Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Do you support the U.S. Invasion of Afghanistan?

POST REPLY

Do you support the U.S. Invasion of Afghanistan?

Poll ended at 17 Aug 2011, 09:50

Yes
7
16%
No
32
73%
Other
5
11%
 
Total votes : 44
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 30 May 2011, 02:38
I tend to think of it this way. The Taliban will be easier for the Afghani people to overthrow and replace with something more progressive than a Western backed regime, which is almost as reactionary btw. And this is assuming a post Western occupied Afghanistan would lead to the Taliban taking back control at all. At this stage in history, I believe national self determination is still pretty important and Western Imperialism violates this in the worst way.

I'm absolutely disgusted by gRed Britain's comments in this thread. I'll comment further when I'm less busy.
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 30 May 2011, 02:44
Quote:
The Taliban will be easier for the Afghani people to overthrow and replace with something more progressive than a Western backed regime


The trend seems to be for Western regimes to be going down, not indigenous ones. In fact... yeah, when I think about it, it seems like most regimes that are toppled are backed by imperialists. You seem to be arguing against historical experience.

Also the Afghani people never even tried to overthrow the Taliban. What makes you think they'll revolt against them if they et the added popularity bonus of having "driven out the invaders"?
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 30 May 2011, 03:09
The Taliban are not completely indigenous... In fact, without the support they get from Islamic fundamentalist groups in other parts of the world, I don't think they could survive for every long. I maintain that they would be easier to topple than a Western backed regime.

Quote:
when I think about it, it seems like most regimes that are toppled are backed by imperialists.


Usually only after very long and bloody wars, if at all. See Korea and Vietnam.

Quote:
Also the Afghani people never even tried to overthrow the Taliban.


They've never been given a decent chance to.

The arguments in support of Western Imperialism are not altogether different from the arguments of Colonialists concerning the native populations of places like India, Australia and the America's. They aren't developing on their own so an outside force needs to make them (essentially) while the invaders reap the economic benefits. The consequences of this action being pretty damn nasty. I much prefer the approach of allowing these peoples to develop on their own, however long that takes.
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 30 May 2011, 04:15
Quote:
The Taliban are not completely indigenous... In fact, without the support they get from Islamic fundamentalist groups in other parts of the world, I don't think they could survive for every long. I maintain that they would be easier to topple than a Western backed regime.


The US armed forces have tried to topple them for almost a decade. This is the strongest army in the world. They have so far not succeded. What makes you think it would be any easier for the Afghan people, who lack equipment and strategical training?

Your point on the funding they receive from other parts of the world is interesting, but I fail to understand how it is relevant.

Quote:
Usually only after very long and bloody wars, if at all. See Korea and Vietnam.


I mean more like nowadays. See North Africa.

Quote:
They've never been given a decent chance to.


But lol, how is that an argument? Have regimes ever given their subjects "decent chances" to overthrow them? Isn't that in fact like the defining aspect of a state? Authority and everything? And if it's not the Taliban themselves that are allowing themselves to be overthrown, who else is going to "give them a decent chance"? Outside forces? Imperialists, maybe?

No, sorry, I just seriously don't understand what you mean here. A revolution, or an uprising at least, is done by the people themselves out of their concrete situation.

Quote:
The arguments in support of Western Imperialism are not altogether different from the arguments of Colonialists concerning the native populations of places like India, Australia and the America's. They aren't developing on their own so an outside force needs to make them (essentially) while the invaders reap the economic benefits. The consequences of this action being pretty damn nasty. I much prefer the approach of allowing these peoples to develop on their own, however long that takes.


But - I mean I understand what you're trying to say, but I'm afraid it sounds terrible when I think about what it really means.

I mean I consider it a fact that our society is further developed in many respects. We treat women better than they do, and the way they treat women is unacceptable. You could deride this as "White Man's Burden" thinking, and unfortunately I don't know whether I could refute that, but I consider it irrelevant. I am not prepared or willing to even discuss this, we'll just have to agree or disagree on it.

