievably stupid and blind that it is sad. Perhaps you should work on collecting more history books than badges and uniforms from a defeated regime.

[AC-Socialist]

Originally posted by Capitalist Imperial+Apr 6 2004, 12:10 AM--> (Capitalist Imperial @ Apr 6 2004, 12:10 AM)
Comrade [email protected] 5 2004, 06:41 PM

To Capitalist Imperial: I'm surprised at your stupid ass! You gloat at the US helping those fanatics against the Soviet Army, but yet on September 11th 2001 people like you were calling your beloved "Freedom Fighters" who committed the atrocity "terrorist" ", and saying "Bush, kill the motherfuckers". Afghanistan was a winable for the Soviets, it was Gorbachev who betrayed the Afghan workers and the Soviet effort. The US was merely a minor nuisance. It was Gorbachev's betrayal to please the western imperialists which resulted in the great USSR falling apart. Sadly this enabled the true evil empire: the USA and NATO the ability to march all over the globe. Let me simplify Vietnam and Afghanistan for you, asshole:

Vietnam -The US military with all of its might and technological superiority suffered a defeat by a guerilla army formed of merely Vietnamese workers and farmers. History has shown that if the workers peasants are mobilized any imperialist and their puppets can be crushed.

Afghanistan -A popular Revolution in 1978 forms a workers state. Mujahideen reactionaries come back and fight the Afghan Army and irregulars. The Afghans call for Soviet assistance. When a Mujahideen defeat was underway, Gorbachev decides to make Reagan happy and calls a withdrawal.

What an unbelievably stupid idiot!
Talk about stupid, I can't believe that you just tried to convince me that somehow the Soviets did better in Afghanistan that the US did in vietnam.

Talk about a freaking imbecile, you are pretty much delusional, lets look at the facts:


Vietnam -The US military with all of its might and technological superiority suffered a defeat by a guerilla army formed of merely Vietnamese workers and farmers. History has shown that if the workers peasants are mobilized any imperialist and their puppets can be crushed.

TRUTH: How nice of you to leave out that besides the guerilla army, the US also fought the large and well seasoned NVA, which was battle-hardened, experienced, and armed with the best soviet equipment, including soviet Mig 15's (and we know there were some soviet pilots in those planes), AK-47's, T-series tanks, Artillery, AAA, and soviet SAMS. There were 3 concentric circles of SAMs around Hanoi, It was the most heavliy defended city against the air in the 20th centrury. When did the muhahadeen ever have anything close to defenses or weapons like this? The vitnamese were much larger, better organized, and better armed than the mujahadeen. They were basically a soviet-ized military, not a 3rd-word guerilla force. Still, most battles were actually US victories, 1000's of tons of bombs were dropped on target, and even against the better mig-15 the american f-86 pilots enjoyed a better kill ratio. The US lost in vietnam due to poilitical reasons, not military defeat. Quite frankly, US forces won the vast majority of battles in vietnam, kill ratio and attrtion figures will attest to this.



Afghanistan -A popular Revolution in 1978 forms a workers state. Mujahideen reactionaries come back and fight the Afghan Army and irregulars. The Afghans call for Soviet assistance. When a Mujahideen defeat was underway, Gorbachev decides to make Reagan happy and calls a withdrawal.

TRUTH: The world's largest land force, even with afghan army help, is defeated by a true rag-tag band of freedom fighters, not even an organized army, with very little US help. We didn't even give them tanks, artillery, aircraft, or SAMS, all of which the soviets gave the vietnamese. We just gave them a few shoulder--launched missles and some advisors. Still, the soviets were defeated.

After vietnam, America was pretty much fine as far as its military, political structure, and economy went. Besides a little social upheaval that eventually waned, America wasstronger than ever.

As far as the USSR goes, most historians will agree that afghanistan was the beginning of the end of the empire.

How can you compare the two wars, Comrade Hector? The facts show that the USA obviously fared better in the long run! You are so unbelievably stupid and blind that it is sad. Perhaps you should work on collecting more history books than badges and uniforms from a defeated regime. [/b]
WHY ARE YOU BACK!!!

