17 Aug 21
@no1marauder saidAnd you think we're in Afghanistan to dominate them why? To steal their what?
Gee, every Empire the world has ever seen should have just claimed they were there to "keep peace and protect the people by holding down adherents to fundamentally evil ideology" (most did in recent times) and everything would have been hunky dory.
17 Aug 21
@sh76 saidShould we have stayed in Lebanon in 1983?
"Imperialism, state policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/imperialism
If you're there to keep peace and protect the people by holding down adherents to fundamentally evil ideology (NOT Islam - I mean the brand ...[text shortened]... Beach weren't imperialists. Or if they were, you're defining imperialism out of being something bad.
In Somalia in 1993?
Keep the peace, stop the bad guys.
17 Aug 21
Afghanistan has a lot of valuable minerals and grows a lot of opium poppy. It is also an imprtant pathway between Russia and India. This was the setting of the "Great Game" between Russia and the British Empire.
I saw a quote from some General in which he said that the point of the occupation was to funnel US taxpayer money into the pockets of the Military Industrial Complex - weapons manufacturers etc
@no1marauder said===What were we in Vietnam for?===
What were we in Vietnam for?
What were the Soviets in Afghanistan for?
To protect the South Vietnamese from the Communists.
===What were the Soviets in Afghanistan for?===
I don't know if anyone can pinpoint one reason. But if you want my speculation as to the single most important factor (which you probably don't, but I'm going to give it anyway), as a stepping stone to either dominating or controlling a port on the Arabian Sea.
17 Aug 21
@no1marauder saidI haven't really thought about either enough to give an informed opinion off the cuff, but I'll not give a knee-jerk answer either way.
Should we have stayed in Lebanon in 1983?
In Somalia in 1993?
Keep the peace, stop the bad guys.
@sh76 saidIt's interesting you give a benign reason for US interventions but a geopolitical one for other countries'.
===What were we in Vietnam for?===
To protect the South Vietnamese from the Communists.
===What were the Soviets in Afghanistan for?===
I don't know if anyone can pinpoint one reason. But if you want my speculation as to the single most important factor (which you probably don't, but I'm going to give it anyway), as a stepping stone to either dominating or controlling a port on the Arabian Sea.
How come the Soviet reason couldn't have been to protect the Afghan People from the same type of evil ideology that the US was supposedly protecting them from?
EDIT: It's another 300 miles to any seacoast. https://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/geography/Afghanistan-to-Comoros/Afghanistan.html
@no1marauder saidYou probably read more history than I do, so perhaps you can enlighten me. What do we have to gain by going into Vietnam? I sincerely doubt we were there to harvest their rice, coal and iron.
It's interesting you give a benign reason for US interventions but a geopolitical one for other countries'.
How come the Soviet reason couldn't have been to protect the Afghan People from the same type of evil ideology that the US was supposedly protecting them from?
EDIT: It's another 300 miles to any seacoast. https://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/geography/Afghanistan-to-Comoros/Afghanistan.html
As for my speculation regarding USSR, hence "stepping stone." The USSR was extremely reluctant to leave Iran after WWII (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_crisis_of_1946) and probably wouldn't have done so but for the historical oddity that they had agreed to do so at Tehran (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/tehran.asp). (Oddity because that had nothing to do with the purpose of the conference)
I can't think of a reason for the USSR to want to dominate Iran other than access to these warm weather ports (the Black Sea just ain't the same). It seems more likely than that the USSR was just so concerned for the fate of the poor Afghans. Keep in mind that we also never would have gone into Afghanistan but for the 9/11 attacks. We also didn't go in originally out of pure altruism.
The Soviets were invited in by the secular Afghan government to help stabalize the country from the rising extremism.
The radicalization of certain groups (students, at that time) was already becoming a problem in the late 70’s.
However, that radicalization obviously has roots. It’s a little much to go over the whole Afghan history. But Islam was getting a kicking there since the late 50’s. Then a communist coup, etc.
This led to wahhabist influence upon the students and a very anti-communist / liberal (as in mentality, not ecomomics) attitude.
As for the Brits and their wars in Aghanistan: google “The Great Game”.
And therein also lies some truth about possible Soviet intentions, along the lines of what sh76 is saying.
@no1marauder said===It's interesting you give a benign reason for US interventions but a geopolitical one for other countries'.===
It's interesting you give a benign reason for US interventions but a geopolitical one for other countries'.
How come the Soviet reason couldn't have been to protect the Afghan People from the same type of evil ideology that the US was supposedly protecting them from?
