Some liberation

[Don K Dyck]

Different Here . . .

Wanna talk about timing?

Woke up to about 4 inches of snow and still falling...

Good day for the kid. Bad for me. 9AM meeting. FAWK!

Stark contrast here, SIN . . . Sydney (State capital) ringed by bushfires, about 20 houses lost . . . 70 degrees here . . . going to be a long night for the Sydney Volunteer Bushfire Brigades . . . and a hot windy day tomorrow is forecast . . .

 

[Don K Dyck]

CIA Again??

Your timeline of when the troubles began if Afghanistan is WAAAAAY out of whack...

Why is that SIN . . . did the CIA get in there earlier and rout the Ruskies?

 

[SINthysist]

Good luck and best wishes to your firefighters. We keep a radio in the house and respond to calls here too.

BTW, you may find this funny, but my Alma Mater's Mascot is a Kangaroo. In the land of OZ!



Man, the troubles in Afghanistan pre-date the CIA by THOUSANDS of years...



...The trouble with Afghanistan is that it's full of Afghans.

 

[REDWAVE]

Well, if that's the problem . . .

Then in a way, the U.S. government has tried to help, I guess, because it's done its best to depopulate the country . . .

 

[Ezarc]

Re: Well, if that's the problem . . .

Then in a way, the U.S. government has tried to help, I guess, because it's done its best to depopulate the country . . .

Overpopulation can be a bitch.

 

[REDWAVE]

Nice av

Intriguing avatar, Ezarc. I take it you're into Dungeons and Dragons, and swords and sorcery.

 

[Rex1960]

Man, the troubles in Afghanistan pre-date the CIA by THOUSANDS of years...

It's not really THOUSANDS, but....



In the 16th and 17th centuries, the Mughal Empire of India and the Safavid Empire of Iran held between them the area that would emerge in the 18th century as Afghanistan. The province of Herat remained with Iran, while Kabul was administered by the Mughals. The contested province of Qandahar moved between the two empires during this period but by 1700 became part of the Iranian sphere. Unlike Shi’ite Iran, the populace of Afghanistan remained Sunni Muslim.

c. 1700

The Afghan tribes of Ghilzay situated in Qandahar became essentially independent of Safavid rule, as did their enemies, the Abdali tribe located in Herat.

1709–22

Consolidation of Ghilzay control of Qandahar. Mir Vays, leader of the Ghilzay Afghans, fell out with the Safavids and defeated their attempts to assert control over Qandahar, which he held until his death in 1715. His son Mahmud, who succeeded him, consolidated his command of the area.

1722

THE AFGHAN INVASION OF IRAN. Led by Mahmud, the Ghilzays defeated the Safavid army and entered Isfahan after a six-month siege (Oct. 1722). The Safavid shah Sultan Husayn abdicated after declaring the Afghan victor Mahmud his successor. The Ghilzay Afghan dynasty ruled much of Iran and Afghanistan under Mahmud (1722–25) and his successor Ashraf (1725–30). But Nadir Shah, the Safavid general, mounted a campaign that expelled the Afghans from Iran and made him master of the country.

1737–38

OCCUPATION OF AFGHANISTAN BY NADIR SHAH. The ruler of Iran captured Herat, Qandahar, Ghazna, and Kabul. The power of the Ghilzay was broken in this campaign. Nadir favored the Abdalis and enlisted large numbers in his army for his invasion of India in 1739. His army comprised largely Sunni Afghan troops, since his own Sunni beliefs had alienated his Shi’ite Iranian soldiers. His reign consolidated all of Afghanistan, a situation that ended with his death in 1747.

1747–73

AHMAD SHAH DURRANI, FOUNDER OF THE SADOZAY DYNASTY. Following the death of Nadir Shah, Ahmad Shah, the Afghan commander of his bodyguard and a member of the Abdali tribe, proclaimed himself the ruler in Qandahar. He adopted the title Durr-i Duran (“Pearl of Pearls”), and after that the Abdalis were known as the Durranis. He invaded India several times and extended Afghan control from the eastern borders of Iran to Lahore, Kashmir, and Delhi.

1773–93 (ATTENTION !!!! remember July 4th, 1776 !!!!!)

TIMUR SHAH. The son of Ahmad Shah inherited an extensive empire. He faced many revolts in his Indian possessions as well as internal difficulties in controlling the Durranis. In 1776 he moved the capital from Qandahar to Kabul.