[Comrade Hector]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 6 2004, 12:10 AM

Talk about stupid, I can't believe that you just tried to convince me that somehow the Soviets did better in Afghanistan that the US did in vietnam.

Talk about a freaking imbecile, you are pretty much delusional, lets look at the facts:


Vietnam -The US military with all of its might and technological superiority suffered a defeat by a guerilla army formed of merely Vietnamese workers and farmers. History has shown that if the workers peasants are mobilized any imperialist and their puppets can be crushed.

TRUTH: How nice of you to leave out that besides the guerilla army, the US also fought the large and well seasoned NVA, which was battle-hardened, experienced, and armed with the best soviet equipment, including soviet Mig 15's (and we know there were some soviet pilots in those planes), AK-47's, T-series tanks, Artillery, AAA, and soviet SAMS. There were 3 concentric circles of SAMs around Hanoi, It was the most heavliy defended city against the air in the 20th centrury. When did the muhahadeen ever have anything close to defenses or weapons like this? The vitnamese were much larger, better organized, and better armed than the mujahadeen. They were basically a soviet-ized military, not a 3rd-word guerilla force. Still, most battles were actually US victories, 1000's of tons of bombs were dropped on target, and even against the better mig-15 the american f-86 pilots enjoyed a better kill ratio. The US lost in vietnam due to poilitical reasons, not military defeat. Quite frankly, US forces won the vast majority of battles in vietnam, kill ratio and attrtion figures will attest to this.



Afghanistan -A popular Revolution in 1978 forms a workers state. Mujahideen reactionaries come back and fight the Afghan Army and irregulars. The Afghans call for Soviet assistance. When a Mujahideen defeat was underway, Gorbachev decides to make Reagan happy and calls a withdrawal.

TRUTH: The world's largest land force, even with afghan army help, is defeated by a true rag-tag band of freedom fighters, not even an organized army, with very little US help. We didn't even give them tanks, artillery, aircraft, or SAMS, all of which the soviets gave the vietnamese. We just gave them a few shoulder--launched missles and some advisors. Still, the soviets were defeated.

After vietnam, America was pretty much fine as far as its military, political structure, and economy went. Besides a little social upheaval that eventually waned, America wasstronger than ever.

As far as the USSR goes, most historians will agree that afghanistan was the beginning of the end of the empire.

How can you compare the two wars, Comrade Hector? The facts show that the USA obviously fared better in the long run! You are so unbelievably stupid and blind that it is sad. Perhaps you should work on collecting more history books than badges and uniforms from a defeated regime.
Capitalist Imperial: That was more of a brain squeezer I gave you, as I know morons such as yourself usually will go with your idiotic American patriotic ego.

"US lost in Vietnam for political reasons, not military defeat"

What a load crap! This is just more Republican chauvinism to hide the fact that the USA was defeated by an army made up but of mere workers and farmers. The US military could not cope with such a force, despite the kill rates against the NVA and VC forces. Both regular and irregular were effective with their guerilla tactics, as most of the was was fought on land. The Vietnamese's use of their land (such as the underground tunnels) put a heavy weight on the shoulders of the US forces, which in the end was a success. Towards the end of the US occupation many of the American soldiers became insubbordinant, many refused to go on fighting, and some even defected to the Viet Cong. The was not much disipline left in the US soldiers, they were demoralized. Once an army in demoralized they are defeated. Its not about ratio, moron. There's also the spiritual side. The spirits of US soldiers in Vietnam were broken in the end. As for as the "political reasons" go, it is just a cop out excuse to make it look like the US was achieving victory and the US leaders called it off because of the hippies and draft dodgers. The US leaders even saw the broken spirits of the US soldiers, and the high morality of the Vietnamese people fighting the US. They knew in the end that the Vietnamese had high spirits and believed in what they were fighting for, and were not going to lay down their arms until the USA left. After all why wouldn't they have high spirits, they defeated two other imperialist armies (France and Japan). This is why the USA lost the war. They were defeated at the hand of the Vietnamese people.

