HOME | DD

EVERYDAY2018 In reply to ??? [2018-01-14 16:28:14 +0000 UTC]

the afghani government asked for soviet aid they were not invaded

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Aerodeth In reply to EVERYDAY2018 [2018-01-21 11:15:14 +0000 UTC]

The Republic of Afghanistan asked the Soviet Union for aid to overthrow itself and assassinate it's president?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Loli-Stalin In reply to Aerodeth [2018-01-21 20:36:06 +0000 UTC]

If talking about the Republic of Afghanistan (73-78) the president of that one was ousted by a coup in his own government during the Saur revolution. This the lead to the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. If for the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan there was a power struggle internally with the leaders which eventually lead to Soviet invasion with government assistance. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Aerodeth In reply to Loli-Stalin [2018-01-21 22:12:50 +0000 UTC]

'there was a power struggle internally with the leaders'
Yes, the DRA prez there wanted to kill off his own prime minister who was practically the world's biggest middle eastern fan of communism so badly, but ultimately failed and ended up getting his comeuppance. That very prime minister the Soviets decided to overthrow and kill off was so loyal to the Soviet Union, his own invaders, that not only did he call on Soviet backing to help him crush rebels and uprisings, when his palace was being attacked he still believe the Soviets were on his side saying "The Soviets will help us"... the same Soviets that were attacking his palace!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Loli-Stalin In reply to Aerodeth [2018-01-21 23:08:22 +0000 UTC]

I would need to know who you were talking about for context. 

The timeline was 

Taraki leader of the Saur revolt ended up becoming head f state. Makes a lot of reforms in it. A power struggle takes place between faction with Taraki and Amin. Amin is important later as I think that is who you are talking about. 

The faction that Taraki and Amin fought against lost and most of them fled to Eastern bloc nations like the Soviet Union.

However after this event yet another power struggle took place between Taraki and Amin with Amin winning. Amin would later have Taraki killed.

Amin's rule would last about 104 days roughly.

Amin was finding it hard to rule the nation and the military control was starting to slip from his command. Meanwhile those he and Taraki exiled where plotting with the Soviets to come back.

The Soviets invaded with the intention to put Karmal back into power. Most of the government unhappy with him allowed the Soviets to do this.

Deteriorating relations between the USSR and Amin were due to him drawing close to the PRC (whom the Soviets had a rivalry with since the Sino-Sovet split) and preference for Taraki over Amin and disagreeing with how Taraki was killed as the Soviets told him not to do that.

Things continued to get worse for him when he tried opening up diplomatic relations with America, Iran, and Pakistan. LAst one ironic as they were one of the funders of the Mujaheddin. 

The two main fears were that Afghanistan would either go to a pro-NATO stance with him or due to his unpopularity it may fall to the Mujaheddin.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Aerodeth In reply to Loli-Stalin [2018-01-22 03:24:27 +0000 UTC]

'Amin is important later as I think that is who you are talking about. '
Bingo. Prime Minister Amin.

'Amin would later have Taraki killed.'
Because Taraki attempted multiple times to kill HIM.

'Deteriorating relations between the USSR and Amin were due to him drawing close to the PRC (whom the Soviets had a rivalry with since the Sino-Sovet split)'
But he still appreciated the USSR's aide. In that same speech that he talking about getting closer with China, he compared their aide with the Soviets to Lenin aiding Hungary's communist republic. Amin was probably a bigger fan of communism than any of the Soviet leaders of that time were.
'preference for Taraki over Amin and disagreeing with how Taraki was killed as the Soviets told him not to do that.'
Amin brought it up with the Soviet Union's General Secretary who ultimately told him that it was up to Amin to decide Taraki's fate, not the Union's.

'Things continued to get worse for him when he tried opening up diplomatic relations with America, Iran, and Pakistan'
Kind of a dumb reason to push the Soviet Union to overthrow and kill him.... well, except for Iran. The Ayatollah wouldve most likely pushed for an Afghani revolution like he did in Iraq and Yemen.
'Last one ironic as they were one of the funders of the Mujaheddin.'
That probably wouldve been a smart move to get friendly with them considering how Afghanistan eventually turned out.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Loli-Stalin In reply to Aerodeth [2018-01-22 03:51:15 +0000 UTC]

>Because Taraki attempted multiple times to kill HIM.

I can only find examples of trying to remove him of power and the only attempt being the gang of four.

>But he still appreciated the USSR's aide. In that same speech that he talking about getting closer with China, he compared their aide with the Soviets to Lenin aiding Hungary's communist republic. Amin was probably a bigger fan of communism than any of the Soviet leaders of that time were. 

Can't really see it as biggest fan of communism. It seems it drift more into standard autocratic leader type of things. Like trying to appeal to some Muslim sentiment in the nation by using Allah more in speeches. Or as in the other part even liking Pakistan and Iran which were considered reactionary. 

>Amin brought it up with the Soviet Union's General Secretary who ultimately told him that it was up to Amin to decide Taraki's fate, not the Union's.

Yeah they were actually shocked when he killed him as they wanted Taraki to be alive and it shocked and upset the USSR when they found out.

>Kind of a dumb reason to push the Soviet Union to overthrow and kill him.... well, except for Iran. The Ayatollah would've most likely pushed for an Afghani revolution like he did in Iraq and Yemen.

The America one makes more sense as that would be an American ally right on their borders. USSR was already upset about Turkey being very close to them. Them thinking Afghanistan would turn would be a major reason. The other problem is Amin was failing as a leader and control was slipping. They were afraid that the Islamist and reactionary factions would overthrow him and install a theocracy, one worse than Iran. Neither one looked good for them.

>That probably wouldve been a smart move to get friendly with them considering how Afghanistan eventually turned out.

Why?