1793–1800

ZAMAN SHAH. The fifth son of Timur ruled the Durrani Empire with the help of the chief of the Afghan tribe of Barakzay. His attempt to invade India alarmed the British, who induced the Iranian Qajar ruler Fath Ali Shah to support Zaman Shah's brother Mahmud in his struggle for power. With British help Mahmud advanced on Kabul, captured and blinded his brother, and assumed power.



As far as I know good ole Harry Truman signed the National Security Act 1947 that created CIA.

 

[REDWAVE]

Rex

In your historical review, are you going to make it up to the twentieth century any time soon?

 

[Rex1960]

Re: Rex

In your historical review, are you going to make it up to the twentieth century any time soon?

You somehow forgot, it was you posting this :

Afghanistan's troubles began when the U.S. began covertly arming and stirring up the most backward, reactionary, women-hating elements of Afghan society, .......
The hell which is Afghanistan today is mainly, if not entirely, the fault of U.S. imperialism.

Are you in Vegas around January 5th ?
I'll be there, so maybe we should have a drink or two and discuss about history and when what started to cause trouble, who was responsible and what's the result now...

 

[REDWAVE]

I'll be here

Yes, I imagine I'll still be here in Vegas then. Would be happy to meet you, Rex.

And since you guys want to pick nits, let me amend my original statement a little. Of course, I didn't mean to say Afghanistan never had any problems before 1978. What I meant was that Afghanistan's current problems began when the U.S. began covertly stirring up the "mujahadeen" against the leftist government which was then in power.

Similarily, Iraq has a history stretching back thousands of years. Mesopotamia ("the land between the waters") was the cradle of civilization-- Western civilization, at least. But Iraq's current troubles began in 1991, with the U.S. aggression against Iraq. Iraq before then was a paradise compared to what it is now.

 

[Rex1960]

Re: I'll be here

Yes, I imagine I'll still be here in Vegas then. Would be happy to meet you, Rex.

And since you guys want to pick nits, let me amend my original statement a little. Of course, I didn't mean to say Afghanistan never had any problems before 1978. What I meant was that Afghanistan's current problems began when the U.S. began covertly stirring up the "mujahadeen" against the leftist government which was then in power.

Similarily, Iraq has a history stretching back thousands of years. Mesopotamia ("the land between the waters") was the cradle of civilization-- Western civilization, at least. But Iraq's current troubles began in 1991, with the U.S. aggression against Iraq. Iraq before then was a paradise compared to what it is now.

I do know what you mean, though I think the US (like others) intervining somewhere is just a result of something that happened before that, caused by something before that.... you know, the thing we call history.

I don't think that any US President just play darts to pick a target and send troops or bombs, you know.

Not even Bush or any other you consider a Hawk.




And I'll let you know as soon as I know my schedule, k?

 

[Don K Dyck]

Great Poat

Hi Rex . . . thanks for the great historical post . . .

 

[teddybear4play]

Re: I'll be here

But Iraq's current troubles began in 1991, with the U.S. aggression against Iraq. Iraq before then was a paradise compared to what it is now.

Yes. A paradise involved in a very destructive decade-long war with its eastern neighbor.

Which, I admit, we supported; not because we thought Saddam Hussein was a good guy, but because his regime, socialistic and despotic though it was, was still better than one backed by radical extremist Islam and a fierce hatred of the United States.

The loss of so much of its resources (and the belief that the international community wouldn't object) forced Hussein to invade and annex Kuwait in 1990. His refusal to abide by a U.N. cease-fire agreement brought on the sanctions. He still lives like an emperor while many of his citizens are dirt-poor. But that's okay with him, because they're all just pawns in his game.

TB4p

 

[HeavyStick]

TB4p, does redwavetard have you on ignore yet?

 

[REDWAVE]

Two trolls

Ah, life is so much more pleasant now that I've put those two trolls on ignore.

 

[HeavyStick]

Re: Two trolls

Ah, life is so much more pleasant now that I've put those two trolls on ignore.

Donkeydick and ppman?

 

[p_p_man]

No Scheiss Sherlock!

Shouldn't that be 'Nein Scheiss Sherlock'?



ppman

 

[teddybear4play]

Re: Two trolls

see next post

TB4p

 

[Guest]

No difference for me.

You never answered my arguments for me worth a damn even when you were reading my posts.

