Arising_uk wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2019 1:50 am
They aren't immigrants twat they are refugees caused by us pissing about in the ME because of Oil which has been going on since the second world war when we broke our promises to the Arabs. The latest fubar is down to the fuckwittery of right-wing twats such as yourself arming and funding the Mujahedeen whilst playing Cold-War games with the Soviets and has morphed into such things as Al Queda and ISIS thanks to once again the Yank funding and training the loons for their National Interest, personally I think it's down to Americas incessant need to have an external enemy to keep their nation together as their internal contradictions would split them up, that and that their industrial/military combine needs one to keep the dollars rolling in. You want to stop Muslims from coming, stop bombing them back to the stone-age!!
The Cold War wasn't a "game": The Berlin Wall, The Cuban Missile Crisis, Korea, Vietnam, Czechoslovakia, Cambodia, Angola, Afghanistan and the list goes on, I don't see the funny side of that shit, I'm afraid. What I see is lots of terror and death. And I blame the Soviet Union. After the USSR collapsed, A pile of documents were discovered by researchers in the Kremlin's archives, confirming that the Soviet's grand mission had been to aggressively export armed Marxist revolution and insurgency around the world (Africa, Latin America, Indochina, Cuba, etc) with the ultimate aim of achieving complete global domination. So the notion that the Reds wanted to create a communist world, and were actively working to realise this, wasn't just some, wacky, paranoid right-wing theory.
I don't know about you, but the thought of living in a Marxist-style communist state has never really filled me with joy. There is only one fitting word to describe the 20th century's communist regimes, and that word is "evil". And, moreover, there is only one way to deal with evil, that it to fight it all the way down. You never fuck around with evil when its in your face, if you do, you're dead ,or at least, you'll wish you were. Ronald Reagan understood that, and we have him to thank in large part for the fall of "The Evil Empire" which was precipitated in large part by what you eloquently refer to as (quote) "...the fuckwittery of ring-wing twats such as yourself arming and funding the Mujahideen whilst playing Cold War games with the Soviets..." I presume you are referring to America's intervention in the Afghan-Soviet war, but it seems your perspective on that conflict is rather muddled. I would say it's likely due to your indoctrination with (Marxist) Postmodernist anti-Western rhetoric at some left-leaning University's social science/humanities/political science/liberal arts/philosophy department in your youth. If so, never mind, you're not to blame, merely an innocent. victim. And I'm happy to set you straight...
Strictly speaking, the story began with Jimmy Carter in 1979, but the real action in Afghanistan took place after 1980 when Ronald Reagan was elected US President. Reagan formulated what he called "The Reagan Doctrine", its strategy was to overwhelm the global influence of the Soviet Union in a bid to end the Cold War. Under the "The Reagan Doctrine", the US provided overt and covert aid to anti-communist guerrillas and resistance movements in order to roll-back Soviet-backed governments in Africa, Asia, Latin America and so on.
When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, the US deployed "Operation Cyclone"; this was the code name for a covert CIA program to arm and finance the Mujahideen in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989 during the military invasion of the country by the USSR in order to support the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. Reagan progressively expanded the program when he took office in 1980, assigning specially trained CIA paramilitary officers to equip the Afghan Mujahideen forces against the Soviet army. The CIA strategy was to use a broad range of weapons, tactics, logistics and training programs to boost the rebels' ability to fight a guerrilla war against the Red Army.
The turning point in the war came in 1986 when the US supplied the Mujahideen with 300 American-built FIM-92 "Stinger" missiles. The "Stingers" had a deadly effect on Soviet landing and attack helicopters as well as transport aircraft and jets, enabling the lightly armed Mujahideen to undercut the Soviet's air capabilities. Given their success, over the following 12 months, the Americans supplied the Mujahideen with some 3,000 or so "Stingers" and these missiles changed the course of the war. Within two years of the first "Stinger" strike, the Red Army had begun to pull out of Afghanistan in February 1989, after 10 tears of invasion. There were a number of factors that led to the Soviet withdrawal, including a crumbling economy, budgetary issues and a political distaste for the war at home. But what really stopped it was the futility on their side. With the arrival of the "Stinger" missiles, the Soviets were only controlling the major towns. They lost most of the countryside.