As for your original comment the Republic did ask for help in those things. Amin accepted USSR aid and the government itself accepted getting rid of Amin.

The rest of it is the standard war where Soviet forces fought Islamist rebels with the Republic. A role ironically the United States seems to have taken up now.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Aerodeth In reply to Loli-Stalin [2018-01-22 06:22:32 +0000 UTC]

'I can only find examples of trying to remove him of power and the only attempt being the gang of four.'
AttemptS. Amin was already informed of one of the plots. Another ended in a shootout at the presidential palace in disguise of a luncheon.

'Can't really see it as biggest fan of communism.'
You cant see a communist prime minister having so much respect for communism that he studies and praises communist history and makes real life comparisons of them as being a big fan of communism? He also had a fondness for Stalin even while many Soviets were trying to distance themselves from him.
'Like trying to appeal to some Muslim sentiment in the nation by using Allah more in speeches.'
You can be communist and not anti-muslim at the same time. Hitler, a national socialist, praised and respected the mohammadans even more than he did the christians.

'Yeah they were actually shocked when he killed him as they wanted Taraki to be alive and it shocked and upset the USSR when they found out.'
Then perhaps the General Secretary shouldnt have said it was ultimately up to Amin to decide Taraki's fate.
Amin: I cannot deal with Taraki and his treachery any further. May I kill him now?
Brezhnev: It is your choice to make, not ours.
Amin: Ok. *CHOKE* *GAG* *OUUGGHHH....ugh...*
Brezhnev: GASP! I CANT BELIEVE YOU KILLED TARAKI!!!

'The America one makes more sense as that would be an American ally right on their borders.'
It wouldve also meant not only a better chance of improving relations and cooling down a cold war but also less chance of being caught in a world war should such a worst case scenario occur.
'They were afraid that the Islamist and reactionary factions would overthrow him and install a theocracy, one worse than Iran.'
So THEY overthrew him (and killed him) and ended up losing Afghanistan to the Islamist and reactionary factions which installed a theocracy.

'Why?'
Because as you said. They were mujahideen funders. Better relations with such funders means less funding to those enemies and more aid and trade to the afghani government. Unlike US, Afghanistan didnt have the privilege to make drastic demands to cut terrorism ties to nations like Pakistan.
'Amin accepted USSR aid and the government itself accepted getting rid of Amin.'
The USSR wanted Amin DEAD. The Soviet government and it's press had the gall to accuse Amin of being a CIA agent! This was the crippling mindset the Union had at the time, hinting their end was near. They accuse one of their own loyal to the bitter end fellow commies of being an undercover agent of the evil CIA!

'A role ironically the United States seems to have taken up now.'
Unfortunately, I cant tell you how it's gonna end. But at the very least, I have a slimmer of hope there's gonna be a happy ending. The Logar province seems to have high hopes, otherwise they wouldnt have given our president a medal of bravery for his stand against Pakistan.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Loli-Stalin In reply to Aerodeth [2018-01-22 11:49:08 +0000 UTC]

>You cant see a communist prime minister having so much respect for communism that he studies and praises communist history and makes real life comparisons of them as being a big fan of communism? He also had a fondness for Stalin even while many Soviets were trying to distance themselves from him.

Yes since he was flip flopping on what he wanted to be. He would use Marxist talk one second, then praise reactionaries around him, then praising Islam which leads into.

>You can be communist and not anti-muslim at the same time. Hitler, a national socialist, praised and respected the mohammadans even more than he did the christians.

Not really. Communism views religion as a distraction and opium of the people which was why I had a a problem with your analysis. Even the Arab socialists like Saddam, Gaddafi, and Assad rejected communism and preferred socialism for that reason.

>So THEY overthrew him (and killed him) and ended up losing Afghanistan to the Islamist and reactionary factions which installed a theocracy.

Due to no small part of the Americans from Carter to Reagan also funding the Islamists in the nation, making the issue worse. The U.S at this time didn't care too much about Islamic terrorism seeing Communism as a bigger threat. Which is why I find it ironic the U.S is now fighting the same people it funded. Amin's control was slipping and it was becoming apparent that his regime was going to collapse to them.

>Then perhaps the General Secretary shouldnt have said it was ultimately up to Amin to decide Taraki's fate.

They thought he would have enough common sense to know they preferred Taraki and not kill him. Seems he was too autistic for that.

>Because as you said. They were mujahideen funders. Better relations with such funders means less funding to those enemies and more aid and trade to the afghani government. Unlike US, Afghanistan didnt have the privilege to make drastic demands to cut terrorism ties to nations like Pakistan.

You do know that allying does not always mean they will actually accept your proposal. It is incredibly naive to think that becoming buddy with them would stop them from funding Islamist rebels in the nation.

>The USSR wanted Amin DEAD. The Soviet government and it's press had the gall to accuse Amin of being a CIA agent! This was the crippling mindset the Union had at the time, hinting their end was near. They accuse one of their own loyal to the bitter end fellow commies of being an undercover agent of the evil CIA!

But to your original point when you asked "they asked for it" is true. Amin had lost control of most of the nation and was highly unliked in the nation. The Soviets sent aid to get into the nation and were supported by the military and government once in there. Amin was killed as he was becoming a burden to the nation. 

As for the other part U.S propaganda was doing their best to lure the Soviets into Afghanistan. Funding the rebels was one of those things, the other one was making the Soviets think that Afghanistan had moved into the U.S camp. That was one reason why thy think he was compromised. The other one would be that you seem to think since they were both Commies they were entitled to like each other.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Aerodeth In reply to Loli-Stalin [2018-01-23 05:48:52 +0000 UTC]

'He would use Marxist talk one second, then praise reactionaries around him, then praising Islam which leads into.'
Well of course, what do you think the vast majority of Afghanistan consists of? Muslims. Avid muslims. Centuries worth of muslims. Praising their devotion to their religion is a GOOD idea. Persuading them to ultimately move from their religious ideology to a anti-religious marxist ideology needs to be done VERY carefully.

