Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Ted Welch:
The movie does not mention that the mujahedeen went to war against the Soviet-backed government then in power in Kabul after the government committed the unpardonable crime of allowing female students to attend rural schools

I somehow don't think the film would have been made, never mind become a block buster success, if it had sent out the message that the US armed "terrorist" Mujahedin intent on overthrowing their own government for allowing the education of girls in schools. I can just imagine a producer trying to sell that storyline to the Hollywood moguls!

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Jan 15th, 2008 at 10:03:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That was a quotation from R. Scheer and I'm sure he is quite aware that such things are unlikely to get into Hollywood films. He's just rather scornfully noting some facts that aren't widely known in the US (nor Europe, etc.) because not even the news and documentary programmes cover them, let alone Hollywood films.

But it also suggests that maybe it's not so evident that you are justified in feeling that: "I don't even have a problem with assisting the Mujahedin resist the Soviet Invasion ..." when the regime the Soviets were supporting  was trying to implement much more enlightened policies than the "Mujahedin" would allow - and, as Brzezinski admits, the US goaded the Soviets into invading and didn't care that this would create even more chaos, suffering and death in Afghanistan and help to power those with less enlightened attitudes.


Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Tue Jan 15th, 2008 at 12:06:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ted Welch:
the US goaded the Soviets into invading

The Soviets were big boys and can take responsibility for their own actions.  They hardly invaded/entered Afghanistan to assist the education of girls.  The problem is that the US response probably made matter even worse, because they gave most of their arms to the most blood-thirsty overlord of all who killed more people than anyone.  But the US/Soviet "cold war" is the overlying cause of the slaughter.  Tribal rivalries are bad enough but they only become truly lethal when rifles are replaced with rockets.  The US saw the conflict through the prism of the cold war.  Wiser counsel would have taken more account of tribal divisions and conflicts.  But the idea of getting the Soviets out of Afghanistan is not, of itself, so outrageous given the brutality of their occupation.


Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Jan 15th, 2008 at 12:48:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Soviets were big boys and can take responsibility for their own actions.

Yes, we know, the important point is that most Americans still aren't aware of what really happened and would not be happy about they way they were misled at the time and subsequently, except in a few non-mainstream places.

They hardly invaded/entered Afghanistan to assist the education of girls.

Yes, obviously; this doesn't alter the fact that whatever their reasons and their own interests, nevertheless they were supporting a regime which was trying to introduce more enlightened policies. As John Stockwell, an ex CIA guy said of his experience in Africa: "If you wanted to get rid of an oppressive dictator you couldn't come to us, you could go to the Soviets" -  who did support various liberation movements (no, not just out of pure altruism) in various places, e.g. Vietnam, Cuba. The latter supported (pretty altruistically) the liberation movement in Angola - it was Stockwell's job to spread lies about it and the Cubans to the media - e.g. a Cubans rape nuns story which he invented.

But the idea of getting the Soviets out of Afghanistan is not, of itself, so outrageous given the brutality of their occupation.

Compared with what - the brutality of the US occupation of Vietnam ? Or the brutality of the regimes the US backed in Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala, etc., etc.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Tue Jan 15th, 2008 at 05:36:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ted Welch:
Compared with what - the brutality of the US occupation of Vietnam ? Or the brutality of the regimes the US backed in Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala, etc., etc.

Compared with leaving the rival tribal factions to fight each other with ancient rifles, whether over education policies or just because they are rival tribes.  The Soviet Union never provided effective aid to to Latin American liberation movements and progressive governments regarding Latin America to be within the American Sphere of influence.  The US was suppose to recognise Afghanistan as being within he Soviet sphere of influence - according to the cold war rulebook.  The US never attempted to invade Afghanistan directly in recognition of this principle.  That is why their actions there had to be covert.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Jan 15th, 2008 at 07:20:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Compared with leaving the rival tribal factions to fight each other with ancient rifles, whether over education policies or just because they are rival tribes.

Seems you just forgot that the US hadn't left the rival factions to fight it out. Had it done so, the SU might not have invaded and the regime might have survived and implemented the more enlightened policies. The people might have been spared the Taliban and the subsequent war - and the recent return of the Taliban to power in some areas - where they continue the oppression of women - amongst other things.

  The Soviet Union never provided effective aid to to Latin American liberation movements and progressive governments regarding Latin America to be within the American Sphere of influence.

Of course they did help Cuba - a far better regime in general than  the typical dictatorship the US had no problem supporting for all the rhetoric about freedom and democracy. That nearly precipitated WWIII, so it's not surprising the SU  didn't help other liberation movements. Of course this didn't stop the US from lying about it - as in the supposed Soviet migs to Nicaragua, an invention which got on western media front pages. The later correction (if given) buried deep inside.

 The US was suppose to recognise Afghanistan as being within he Soviet sphere of influence - according to the cold war rulebook.  The US never attempted to invade Afghanistan directly in recognition of this principle.  That is why their actions there had to be covert.

In other words they ignored the principle by what they actually did, and the means were chosen in order to hide what they were doing from their own citizens - how very principled.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Wed Jan 16th, 2008 at 09:04:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series