Jump to content


Rugby League World - Grand Finals Issue

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD - THE GRAND FINALS ISSUE - OUT 17 OCT OR DOWNLOAD IT NOW!
Try our Fantastic 4-Issue Bundle Offer:
For just £14, a saving of 10% on the regular cover price, you’ll get:

The Grand Finals Issue (out 17 Oct) – Grand Final drama from both hemispheres plus Four Nations preview
The Four Nations Issue (out 21 Nov) – Fantastic coverage of the Four Nations tournament down under
The Golden Boot Issue (out 19 Dec) – A look back at the 2014 season plus the big reveal of the winner of the Golden Boot
The 2015 Season Preview Issue (out 23 Jan) – How will your team perform in 2015? We preview every club.


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Surrender in Afghanistan

USA negotiates with Taliban

  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#21 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 41,503 posts

Posted 23 June 2013 - 07:48 PM

The US did not arm Saddam. That's a myth. Saddam was in the Soviet camp and used their tanks etc (also Soviet tank warfare tactics). He also bought quite a few bits of tech from France and to an extent Britain but not really the USA.

 

 

The US did not arm Saddam. That's a myth. Saddam was in the Soviet camp and used their tanks etc (also Soviet tank warfare tactics). He also bought quite a few bits of tech from France and to an extent Britain but not really the USA.

correct

the US armed Iran, as did the UK


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#22 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,289 posts

Posted 23 June 2013 - 09:42 PM

correct

the US armed Iran, as did the UK

We and they armed the Shah's Iran, not the Iran involved in the Iran-Iraq war.



#23 Marauder

Marauder
  • Coach
  • 11,808 posts

Posted 23 June 2013 - 09:46 PM

We and they armed the Shah's Iran, not the Iran involved in the Iran-Iraq war.

They bought the weapons from us and at that time Iran was very pro West.


Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.



http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

#24 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 41,503 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 09:51 AM

We and they armed the Shah's Iran, not the Iran involved in the Iran-Iraq war.

 

 

We and they armed the Shah's Iran, not the Iran involved in the Iran-Iraq war.

that's right: and? Was the Shah a good guy or something? Anyway the weapons we sold Iran were used in the Iran Iraq war.

 

the uk also sold weaponry-particularly naval vessels to Libya.


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#25 GeordieSaint

GeordieSaint
  • Coach
  • 4,901 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:06 PM

The british(3 times) and the soviet union weren't defeated in Afghanistan?

 

When did I say they weren't? I stated that your comment about Afghanistan never being conquered is wrong. Afghanistan for example was conquered by the armies of Arab Muslims in the 9th and 10th Centuries hence bringing Afghanistan under the Islamic Caliphate. The Mongols, the Mauryan Empire, the Persians etc have all been largely successul in controlling the country for a period of time. It is arguable that Alexander the Great actually did conquer the country, especially considering he is reverred as a National hero by Afghans.

 

Albeit the 80s Taliban had US supplied weaponry including Stinger missiles to help deal with pesky helicopters.

 

80s Taliban? Really? I hope that was an intended mistruth!

 

The popular Misconception deliberately put forward by the politicians and corrupt corporate media both here and in the US is that the US and to a lesser degree the UK involvement in Afghanistan only began when the US armed the "freedom" fighters after the soviet invasion. The US involvement in Afghanistan began well before the soviet invasion, it was the policy of jimmy carter and his national security advisor zbigniew brzezinski to draw the soviet union into a Vietnam style quagmire.

 

They began arming the Mujahdeen six months before. I wouldn't say that was specifically 'well before'. It is also common knowledge that the Soviets were arming the Communist Regime and had imbedded advisors throughout the Kabul Regime well before the Americans got involved military in any shape or form. The writing was on the wall with what would happen.

 

However, US involvement in Afghanistan did begin as early as the 1950s when they started to invest in the infrastructure of the country. Have a good walk around Lashkar Gah (built by the Americans) and areas such as Marjah, Nad-e-Ali, Gereshk etc and you'll see American investment. Most of the Helmand River valley was irrigated by the Americans.

 

Everybody repeats the story that Britain was defeated by the Afghans, it is true that Afghanistan never became a colony but the North West frontier province was annexed by the British from Afghanistan and was held. Today it is that part of Pakistan that speaks Pashtun and is run by the Pakistani Taliban but it was originally part of Afghanistan.