EDIT: It's another 300 miles to any seacoast. https://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/geography/Afghanistan-to-Comoros/Afghanistan.html
When the other country is the Soviet Union, correct.
Earlier in the thread, I gave the French credit for going into Rwanda, and I give lots of countries credit for going into Iraq (1991) and the former Yugoslavia.
But yes, I'm going to judge the USSR with a jaundiced eye. Sue me.
18 Aug 21
@sh76 saidI don't think it was for any natural resources. It was for ideological reasons just like the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan and our occupation of Afghanistan.
You probably read more history than I do, so perhaps you can enlighten me. What do we have to gain by going into Vietnam? I sincerely doubt we were there to harvest their rice, coal and iron.
As for my speculation regarding USSR, hence "stepping stone." The USSR was extremely reluctant to leave Iran after WWII (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_crisis_of_1946) and probably w ...[text shortened]... one into Afghanistan but for the 9/11 attacks. We also didn't go in originally out of pure altruism.
Humanitarian ones? Don't me laugh.
18 Aug 21
@no1marauder saidWell, the reasons the Brits went into Afghanistan was to create a buffer between their empire (India) and the “Tartar” expansion.
I don't think it was for any natural resources. It was for ideological reasons just like the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan and our occupation of Afghanistan.
Humanitarian ones? Don't me laugh.
@shavixmir saidI'm not talking about the 1800s.
Well, the reasons the Brits went into Afghanistan was to create a buffer between their empire (India) and the “Tartar” expansion.
The Soviet intervention in Afghanistan was based on the Brezhnev doctrine:
"On November 12, 1968 Brezhnev stated that "[w]hen external and internal forces hostile to socialism try to turn the development of a given socialist country in the direction of … the capitalist system ... this is no longer merely a problem for that country's people, but a common problem, the concern of all socialist countries."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brezhnev_Doctrine#Afghanistan_1979
The US had the quite similar "domino theory" in the 1960s to justify the war in Vietnam.
The US occupation in Afghanistan was to put pressure on Iran and establish a "model" Muslim capitalist, puppet State (similar to the later invasion and occupation of Iraq).
18 Aug 21
@sh76 saidVietnam was a French colony and France wanted the USA to help them keep their colony. It was to help French imperialism. It was Frances war and our involvement was by choice, although DeGalle reportedly threatened to become chummy with the soviets if the US didn't help them.
You probably read more history than I do, so perhaps you can enlighten me. What do we have to gain by going into Vietnam? I sincerely doubt we were there to harvest their rice, coal and iron.
As for my speculation regarding USSR, hence "stepping stone." The USSR was extremely reluctant to leave Iran after WWII (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_crisis_of_1946) and probably w ...[text shortened]... one into Afghanistan but for the 9/11 attacks. We also didn't go in originally out of pure altruism.
There are several reasons the US invaded Afghanistan. One reason is the pipeline.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2021/02/10/taliban-vows-to-guarantee-safety-of-trans-afghanistan-gas-pipeline/
The other major reason was to increase opium/heroin production. The Taliban suppressed opium production so that had to stop. Our government protects the heroin trade. It isn't really a secret. Milosevic disrupted the heroin trade in Serbia. The ethnic Albanians were heroin runners so they had to be protected and Milosevic had to go. Don't be so skeptical. How did Oliver North get the money he needed to ship arms to Iran and Nicaragua?
https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-spoils-of-war-afghanistan-s-multibillion-dollar-heroin-trade/91
Trump made a deal with the Taliban and Biden apparently followed through with that deal. If the Taliban doesn't allow high opium production to continue the US government will probably go back in or fund Taliban opposition until they comply.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51692546
Big pharma got lots of people addicted to opiates. Now many of them have to buy heroin to get their fix. It was planned that way.
Don't forget the opium wars. Nations have fought wars to continue the drug trade. What I am saying is not really far fetched at all. FDR and John Kerry are both from families that got rich selling opium.
18 Aug 21
@athousandyoung saidWasn't that the argument for the Vietnam war? War with rules of engagement that make it impossible to win, but sell more Huey's and weapons of thunder, and yes of course stop those dominos from falling and keep a good eye on China while you're about it.
I saw a quote from some General in which he said that the point of the occupation was to funnel US taxpayer money into the pockets of the Military Industrial Complex - weapons manufacturers etc
I suppose this is a question for the ages. Which came first, the machinery to make war, or the clash of ideology that requires it?