But if you agree - which I hope you do - how can you "prefer the approach of allowing these peoples to develop on their own, however long that takes"? How can you prefer reaction over progress in such a horrifying case? Your only argument to support this hideous notion seems to be national self-determination which just seems ridiculous to me! It effectively means to let these people drown in analphabetism, patriarchy, sharia law and who knows what other kinds of ignorance, "however long that takes" for them to get out of it on their own - possibly decades or centuries! - merely because on some abstract theoretical level, they deserve sovereignty as a nation. I chose the metaphor of drowning because I want to make it clear that I consider this to be no better than letting somebody drown in the sea because "he decides not to swim", which was his own ("self-determined") decision that you don't want to infringe on.

I mean, it may make sense in theory, but effectively you seem to just be saying "fück these people, I don't care about them" - and please believe me that I'm not saying this to provoke you. I'm just a bit shocked about what you just said.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 30 May 2011, 04:32
Mabool wrote:
The US armed forces have tried to topple them for almost a decade. This is the strongest army in the world. They have so far not succeded. What makes you think it would be any easier for the Afghan people, who lack equipment and strategical training?


Because it's far more difficult to destroy a mass insurgency. The US cannot defeat one why the hell would the Taliban be able to? The way the Taliban was leading was rapidly destabilizing Afghanistan. Without the US invasion I doubt the Taliban would have survived to see 2010 if things had continued as they were in 2001. US involvement in Afghanistan has not only re-legitimized the Taliban to a huge segment of the Afghani proles but the Karzai government is more or less a sanitized Taliban with probably even more corruption.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2298
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 30 May 2011, 04:51
Quote:
I don't think there even is a real Afghan nation you could refer to, the people there seem to be mostly split into clans that like to manage their own affairs. They don't give me the impression of even wanting self-determination as a united nation.

At least they refuse a foreign invasion, this is obvious.

Quote:
I dunno. If I was an Afghani person, it would seem more important to me. It seems weird to me to even try to deny this, to be honest. I mean it seems to be obvious unless you're a radical nationalist, which I'm taking the risk to define as a pretty worthless form of stupidity.

Your thought seems totally western-centered. If I was an Afghani, I would first ask for peace, so that my children don't die. And as I would be a very religious Afghani, as most of the population, I would refuse your stupid point of view about women, which has nothing to do with Pashtun rules.

Quote:
That was a nice and informative article, thank you. I learned much from it. I fail to see how it is relevant, however. Maybe you can help me understand why you think it is relevant?

It is relevant to call to mind that we don't lead a war against religion, but against capitalism. Thus, if you put the rights of women, which is a typical bourgeois argument, before the main contradiction, which is the struggle against capitalism, and thus imperialism, then you are misleading the working class. Also, why don't you ask for an invasion of Iran? And then Saudi Arabia, and most of the African countries...

Quote:
If you draw a comparison between the Taliban - whom you seem to think of as "the good guys" in this conflict - and the Basmachi, surely the conclusion would be that the Basmachi were also "the good guys" in their conflict with Soviet power?

I am a marxist, not a theologian. My comparison aimed to show that Lenin had indeed to deal with islamists (which you forgot), and that in order to resolve the conflict, they agreed on a compromise with a religion that you accuse to be "feudal". It seems that, under Lenin, the religious law was much more progressist than your bourgeois morality. We did the same during the French Revolution, we had to cut the head of extremist atheists because they were a big threat to the Revolution. And I believe indeed that your right-wing support to imperialism is much more dangerous than the "feudal" ideas of the Taliban.

Listen to Tariq Ali, he explaines perfectly why your positions are stupid (18').
Quote:
When I talked about "self-determination for the Afghan people," I was referring to the Afghan people, as individuals - as explained above

So when I speak about potatoes, you speak about tomatoes?