'Communism views religion as a distraction and opium of the people which was why I had a a problem with your analysis.'
Which just argues that ultimately communism at it's most faithful doesnt work. Religion has shaped beliefs, cultures, laws, and spoken languages. If you wanna ultimately outlaw such a thing, either tread carefully or be prepared for instability and tons and tons of bloodshed.

'Due to no small part of the Americans from Carter to Reagan also funding the Islamists in the nation, making the issue worse.'
One could argue that could have been prevented had Amin been allowed to develop better relations with America!
'Amin's control was slipping and it was becoming apparent that his regime was going to collapse to them.'
Afghanistan is a difficult third world nation to stabilize. It's been under several radical islamic rules for the majority of it's history. It consists of several feuding tribes with origins all across Asia and the middle east. Forcing a communist republic  on a 'diverse' nation like this one that hasnt even had much time getting used to being a non-monarchy is gonna require blood and lots of it. Amin was brutal, yes. He killed tons of dissidents. He'd pretty much have to. That happened in dang near EVER nation that had a communist republic forced on it. A lot of people didnt like communism PERIOD. Cant exactly blame Amin for communism's eventually collapse in a nation like Afghanistan. Even in the best of the Soviet Union's abilities, dont pretend communism wouldnt still eventually fall there.

'They thought he would have enough common sense to know they preferred Taraki and not kill him. Seems he was too autistic for that.'
Who would have the common sense to not punish those that repeatedly attempted to murder them? Did the Soviet Union have such mercy for murderous traitors of their own to that extent? What other reason did the Soviet Union not want Amin to punish Taraki and his crew other than so Taraki and his crew could try to kill him again? Backstabbing reds.

'You do know that allying does not always mean they will actually accept your proposal. It is incredibly naive to think that becoming buddy with them would stop them from funding Islamist rebels in the nation.'
And what else could Afghanistan have done to stop Pakistan from funding terrorists? Go to war with them? They couldnt intimidate them or threaten sanctions. Only other option would be to try to persuade nations bigger than them.

'But to your original point when you asked "they asked for it" is true. Amin had lost control of most of the nation and was highly unliked in the nation.'
Well, to be honest, that first comment I made was referencing the overthrow of the Republic of Afghanistan by the communist movement supported by the Soviet Union. But the discussion slightly changed now that we're talking about the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, yet my argument still applies. The unfaithful members of the government asked the Soviet Union to help them overthrow their government and assassinate their leader who was absolutely LOYAL to communism and the Soviet Union to the bitter end. I am no supporter of communism, but c'mon. I cant help but feel sorry for their loyal scapegoat Amin.

'As for the other part U.S propaganda was doing their best to lure the Soviets into Afghanistan.'
Only a damn fool would honestly believe that Amin was a CIA agent. Nobody really believed that Amin was a CIA agent. The only reason the Soviets would spew such dreg would be to have him killed.
'The other one would be that you seem to think since they were both Commies they were entitled to like each other.'
No excuse. The Soviets made an absolutely poor shameful decision to invade Afghanistan. No logic behind it. None.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Loli-Stalin In reply to Aerodeth [2018-01-23 13:34:16 +0000 UTC]

>Well of course, what do you think the vast majority of Afghanistan consists of? Muslims. Avid muslims. Centuries worth of muslims. Praising their devotion to their religion is a GOOD idea. Persuading them to ultimately move from their religious ideology to a anti-religious marxist ideology needs to be done VERY carefully.

Yet I am going to take a stab that you may have voted Trump and, well, look at his comments and ideas towards Muslim. Not that he's wrong on it but I find it ironic that its "think of da Muslims" when now its "fuck the muslims" especially since one of the criticisms of Bush was that he was too soft on Islam.


>Which just argues that ultimately communism at it's most faithful doesnt work. Religion has shaped beliefs, cultures, laws, and spoken languages. If you wanna ultimately outlaw such a thing, either tread carefully or be prepared for instability and tons and tons of bloodshed.

Not really. Religion is given too much credit as one cannot even decide what is teh faithful. Different sects of Christians and Muslims fighting each other. One could say these did not work since Christians and even Muslims cannot decided on who is the true faithful follower of god. The view on religion is sometimes overblown. 

>One could argue that could have been prevented had Amin been allowed to develop better relations with America!

>THEY WOULD NOT BE FRIENDS WITH US SO WE HAD TO FUND THE TERRORISTS!

Well then it seems that contrary to the opinions of others that one 9/11 simply was not enough. Tell me is that how it works when you fund the Islamist rebels in Syria against Assad? That he and Syria deserve it for not being friends with America like a big meanie?

You to quote what you said later "no excuse" on why you were funding Islamist radicals which later dragged you yanks down there and then shot you up.

>Afghanistan is a difficult third world nation to stabilize. It's been under several radical islamic rules for the majority of it's history. It consists of several feuding tribes with origins all across Asia and the middle east. Forcing a communist republic  on a 'diverse' nation like this one that hasnt even had much time getting used to being a non-monarchy is gonna require blood and lots of it. Amin was brutal, yes. He killed tons of dissidents. He'd pretty much have to. That happened in dang near EVER nation that had a communist republic forced on it. A lot of people didnt like communism PERIOD. Cant exactly blame Amin for communism's eventually collapse in a nation like Afghanistan. Even in the best of the Soviet Union's abilities, dont pretend communism wouldnt still eventually fall there.

Not really. Afghanistan like other nations in the Middle East has had its share of Islamist dictators and theocracy and also sometimes progressive leaders. This seems to be common in that region. As for what you said think of Communism even happening in the Russian Empire. A highly religious social conservative state. No one not even Marx suspected that Russia would be the first to fall to it and even be the leader of it. 