The Mujahideen did in fact have artillery, RPGs, rockets, mortars, heavy machine guns, and small arms. The CIA organized and financed the supply of Soviet made weapons to the Mujahideen. They put together a coalition of arms dealers from Egypt, China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and even Israel to arm and train the Mujahideen. The USA saw it to be more useful for the Mujahideen fanatics to be supplied with Warsaw Pact made weaponry, hence weapons that can be found on the battlefield. The only US made weapon supplied to the Mujahideen was the stinger. On the contrary the USA poured billions of dollars in to the Mujahideen. So I'd say that was more than just a little help. The Soviet Union was not defeat by the Mujahideen, the reformist Kremlin leaders called for a withdrawal in a time when the Mujahideen was on the edge of being defeated. I mean think about it, idiot: how would it go well with Glasnost and Perestroika if the Soviet and Afghan forces smashed the Mujahideen? Another Socialist state would have been created, and that would have been very bad for Gorbachev's goal. Reagan and Bush would have regected his peaceful co-existence principles. It was this betrayal that caused the demoralization amonst the Soviet army. Answer me one thing: Aren't these "rag-tag band of freedom fighters" the same ones who plunged two passenger planes into the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001? CIA tactics are really deadly I must say.

So yes I can honestly say that the USSR was better off in Afghanistan than the USA in Vietnam. Your idiocy is unbelievable saying that the USA helped the cut-throats only a little. But it is understandable why your dumbass would say that. Before September 11th, 2001 you would've been gloating about the USA helped "defeat the Soviets". Any history book about this subject will tell you how the CIA financed the Mujahideen. Even as an American I'll never know what makes Republicans so stupid and ignorant. Perhaps you should do some research beyond the "official" sources. But dumbfuck Reaganites only believe what their alzheimer infected idol tell them.

Unbelievable!

[Capitalist Imperial]

Comrade Hector, you are more full of crap than a manure truck!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not going to waste aany more time arguing with a stupidass like you. All that realy matters is that the USSR was defeated, and it was, in the long run, the USA that defeated them.

[Robert Edward Lee]

Ok chaps, let's try and stream this into basic facts.

The US lost around 70,000 men dead in Vietnam, the NVA and associates somewhere around the 1,000,000 mark.

Using those figres it would appear the US won militarily,

BUT

It is completely fair to say that the US was not prepared for the method employed by the Viet Cong and their sheer determination to fight on. Despite casualty rates over 10:1 in their favour, the US could not break a force that was determined to fight on to the end.

This determination, went hand in hand with the political situation. After the Tet Offensive, the (US) military and Government realised that the North Vietnamese were willing to suffer horrific casualties for their cause. At the same time, families across middle-America were realising that their sons, brothers, husbands and fathers weren't writing home anymore. Ths combination of war-weariness at home and the dogged-determination of the Viet Cong is what lost the war for the US.

I don't believe that anyone should castigate the American military for it's performance. It was directed by an administration that said the fight should be short and sharp. In purely military terms it did it's job: Inflicting massive casualities for a relatively low return. Of course, in modern warfare the battlefield is not the only place where the fight occurs.

[Capitalist Imperial]

One more thing,


Throughout the entire Vietnam war, US forces were fighting with one hand tied behind their back. The planners in Washington were still sold on the concept of a "limited war"... a stupid idea.

Still, Comrade Hector, the USA was winning on the battlefield, that is a fact. Look at the tet-offensive. As much of a symbol of VC guerilla tactics as it was, it was still a huge defeat for the vietcong.

US forces were not permitted to go North and hit Hanoi or anywhere else where all of the strategic targets were. Even in the south, US forces were often diverted from legitimate targets on purpose, and made to bomb known decoys and useless targets. By the time that the US was given more flexibility to go north, and take a true battle to vietnam, it was too little too late. Popular opinion was so strong against the war that a withdrawl was imminent. The Noth knew that they could not beat the US military, and they didn't. They just caused enough attrition on both sides to shift popular opinion at home, which is the best way to defeat a western powerhouse like the USA.

Again, the US withdrew from vietnam due to popular opinion at home, not defeat on the battlefield.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Robert Edward [email protected] 6 2004, 10:54 PM
Ok chaps, let's try and stream this into basic facts.

The US lost around 70,000 men dead in Vietnam, the NVA and associates somewhere around the 1,000,000 mark.