Quote:
Why don't you tell my why it would be "more important" to have "national self-determination" (without there even being any sense of allegiance to a "nation") rather than focus on your actual problems in real life, such as choice of spouse? I mean it's obviously different with cases like Kurdistan, but here I really don't see any relevance for the concept.

I don't understand how you can ask such questions. Isn't it obvious that, with your country at war, invaded by a foreign power which has no other aim but to rob you, the consequences on your daily life are far more important than anything else?

Quote:
The weakening of the Taliban corresponds to social progress in areas that have been freed from their control.

I have not been informed of such a "progress". I was taught that they were gaining more and more support, even in the towns.

Quote:
It is my impression that the Taliban have much less power now than they had before the war. Do you have a different opinion?

Before the war, their government was failing. Now, thanks to the United-States, they changed some of their policies, they are much more organized and perfectly able to rule a country. In fact, they are already ruling a great part of Afghanistan.
This is a map of their progression from 2002 to 2006.

Quote:
I am not, however, under the impression, that Lenin ever "taught".

Not only did Lenin "taught", but he also "learned. Didn't he wrote many articles called "lessons"? Lessons of the Paris Commune, for example. Do you have a problem with discipline?

Quote:
"Principles" go against dialectics, my dear friend.

I don't think so. Principles are our best weapon. Strategic firmness, tactical flexibility.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 30 May 2011, 13:53
Quote:
gRed, while I fully support almost everything you've said in this thread, I disagree with two things:

1st: Your total and resolute opposition to the nation construct - but that's for another topic.


Yes, this is more for another topic.

However, I would say that its relevance for this topic is that I am sceptical that a “nation” can determine something as a collective as if they were some sort of single-minded organism.

For example: under feudalism is it the self-determination of the vast majority of people that they should be serfs? Have all serfs collectively decided upon this? No they haven’t. The feudal mode of production is imposed and reinforced by a minority of people (the aristocracy) and their armed forces. The vast majority of people have no choice but to adhere to this mode of production. Thus one section of the nation makes and enforces the decision, the rest merely follow.

The same occurs under capitalism. It is the bourgeoisie who replace the feudal mode of production with the capitalist mode of production. The vast majority of people have no choice but to comply. Thus we could say that the only concept of self-determination is socialism and communism when the vast majority of people finally do choose their mode of production. This should ultimately be a class decision, not a national one.

Quote:
2nd, and much more important: Your way of insisting that socialism be preceded by capitalism seems a bit too schematic to me. I believe history has disproven this... you just really can't say that the USSR developed out of capitalism. Yes, there was this other revolution 9 months prior, but really? Just nah man. Likewise you shouldn't just be dogmatically claiming that Afghanistan "needs capitalism (BECAUSE HISTORICAL MATERIALISM)" - now I know that this makes you look more stupid than you are, but this is really the impression you're giving here, at least to me, and I find that regrettable. But maybe it's just me.


Well no, the USSR didn’t have much capitalism prior to its existence, but one could say this is why it initially struggled. Why was the NEP launched? Had it existed for longer (as I think Lenin implied it should have), who knows how the USSR would have developed?

Look at countries such as China, Laos and Vietnam. Have they not ultimately realised that capitalist development is needed in order for socialism to ultimately develop? Hence we see them orchestrating their own NEPs whilst their communist parties remain firmly in charge. I know a lot of us worry about whether China will “go back” to socialism, but, assuming it does, will socialism not be built upon a much stronger foundation after the current period of state capitalism than when they initially attempted it under Mao?

As for Afghanistan, yes I would support a communist movement trying to overthrow both the Taliban and the US there. As for their policies once they came to power, I think they would soon realise they too would have to undertake capitalist economic reforms similar to Doi Moi and Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. They would lack the resources, technology and expertise to develop the economy purely under their own efforts.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2298
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 30 May 2011, 16:27
Quote:
For example: under feudalism is it the self-determination of the vast majority of people that they should be serfs? Have all serfs collectively decided upon this? No they haven’t. The feudal mode of production is imposed and reinforced by a minority of people (the aristocracy) and their armed forces. The vast majority of people have no choice but to adhere to this mode of production. Thus one section of the nation makes and enforces the decision, the rest merely follow.