 

Yep, it is arguable they never actually tried to create a colony as per India etc. The real intent was to prevent Russian Imperialist ambitions into British India and the Indian Ocean ports. To that end, British Policy was successful. For what it's worth, the Afghans hate the Durand Line and want to annex the Pakistan Tribal Areas back to Afghan rule.

 

Thanks for that post ckn. For me this just reinforces the view that we should stay well away from any involvement in Syria and similar situations. We've done enough damage for one century.

 

We shouldn't go anywhere near Syria. Learn from your mistakes and definitely arming groups we have no real idea about would be an awful decision.


Edited by GeordieSaint, 24 June 2013 - 12:08 PM.

Kings Lynn Black Knights Rugby League Club - http://www.pitchero....nnblackknights/


#26 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,930 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 12:12 PM

80s Taliban? Really? I hope that was an intended mistruth!

Mujaheddin, Taliban, "Afghan freedom fighters", all the same thing.  The Mujaheddin leaders of the 80s became the Taliban leaders of the 90s and 2000s.

 

Edit:  to the average forum member, what's more recognisable, Mujaheddin or Taliban?  It makes more sense to call them the Taliban as that's really what they were in modern day terminology.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#27 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,289 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 01:08 PM

that's right: and? Was the Shah a good guy or something? Anyway the weapons we sold Iran were used in the Iran Iraq war.

 

the uk also sold weaponry-particularly naval vessels to Libya.

The Shah was not a good guy, however, he was not Khomeini

 

There are no "good guys" in the Middle East. I'm not sure that we shouldn't sell arms to the averagely bad guys; they do need to protect their countries from the really bad guys.



#28 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,289 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 01:09 PM

Mujaheddin, Taliban, "Afghan freedom fighters", all the same thing.  The Mujaheddin leaders of the 80s became the Taliban leaders of the 90s and 2000s.

 

Edit:  to the average forum member, what's more recognisable, Mujaheddin or Taliban?  It makes more sense to call them the Taliban as that's really what they were in modern day terminology.

That's not really true. For instance, the Northern Alliance were also ex-mujahadeen but fought against the Taliban.



#29 GeordieSaint

GeordieSaint
  • Coach
  • 4,901 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 01:11 PM

Mujaheddin, Taliban, "Afghan freedom fighters", all the same thing.  The Mujaheddin leaders of the 80s became the Taliban leaders of the 90s and 2000s.

 

Edit:  to the average forum member, what's more recognisable, Mujaheddin or Taliban?  It makes more sense to call them the Taliban as that's really what they were in modern day terminology.

 

But that completely distorts the truth. The Taliban didn't exist until 1993/94. Very few of the Taliban leadership were ever leaders of the Mujaheddin. Mullah Omar was a low-level Commander for example. There are also many Mujaheddin low and high-level Commanders now involved in the Afghan National Army, Police Force and Government. Hence my comment in my initial response to misconceptions, half truths etc.


Kings Lynn Black Knights Rugby League Club - http://www.pitchero....nnblackknights/


#30 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,930 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 01:15 PM

That's not really true. For instance, the Northern Alliance were also ex-mujahadeen but fought against the Taliban.

Now, you're stretching my memory back to the military history stuff I was taught in the early 90s but the US funded mujaheddin were mainly those based out of southern Afghanistan and Pakistan with the central and northern Afghans getting little beyond an occasional arms shipment.  It is mainly those from that region that retreated into northern Pakistan that became the Taliban with the northern lot being a different bunch altogether.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#31 GeordieSaint

GeordieSaint
  • Coach
  • 4,901 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 01:31 PM

Now, you're stretching my memory back to the military history stuff I was taught in the early 90s but the US funded mujaheddin were mainly those based out of southern Afghanistan and Pakistan with the central and northern Afghans getting little beyond an occasional arms shipment.  It is mainly those from that region that retreated into northern Pakistan that became the Taliban with the northern lot being a different bunch altogether.

 

Sorry ckn, I think you are confusing the Taliban with Haqqani Network and HIG (Gulbiddin Hekmatyar). They are not the Taliban. They have similar aims but are not the same organisation. The Taliban's centre of gravity is Quetta and the southern/central half of the Tribal Areas. Most of the attacks for example in Kabul are not carried out by the Taliban, but by the Haqqani Network. as they are the group in closest proximity to Kabul. They were funded by the Americans during the Soviet conflict. The Taliban were an incredibly small group at their inception in 1993/94, no more than a platoon size.


