Afghanistan

[Cathy]

This is probably a stupid question, but when the US started fighting in Afghanistan this was supposed to be a good thing. Yet when USSR where fighting there it was seen as a bad thing. So what's the difference? And if USSR hadn't pulled out, wouldn't that have meant that the Taliban wouldn't have got into power in the first place?

[Obo]

Great question, but not sure you're entirely right, the Soviets were fighting the Mujahideen who were in turn over thrown by the Taliban and formed the large part of the Northern Alliance that the US supported, so it's not strictly true that the Soviet withdrawal paved the way for Taliban rule. With regard to the validity of the US or rather allied forces entering Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban as against the Soviet invasion. The allies intention wasn't to occupy Afghanistan only to bring about a regime change, Afghanistan is still a country in it's own right whereas if the Soviets had won their war Afghanistan would of become part of the USSR

[Cathy]

Thanks, Obo. I wasn't trying to be controversial, it's just that I don't remember much about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and on the surface of it the two situations look very similar. So now that the Mujahideen are in power again is there anything stopping them being overthrown by someone else again?

[geofbob]

On your second question, Cathy, given the fragile nature of the country there is certainly a risk of Hamid Karzai's government being overthrown - indeed, there have already been actual and attempted assassinations. But that is precisely why there is an international force in Afghanistan, trying to shore up the Karzai regime, and to make the country more stable.

[Rev.Crowley]

I have to disagree with Obo. If the Yanks invade a country they call it intervention, but if they saw the Soviets do it the Yanks called it invasion. If the Russians moved into a country it became a subservient state of the USSR, true. But if America move into a country, even today, it becomes a subservient country of the USA, with US military bases, MacDonald's branches, US oil companies, banks, ect. while it's people remain poor. Soviet occupation, American occupation, what's the difference?

[PaulYukochan]

The Soviets were ideologically opposed to religion and much of local culture, therefore they would try and crush it. They would also remove members of the native population for forced labour. In addition, it was not simply an American invasion, the UN were invited to have a presence, I don't think the Russians did this in Afganistan. As to Macdonalds, surely it is up to the people if they want to accept this american 'domination' or not? If they don't use the restaurant, then it will shut. American domination over.

[JohnPPotts]

The US is definitely being hypocritical - it claims to stand up for democracy, but this is only when it suits its purposes. It didn't oppose the overthrow of Jean Bertrand Aristide in Haiti a few years back, or the recent attempted overthrow of Hugo Chavez in Venezuala. It objected to the Taliban as a repressive, undemocratic regime in Afghanistan but doesn't object to King Fahd as a repressive, undemocratic ruler in Saudi Arabia. At least in the Cold War they admitted they supported unsavoury regimes for Geopolitical reasons - now they do the same, but preach claim they're doing it from some moral basis.

[JohnPPotts]

When it comes to supporting terrorists, almost all the hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia (as is Mr Bin Laden), and it was the Saudis (with US blessing!) that trained them to go fight in Afghanistan - and that's our "ally" in the fight against terror.

[DBusby]

Cold war plays a significant part.