The nation is a capitalist invention. Thus it didn't existed under feudalism.

The communist position has already being explained by Lenin anyway:

Whoever does not recognise and champion the equality of nations and languages, and does not fight against all national oppression or inequality, is not a Marxist; he is not even a democrat. That is beyond doubt.

But it is well-known that Lenin was also a dogmatic.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 30 May 2011, 16:58
Quote:
The nation is a capitalist invention. Thus it didn't existed under feudalism.


Well obviously. I was just using this as an example.

Quote:
Whoever does not recognise and champion the equality of nations and languages,


Fighting against these inequalities is fine. This is because if all nations become truly equal in the eyes of all nationalities, the very concept of nations themselves begins to break down. This is because all nations are supposed to be exceptional in comparison to other nations. Everyone says “I’m proud to be British/French/American/Argentinean/Nigerian, etc.” (As if they had a choice!) The whole concept therefore is that everyone should focus on their nation above others; thus when push comes to shove, it’s ok if other nationalities are suffering if it means yours isn’t. This is why capitalist governments excuse imperialism by saying “it is in our nation’s interest…”

Once everyone believes every nation is truly equal then the whole competitive nature of nations breaks down, as does the nation concept itself.

Quote:
and does not fight against all national oppression or inequality, is not a Marxist


So we should be fighting for Cornish independence after all?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2298
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 30 May 2011, 23:31
Quote:
Fighting against these inequalities is fine. This is because if all nations become truly equal in the eyes of all nationalities, the very concept of nations themselves begins to break down.

Indeed, but this isn't only a matter of believing. In a socialist system, the nations would still exist even though all nations are supposed to be equal. Because you have the national culture, the language, the economy... But our aim, of course, is to have all the nations disappear.

Quote:
So we should be fighting for Cornish independence after all?

Is Cornland exploited? I'm Breton, but I don't support the Breton national movement, which is very weak, because I don't think I'm exploited.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 30 May 2011, 23:57
Quote:
Indeed, but this isn't only a matter of believing. In a socialist system, the nations would still exist even though all nations are supposed to be equal. Because you have the national culture, the language, the economy... But our aim, of course, is to have all the nations disappear.


Well at least we agree on this. In my opinion, getting the proletariat to reject the concept of nation now is a key step to overthrowing the bourgeoisie. I don't think that anyone can deny that nationalism is one the main tools the bourgeoisie use for subduing and manipulating the proletariat. Thus by educating the proletariat to reject the concept now, we weaken the effectiveness of a tool for bourgeois rule. Once we reach socialism we should actively be attempting to abolish the concept of nation completely from the minds of everybody.

Quote:
Is Cornland exploited? I'm Breton, but I don't support the Breton national movement, which is very weak, because I don't think I'm exploited.


Cornwall. It shouldn't be about the Cornish nation, it should be about the people who live in Cornwall. And the answer is yes, people there are exploited (not as a nation, but as a class - the proletariat). By giving Cornwall independence it merely gives it to the bourgeoisie thus not advancing the situation of the proletariat there. I think the same goes for a lot of the separatist nationalities in the Russian Caucasus. Unless independence results in an improvement of the situation of the working classes in those regions, what would it actually achieve other than to satisfy Lenin's principles?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2298
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 31 May 2011, 00:58
Quote:
Cornwall. It shouldn't be about the Cornish nation, it should be about the people who live in Cornwall. And the answer is yes, people there are exploited (not as a nation, but as a class - the proletariat). By giving Cornwall independence it merely gives it to the bourgeoisie thus not advancing the situation of the proletariat there. I think the same goes for a lot of the separatist nationalities in the Russian Caucasus. Unless independence results in an improvement of the situation of the working classes in those regions, what would it actually achieve other than to satisfy Lenin's principles?

