How could the US have handled Afghanistan better in the Cold War? Because it seems like their only options were fund conservatives/Islamists or let Russia gain more territory. After the failure that was Vietnam they probably wouldn't be able to pull off a land invasion either.
How could the US have handled Afghanistan better in the Cold War...
Anthony Watson
Other urls found in this thread:
Chase Cooper
>let USSR gain more territory
>spending millions on fighting an ever growing insurgency quickens the downfall of the USSR
Too bad Americans can't into logic.
Brandon Peterson
>I will get Ahmed this time, just you watch!
Alexander Clark
I mean with hindsight being 20/20 yea.
Andrew Watson
They were fucked either way because it was
>support the secular/fedorafags but they set up a socialist shithole
>support the ultrareligious supershitskins who prevent technological economic development
Either way they had no chance for democracy or capitalism
Carter Wilson
Socialist shithole is better than what ever the fuck it is today
Logan Phillips
Isn't it blatantly obvious? By entering as a third party and installing the Afghan king back on the throne.
Luis Carter
>let Russia gain more territory
There's nothing wrong with this. Imperialists get out of my board.
Benjamin Cooper
>USSR not imperialist
lol
Chase Fisher
>user not revisionist
Yes, by definition it was not imperialist. There is a difference between having client states and allies, and having an empire from which you exploit value. USSR didn't exploit the countries that joined it. Rather the USSR propped them up in many cases (Cuba for a great example). Only an empire by the definition of neocon nutcases in Washington.
Matthew Cook
>by definition it was not imperialist.
so according to soviet propaganda you mean
Levi Clark
According to Marx. If you're not basing your definition of imperialism off of Marx, you have no definition of imperialism and you may as well not use the word.
Tyler Evans
ITT: Retards
Supporting Afghanistan worked out pretty well for the US. The war in Afghanistan was a small price to pay for what it did to the Soviet Union. It fucked the USSR over in a huge way and was a major contributing factor in their downfall.
Ryder Carter
in the 1950s, afghanistan reached out to america first for aid in development/modernization and industrialization
america rejected them, afghanistan went to russia, russia obliged and helped them
america could have helped but did not, all they did was start a barbarous war that didn't need to be started
Landon Lopez
By that logic, most of the British Empire wasn't in fact an example of imperialism, since quite a chunk of it too operated at a net loss and had to be propped up by the mother country.
Liam Wilson
>According to Marx
According to jesus you're a cock sucking faggot.
Kayden Campbell
>all they did was start a barbarous war that didn't need to be started
Wut. The civil war began well before America even got involved. The U.S. hardly started it, they just helped finish it.
Zachary Ward
(so)viet nam.
Tyler Miller
Everyone, point and laugh at the retard!
Henry Lopez
USSR exploited Czechoslovakia, Baltics and Eastern Germany like crazy.
Isaac Kelly
a civil war that the government would have won if the rebels got no support
Jack Gutierrez
You mean a civil war that the government only started winning after they got soviet support, yes?
Gabriel Adams
yes but that's not the point, the point I was trying to make was that in the 50s, afghanistan reached out to america first for support in industrialization and was rejected
america only intervened in an imperial manner that suited its interests and not the interests of the long term well being of afghans
Levi Watson
This
Anthony Cox
>in the 1950s, afghanistan reached out to america first for aid in development/modernization and industrialization
What? The US sent specialists over there to create a series of dams that were intented to create electricity and modernise the country at the request of the King.
>america rejected them, afghanistan went to russia, russia obliged and helped them
again, what?
>america could have helped but did not, all they did was start a barbarous war that didn't need to be started
The USSR went into Afghanistan to install a Communist leader there as the instability and lack of infrastructure/tribal roots constantly leads to different warlords constantly pitted against one another for control of the country, happened in the past - throughout the USSR invasion and after until the Taliban took control. As well as this, the USSR realised they were stagnating and hoped that this intervention might strengthen their position.
Watch this BBC documentary Bitter Lake - shows why Afghanistan is how it is currently as well explains most of the problems facing the Middle-East and the World currently.
Jordan Robinson
Why isn't it the point? The Soviets were also looking out for their own interests, trying to reshape Afghanistan into a client state of theirs bound by similar ideology. This ran counter to the wishes of most Afghans actually living there, which is the main cause for the civil war. The current government couldn't handle the pressure, whined to Moscow for help, and only then did America start pumping aid to the Mujhadeen.
How the hell does ANY of that mean that America "started the war"? How does that imply that the government would have won if it was a 'fair' war? And why does that even matter?
Justin Gutierrez
Let the Soviets have it. A lingering communist holdout a la Laos/Cuba is far far far more preferable to the Taliban hellhole that harbored Bin Laden and destabilized Pakistan (a state with nuclear weapons mind you).
Ryder Evans
It's pakistan that destabilizes afghanistan lmao
Carson Evans
No, pakistan is a nation of peace.
Easton Wood
must be why every single one of its neighboring countries loves it so much
Ryan Williams
>
Juan Gomez
t. Abdul Khan