RugbyRebels

rowan wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Of course,Russia arming the Taleban, in opposition to the western backed government in Kabul, is just fair game. no criticism of that I'm guessing.

What a silly fellow you are, Sandy. Don't you know that Afghanistan had a progressive socialist government in place in the 1970s before the US sent in the Mujahideen to destroy it, and from that chaos the Taliban emerged? But somehow you want to blame Russia...

40 years ago. This is now and Russia is backing a group that is trying to overthrow a government. I thought you disapproved of such things - or is that just when the US does it?

An the US never 'sent in' the Mujaheddin you utter buffoon. They armed a resistance group that was already in existence, they didn't create it. They were already revolting against the Socialist Paradise before the US got involved., which post dated the Soviet invasion. And for someone who like to pretend they know a bit about history, what exactly were the Soviets doing with South Vietnam? US involvement in afghanistan was as much about revenge for that as anything to do with interest in that country.

Strange too that an alleged serious student of history would ignore the Communist Coup (by a party with very close links to Moscow) in 1978 which overthrew the legitimate government. No doubt the Rowan (TM) version of history cant see past those red tinted spectacles.

rowan wrote:Even Hillary Clinton blames the US for creating the Taliban. What's missing from this story, though, is that the Soviets the Taliban were created to fight had been drawn into the conflict by America's earlier use of the Mujahideen to bring down a progressive Socialist government in Kabul which, among other things, had given women equal rights:

WASHINGTON, April 24 Two days of continuous congressional hearings on the Obama administration's foreign policy brought a rare concession from US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who acknowledged that the United States too had a share in creating the problem that plagues Pakistan today.

In an appearance before a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee on Thursday, Mrs Clinton explained how the militancy in Pakistan was linked to the US-backed proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

“We can point fingers at the Pakistanis. I did some yesterday frankly. And it's merited because we are wondering why they just don't go out there and deal with these people,” said Mrs Clinton while referring to an earlier hearing in which she said that Pakistan posed a “mortal threat” to the world.

“But the problems we face now to some extent we have to take responsibility for, having contributed to it. We also have a history of kind of moving in and out of Pakistan,” she said.

“Let's remember here... the people we are fighting today we funded them twenty years ago... and we did it because we were locked in a struggle with the Soviet Union.

“They invaded Afghanistan... and we did not want to see them control Central Asia and we went to work... and it was President Reagan in partnership with Congress led by Democrats who said you know what it sounds like a pretty good idea... let's deal with the ISI and the Pakistan military and let's go recruit these mujahideen.

“And great, let them come from Saudi Arabia and other countries, importing their Wahabi brand of Islam so that we can go beat the Soviet Union.

“And guess what ... they (Soviets) retreated ... they lost billions of dollars and it led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

“So there is a very strong argument which is... it wasn't a bad investment in terms of Soviet Union but let's be careful with what we sow... because we will harvest.

“So we then left Pakistan ... We said okay fine you deal with the Stingers that we left all over your country... you deal with the mines that are along the border and... by the way we don't want to have anything to do with you... in fact we're sanctioning you... So we stopped dealing with the Pakistani military and with ISI and we now are making up for a lot of lost time.”

It was question from Congressman Adam Shciff, a California Democrat that spurred Secretary Clinton to delve into history and come out with an answer that other US politicians have avoided in the past.

The congressman noted that while the US had provided “a phenomenal amount of military support for Pakistan,” they had not changed the paradigm.

“And more pernicious, there are elements within the Pakistani intelligence services, the ISI that may be working at cross-purposes with us.

“How we can possibly be funding the Pakistani military if elements of the military or intelligence services are actually working against us and having the effect of killing our troops next door?” he asked.

https://www.dawn.com/news/847153

Of course the US bears some responsibility. Mostly for ignoring the country once the Soviets were defeated. They didn't create the problem, but they did exploit it.

And the less said about the Pakistani ISI the better.