If they are exploited, not as a nation, but as workers, then it's perfectly fine. And I guess the independantist movement is also very weak. So we won't support any secession, as for Brittanny.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10785
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 04 Jun 2011, 15:58
Jingle_Bombs wrote:
The Taliban are not a bunch of harmless central asian tribes. You know this, and still you'd prefer they were in power over the American puppets. That's pretty disgusting.


1. Never said harmless.
2. Never said I supported the Taliban

Anti-imperialist=/=pro-Taliban.

gRed Britain wrote:
No, the working class is being oppressed in the USA. We should be viewing Afghanistan as a general exception to imperialism: the imperialists are better than the only viable alternative.


Reminds me a lot of the class traitors in the Second International. Imperialism is generally bad; however, Kaiserism...

gRed Britain wrote:
You’re talking as if capitalist rape and pillage can never be progressive. Are you denying that capitalism is necessary in the course of human history? What Afghanistan needs right now is capitalism.


If I was an Afghani right now, I'd probably not want to be bombed at, shot at or murdered before I started arguing what mode of production was in my country. The latter is rather irrelevent for dead people.

According to Marx, you need capitalism to fully develop prior to socialism. There are plently of revisionist communist/socialist parties that are all to willing to sit around and rot until the world reaches complete capitalist development. The last ~150 years have shown us something rather different. Socialist movements have sprung up in areas of underdevelopment or extreme inequitable development.

Che in the Message to the Tricontinental wrote:
We must bear in mind that imperialism is a world system, the last stage of capitalism — and it must be defeated in a world confrontation. The strategic end of this struggle should be the destruction of imperialism. Our share, the responsibility of the exploited and underdeveloped of the world is to eliminate the foundations of imperialism: our oppressed nations, from where they extract capitals, raw materials, technicians and cheap labor, and to which they export new capitals — instruments of domination — arms and all kinds of articles; thus submerging us in an absolute dependance [sic].

[...]

While envisaging the destruction of imperialism, it is necessary to identify its head, which is no other than the United States of America.


gRed Britain wrote:
There isn’t a McDonalds in Kabul (and if one appears it doesn’t matter). A high tech mining industry, widespread investment in infrastructure and the development of commodity production within the country are all in the interests of the Afghan people. It is not in the interests of the Afghans if they remain in cottage industries or as opium farmers.


Oddly enough the Taliban almost erradicated opium production and imperialism has done a great job at restarting the industry. I must assume this is why the Afghani people should be thanking their new overlords.

gRed Britain wrote:
Considering you support the Taliban… Actually, I’ll just leave it at that.


Anti-imperialist=/=pro-Taliban.

gRed Britain wrote:
The fact you have to resort to using “tribes in Central Asia” should give you an idea of what you are supporting as opposed to capitalist development.


Not so much who I'm supporting rather than who I'm opposing.

gRed Britain wrote:
Since when did the “Afghan people” choose the their government? I’ve stated before that such a decision has never happened. The Taliban just took advantage of a power vacuum.


I'll agree that the words "choose" and "Afghan people" are vague words. I'll just repeat what OP-Bagration stated that there is a large difference between an occupation regime and a local one.

gRed Britain wrote:
Show me the evidence of a viable third choice.


When did communists stop agitating for their class and accept the choices given to them by imperialism?

edited to add the che quote.
Image

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney
Soviet cogitations: 1128
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Aug 2008, 18:12
Party Member
Post 04 Jun 2011, 16:43
Quote:
1. Never said harmless.


Sorry, don’t know where I got that from.

Quote:
2. Never said I supported the Taliban

Anti-imperialist=/=pro-Taliban.


No, you never said directly that you support the Taliban. However, the point I have been making is that you know full well that the Taliban and the imperialists are the only two viable options in Afghanistan at the moment. Thus, if you want the imperialists kicked out of Afghanistan, you are tacitly supporting the Taliban as you are fully aware they will be the only people to fill the power vacuum.