Kings Lynn Black Knights Rugby League Club - http://www.pitchero....nnblackknights/


#32 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,289 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 01:36 PM

Now, you're stretching my memory back to the military history stuff I was taught in the early 90s but the US funded mujaheddin were mainly those based out of southern Afghanistan and Pakistan with the central and northern Afghans getting little beyond an occasional arms shipment.  It is mainly those from that region that retreated into northern Pakistan that became the Taliban with the northern lot being a different bunch altogether.

The US did not directly fund the mujahadeen, it gave the cash to the Pakistani intelligence service the ISI and they did it. The ISI picked groups that pushed an Islamist agenda.

 

The Taliban (literally students) were a small group based in madrassas during the conflict, they mostly belong to a different generation than the Mujahadeen. For instance the most Islamist / Pakistan-leaning mujahadeen general was Gubuldin Heykmatier but he was never a Taliban general.

 

The Pakistanis funded mujahadeen and they funded the Taliban. There is a lot of overlap but they aren't exactly the same.



#33 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 41,503 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 01:58 PM

The Shah was not a good guy, however, he was not Khomeini

 

There are no "good guys" in the Middle East. I'm not sure that we shouldn't sell arms to the averagely bad guys; they do need to protect their countries from the really bad guys.

 

 

The Shah was not a good guy, however, he was not Khomeini

 

There are no "good guys" in the Middle East. I'm not sure that we shouldn't sell arms to the averagely bad guys; they do need to protect their countries from the really bad guys.

hmmm


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#34 walter sobchak

walter sobchak
  • Coach
  • 1,876 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 02:06 PM

They bought the weapons from us and at that time Iran was very pro West.


"They" Iran bought weapons from the US and UK during the shah dictatorship which was pre the iraq-iran war and under the shah iran was indeed pro-US and UK because we put him in power, check out operation "Ajax" which was a CIA and MI6 coup that overthrew the democratically elected prime minister Mohammad mossadegh and installed our puppet the shah.

#35 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,289 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 02:07 PM

hmmm

Kuwait was not a "good guy" either, they had an absolute monarchy (and are still pretty close to being such). Still doesn't mean that selling arms to them to try to deter an Iraqi invasion was a bad thing.



#36 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 41,503 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 02:08 PM

Kuwait was not a "good guy" either, they had an absolute monarchy (and are still pretty close to being such). Still doesn't mean that selling arms to them to try to deter an Iraqi invasion was a bad thing.

 

 

Kuwait was not a "good guy" either, they had an absolute monarchy (and are still pretty close to being such). Still doesn't mean that selling arms to them to try to deter an Iraqi invasion was a bad thing.

hmmm


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#37 walter sobchak

walter sobchak
  • Coach
  • 1,876 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 02:15 PM

The Shah was not a good guy, however, he was not Khomeini
 
There are no "good guys" in the Middle East. I'm not sure that we shouldn't sell arms to the averagely bad guys; they do need to protect their countries from the really bad guys.

The reason we sell arms to the dictatorships in the middle east is because they are our puppets and client states, these dictators pay tens of billions of $$$$/£££££ annually to the US and UK arms manufacturers and invest their oil money in US banks and on wall street.

#38 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,289 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 02:23 PM

The reason we sell arms to the dictatorships in the middle east is because they are our puppets and client states, these dictators pay tens of billions of $$$$/£££££ annually to the US and UK arms manufacturers and invest their oil money in US banks and on wall street.

Tinfoil hat time.

 

The problem with the "puppet and client states" argument is that the US visibly had no control over events in these states during the Arab spring and made no effort to intervene on behalf its supposed friends. 

 

Not to mention that Pakistan was considered (by the tinfoil hat brigade) to be among those states and yet they hid bin Laden. And that's both the military dictatorship and the democratically elected government.



#39 walter sobchak

walter sobchak
  • Coach
  • 1,876 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 02:29 PM

Tinfoil hat time.
 
The problem with the "puppet and client states" argument is that the US visibly had no control over events in these states during the Arab spring and made no effort to intervene on behalf its supposed friends. 
 
Not to mention that Pakistan was considered (by the tinfoil hat brigade) to be among those states and yet they hid bin Laden. And that's both the military dictatorship and the democratically elected government.

The US only intervenes in the countries that are not client states like Iraq, Libya and now Syria.

#40 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,289 posts

Posted 24 June 2013 - 02:44 PM

The US only intervenes in the countries that are not client states like Iraq, Libya and now Syria.

That's self-defining. The client states are the ones that the US does not intervene in and the proof of it is that they don't intervene.

 

They've never intervened militarily in 95% of the world's countries including places like Bhutan, East Timor, the Central African Republic etc - are they all client states?