Sandy, your approach is simply to invert the truth and pretend the opposite is what really happened, blaming the Russians for exactly what it is the Americans have done themselves. And by your twisted logic America was entitled to some manner of "revenge" against the Soviets for Vietnam - one of many nations America had bombed to rubble?? That defies belief. America should be free to bomb and slaughter without restraint, in Sandy Land, evidently. You also seem confused about the difference between sending in and creating. These are not the same things. Your knowledge of the English language is found wanting almost as much as your understanding of history. The US supported the Mujahideen against a progressive Socialist government in Afghanistan, because it was allied to Moscow, and for no other reason than to draw the Soviets into a proxy war. In fact, this is exactly the same tactic the US applied in Syria - except this time they didn't get what they wanted. I mean, what you are denying about Afghanistan has all been admitted by the Americans themselves; celebrated, in fact, as part of their cunning plan to bring down the USSR (forget the fact it aslo destroyed women's rights in Afghanistan in the process). So the fact that you are in denial over it really is an indication of just how extremely biased you are, I'm afraid. & the fact you clearly have a problem with a coup which brought down a dictatorship further exposes your hypocrisy and lack of insight into this matter.

rowan wrote:Sandy, your approach is simply to invert the truth and pretend the opposite is what really happened, blaming the Russians for exactly what it is the Americans have done themselves. And by your twisted logic America was entitled to some manner of "revenge" against the Soviets for Vietnam - one of many nations America had bombed to rubble?? That defies belief. America should be free to bomb and slaughter without restraint, in Sandy Land, evidently. You also seem confused about the difference between sending in and creating. These are not the same things. Your knowledge of the English language is found wanting almost as much as your understanding of history. The US supported the Mujahideen against a progressive Socialist government in Afghanistan, because it was allied to Moscow, and for no other reason than to draw the Soviets into a proxy war. In fact, this is exactly the same tactic the US applied in Syria - except this time they didn't get what they wanted. I mean, what you are denying about Afghanistan has all been admitted by the Americans themselves; celebrated, in fact, as part of their cunning plan to bring down the USSR (forget the fact it aslo destroyed women's rights in Afghanistan in the process). So the fact that you are in denial over it really is an indication of just how extremely biased you are, I'm afraid. & the fact you clearly have a problem with a coup which brought down a dictatorship further exposes your hypocrisy and lack of insight into this matter.

Yeah Sandy. Your use of the English language has been found wanting.

I mean, the proof is in the pudding.

Thank goodness a published journalist is here to point out your idiocy.

rowan wrote:Sandy, your approach is simply to invert the truth and pretend the opposite is what really happened, blaming the Russians for exactly what it is the Americans have done themselves. And by your twisted logic America was entitled to some manner of "revenge" against the Soviets for Vietnam - one of many nations America had bombed to rubble?? That defies belief. America should be free to bomb and slaughter without restraint, in Sandy Land, evidently. You also seem confused about the difference between sending in and creating. These are not the same things. Your knowledge of the English language is found wanting almost as much as your understanding of history. The US supported the Mujahideen against a progressive Socialist government in Afghanistan, because it was allied to Moscow, and for no other reason than to draw the Soviets into a proxy war. In fact, this is exactly the same tactic the US applied in Syria - except this time they didn't get what they wanted. I mean, what you are denying about Afghanistan has all been admitted by the Americans themselves; celebrated, in fact, as part of their cunning plan to bring down the USSR (forget the fact it aslo destroyed women's rights in Afghanistan in the process). So the fact that you are in denial over it really is an indication of just how extremely biased you are, I'm afraid. & the fact you clearly have a problem with a coup which brought down a dictatorship further exposes your hypocrisy and lack of insight into this matter.

Vietnam where communists aided a revolution to overthrow the government which the US supported.
Afghanistan, where the US aided a revolution to overthrow the government which Moscow supported.

Revenge is a perfectly justifiable term to use - the US saw their chance to inflict a Vietnam style defeat on the Soviets. Unlike Vietnam, the defeat in Afghanistan severely undermined the USSR, so in the context of the Cold War, the US got more value out of their involvement than the Soviets managed.