Quote:
If I was an Afghani right now, I'd probably not want to be bombed at, shot at or murdered before I started arguing what mode of production was in my country. The latter is rather irrelevent for dead people.


I’m sure a peasant caught up in the Russian Civil War would agree with you. Same goes for various bourgeois revolutions. Sadly, these things are somewhat necessary (if not the civilian collateral damage).

Quote:
There are plently of revisionist communist/socialist parties that are all to willing to sit around and rot until the world reaches complete capitalist development. The last ~150 years have shown us something rather different. Socialist movements have sprung up in areas of underdevelopment or extreme inequitable development.


A. Maybe that is what needs to happen. We would all like to live to see communism. It’s sad when you realise you won’t. Hence, some people try and start things off perhaps before their countries are ready for it.

B. I’ve always said, if there were a viable national bourgeois or socialist movement in Afghanistan that wanted to get rid of the imperialists and the Taliban, I would support them in a second. However, when you look at these parties which actually achieve power, they soon turn to capitalism because they realise they don’t have the framework upon which to build socialism. I’m sure if the Afghan communists came to power they would quickly do a Laos/China/Vietnam.

Quote:
Oddly enough the Taliban almost erradicated opium production and imperialism has done a great job at restarting the industry. I must assume this is why the Afghani people should be thanking their new overlords.


I agree this is not a good thing. However, I also pointed out that this is not in the interest of the imperialists so I’m sure that in time they will make efforts to curtail it.

Interesting to note that you criticise imperialism vehemently and yet your only views on the Taliban in this thread appear to be praise for their anti-opium policies…

Quote:
Not so much who I'm supporting rather than who I'm opposing.


Yes, in an ideal world we would all be supporting the ever-victorious communist movements as they effortlessly smashed apart global capitalism. Since this is not an ideal world and this is not happening we have to look at and work with the historical conditions presented to us. We sometimes have to make choices between the lesser of two evils. I mean, what the hell is “I oppose every viable choice in Afghanistan” going to achieve other than to lead you down a path of idealism?

Quote:
We must bear in mind that imperialism is a world system, the last stage of capitalism — and it must be defeated in a world confrontation. The strategic end of this struggle should be the destruction of imperialism. Our share, the responsibility of the exploited and underdeveloped of the world is to eliminate the foundations of imperialism: our oppressed nations, from where they extract capitals, raw materials, technicians and cheap labor, and to which they export new capitals — instruments of domination — arms and all kinds of articles; thus submerging us in an absolute dependance [sic].

[...]

While envisaging the destruction of imperialism, it is necessary to identify its head, which is no other than the United States of America.


So would you say it’s ok to sacrifice the historical development of Afghanistan if it meant advancing the prospect of proletarian revolution in the West? By damaging US imperialism we condemn Afghanistan to Taliban feudalism for the sake of advancing our own class struggle.

I’d say yes, I’m just not sure if it will actually occur. Did the US defeat in Vietnam amount to the terminal decline of its imperialism? Even if the US loses this war it will still be healthily imperialist.

But I suppose it’s the closest argument I’ve seen in this thread not to support the Afghan proxy government.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10785
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 16 Jun 2011, 15:46
gRed Britain wrote:
No, you never said directly that you support the Taliban. However, the point I have been making is that you know full well that the Taliban and the imperialists are the only two viable options in Afghanistan at the moment. Thus, if you want the imperialists kicked out of Afghanistan, you are tacitly supporting the Taliban as you are fully aware they will be the only people to fill the power vacuum.


Afghani people should choose their own government rather than the Pentagon.

gRed Britain wrote:
A. Maybe that is what needs to happen.


Like I stated, there are plenty of armchair parties that are willing to wait until the world achieves "perfect" development or "maximum" exploitation prior to doing anything.

gRed Britain wrote:
I’m sure if the Afghan communists came to power they would quickly do a Laos/China/Vietnam.