>Who would have the common sense to not punish those that repeatedly attempted to murder them? Did the Soviet Union have such mercy for murderous traitors of their own to that extent? What other reason did the Soviet Union not want Amin to punish Taraki and his crew other than so Taraki and his crew could try to kill him again? Backstabbing reds.

Amin was attempted to be pushed into minor positions to just kick him out. When he became an issue with killing people who could actually run the nation that is when it became the problem.

>Backstabbing reds.

The South Republic of Vietnam calls and all the leaders the US had to keep changing due to the fuck ups they made.

>And what else could Afghanistan have done to stop Pakistan from funding terrorists? Go to war with them? They couldnt intimidate them or threaten sanctions. Only other option would be to try to persuade nations bigger than them.

You generally don't kiss ass to nations trying funding rebels in your nation.  That would be like America allying with Japan after Pearl Harbor. Or Assad trying to befriend U.S (which OI think he was trying when Trump came in but the American media sperged on him being a Russian ally as well). This is ignoring the point that US and Crapistan should not have been funding terrorists in the first place.

>Well, to be honest, that first comment I made was referencing the overthrow of the Republic of Afghanistan by the communist movement supported by the Soviet Union. 

Oh great, you were even a bigger disappointment then I thought. The two of you were not even talking about the same thing.

>The unfaithful members of the government asked the Soviet Union to help them overthrow their government and assassinate their leader

PREVIOUSLY 

>The Republic of Afghanistan asked the Soviet Union for aid to overthrow itself and assassinate it's president?

You answered your own question.

>No excuse. The Soviets made an absolutely poor shameful decision to invade Afghanistan. No logic behind it. None.

 Der Sovet Onion was evil. We need to fund the Islamist for teh freedumbs 

Despite the fact your government was funding islamic radicals on purpose to topple the regime there and drag the Soviets in. Amin's regime was weak and becoming in danger of collapsing. The Soviets would not enjoy having Islamist radicals that were being funded by the Americans on their border. You seem to be ignoring this fact with blatant American jingoism or the fact that yes, the Soviets did not invade but were requested to come in.

It seems most of this is an emotional reaction you have to a hate boner for communism. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Aerodeth In reply to Loli-Stalin [2018-01-24 05:49:44 +0000 UTC]

'Yet I am going to take a stab that you may have voted Trump and'
Aint you CutestSith? If you are, you'd pretty much have already known cuz I certainly didnt keep my voting preference very discreet to you. If youre not him, disregard.
'Not that he's wrong on it but I find it ironic that its "think of da Muslims" when now its "fuck the muslims"'
We're not going on a Crusade. But I'm sure Trump's got plans to starve the radicals and cripple their funding. But we're going off topic.

'Not really. Religion is given too much credit as one cannot even decide what is teh faithful. Different sects of Christians and Muslims fighting each other. '
Didnt you just mention the Sino-Soviet split a couple of comments ago? What religion was that? Less said about killing Amin who was incredibly faithful to his 'religion'...

'THEY WOULD NOT BE FRIENDS WITH US SO WE HAD TO FUND THE TERRORISTS!'
Does not negate my statement.
'Well then it seems that contrary to the opinions of others that one 9/11 simply was not enough.'
Does not negate my statement.
'Tell me is that how it works when you fund the Islamist rebels in Syria against Assad? That he and Syria deserve it for not being friends with America like a big meanie?'
Timber Sycamore being cut aside, does not negate my statement.  How can you argue against the idea that Amin pushing for better relations with the other most powerful nation in the world would have been a bad idea?

'Afghanistan like other nations in the Middle East has had its share of Islamist dictators and theocracy and also sometimes progressive leaders.'
How many 'progressive' leaders compared to islamic fundamentalist ones?
'As for what you said think of Communism even happening in the Russian Empire. A highly religious social conservative state. No one not even Marx suspected that Russia would be the first to fall to it and even be the leader of it.'
The Soviet Union didnt even last one whole century whereas the Russian Empire lasted several centuries. The Soviet Union had a monumental body count to keep it's ideology the prime one. You yourself joke about gulags cuz even you know that such a 'necessity' is so ridiculous, it's reduced to a joke. It could also be hinted that the German Empire played a hand in having Lenin overthrow the Russian Empire, but that's a whole other topic in itself. If the Russians truly love communism, they can vote it back. There is an active communist political party on the ballot. Instead, they prefer an ex-KGB agent that had so much respect for it's communist past that he flat out replaced Lenin's October Revolution holiday and re-established the Tsar's Unity Day.

'Amin was attempted to be pushed into minor positions to just kick him out.'
He's a fighter. He fought for his position. With all due respect for the Soviet ideology, of course.
'When he became an issue with killing people who could actually run the nation that is when it became the problem.'
Because THEY attempted to kill HIM. Even if Taraki wasnt involved in the assassination attempts, he was certainly not gonna punish his gang for it. And the Soviets werent gonna punish them. Tsk... like THEY knew how to run the nation. They didnt even have the Army on their side.

'The South Republic of Vietnam calls and all the leaders the US had to keep changing due to the fuck ups they made.'
Vietnam was a total clusterfuck to drag us into to begin with. National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster wrote a book about it.