The Communists overthrew the Afghan government which caused the rebellion. The US eventually supported that, once the Soviets had intervened. Your version of events is false. Moscow supported the coup and then lost the war.

Now, Moscow is arming the Taliban. Care to comment on your double standards? You claim to be a journalist and frankly its not surprising that much of the ME believes fantasy conspiracy theories with people like you printing half truths and down right bullshit.

And the difference between 'sending in' and 'creating'. The Mujaheddin was already there. The US supported them. They didn't send them in, as you wrote, which implies that they were some outside force that the US instructed to enter the fight. They were already in a brutal battle with the Soviets when the US got involved. Your history is broadly comparable to jackanory.

The Vietnam War was about the US attempting to stop the spread of communism, and getting involved in an Asian conflict via the Gulf of Tonkin false flag incident. Since when does the US have the right to go about waging war on every continent when it does not agree with the ideology? The US also get involved with the Chinese civil war, and before Vietnam it had destroyed Korea, and after Vietnam it destroyed Cambodia and Laos, as well as supporting an anti-communist genocide in Indonesia (and later the East Timor genocide as well). But all this is okay in Sandy Land. Of course those white Christian Americans should be able to drop bombs on Asians to stop the spread of an ideology they don't like, and kill millions in the process.

& sending in Islamic terrorists to overthrow progressive governments is also fine in Sandy Land, because that's what the US did when it aided the Mujahideed against the Socialist government in Afghanistan. This was very similar to what has just taken place in Syria, and quite probably served as the blueprint. The Saur Revolution which brought the Socialists to power got rid of the last remnants of the monarchical rule by removing a self-appointed dictator. At this stage there was a progressive government in place with full rights for women, but America decided to destroy that. The Mujahideed didn't stand a chance without them. Well, look where Afghanistan is today . . . but of course that's all Russia's fault - in Sandy Land.

Canta brian, you came along with all the haughty arrogance in the universe to dismiss an idiom which was proved, unequivocally, to be correct, and you never got over the embarrassment of that. But rather than be a man and admit you were wrong, it is evidently your nature to resort to school yard bitchiness instead.

Sandydragon wrote: Your history is broadly comparable to jackanory.

Now come on, I'm sure a lot of people like Jackanory

Anything is better than a brainwashed-by-British-propaganda illusion of history.

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Of course,Russia arming the Taleban, in opposition to the western backed government in Kabul, is just fair game. no criticism of that I'm guessing.

What a silly fellow you are, Sandy. Don't you know that Afghanistan had a progressive socialist government in place in the 1970s before the US sent in the Mujahideen to destroy it, and from that chaos the Taliban emerged? But somehow you want to blame Russia...

40 years ago. This is now and Russia is backing a group that is trying to overthrow a government. I thought you disapproved of such things - or is that just when the US does it?

An the US never 'sent in' the Mujaheddin you utter buffoon. They armed a resistance group that was already in existence, they didn't create it. They were already revolting against the Socialist Paradise before the US got involved., which post dated the Soviet invasion. And for someone who like to pretend they know a bit about history, what exactly were the Soviets doing with South Vietnam? US involvement in afghanistan was as much about revenge for that as anything to do with interest in that country.

Strange too that an alleged serious student of history would ignore the Communist Coup (by a party with very close links to Moscow) in 1978 which overthrew the legitimate government. No doubt the Rowan (TM) version of history cant see past those red tinted spectacles.

Legitimate government? You mean the government of Mohammed Daoud? Daoud of the royalty? Daoud, the nationalist autocrat, who rose to power in 1973 through a coup that saw the king exiled in Italy? Daoud who declared a state of emergency, disbanded parliament, suspended the constitution, banned all forms of opposition organisations, and closed all private newspapers and magazines? Daoud who ruled by decree? Daoud who introduced a new constitution in 1977 that cemented in place a strong presidency and a one-party system? The one-party being the National Revolutionary Party. Daoud who began purging the Parchamis and Khalqis? Daoud who arrested the leaders of PDPA when they demonstrated in 1978 against such oppression as the assassination of one of their leaders, Mir Akbar Khaibar?