"Market Socialism" or "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" is a lot better than being a colony in the Empire in my book. On a side note, it would be interesting to read up on economic development in North Vietnam compared to South Vietnam.

gRed Britain wrote:
I agree this is not a good thing. However, I also pointed out that this is not in the interest of the imperialists so I’m sure that in time they will make efforts to curtail it.


Just like Colombia..

gRed Britain wrote:
Interesting to note that you criticise imperialism vehemently and yet your only views on the Taliban in this thread appear to be praise for their anti-opium policies…


And Mussolini made the trains run on time, I guess that make me a fascist supporter for finding one policy that was positive.

gRed Britain wrote:
So would you say it’s ok to sacrifice the historical development of Afghanistan if it meant advancing the prospect of proletarian revolution in the West?


As Che stated, we need to make one, two many Vietnams. While anti-imperialist fighters are fighting across the Third World the oppressed in the belly of the beast are fighting back from within the Empire.

gRed Britain wrote:
By damaging US imperialism we condemn Afghanistan to Taliban feudalism for the sake of advancing our own class struggle.


Sounds a lot like white man's burden to me..

Connecting the struggle between countries is also kind of important, sorta.
Image

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 15 Jun 2011, 19:23
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 16 Jun 2011, 16:15
No.

Afghanistan has little strategic value, and maintaining long term influence will be difficult given the proximity to other great powers (Russia, China, India) and major regional powers (Pakistan, Iran). Our supply lines to Afghanistan also run through Pakistan, an unstable state which could collapse into civil war or suffer an anti-American (ie nationalist or Islamist) coup d'etat. This would put ISAF at great risk, although fortunately our heavy airlift capability is better than that of the Luftwaffe during Stalingrad. A durable victory would require a major expansion of the war into Pakistan (already occuring with drone strikes) which would require a far larger force of occupation. Lastly, the occupation of Afghanistan requires friendly relations with Islamabad, whereas we need to begin isolating Pakistan in order to strengthen our relationship with India so that we can contain the PRC.

It's basically a huge sinkhole for our blood and treasure while bringing us little in return. Now that Osama bin Laden is dead and Al Qaeda's network in Afghanistan gone, we have an opportunity to declare victory and get the hell out.

In a hypothetical situation where we had a competent and militarist government, then remaining in Afghanistan could be useful as a prelude to invading Iran and Pakistan. This however is a pipe dream, and American power is in fast decline. It's time for imperial retreat.
Dave from PoFo
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2298
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 22 Jun 2011, 06:12
me wrote:
They will come to an agreement anyway, they have no choice.

"Washington confirms negotiations with the Taliban", according to Le Monde.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 716
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2007, 23:25
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 22 Jun 2011, 23:11
No. I support the destruction and total annihilation of the Taliban forces, but not via imperialist invasion. The funding and armament of domestic anti-Taliban forces such as the Northern Alliance, while being a tribalist and far from progressive organisation, is a much more acceptable and effective way to liquidate the Taliban.
Image

"Communism is more about love for mankind than about politics."
Me
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2298
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 23 Jun 2011, 00:38
Ridiculous! The US government helped the Northern Alliance for years, but they were losing the war against the Taliban. So you believe that supporting a US imperialist strategy is an effective way to bring freedom in Afghanistan? It seems that your objective isn't freedom (and sovereignty!) for the Afghan people, but to get rid of the Taliban, no matter how it could be done. Moreover, how couldn't the warlords be worst than the Taliban since the Taliban appeared because of the calamity provoked by the warlords?
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 716
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Aug 2007, 23:25
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Komsomol
Post 24 Jun 2011, 00:08
I clearly stated I opposed the invasion of Afghanistan, so where you get the idea that I ever said "US imperialist strategy is an effective way" or "to get rid of the Taliban, no matter how it could be done" is a mystery to me
Image

"Communism is more about love for mankind than about politics."
Me
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.