At least Don K Dyck has the temerity to attempt to back up his statements. You, meanwhile, have all the spine of a dead jellyfish. Your arguments smell worse.

TB4p

 

[REDWAVE]

I was wondering . . .

I was wondering when one of these pathetic trolls would resort to the ploy of posting unregistered, in order to force their inane bilge upon my attention. It stands to reason it would be the lowest and most despicable of the bunch who would do so.

 

[teddybear4play]

Re: I was wondering . . .

see next post

TB4p

 

[Guest]

I was wondering when one of these pathetic trolls would resort to the ploy of posting unregistered, in order to force their inane bilge upon my attention. It stands to reason it would be the lowest and most despicable of the bunch who would do so.

Oh, can your high-minded horseshit. You, who's made dozens of threads all about the same old thing, calls me a "pathetic troll" and my posts "inane bilge." You, who's not only made personal attacks against me (which I don't mind, since they're all dull and repetitive, and, let's be fair, I give at least as good as I get), but against someone close to me who's totally outside the scope of our arguments (such as they are), labels me "despicable." Whatever.

If you hadn't told me you were ignoring me, I would have just gone right on ahead and assumed you were too cowardly to debate.

If you want to chicken out, fine. But don't be surprised when someone chases after you.

You can't hide from the truth, you gutless little prick. The view must be nice with your head so far up your ass.

TB4p

 

[Don K Dyck]

Re: Re: I'll be here

Yes. A paradise involved in a very destructive decade-long war with its eastern neighbor.

Which, I admit, we supported; not because we thought Saddam Hussein was a good guy, but because his regime, socialistic and despotic though it was, was still better than one backed by radical extremist Islam and a fierce hatred of the United States.

The loss of so much of its resources (and the belief that the international community wouldn't object) forced Hussein to invade and annex Kuwait in 1990. His refusal to abide by a U.N. cease-fire agreement brought on the sanctions. He still lives like an emperor while many of his citizens are dirt-poor. But that's okay with him, because they're all just pawns in his game.

TB4p

Hi TB4p . . . so the US oil corporations encouraging kuwait to exceed its pumping quota in an oilfiled jointly owned by Kuwait, Iraq and Saudi Arabia had nothing to do with causing Desertstorm in 1991?? Having an oil industry President (George Senior) was not a contributory factor? Iraq blowing up the oilwells was obviously a hit at the U$ . . . but then Saddam Hussein was a U$ puppet and he had been double-crossed . . . as the Shah of Iran said, "It is difficult to be a friend of the U$A".

 

[Don K Dyck]

Re: Re: Two trolls

Donkeydick and ppman?

Why HugelySmuck . . . your av self portrait is really quite cute . . . How do you stop the other monkeys from stealing your glasses??

 

[teddybear4play]

Re: Re: Re: I'll be here

Hi TB4p . . .

Hi Don. Nice to see someone's still taking this somewhat seriously. Don't quote me too often, though, or REDWAVE will ignore you, too.

so the US oil corporations encouraging kuwait to exceed its pumping quota in an oilfiled jointly owned by Kuwait, Iraq and Saudi Arabia had nothing to do with causing Desertstorm in 1991??

I've never heard this. I'm not sure why Kuwait would listen to our suggestions, considering exceeding quotas would have lowered their profits — supply and demand. But I'll look into it; got a link handy?

By the way, Antiestablishment Buddy says you forgot to turn that first "US" into "U$."

Having an oil industry President (George Senior) was not a contributory factor?

Why should it have been?

The world was focused on the impending fall of the Soviet Union in August 1990. Hussein probably would have made his move regardless of the Kuwaiti's quota-excession or the President's oil ties. He figured he had the perfect smokescreen and could slip under the world's radar.

Iraq blowing up the oilwells was obviously a hit at the U$ . . . but then Saddam Hussein was a U$ puppet and he had been double-crossed . . . as the Shah of Iran said, "It is difficult to be a friend of the U$A".

Well, while I'm not privy to whatever diplomatic discussions led to our supporting Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War, I would imagine someone had to have told him that we weren't going to be buddies; we were going to contribute to them with the knowledge that when they were finished, everyone walks away. We scratch your back, you scratch ours, we'll call you if we need you.

If not, Hussein should have at least been enough of a student of history to understand that's the way most U.S. clandestine operations have worked: Latin America, Afghanistan, et cetera . . .

TB4p