That 'legitimate government'?

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote:
What a silly fellow you are, Sandy. Don't you know that Afghanistan had a progressive socialist government in place in the 1970s before the US sent in the Mujahideen to destroy it, and from that chaos the Taliban emerged? But somehow you want to blame Russia...

40 years ago. This is now and Russia is backing a group that is trying to overthrow a government. I thought you disapproved of such things - or is that just when the US does it?

An the US never 'sent in' the Mujaheddin you utter buffoon. They armed a resistance group that was already in existence, they didn't create it. They were already revolting against the Socialist Paradise before the US got involved., which post dated the Soviet invasion. And for someone who like to pretend they know a bit about history, what exactly were the Soviets doing with South Vietnam? US involvement in afghanistan was as much about revenge for that as anything to do with interest in that country.

Strange too that an alleged serious student of history would ignore the Communist Coup (by a party with very close links to Moscow) in 1978 which overthrew the legitimate government. No doubt the Rowan (TM) version of history cant see past those red tinted spectacles.

Legitimate government? You mean the government of Mohammed Daoud? Daoud of the royalty? Daoud, the nationalist autocrat, who rose to power in 1973 through a coup that saw the king exiled in Italy? Daoud who declared a state of emergency, disbanded parliament, suspended the constitution, banned all forms of opposition organisations, and closed all private newspapers and magazines? Daoud who ruled by decree? Daoud who introduced a new constitution in 1977 that cemented in place a strong presidency and a one-party system? The one-party being the National Revolutionary Party. Daoud who began purging the Parchamis and Khalqis? Daoud who arrested the leaders of PDPA when they demonstrated in 1978 against such oppression as the assassination of one of their leaders, Mir Akbar Khaibar?

That 'legitimate government'?

Precisely. Mohammed Daoud did push through some meritorious reforms after usurping his cousin, but it remained an oppressive dictatorship nonetheless, and he was still royalty. That's why the Socialists got rid of him. Now Sandy might wish to compare that to Assad. Well, I'd have no problem with a coup from within Syria replacing Assad, although he is certainly not the Hitler-of-the-Month the West has decided to portay him as (following bin Laden, Saddam, Gaddafi et al). What I don't agree with is America invading these countries on the other side of the world, either directly, by proxy or otherwise, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civlians, if not millions, and trying to tell us it was all in the name of freedom and democracy and everyone else was to blame - especially the Russians...

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote:Sandy, your approach is simply to invert the truth and pretend the opposite is what really happened, blaming the Russians for exactly what it is the Americans have done themselves. And by your twisted logic America was entitled to some manner of "revenge" against the Soviets for Vietnam - one of many nations America had bombed to rubble?? That defies belief. America should be free to bomb and slaughter without restraint, in Sandy Land, evidently. You also seem confused about the difference between sending in and creating. These are not the same things. Your knowledge of the English language is found wanting almost as much as your understanding of history. The US supported the Mujahideen against a progressive Socialist government in Afghanistan, because it was allied to Moscow, and for no other reason than to draw the Soviets into a proxy war. In fact, this is exactly the same tactic the US applied in Syria - except this time they didn't get what they wanted. I mean, what you are denying about Afghanistan has all been admitted by the Americans themselves; celebrated, in fact, as part of their cunning plan to bring down the USSR (forget the fact it aslo destroyed women's rights in Afghanistan in the process). So the fact that you are in denial over it really is an indication of just how extremely biased you are, I'm afraid. & the fact you clearly have a problem with a coup which brought down a dictatorship further exposes your hypocrisy and lack of insight into this matter.

Vietnam where communists aided a revolution to overthrow the government which the US supported.
Afghanistan, where the US aided a revolution to overthrow the government which Moscow supported.

Revenge is a perfectly justifiable term to use - the US saw their chance to inflict a Vietnam style defeat on the Soviets. Unlike Vietnam, the defeat in Afghanistan severely undermined the USSR, so in the context of the Cold War, the US got more value out of their involvement than the Soviets managed.

