Communists vs Terrorists?

[dazzleman]

Giving arms to fundamentalist Muslims is NEVER a good thing.

Neither is letting communists win. Both sides were evil, and we picked what was to us the lesser one at the time.


Now, as to my opinion, based on what I know now I would have let the communists take over probably. The reason for this is that I know that the Soviet Union and the communist system it had would be doomed to collapse(though the fundamentalists could have taken over afterwards anyways, which is the real problem with these what ifs). Now, given the info they had at the time, I probably would have supported the fundamentalists because communism was the bigger threat at the time.

Yes.  At the time, the muslims were not a serious threat to the west, while the Soviets had a growing arsenal of nuclear weapons pointed at us.  Had they achieved significant superiority in weaponry to risk a first strike, Sept. 11th would have looked like a day at the beach.  We had to weaken them any way possible at the time.

In the real world, you must sometimes choose the lesser of two bad options.  The ideal is not usually available, unless of course the American people wanted to send their own sons to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.  Failing that, supporting the Afghan resistance was the best option.  Our real mistake was abandoning Afghanistan to the muslim terrorists after the Soviets left.

[Ebowed]

19 to 1 in favor of the Communists.  I see we have a non-conformist on our hands.

[John Dibble]

19 to 1 in favor of the Communists.  I see we have a non-conformist on our hands.

I don't know whether or not anyone else hasn't voted, but I never tend to vote in these historical 'what if' polls - you honestly can have no idea what the effects of changing events like this can set off.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Giving arms to fundamentalist Muslims is NEVER a good thing.

Neither is letting communists win. Both sides were evil, and we picked what was to us the lesser one at the time.


Now, as to my opinion, based on what I know now I would have let the communists take over probably. The reason for this is that I know that the Soviet Union and the communist system it had would be doomed to collapse(though the fundamentalists could have taken over afterwards anyways, which is the real problem with these what ifs). Now, given the info they had at the time, I probably would have supported the fundamentalists because communism was the bigger threat at the time.

Yes.  At the time, the muslims were not a serious threat to the west, while the Soviets had a growing arsenal of nuclear weapons pointed at us.  Had they achieved significant superiority in weaponry to risk a first strike, Sept. 11th would have looked like a day at the beach.  We had to weaken them any way possible at the time.

In the real world, you must sometimes choose the lesser of two bad options.  The ideal is not usually available, unless of course the American people wanted to send their own sons to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.  Failing that, supporting the Afghan resistance was the best option.  Our real mistake was abandoning Afghanistan to the muslim terrorists after the Soviets left.

Or just sat on our hands and did nothing and let the Soviets take Afghanistan because Afghanistan is an extremely dirt poor and unimportant country that would've hardly benefited the Soviets. The only reason it's becomie important in recent times is because of terrorists there, who would've not have been there had the Soviets taken over. There was so many chicken littles like you about if the Soviets took Vietnam, and once that happened nothing occured to the US.

The Soviets would've done us a real favor before they collapsed.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

So Imperialism is fine if it's Commies doing it? And the rest of your post is *incredibly* niave...

[David S]

Personally I'd like to see them kill each other off.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So Imperialism is fine if it's Commies doing it?

No, but it's preferable to Islamic fundamentalism, and unfortunately those were the only two choices.

[John Dibble]

Personally I'd like to see them kill each other off.

Unlikely situation unfortunately - one or the other will win.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No, but it's preferable to Islamic fundamentalism, and unfortunately those were the only two choices.

Who on earth told you that? Fundamentalism wasn't really a problem in Afghanistan (with the dishonourable exception of old Acid Thrower Hekmateyer himself... and he never had much popular support. Had a lot of guns though; ISI liked him a lot. Intially anyway) until the Taliban emerged in the early '90's... if the world hadn't turned a blind eye or been so niave about the situation in Afghanistan in the '90's a lot of trouble could have been avoided (US policy in Afghanistan in the '90's was the really rather quaint assumption that the emergance of the Taliban would force all the traditional warlords to group together and stop shooting each other. Hah! Like that was ever going to happen...)
Islam in Afghanistan (and most of the rest of Central Asia) has tended to be fairly moderate albeit in a somewhat traditionalist way. Sufism has always been a big influence, especially among some of the Tajiks. Even in the conservative Pashtun areas, traditional social structures were always of more importance than Islam.
Islamic militancy certainly grew following the Soviet invasion, but it grew because of the Soviet invasion and for obvious reasons. Even then it wasn't of a Wahabbist stripe, not at all.