Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Wolford6

Surrender in Afghanistan

44 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Egypt under the military dictatorship of hosni Mubarak was a US client state. The US propped Mubarak up with military and economic aid and political support for over 30 years, when the Arab spring hit Egypt the US stuck by their man until the last minute until it was clear that the democracy protesters would win and overthrow him and the US then threw Mubarak under the bus. Likewise in Bahrain the US sells Bahrain billions of $$$ worth of arms every year and won't lift a finger to help the democracy protesters in Bahrain because Bahrain is just another US Arab client state, ditto Yemen. As for Bhutan, east Timor and the central African republic, they don't have any oil or geopolitical importance to the US, hence they aren't client states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Egypt under the military dictatorship of hosni Mubarak was a US client state. The US propped Mubarak up with military and economic aid and political support for over 30 years, when the Arab spring hit Egypt the US stuck by their man until the last minute until it was clear that the democracy protesters would win and overthrow him and the US then threw Mubarak under the bus. Likewise in Bahrain the US sells Bahrain billions of $$$ worth of arms every year and won't lift a finger to help the democracy protesters in Bahrain because Bahrain is just another US Arab client state, ditto Yemen. As for Bhutan, east Timor and the central African republic, they don't have any oil or geopolitical importance to the US, hence they aren't client states.

You have this entirely wrong. US aid to Egypt was part of the Camp David agreement that ended the conflict between Israel and Egypt. And Mubarak wasn't leader of Egypt back then. The USA criticised Mubarak (=sticking by their man), did nothing to help him, did nothing to unseat him and aid has continued.

 

Yemen has no oil and the US didn't intervene there = client state

Bhutan has no oil and the US didn't intervene there = not client state

 

You make it up as you go along.

 

Venezuela has oil and the US didn't intervene. So does Nigeria. Are they client states or are only Arab states ever client states?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have this entirely wrong. US aid to Egypt was part of the Camp David agreement that ended the conflict between Israel and Egypt. And Mubarak wasn't leader of Egypt back then. The USA criticised Mubarak (=sticking by their man), did nothing to help him, did nothing to unseat him and aid has continued.

 

Yemen has no oil and the US didn't intervene there = client state

Bhutan has no oil and the US didn't intervene there = not client state

 

You make it up as you go along.

 

Venezuela has oil and the US didn't intervene. So does Nigeria. Are they client states or are only Arab states ever client states?

I can see you're struggling with what the definition of a client state is. Egypt first under Sadat then Mubarak was a Arab US client state, the US gave Egypt billions of dollars worth of military and economic aid and political support in return for a peace(surrender) deal with Israel and a peaceful stable middle east(no oil crisis). Yemen has oil but not to the degree of the Persian gulf countries but it does share a border with Saudi Arabia the US and UK's #1 friend in the region and both the US and Saudi Arabia can't have a non US aligned country on its border as it might catch on with their(Saudi) population, ditto Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait etc. Also you've obviously never heard of the 2002 US supported coup against Venezuela's popular and democratically elected leader Hugo Chavez, who broke the domination of the foreign oil corporations, corporate America and the 1% in Venezuela and implemented policy changes so all of Venezuela's population could benefit from their oil wealth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, they benefit to the extent that they have no toilet paper. Venezuela squanders its vast oil wealth and runs a communist style economy with all its inefficiencies. And yes, I've heard of the coup but only the tinfoil hat brigade think that the USA had any real involvement. They didn't.

 

"Client state" is just simply circular nonsense. You seem to think that the USA brokering a peace deal between Egypt and Israel made Egypt into a "client state". Perhaps being at war is another characteristic of a non-client state in your world.

 

Yemen has oil to the extent that any country has oil. They have less than we do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 24th July 2017

Rugby League World - August 2017