The Communists overthrew the Afghan government which caused the rebellion. The US eventually supported that, once the Soviets had intervened. Your version of events is false. Moscow supported the coup and then lost the war.

Now, Moscow is arming the Taliban. Care to comment on your double standards? You claim to be a journalist and frankly its not surprising that much of the ME believes fantasy conspiracy theories with people like you printing half truths and down right bullshit.

And the difference between 'sending in' and 'creating'. The Mujaheddin was already there. The US supported them. They didn't send them in, as you wrote, which implies that they were some outside force that the US instructed to enter the fight. They were already in a brutal battle with the Soviets when the US got involved. Your history is broadly comparable to jackanory.

Nonsense. It is widely accepted now among historians that the Soviets had no hand in the coup. They might have had some prior knowledge of the developments among certain foreign policy experts, but that was it. Of course they ended up supporting the resulting regime, but that's clearly different.

Mujahideen already there? Of course there was already a local un-organised resistance, but the mujahideen that the CIA and ISI funded was recruited in Pakistan and Iran, and other volunteers from across the Muslim world, such as the Saudi Osama bin Laden.

rowan wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
40 years ago. This is now and Russia is backing a group that is trying to overthrow a government. I thought you disapproved of such things - or is that just when the US does it?

An the US never 'sent in' the Mujaheddin you utter buffoon. They armed a resistance group that was already in existence, they didn't create it. They were already revolting against the Socialist Paradise before the US got involved., which post dated the Soviet invasion. And for someone who like to pretend they know a bit about history, what exactly were the Soviets doing with South Vietnam? US involvement in afghanistan was as much about revenge for that as anything to do with interest in that country.

Strange too that an alleged serious student of history would ignore the Communist Coup (by a party with very close links to Moscow) in 1978 which overthrew the legitimate government. No doubt the Rowan (TM) version of history cant see past those red tinted spectacles.

Legitimate government? You mean the government of Mohammed Daoud? Daoud of the royalty? Daoud, the nationalist autocrat, who rose to power in 1973 through a coup that saw the king exiled in Italy? Daoud who declared a state of emergency, disbanded parliament, suspended the constitution, banned all forms of opposition organisations, and closed all private newspapers and magazines? Daoud who ruled by decree? Daoud who introduced a new constitution in 1977 that cemented in place a strong presidency and a one-party system? The one-party being the National Revolutionary Party. Daoud who began purging the Parchamis and Khalqis? Daoud who arrested the leaders of PDPA when they demonstrated in 1978 against such oppression as the assassination of one of their leaders, Mir Akbar Khaibar?

That 'legitimate government'?

Precisely. Mohammed Daoud did push through some meritorious reforms after usurping his cousin, but it remained an oppressive dictatorship nonetheless, and he was still royalty. That's why the Socialists got rid of him. Now Sandy might wish to compare that to Assad. Well, I'd have no problem with a coup from within Syria replacing Assad, although he is certainly not the Hitler-of-the-Month the West has decided to portay him as (following bin Laden, Saddam, Gaddafi et al). What I don't agree with is America invading these countries on the other side of the world, either directly, by proxy or otherwise, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civlians, if not millions, and trying to tell us it was all in the name of freedom and democracy and everyone else was to blame - especially the Russians...

The regime after the coup wasn't so much better mind. Radical Stalinists, who pushed through reforms that would never be accepted by the Muslim population. Raising age of marriage, banning polygamy, outlawing dowry, etc. Now these are all commendable policies, but they were rejected by the population, and Amin's response was repression, and that included his socialist former partners the Parchamis.

I've read they were a progressive government, which gave women equal rights across the board, as the picture below seems to indicate. I can't claim to be an expert on the rest of their policies.

rowan wrote:Socialist Afghanistan before Washington sent in the Mujahideen:

rowan wrote:I've read they were a progressive government, which gave women equal rights across the board, as the picture below seems to indicate. I can't claim to be an expert on the rest of their policies.

rowan wrote:Socialist Afghanistan before Washington sent in the Mujahideen:

Totalitarian and progressive if that makes sense. Daoud too supported women's rights.