'You generally don't kiss ass to nations trying funding rebels in your nation.  That would be like America allying with Japan after Pearl Harbor.'
You think the Communist Republic of Afghanistan could take on the Japanese Empire? They couldnt even deal with major spats in their own nation! As I said before, they didnt have the privilege to call out bigger nations like Pakistan for terrorist funding. All they could do is persuade.
'Or Assad trying to befriend U.S (which OI think he was trying when Trump came in but the American media sperged on him being a Russian ally as well).'
When Trump ordered a 59 tomahawk missile strike on a Syrian airbase, I noticed there quite a few odd inconsistencies that didnt add up. Why didnt any hit the runways? Why did the body counts keep changing? How many missiles actually hit the airbase to begin with? Why did Trump warn Russia when Russia was obviously gonna warn Assad? How come Iran's state-funded media that stated only 23 missiles hit the airbase while the remaining 34 were intercepted cant even count? (THAT'S ONLY 57!) If Putin really forbid our Secretary of State from speaking with him in Moscow as a response to the strike, why did he change his mind hours later saying the SoS can come but Putin wont be there to see him THEN change his mind again hours later saying that Putin WOULD see him? Where the hell is the 100,000 troop surge that Mike Cernovich stated would happen according to his 'sources'?
It seemed like Kabuki play acting to me. For all I know, maybe Assad and Putin DO have a good relation with our president under the table. I'm sorry, I'm going way off topic.

'You answered your own question.'
Heh. Guess I did. And not only do I still firmly believe that such an action was an inexcusable and incredibly dumb move on the Union's part to make, I'm actually feeling sorry for a communist leader who was loyal to the bitter end to the very same people who killed him. Thanks a lot, me. Educated me better than that Loli-Somethingorother could have!

'Der Sovet Onion was evil. We need to fund the Islamist for teh freedumbs'
I'm sorry. Diverse muzzies are tough sons of bitches to maintain. Maybe if you kissed and made up with China, you could have had enough support to take out the Mujahideen whom we and the Pakis that didnt get wiped out by MOAB yet were backing? SOMEBODY wanted to do that, but you kinda killed the guy. Whoopsadoodle.

'It seems most of this is an emotional reaction you have to a hate boner for communism.'
Aw c'mon, dont be like that. I'm actually having fun with this. Just cuz I have no respect for communism doesnt mean I hate YOU. I've gotten along with a lot of people on this site whose ideologies I despise. Please dont take offense.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Loli-Stalin In reply to Aerodeth [2018-01-24 13:21:13 +0000 UTC]

>Aint you CutestSith? If you are, you'd pretty much have already known cuz I certainly didnt keep my voting preference very discreet to you. If youre not him, disregard.
'Not that he's wrong on it but I find it ironic that its "think of da Muslims" when now its "fuck the muslims"'
We're not going on a Crusade. But I'm sure Trump's got plans to starve the radicals and cripple their funding. But we're going off topic.

Not Sith know him though. Disregarding. 

>Didnt you just mention the Sino-Soviet split a couple of comments ago? What religion was that? Less said about killing Amin who was incredibly faithful to his 'religion'...

Religious fights was other which one was the true way of gawd (tm) but your point there was that somehow it is the only thing to do with culture when it is one factor out of many. Sino-Soviet split was due to a variety of factors but one of the biggest was Mao demanding that Siberia and the Soviet Far-East belonged to China. It got worse over the years with the PRC eventually even shilling Pinochet of all people.

>The Soviet Union didnt even last one whole century whereas the Russian Empire lasted several centuries. The Soviet Union had a monumental body count to keep it's ideology the prime one. You yourself joke about gulags cuz even you know that such a 'necessity' is so ridiculous, it's reduced to a joke. It could also be hinted that the German Empire played a hand in having Lenin overthrow the Russian Empire, but that's a whole other topic in itself. If the Russians truly love communism, they can vote it back. There is an active communist political party on the ballot. Instead, they prefer an ex-KGB agent that had so much respect for it's communist past that he flat out replaced Lenin's October Revolution holiday and re-established the Tsar's Unity Day.

You do know that the Communist is the second biggest party in Russia. During the 90s they nearly brought it back since Yesltine was so much of a fuck up. Putin's rise was due tothe fact he took a strong approach to handling terrorists in Chechnya and promising to bring Russia back to glory. However you leave some things out, like the fact that the Soviet anthem was brought back as Russia anthem, the victory day parades where the Red Army is still remembered, and the use of Soviet imagery still going on. You are not wrong with the tsar day thing either. Modern Russia is this weird almost Nazbol state, where Putin and his government flirts with both far left and far right ideas. Russians still miss the days of the Soviet Union as that was when they were a great power. Russia considered itself successor to both the Soviet Union and the Empire and often mixes the imageries of the two together which is once again, them flirting with both far left and far right ideals as they are intrinsic to Russian identity. 


>'THEY WOULD NOT BE FRIENDS WITH US SO WE HAD TO FUND THE TERRORISTS!'
Does not negate my statement.
'Well then it seems that contrary to the opinions of others that one 9/11 simply was not enough.'
Does not negate my statement.
'Tell me is that how it works when you fund the Islamist rebels in Syria against Assad? That he and Syria deserve it for not being friends with America like a big meanie?'
Timber Sycamore being cut aside, does not negate my statement.  How can you argue against the idea that Amin pushing for better relations with the other most powerful nation in the world would have been a bad idea?

Kinda does. There was no reason for the U.S to fund the Islamist rebels in Afghanistan nor Pakistan who aided them and befriending nations does not always mean terrorist funding would stop. For example the U.S is allied with the Saudis despite Wikileaks pointing out there is a lot of evidence to suggest they fund a lot of these terrorists the U.S is fighting. It does not make a whole lot of sense to ally with your enemy to being with nor does it mean that enemy would stop. 

>Because THEY attempted to kill HIM. Even if Taraki wasnt involved in the assassination attempts, he was certainly not gonna punish his gang for it. And the Soviets werent gonna punish them. Tsk... like THEY knew how to run the nation. They didnt even have the Army on their side.