Using those figres it would appear the US won militarily,

BUT

It is completely fair to say that the US was not prepared for the method employed by the Viet Cong and their sheer determination to fight on. Despite casualty rates over 10:1 in their favour, the US could not break a force that was determined to fight on to the end.

This determination, went hand in hand with the political situation. After the Tet Offensive, the (US) military and Government realised that the North Vietnamese were willing to suffer horrific casualties for their cause. At the same time, families across middle-America were realising that their sons, brothers, husbands and fathers weren't writing home anymore. Ths combination of war-weariness at home and the dogged-determination of the Viet Cong is what lost the war for the US.

I don't believe that anyone should castigate the American military for it's performance. It was directed by an administration that said the fight should be short and sharp. In purely military terms it did it's job: Inflicting massive casualities for a relatively low return. Of course, in modern warfare the battlefield is not the only place where the fight occurs.
I think that this is a very fair and accurate assessment. The vietnamese were very steadfast regardless of attrition rates, and that was a big demoralizer for US forces, agreed.

[Osman Ghazi]

CI dumb sack , you could have invaded North Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, hell even Thailand if you felt like it but you still couldn't have broken the National Liberation Army's spirit. You just can't understand that people would be willing to die to help other people instead of themselves. That is why you and all your ilk are doomed in the long run. That and your mother is a whore.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 7 2004, 12:02 AM
CI dumb sack , you could have invaded North Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, hell even Thailand if you felt like it but you still couldn't have broken the National Liberation Army's spirit. You just can't understand that people would be willing to die to help other people instead of themselves. That is why you and all your ilk are doomed in the long run. That and your mother is a whore.
This is a common perception among those who attempt to analyze the Vietnam war. I find it very presumptuous and without much merit.

The national Liberation Army would have eventually capitulated had Washington really allowed US forces to bring it to them from the get-go. It is easy to resist when the majority your hard assets, supplies, and headquarters are deemed off-limits by your own enemy. Resistance would not have been so steadfast had we decimated Hanoi and taken control of supply lines and key choke-points early in the game.

Last I looked, in the long run i think it is your type that are doomed.

That and your mother/sister is a tramp.

[Osman Ghazi]

Maybe you are unaware of this, but the NLA beat the Americans and guerilla armies, last time I checked, didn't have 'hard assets'. They have AKs and black pajamas.

[bunk]

if you're talking about vietnam there were two vietnamese armies:
NLF (the guerrillas)
NVA ( the professional army)
it was national liberation force not army?

[Osman Ghazi]

The National Liberation Front was the 'VC' political organization. The NLA was their army.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 7 2004, 03:14 AM
Maybe you are unaware of this, but the NLA beat the Americans and guerilla armies, last time I checked, didn't have 'hard assets'. They have AKs and black pajamas.
I agree, but I was referring to the NVA, and again, the US did not pull out of 'Nam because of VC guerillas. We pulled out due to overwhelming political pressure at home.

We left vietnam littered with dead VC.

Kill ratios (even by conservative estimates) support my position 100%

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 7 2004, 03:14 AM
Maybe you are unaware of this, but the NLA beat the Americans and guerilla armies, last time I checked, didn't have 'hard assets'. They have AKs and black pajamas.
I agree, but I was referring to the NVA, and again, the US did not pull out of 'Nam because of VC guerillas. We pulled out due to overwhelming political pressure at home.

We left vietnam littered with dead VC.

Kill ratios (even by conservative estimates) support my position 100%

[Osman Ghazi]

Agreed, but the NVA didn't really do much fighting against the Americans. They did some minor defensive movements and also defended the Ho Chi Minh trail, but it was the NLA that inflicted the casualties that caused the U$ army's political defeat. The leaders of the NLA knew all the time that the power of the U$'s military-industrial machine was powerless against a pile of bodybags. So, their strategy was simply to kill enough of them to make the rest go home. So in the sense that their strategy worked, the NLA beat the U$.

[Capitalist Imperial]

You are correct in that sense, however, keep in mind that this strategy is predicated on, and only works with, an unpopular war. If a war has strong support at home, casualties will not be as much of a factor.

Case in point: Dead US soldiers were a big factor in 'Nam, but in WWII, when so much was at stake, Amercans were willing to continue sacrificing.