Indeed. Meanwhile, interesting read here:

Besides Syria, Ukraine is the current radix of conflict between Russia and the West, one defined not only by incompatible narratives, but also by the lack of any mechanism for arbitration of the truth (as in South Africa’s “Truth Commission”). Instead, the situation is ruled by the “alternative facts” of strategic power, by the overriding imperative of the West to complete the extension of its power – through NATO – to contain Russia.

With the seditious eclipse of truth by power, the very ethos and spirit of the United Nations Charter – the reciprocity between nations – is displaced by unilateralist assertions of power.

The tragedy of Ukraine, like that of Syria, results from the unwillingness of the US to acknowledge in good faith its role in the catastrophe. This unwillingness is continuously manufactured and enforced by the hegemony of the national security state.

In the terrible face of the national security establishment, the people must demand a politics of truth oriented to the democratic negotiation of a new concept of national security and a mobilisation to end to the national security state and its unaccountable permanent organizations and operations. America must resist the fatal temptation of empire.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/03/09/ ... ropaganda/

I'd say the rest of the article was more interesting...or telling.

Never ceases to amaze me how much weight these opinion pieces carry.

WaspInWales wrote:I'd say the rest of the article was more interesting...or telling.

Never ceases to amaze me how much weight these opinion pieces carry.

Conversely, I'm surprised how little attention they receive, relatively-speaking.

Zhivago wrote:

rowan wrote:I've read they were a progressive government, which gave women equal rights across the board, as the picture below seems to indicate. I can't claim to be an expert on the rest of their policies.

rowan wrote:Socialist Afghanistan before Washington sent in the Mujahideen:

Totalitarian and progressive if that makes sense. Daoud too supported women's rights.

Yes he did. Until he was removed for daring to move an inch away from Moscow.

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote:
What a silly fellow you are, Sandy. Don't you know that Afghanistan had a progressive socialist government in place in the 1970s before the US sent in the Mujahideen to destroy it, and from that chaos the Taliban emerged? But somehow you want to blame Russia...

40 years ago. This is now and Russia is backing a group that is trying to overthrow a government. I thought you disapproved of such things - or is that just when the US does it?

An the US never 'sent in' the Mujaheddin you utter buffoon. They armed a resistance group that was already in existence, they didn't create it. They were already revolting against the Socialist Paradise before the US got involved., which post dated the Soviet invasion. And for someone who like to pretend they know a bit about history, what exactly were the Soviets doing with South Vietnam? US involvement in afghanistan was as much about revenge for that as anything to do with interest in that country.

Strange too that an alleged serious student of history would ignore the Communist Coup (by a party with very close links to Moscow) in 1978 which overthrew the legitimate government. No doubt the Rowan (TM) version of history cant see past those red tinted spectacles.

Legitimate government? You mean the government of Mohammed Daoud? Daoud of the royalty? Daoud, the nationalist autocrat, who rose to power in 1973 through a coup that saw the king exiled in Italy? Daoud who declared a state of emergency, disbanded parliament, suspended the constitution, banned all forms of opposition organisations, and closed all private newspapers and magazines? Daoud who ruled by decree? Daoud who introduced a new constitution in 1977 that cemented in place a strong presidency and a one-party system? The one-party being the National Revolutionary Party. Daoud who began purging the Parchamis and Khalqis? Daoud who arrested the leaders of PDPA when they demonstrated in 1978 against such oppression as the assassination of one of their leaders, Mir Akbar Khaibar?

That 'legitimate government'?

After 5 years I suppose you could call it something else, but it was the government in place and the Soviets still decided to overthrow it. I'd agree with you that the King was more legitimate, but the key point here is why the Soviets were interfering in another country and overthrowing a regime.

rowan wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
40 years ago. This is now and Russia is backing a group that is trying to overthrow a government. I thought you disapproved of such things - or is that just when the US does it?

An the US never 'sent in' the Mujaheddin you utter buffoon. They armed a resistance group that was already in existence, they didn't create it. They were already revolting against the Socialist Paradise before the US got involved., which post dated the Soviet invasion. And for someone who like to pretend they know a bit about history, what exactly were the Soviets doing with South Vietnam? US involvement in afghanistan was as much about revenge for that as anything to do with interest in that country.