Amin deserved it TBQH

>'Or Assad trying to befriend U.S (which OI think he was trying when Trump came in but the American media sperged on him being a Russian ally as well).'
When Trump ordered a 59 tomahawk missile strike on a Syrian airbase, I noticed there quite a few odd inconsistencies that didnt add up. Why didnt any hit the runways? Why did the body counts keep changing? How many missiles actually hit the airbase to begin with? Why did Trump warn Russia when Russia was obviously gonna warn Assad? How come Iran's state-funded media that stated only 23 missiles hit the airbase while the remaining 34 were intercepted cant even count? (THAT'S ONLY 57!) If Putin really forbid our Secretary of State from speaking with him in Moscow as a response to the strike, why did he change his mind hours later saying the SoS can come but Putin wont be there to see him THEN change his mind again hours later saying that Putin WOULD see him? Where the hell is the 100,000 troop surge that Mike Cernovich stated would happen according to his 'sources'?
It seemed like Kabuki play acting to me. For all I know, maybe Assad and Putin DO have a good relation with our president under the table. I'm sorry, I'm going way off topic.

I would greatly enjoy it if this turns out to be true instead of America spaztically bombing and looting nations like it has done a lot since the 90s.

>Heh. Guess I did. And not only do I still firmly believe that such an action was an inexcusable and incredibly dumb move on the Union's part to make, I'm actually feeling sorry for a communist leader who was loyal to the bitter end to the very same people who killed him. Thanks a lot, me. Educated me better than that Loli-Somethingorother could have!

>Thinks allying with Islamists would be good

>American interference in Afghanistan and escalation in the problem is ignored. 

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure.

>I'm sorry. Diverse muzzies are tough sons of bitches to maintain. Maybe if you kissed and made up with China, you could have had enough support to take out the Mujahideen whom we and the Pakis that didnt get wiped out by MOAB yet were backing? SOMEBODY wanted to do that, but you kinda killed the guy. Whoopsadoodle.

PRC was also funding the Mujahideen. That and the Chinese and Maoists are severely autistic like supporting Pinochet despite being Communist (the reason for this is that Maoist thought views the third and second world as always oppressed, so they had no problem with allying with reactionaries as long as they were in the third world). Amin was not competent as a leader.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Aerodeth In reply to Loli-Stalin [2018-01-25 05:51:27 +0000 UTC]

'Not Sith know him though. Disregarding. '
Damn. Sorry, mistaken identity. Cant exactly blame me for the confusion, though!

'Religious fights was other which one was the true way of gawd (tm) but your point there was that somehow it is the only thing to do with culture when it is one factor out of many.'
And trying to compare it with inner-religious fighting as an argument was a silly move considering that most of the time, European Christian nations fought other European Christian nations mostly due to various other reasons than disagreement involving who is the better Christian! Now Christian nations vs. Muslim nations on the other hand... well, the primary goal of islam is to conquer and subjugate the infidel. Can you blame us for fighting them?
'Sino-Soviet split was due to a variety of factors'
So much for your religion argument.

'You do know that the Communist is the second biggest party in Russia.'
And how much of Russia's entire government does the #1 biggest party have?
'Putin's rise was due tothe fact he took a strong approach to handling terrorists in Chechnya and promising to bring Russia back to glory.'
Like him or hate him, he's a world leader with a backbone.
'like the fact that the Soviet anthem was brought back as Russia anthem, the victory day parades where the Red Army is still remembered, and the use of Soviet imagery still going on.'
I'm gonna give one thing to you. I wholeheartedly agree that the anthem is incredibly beautiful and if I knew fluent Russian, I'd love to sing it! HOWEVER, have you read how the lyrics are changed? Phrases like 'Russia our Holy Nation'? 'Native land protected by God'?
'Modern Russia is this weird almost Nazbol state, where Putin and his government flirts with both far left and far right ideas. '
Aww... they just like us! I wonder if they have Russian equivalent phrases for 'Neo-con' or 'Progressive' or 'Social Justice Warrior'. But as I said, if they want communism back, they can vote it back.

'There was no reason for the U.S to fund the Islamist rebels in Afghanistan nor Pakistan who aided them and befriending nations does not always mean terrorist funding would stop.'
I aint excusing what we did. I'm saying that Afghanistan's communist republic didnt have much choice in the matter. They couldnt fight Pakistan. They struggled enough fighting amongst themselves. Diplomacy was all they had. We most likely should not have gotten involved in that nation. Not just for moral reasons. But because we didnt NEED to. The Union was on the verge of collapsing regardless.
'For example the U.S is allied with the Saudis despite Wikileaks pointing out there is a lot of evidence to suggest they fund a lot of these terrorists the U.S is fighting.'
I've read other theories too. Like the Qatar-Turkey pipeline. Both untrustworthy nations. Turkey not only threatened Europe with a refugee flood over their EU application but may allegedly be purchasing ISIS-seized oil. Qatar shelters the Muslim Brotherhood, harbored the other mastermind of the 9/11 attack, and practically uses slave labor to build their grand 2020 World Cup stadium. If the pipeline theory is true, Trump's 'drive them out' speech ended that swiftly, cuz shortly after it, two of the arab states that the pipeline has to cross through decided to blockade Qatar! I'm also interested in SA's Crowned Prince, cuz he did not hesitate to arrest on corruption and money laundering charges a ton of government officials, major business execs (like Osama bin Laden's older brother and current CEO of the Bin Laden family business) and a couple of his fellow princes (like the wealthiest man in the Middle East and world wide corporate investor, Alwaleed bin Talal!). I think some major changes are happening in Saudi Arabia.

'Amin deserved it TBQH'
Taraki deserved to be strangled with a pillow. Special place in Hell for a backstabbing red.

