- 19 Apr 2003 01:46
#8041
how so? in the inherent tribalism and sectarianism we're seeing in bagdad with the 'interem gov' or the kurds running amuck in the north, (there are conflicting reports there..) or are you seeing parallels in the motives of the administrations behind the military actions?
i think the afgani 'model' historically shows us some parallels too, just curious as to your take on it. i think both show that the driving force behind both, communist and capitalist, are not for the high handed, morally charged reasons often given, by bush, or our friend tovarish when he says ussr was ultimateley aiming to liberate 'oppressed' masses from tribal society, who wanted a better life.
both regimes, past and present, in both iraq and afgan, were acting out of 'economic/strategic' interests, although 9/11 still complicates this for me in iraq, and both regimes made a fundemental error. that is, they both assumed that the people of afganistan and iraq, wanted or required intervention. the us clearly showed that it didn't understand the complicated set of alliances inherent in 'tribal' afgan society, much in the same way we don't understand the 'politics' of iraqi society, and neither, imo did the soviets when they 'invaded' afganistan. and the afganis have shown from the earlist days of 'western' colonialisation, that they do not welcome invaders, from anyside. both the csarist and british armies of the 1800's know this equally well, and the ussr re-learned this lesson in the 1980's, much as the u.s will learn the lesson in iraq, unfortunately.
i also think historically, both 'super powers' have made it ubundatly clear that they do not have a firm grasp of what is important to the 'common' man or woman.
I'm seeing more and more parallels between USSR-Afghanistan and US-Iraq all the time.
how so? in the inherent tribalism and sectarianism we're seeing in bagdad with the 'interem gov' or the kurds running amuck in the north, (there are conflicting reports there..) or are you seeing parallels in the motives of the administrations behind the military actions?
i think the afgani 'model' historically shows us some parallels too, just curious as to your take on it. i think both show that the driving force behind both, communist and capitalist, are not for the high handed, morally charged reasons often given, by bush, or our friend tovarish when he says ussr was ultimateley aiming to liberate 'oppressed' masses from tribal society, who wanted a better life.
The PDP were NOT communists...but progressives....Their reforms included land reform (while still retaining private property)...controls on prices and profits...and strengthening of the public sector...separation of church and state, eradication of illiteracy, legalization of trade unions, and the emancipation of women in a land almost entirely Muslim.
both regimes, past and present, in both iraq and afgan, were acting out of 'economic/strategic' interests, although 9/11 still complicates this for me in iraq, and both regimes made a fundemental error. that is, they both assumed that the people of afganistan and iraq, wanted or required intervention. the us clearly showed that it didn't understand the complicated set of alliances inherent in 'tribal' afgan society, much in the same way we don't understand the 'politics' of iraqi society, and neither, imo did the soviets when they 'invaded' afganistan. and the afganis have shown from the earlist days of 'western' colonialisation, that they do not welcome invaders, from anyside. both the csarist and british armies of the 1800's know this equally well, and the ussr re-learned this lesson in the 1980's, much as the u.s will learn the lesson in iraq, unfortunately.
i also think historically, both 'super powers' have made it ubundatly clear that they do not have a firm grasp of what is important to the 'common' man or woman.
- By Tainari88
- By Negotiator