Strange too that an alleged serious student of history would ignore the Communist Coup (by a party with very close links to Moscow) in 1978 which overthrew the legitimate government. No doubt the Rowan (TM) version of history cant see past those red tinted spectacles.

Legitimate government? You mean the government of Mohammed Daoud? Daoud of the royalty? Daoud, the nationalist autocrat, who rose to power in 1973 through a coup that saw the king exiled in Italy? Daoud who declared a state of emergency, disbanded parliament, suspended the constitution, banned all forms of opposition organisations, and closed all private newspapers and magazines? Daoud who ruled by decree? Daoud who introduced a new constitution in 1977 that cemented in place a strong presidency and a one-party system? The one-party being the National Revolutionary Party. Daoud who began purging the Parchamis and Khalqis? Daoud who arrested the leaders of PDPA when they demonstrated in 1978 against such oppression as the assassination of one of their leaders, Mir Akbar Khaibar?

That 'legitimate government'?

Precisely. Mohammed Daoud did push through some meritorious reforms after usurping his cousin, but it remained an oppressive dictatorship nonetheless, and he was still royalty. That's why the Socialists got rid of him. Now Sandy might wish to compare that to Assad. Well, I'd have no problem with a coup from within Syria replacing Assad, although he is certainly not the Hitler-of-the-Month the West has decided to portay him as (following bin Laden, Saddam, Gaddafi et al). What I don't agree with is America invading these countries on the other side of the world, either directly, by proxy or otherwise, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civlians, if not millions, and trying to tell us it was all in the name of freedom and democracy and everyone else was to blame - especially the Russians...

Moscow removed Doaud because he wasn't toeing the line with them like he used to. If you are putting his repressive regime (which was no worse than the one that followed it) as a reason for his removal, then surely the West had every right to remove Assad who was using chemical weapons against his own people? Does that logic get through to you or shall I get some crayons out/

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

rowan wrote:I've read they were a progressive government, which gave women equal rights across the board, as the picture below seems to indicate. I can't claim to be an expert on the rest of their policies.

Totalitarian and progressive if that makes sense. Daoud too supported women's rights.

Yes he did. Until he was removed for daring to move an inch away from Moscow.

Nothing to do with him being a dictator from within the royal family then? Guess that's all fine in Sandy Land...

rowan wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Totalitarian and progressive if that makes sense. Daoud too supported women's rights.

Yes he did. Until he was removed for daring to move an inch away from Moscow.

Nothing to do with him being a dictator from within the royal family then? Guess that's all fine in Sandy Land...

For that read Assad. In practical terms not a great deal of difference and the point still holds - what right did the USSR have to assist regime change and then spark a major rebellion?

Guess this is all fine in letting Rowan land where THE WEST IS BAD, regardless of the facts.

Edit:\
Ill add a little smilie. It seems appropriate

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
40 years ago. This is now and Russia is backing a group that is trying to overthrow a government. I thought you disapproved of such things - or is that just when the US does it?

An the US never 'sent in' the Mujaheddin you utter buffoon. They armed a resistance group that was already in existence, they didn't create it. They were already revolting against the Socialist Paradise before the US got involved., which post dated the Soviet invasion. And for someone who like to pretend they know a bit about history, what exactly were the Soviets doing with South Vietnam? US involvement in afghanistan was as much about revenge for that as anything to do with interest in that country.

Strange too that an alleged serious student of history would ignore the Communist Coup (by a party with very close links to Moscow) in 1978 which overthrew the legitimate government. No doubt the Rowan (TM) version of history cant see past those red tinted spectacles.