'I would greatly enjoy it if this turns out to be true instead of America spaztically bombing and looting nations like it has done a lot since the 90s.'
Yep, I think both wars in Iraq were a waste. Cant help but feel bad for Saddam after that fucker fought tooth and nail against one of the worst kind of psychological warfare conjurers that tried to conjure up a nationwide revolution against him and survives. But despite the devastation the Bushs' caused, I'm still optimistic that Iraq will recover. I've read things about special ops involved in the Gulf Cooperation Council and it sounds like we're fighting in a completely different way the likes of which we havent before. Real by the book 'Art of War' tactics and deception.

'Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure.'
Still a godawful move on the Soviet's part to invade. Granted we did a few things that screwed us over ourselves... but WE'LL recover from them. They didnt.

'PRC was also funding the Mujahideen.'
Christ almighty, even if neither we or Pakistan aided those rebels, they still woulda kicked out the soviets thanks to their fellow communists?! Maybe they really REALLY shoulda gave Amin's diplomacy a chance, cuz it sounds like they made WAY too many enemies.
'the reason for this is that Maoist thought views the third and second world as always oppressed, so they had no problem with allying with reactionaries as long as they were in the third world'
This idea came from the most oppressive regime in the 20th century? If there was one thing Mao was really good at, it was stacking bodies as tall as skyscrapers! I bet if these oppressed third and second world nations learned about Mao's great famine, they'd be funding reactionary rebels against HIM!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Loli-Stalin In reply to Aerodeth [2018-01-25 13:35:33 +0000 UTC]

>'Religious fights was other which one was the true way of gawd (tm) but your point there was that somehow it is the only thing to do with culture when it is one factor out of many.'
And trying to compare it with inner-religious fighting as an argument was a silly move considering that most of the time, European Christian nations fought other European Christian nations mostly due to various other reasons than disagreement involving who is the better Christian! Now Christian nations vs. Muslim nations on the other hand... well, the primary goal of islam is to conquer and subjugate the infidel. Can you blame us for fighting them? 
'Sino-Soviet split was due to a variety of factors'
So much for your religion argument.

Ignored m main part. Point was that religion is only the only thing that influenced culture. Sino-Soviet split was for the Maoism thing later in the thread. Don't blame you for fighting them since Islam and Christianity were viral faiths (they wish to spread) and many of the Caliphates and the Ottomans wanted to spread their faith and influence. 

'You do know that the Communist is the second biggest party in Russia.'
And how much of Russia's entire government does the #1 biggest party have?
'Putin's rise was due tothe fact he took a strong approach to handling terrorists in Chechnya and promising to bring Russia back to glory.'
Like him or hate him, he's a world leader with a backbone.
'like the fact that the Soviet anthem was brought back as Russia anthem, the victory day parades where the Red Army is still remembered, and the use of Soviet imagery still going on.'
I'm gonna give one thing to you. I wholeheartedly agree that the anthem is incredibly beautiful and if I knew fluent Russian, I'd love to sing it! HOWEVER, have you read how the lyrics are changed? Phrases like 'Russia our Holy Nation'? 'Native land protected by God'?
'Modern Russia is this weird almost Nazbol state, where Putin and his government flirts with both far left and far right ideas. '
Aww... they just like us! I wonder if they have Russian equivalent phrases for 'Neo-con' or 'Progressive' or 'Social Justice Warrior'. But as I said, if they want communism back, they can vote it back.

Not really for the like you part. By far left and far right I don't mean the typical socjus types or the neo cons or what have you. By far left I mean people like the Kims, Assad, Duterte they ally with. With far right I mean people like the leader of the LDPR who is probably fascist and genuinely hilarious as he once threatened to build a giant fan and use it to blow nuclear air on the Baltics for pissing him off. The people you are thinking of are the Social Democrats and progressives and Neo-cons are the ones that Western media usually shill. During these upcoming elections they are praising this one party, think its the progressive party, that plans to "help the West fight rouge states" if it wins. Rouge states meaning people like Assad and his Syria.

For the Communist party itself, it is still ignoring it is the biggest party even if Russia is a one party state at this point and it nearly won in the 90s (may have if not for Western intervention). So there was a danger and romanticism of Communism still left in Russia. Part of this is Soviet history and era is still looked fondly of in Russia and unlike in the West sometimes is tied to their nationalism. It is why to bring this back to their anthem Putin brought back the Soviet anthem. 

The one from the 90s wasn't cutting it and say what you want but the anthem was beautiful and it was brought back with the purpose of reminding Russians how powerful they once were when they were a union. As for the lyrics that it was as bombastic and nationalist for the Soviets as it is now. Also ignored the part of still using songs and symbolism from the Soviet era as a type of Russian patriotism. As for capitalism Russians are still skeptical on full out capitalism as many national industries were privatized, oligarchs descended like vultures, and Russia itself was a mess. The shock into capitalism was not a pleasant experience for Russia. Right now it is a mixed market economy with Putin doing his damn hardest especially with Western sanctions to not keep his nation from imploding.

>Taraki deserved to be strangled with a pillow. Special place in Hell for a backstabbing red.

You say as you support a back stabbing red, lel.

>Still a godawful move on the Soviet's part to invade. Granted we did a few things that screwed us over ourselves... but WE'LL recover from them. They didnt.

Not really. U.S intelligence admits that the point was to fund Islamist terrorists in order to try and get the Soviets involved since Amin's regime could not handle it (due to a combination of factors already discussed). As pointed out this would later make the US itself invade since their own monster turned against them. For recovery I don't see waging war for the entire 21st century as recovery. 