Even today with the liberation of Iraq, we get casualty counts daily. Despite this, the war still has majority support at home.

This still supports my assertion that it is political considerations that took the US out of Vietnam, not battlefield defeats. Yes, US soldiers died, almost 60,000 of them did, but this was a small amount compared to the number of NVA and VC insurgents that died. The tactical confrontations at the battlefield level usually were won by US forces, the problewm was that such victories were over land and against targets that really didn't matter much. Thus, we had all of this sacrifice of life, but nothing to really show for it.

Muy only point is that, military-to-military, vietnam did not defeat the US on the battlefield.

However, Vietnam did defeat the US by causing enough casualties without a return (and the without a return part is key, especially for Americans) for the populace back home to put pressure on the government for a withdrawl.

[Comrade Hector]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 6 2004, 10:21 PM
Comrade Hector, you are more full of crap than a manure truck!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not going to waste aany more time arguing with a stupidass like you. All that realy matters is that the USSR was defeated, and it was, in the long run, the USA that defeated them.
Just the answer I was waiting for. This is the reaction I get when throw the fact that the Afghan "freedom fighters" were the ones who plunged the two planes into the world trade center on September 11, 2001 into the faces of Republicans. After almost three years of doing this, I've never gotten a straight forward answer. CI, this is a left wing forum. With all that shit in your head why don't you go to a Republican website and stink up their forum with your ignorance.


I think that this is a very fair and accurate assessment. The vietnamese were very steadfast regardless of attrition rates, and that was a big demoralizer for US forces, agreed.

HOORAY!!!!

[flayer2]

Found this article though

Hillary Praises Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan...


"The Soviets tried to provide more opportunities for women," Clinton told the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, in a speech billed by her office as "her first major foreign policy address as a U.S. senator."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/12/16/111856.shtml

What a two faced *****. She supported the 1991 war to oust Iraq from Kuwait. So much for her concern for kuwaiti women..

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Comrade Hector+Apr 7 2004, 08:46 PM--> (Comrade Hector @ Apr 7 2004, 08:46 PM)
Capitalist [email protected] 6 2004, 10:21 PM
Comrade Hector, you are more full of crap than a manure truck!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not going to waste aany more time arguing with a stupidass like you. All that realy matters is that the USSR was defeated, and it was, in the long run, the USA that defeated them.
Just the answer I was waiting for. This is the reaction I get when throw the fact that the Afghan "freedom fighters" were the ones who plunged the two planes into the world trade center on September 11, 2001 into the faces of Republicans. After almost three years of doing this, I've never gotten a straight forward answer. CI, this is a left wing forum. With all that shit in your head why don't you go to a Republican website and stink up their forum with your ignorance.


I think that this is a very fair and accurate assessment. The vietnamese were very steadfast regardless of attrition rates, and that was a big demoralizer for US forces, agreed.

HOORAY!!!! [/b]
There is no straight answer bcause you question is flawed!!! The Mujahadeen freedom fighters and Al-Queda are not the same thing!!! of course there are similarities, they are both islamic fundamentalist cells, and yes OBL was trained by the CIA, but so what? alliances change over 20 years, what is your point? THE CIA DIDN'T GIVE THEM FLIGHT TRAINING, OR SUGGEST THAT THE FLY PLANES INTO THE WTC!!!

[LuZhiming]

The US lost around 70,000 men dead in Vietnam

Not even close, maybe 58,000.


the NVA and associates somewhere around the 1,000,000 mark.

That's bullshit. The majority of the casualties in that period of U.S. aggression were peasents. Even if you counted all of the "suspected insurgents," who the U.S. murderd, you couldn't find a casualty anywhere near 1,000,000. I am not saying that any side won the war, I could care less about that, but I have issue with this nonsensical claim.

[flayer2]

The soviets made a big mistake invading Afghanistan. They were gaining the upper hand after the uS blunder in vietnam. The much needed salt2 nuclear treaty, detente , along with the growing disarmement movement in the western countries was all to their advantage. The Afghan war turned everything around.

