Who would you support in the Soviet-Afghan War? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2024, 12:39:55 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Who would you support in the Soviet-Afghan War? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Who would you support in the Soviet-Afghan War?  (Read 1298 times)
Cory
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,708


« on: August 20, 2015, 02:15:14 PM »

The Soviets/Afghan Communists, hands down.
Logged
Cory
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,708


« Reply #1 on: August 22, 2015, 01:38:24 AM »

Probably Afghanistan at the time, but neither with hindsight.
You would support the Afghan government but not the USSR?

This. People forget there was no Soviet "invasion". They intervened to defend the Afghan Communist government from armed reactionaries.

I also hate this notion that the Mujaheddin were anything other then Islamists who were hell bent on turning Afghanistan into a backwards hellhole. They launched a rebellion against the notion of women's rights and land reform. They were no better then the French counter-revolutionaries, the White Russians, or the Confederate rebels of the American Civil War. If anything they were actually worse.
Logged
Cory
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,708


« Reply #2 on: August 22, 2015, 10:49:37 PM »

Soviet Communism was more evil than any other ideology except Nazism

You don't know what you're talking about. Radical Islamism is patently worse for every sector of society then Stalinist Communism could ever be.

North Korea > ISIL.

Well firstly the PDPA government was not exactly anyones idea of 'legitimate' (not in a traditional Afghan way, not in a Western Democratic way, etc) and was as blatant a Soviet puppet government as could have ever been wished for

This is beside the point.

(particularly after the Soviets helped the one faction kill off the other).

This was the right thing to do for reasons previously mentioned in this thread.

Secondly, to describe the Mujahideen as 'armed reactionaries' is to place crude propaganda other accuracy. They were an incredibly diverse bunch of people united - and it is a bit of a stretch to use that word - by a desire to rid their country of foreign occupation. Mostly they were just ordinary Afghans.

Yes they were a very diverse group of people, united in their desire: to revolt against the social progress made by the Afghan Communists. These people were led by local warlords and were explicitly Islamist in character. To deny this is nothing more then historical revisionism.

Yes many of them were "ordinary Afghans" (what an obvious weasel phrase, by the way). Ordinary Afghans who wanted to overthrow the Communists to entrench their conservative Islamist way of life.


Nothing I said is in any way racist. You saying this just proves you are being defensive and have no real argument to substantiate your point. In your world anyone who criticizes third world people's ideologies = racist. If anything you're expressing the soft bigotry of low expectations. It's not like the Taliban just appeared out of thin air. There was the sociological pretext that enabled it.

There was a significant base of people who gladly supported that movement, and rural conservative culture that enabled it . You're in denial.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.021 seconds with 12 queries.