In short, the Americans defeated defeated the Soviets in Afghanistan - that's the bottom line, that's all that mattered. Operation Cyclone had been a success (the CIA had "Won it for the Gipper" ); and having achieved their objective Americans got out. Just 10 months after the Red Army withdrew from Afghanistan early in 1989, the Berlin Wall fell on the 4th of December. I remember weeping tears of joy - I'm not too big a man to admit it - when the news came down the wire. At long, long last "The Evil Empire" had finally been defeated. That was a great night. In 1990 I visited to Berlin and got my own chunk of graffiti mottled Berlin Wall cement; I keep it displayed in my living room to this day to remind of the reality of evil and how it must be dealt with.
By the way, the allegation that Osama bin Laden' and Al Quaeda were beneficiaries of CIA assistance is a tired old conspiracy theory that brain-dead socialists and pimply college student studying political science will still endorse. The fact is that declassified CIA records and interviews do not support these claims. They are invariably advanced as axiomatic with no supporting evidence (please supply such evidence if you believe you have it).
On a more concessional note, I think it is fair to say that U.S.?Western foreign policy did, to some extent, influence the rise of Islamic terrorist organisations like al-Quaeda and ISIS, but it is incorrect to say that it bears sole responsibility for the creation of these groups and the havoc they have wrought. The tentacles of ISIS, for instance, extend back to the early 1990's in Jordan, much earlier than the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Other Islamic extremist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood date back to the 1920's in Egypt.
The idea that Americans created or somehow contributed to the creation of ISIS is just not true.When tracking ISIS, it is interesting to note how their enemies change. In the 1990's it was dictatorial regimes. When the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, it became jihad against the America and thus they embraced al-Quaeda in Iraq. When the Syrian conflict opened up, they established a franchise of fighters there.
What you need to bear in mind is that ISIS were driven by a powerful totalitarian political ideology that sought to shape the world within a 7th century Islamic framework , and this was, in itself a potent force independent of American meddling.
While it's true that the American presence in the Middle East in the early 2000's did facilitate ISIS recruitment and propaganda, largely because the coalition pulled out without successfully helping to rebuild Iraq. The fact is that in the years after, locals were just as angry at their own communities ineptitude and failings to reconstruct their country in the years after 2003.
I think that the US/West should only engage themselves in the affairs of the Islamic world when it is absolutely essential in respect of justifiable and serious direct threats to their nation/s. For example the America's arming and funding of the Afghan Mujahideen played an important role in the fall of the Soviet Union, thus ending the Cold War; a blessing not just for America and the West, but the entire world. Similarly the US was left with no option but to fight first Gulf War in Iraq after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. The issue for America here was largely oil. Saddam's intention was to monopolise the oil market and had he been allowed to do this ,America's supply of affordable oil would almost certainly have been jeopardised. For an advanced industrial society like the US, oil is literally like blood. If it is unable to buy reasonably priced crude oil in the quantities it needs then people - lots of people - will die as a result. So, again, this American invasion in the Middle East was fully justified. As for the coalition invasion of Iraq in 2003, the legitimacy of this military intervention by the West is still difficult (IMO) to clearly assess. It is a complex, multifaceted issue, so I will not endeavour to discuss it here as I lack the time to set out a comprehensive personal analysis.
Finally, with the exception of the kind of circumstances I have mentioned above, in my view the West would be wise not to intervene militarily in any conflicts or crises that arise in Muslim-majority Islamic nations. Islam is an evil and violent religion/totalitarian political ideology. If Muslims wish to conduct themselves like uncivilised, medieval barbarians, THEN LET THEM - it is not an issue the West can or should try to remedy. If they wish to practice Sharia law and mutilate, maim, behead, thrash, oppress, abuse, rape and stone each other to death, THEN LET THEM. If they wish to annihilate each other in brutal, tribal warfare, THEN LET THEM. The West should not be duped into the fray. Though should there ever be, in the future, another planned or actual major attack/invasion by an Islamic nation against the US or any of its Western allies, then West should immediately annihilate the aggressor; and if that means nuclear strikes, then so be it.