I found this . Its supposed to be documents from the Soviet Archives leading up to the Afghan war.

http://wwics.si.edu/index.cfm?topic_id=140....document&id=39 (http://wwics.si.edu/index.cfm?topic_id=1409&fuseaction=library.document&id=39)

It gives a pretty good idea as to why the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 07:19 AM
The soviets made a big mistake invading Afghanistan. They were gaining the upper hand after the uS blunder in vietnam. The much needed salt2 nuclear treaty, detente , along with the growing disarmement movement in the western countries was all to their advantage. The Afghan war turned everything around.

I found this . Its supposed to be documents from the Soviet Archives leading up to the Afghan war.

http://wwics.si.edu/index.cfm?topic_id=140....document&id=39 (http://wwics.si.edu/index.cfm?topic_id=1409&fuseaction=library.document&id=39)

It gives a pretty good idea as to why the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.
Vietnam didn't really weaken the US that much from a military, economic, or political standpoint, especially by the time the Soviets invaded.

I wouldn't really say that they were decisively gaining an "upper hand" either. When 2 opposing nations each have enough nukes to destroy the earth 20 times over, all you can ever really have is absolute parity, "and the "upper hand" concept does not exist.

[Comrade Hector]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 07:19 AM
The soviets made a big mistake invading Afghanistan. They were gaining the upper hand after the uS blunder in vietnam. The much needed salt2 nuclear treaty, detente , along with the growing disarmement movement in the western countries was all to their advantage. The Afghan war turned everything around.

I found this . Its supposed to be documents from the Soviet Archives leading up to the Afghan war.

http://wwics.si.edu/index.cfm?topic_id=140....document&id=39 (http://wwics.si.edu/index.cfm?topic_id=1409&fuseaction=library.document&id=39)

It gives a pretty good idea as to why the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.
I really wouldn't say that the SALT II treaty was to the advantage of the USSR. Nor was the disarmament movements in the West at the time. Speaking from a Communist perspective the occupation of Afghanistan was a progressive move by the Soviet leaders in an anti-imperialist struggle against reactionary cut-throats. The SALT II treaty demanded that both superpowers reduce arms, and detente are both a struggle towards peaceful co-existence, which in the end turned out to be quite fateful for the USSR. What follows for a Socialist nation when its leadership abandons international workers struggle and moves for peaceful co-existance with an imperialist power or powers is capitulation, reform, and eventually collapse. You are correct about the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan turning around detente and the SALT II treaty. This was continued progression in aiding and defending Revolutionary gains of the Saur Revolution of 1978 against imperialism, which was strangled when Gorbachev took power and pursued peaceful co-existance.


There is no straight answer bcause you question is flawed!!! The Mujahadeen freedom fighters and Al-Queda are not the same thing!!! of course there are similarities, they are both islamic fundamentalist cells, and yes OBL was trained by the CIA, but so what? alliances change over 20 years, what is your point? THE CIA DIDN'T GIVE THEM FLIGHT TRAINING, OR SUGGEST THAT THE FLY PLANES INTO THE WTC!!!

Republicans can't give a straight answer because the don't want to admit that they were blinded, and stupid for supporting the "freedom fighters". The Mujahideen, the Taliban, and al-Qaeda are all the same "freedom fighters." From the Mujahideen came Osama Bin Laden who after the Soviet withdrawal established al-Qaeda from the soldiers who served under him in Afghanistan, the others created the Taliban. All advocate islamic extremism, jihad, hatred of women, and the plundering of all their opponents, even civilians to achieve the creation of an Islamic state. But yes, so what if Osama Bin Laden was trained by the CIA? So what if the USA armed Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime in Iraq in the 1980s? So what if the CIA supported Manuel Noriega's drug trafficking network to arm the Contras? After all alliances change. My point is, that the USA creates these fanatics who then somehow either outlive their usefullness, or committ an atrocity against American civilians and then become the "bad guy". No, the CIA didn't train the pilots or suggest destroying the WTC any more than they suggest that Saddam Hussein slaughter Iraqi-Kurds. The al-Qaeda terrorists received their trainings in flight schools in the US. But their CIA training enabled them to get around US security. Another thing you might want to consider is that the CIA also worked with al-Qaeda in the Bosnian and Kosovo wars.