Legitimate government? You mean the government of Mohammed Daoud? Daoud of the royalty? Daoud, the nationalist autocrat, who rose to power in 1973 through a coup that saw the king exiled in Italy? Daoud who declared a state of emergency, disbanded parliament, suspended the constitution, banned all forms of opposition organisations, and closed all private newspapers and magazines? Daoud who ruled by decree? Daoud who introduced a new constitution in 1977 that cemented in place a strong presidency and a one-party system? The one-party being the National Revolutionary Party. Daoud who began purging the Parchamis and Khalqis? Daoud who arrested the leaders of PDPA when they demonstrated in 1978 against such oppression as the assassination of one of their leaders, Mir Akbar Khaibar?

That 'legitimate government'?

After 5 years I suppose you could call it something else, but it was the government in place and the Soviets still decided to overthrow it. I'd agree with you that the King was more legitimate, but the key point here is why the Soviets were interfering in another country and overthrowing a regime.

They didnt overthrow it - they did not orchestrate the coup.

Sandydragon wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
40 years ago. This is now and Russia is backing a group that is trying to overthrow a government. I thought you disapproved of such things - or is that just when the US does it?

An the US never 'sent in' the Mujaheddin you utter buffoon. They armed a resistance group that was already in existence, they didn't create it. They were already revolting against the Socialist Paradise before the US got involved., which post dated the Soviet invasion. And for someone who like to pretend they know a bit about history, what exactly were the Soviets doing with South Vietnam? US involvement in afghanistan was as much about revenge for that as anything to do with interest in that country.

Strange too that an alleged serious student of history would ignore the Communist Coup (by a party with very close links to Moscow) in 1978 which overthrew the legitimate government. No doubt the Rowan (TM) version of history cant see past those red tinted spectacles.

Legitimate government? You mean the government of Mohammed Daoud? Daoud of the royalty? Daoud, the nationalist autocrat, who rose to power in 1973 through a coup that saw the king exiled in Italy? Daoud who declared a state of emergency, disbanded parliament, suspended the constitution, banned all forms of opposition organisations, and closed all private newspapers and magazines? Daoud who ruled by decree? Daoud who introduced a new constitution in 1977 that cemented in place a strong presidency and a one-party system? The one-party being the National Revolutionary Party. Daoud who began purging the Parchamis and Khalqis? Daoud who arrested the leaders of PDPA when they demonstrated in 1978 against such oppression as the assassination of one of their leaders, Mir Akbar Khaibar?

That 'legitimate government'?

After 5 years I suppose you could call it something else, but it was the government in place and the Soviets still decided to overthrow it. I'd agree with you that the King was more legitimate, but the key point here is why the Soviets were interfering in another country and overthrowing a regime.

So you're a monarchist then? Monarchy being the most absolute form of dictatorship. This king you regard as more legitimate was building castles and mansions for himself and his family while the nation went through famine. Women's rights were also very limited under his rule. Few would argue Daoud was an improvement on that, but he was nonetheless a dictator and it really does say a lot about you that you don't seem to have a problem with this. But a progressive Socialist government that gave full rights to women and happens to be allied to Moscow is scandalous in Sandy Land! Meanwhile, interfering in other nations is equally outrageous (in Sandy Land) when it's the Soviets or Russia allegedly interfering in neighboring countries. Of course, America & Britain have never interfered in other countries have they? Neither historically nor currently. Neither neighbours or on other continents and the other side of the world . . .

Sandydragon wrote:

rowan wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Yes he did. Until he was removed for daring to move an inch away from Moscow.

Nothing to do with him being a dictator from within the royal family then? Guess that's all fine in Sandy Land...

For that read Assad. In practical terms not a great deal of difference and the point still holds - what right did the USSR have to assist regime change and then spark a major rebellion?

Guess this is all fine in letting Rowan land where THE WEST IS BAD, regardless of the facts.

Edit:\
Ill add a little smilie. It seems appropriate

Not sure if it escaped your notice but I've already stated I would not have a problem with a coup from within Syria overthrowing Assad, though he is certainly not the monster the West has attempted to portary him as, and less than one thousandth as evil as the likes of Bush, Obama, Blair and Cameron. What I do object to is invasions and proxy wars that kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions, to remove leaders on the other side of the planet that Washington does not see eye to eye with. That should be quite clear to anyone with a modicum of sense.