>'There was no reason for the U.S to fund the Islamist rebels in Afghanistan nor Pakistan who aided them and befriending nations does not always mean terrorist funding would stop.'
I aint excusing what we did. I'm saying that Afghanistan's communist republic didnt have much choice in the matter. They couldnt fight Pakistan. They struggled enough fighting amongst themselves. Diplomacy was all they had. We most likely should not have gotten involved in that nation. Not just for moral reasons. But because we didnt NEED to. The Union was on the verge of collapsing regardless. 
'For example the U.S is allied with the Saudis despite Wikileaks pointing out there is a lot of evidence to suggest they fund a lot of these terrorists the U.S is fighting.'
I've read other theories too. Like the Qatar-Turkey pipeline. Both untrustworthy nations. Turkey not only threatened Europe with a refugee flood over their EU application but may allegedly be purchasing ISIS-seized oil. Qatar shelters the Muslim Brotherhood, harbored the other mastermind of the 9/11 attack, and practically uses slave labor to build their grand 2020 World Cup stadium. If the pipeline theory is true, Trump's 'drive them out' speech ended that swiftly, cuz shortly after it, two of the arab states that the pipeline has to cross through decided to blockade Qatar! I'm also interested in SA's Crowned Prince, cuz he did not hesitate to arrest on corruption and money laundering charges a ton of government officials, major business execs (like Osama bin Laden's older brother and current CEO of the Bin Laden family business) and a couple of his fellow princes (like the wealthiest man in the Middle East and world wide corporate investor, Alwaleed bin Talal!). I think some major changes are happening in Saudi Arabia.

Qatar also funds AJ+ and other cancerous news organizations to shill Islamophillic BS usually in the style of Buzzfeed to cater to Western liberals. As they would find out years later, funding Islamist rebels because they had an autistic hatred of Communism would backfire on them, as these Islamists would be harder to get rid of and cause more problems then they could hope to imagine.

>Christ almighty, even if neither we or Pakistan aided those rebels, they still woulda kicked out the soviets thanks to their fellow communists?! Maybe they really REALLY shoulda gave Amin's diplomacy a chance, cuz it sounds like they made WAY too many enemies.

Maybe not, it was a problem with so many sides supporting the Islamists which as stated they should not have done and as stated to you, allying with people attacking you does not mean they will stop attacking you or not try to squeeze something out of you. Again like if America allied with Nazi Germany after Pearl harbor by your logic.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Aerodeth In reply to Loli-Stalin [2018-01-26 04:20:43 +0000 UTC]

AW C'MON!!!

I FUCKING HATE IT WHEN THEY DO THIS! I had to delete over an hours worth of paragraphs responding to this comment after finding out last minute his account was deactivated!!

Protip for everybody: If you really REALLY want to get under my skin when youre in the middle of an argument, suddenly delete your account in the middle of it! Not only does it irritate me that I waste a long time typing a response to someone who's already gone, I lose a shit ton of willpower to continue the argument. The perfect way to sap out the fun that I'm having.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

SpyroLord In reply to ??? [2018-01-11 22:39:43 +0000 UTC]

>Claims that the USSR was good because it fought terrorists. Unaware that said terrorists fought because of Soviet expansionism and NOT wanting to be part of """teh gloreeus euesesar""", seeing what the Soviets have been doing years before.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Loli-Stalin In reply to SpyroLord [2018-01-17 03:23:25 +0000 UTC]

williamblum.org/essays/read/ho…

journal-neo.org/2017/07/29/in-…

There was a Civil war in Afghanistan between the secular socialists and the Islamists. The CIA were giving support to the radical Islamists against the Commies since at that point highly conservative ideologies especially theocratic ones were seen as good bulwarks against Soviet atheistic communism. The Soviets invaded to help their ally and since it was on their border. The Soviets were fighting Islamic terrorists. 

The Soviets did not invade to make Afghanistan another Republic but to help an ally. 

The terrorists were there before the Soviets invaded and were being funded by the U.S with the intent to lure the Soviets there.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Machinehead18 In reply to SpyroLord [2018-01-17 01:39:48 +0000 UTC]

It baffles me as a communist myself how many so-called Communists support the Soviet Union. Less personal freedom and state owned means of production isn't exactly what Marx had in mind.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MoralisticCommunist In reply to Machinehead18 [2018-01-19 01:21:01 +0000 UTC]

While the USSR should be rightly criticized for its overly zealous purges many of the other restrictions on personal freedoms were necessary to protect the people from invasion from capitalist powers. After all, if Stalin had not been at the helm of the Soviet Union during the 1940s then Nazi Germany could have very likely won WWII.

As to the idea of state owned means of production, that is in fact exactly what Marx had in mind. After all, just look at the original goals laid out in the Communist Manifesto itself and tell me that socialism doesn't involve a state owned means of production.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

Of course, this state will eventually wither away once society advances technologically to a post scarcity economy, which is true communism, but until that date a socialist state is necessary for to provide for the welfare of the people.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Ryuukei8569 In reply to MoralisticCommunist [2018-06-08 01:57:35 +0000 UTC]

Rather doubtful on that account. Even if the Soviet union wasn't headed by Stalin, the Nazi's never would have won WW2. For one, the Nazi's had no way of beating the British empire, the then largest empire at the time. Then they idiotically decided to invade the USSR, which was so big, that even if the Soviet Union was led by Larry, Curly and Moe, Nazi Germany did not have the resources, manpower, or industry to invade and hold that vast amount of territory, while at the same time having to constantly fight a naval war with the British empire (which the Nazis would have would have lost regardless of American involvement), and attempt to subjugate all the countries it had captured during the war. And regardless of the quality of soviet Leadership, it would not change the fact that the russians would fight to the bitter end since the Nazi's where quite literally trying to exterminate the lot of them. regardless of how you cut the cake, that would cost the Nazi's far more manpower and resources than they had.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Shernod9704 In reply to ??? [2018-01-11 08:04:07 +0000 UTC]

This is true.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

sw4stik4 In reply to ??? [2018-01-11 06:23:49 +0000 UTC]

We must take down capitalism, my comrade!
Communism will rise once again!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0