Was the U.S. support of the Mujahedeen a mistake?

[thaddius]

In order to fight the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the CIA covertly supported the anti-communist mujahideen with the suppling of weapons and training. The mujahideen was successful at forcing the Soviet forces to withdraw. After the war, the taliban was able to take power of the government.
Given the onset of international terrorism in 2001, connections to the support of the mujahideen; many implications being that the U.S. is responsible for the terrorism.

Do the current ramifications of supporting the mujahideen outweigh the defeat which help lead to the dissolution of the USSR and end to the heavy civilian casualties?

This and this are both decent sources for background information.

[Hunessai]

I don't think any country is justified into going to war with another, let alone supplying weapons to promote killing.

[thaddius]

Hunessai said:

I don't think any country is justified into going to war with another, let alone supplying weapons to promote killing.

True, but by supplying the weapons to the mujahdeen expedited the ending of a war which had killed 1 million civilians. Is that not just cause to provide aid?

[lordblade]

You want to help?
Get some first aid kits...
Build some hospitals...
Help build up economies...

Supplying weapons to anyone is a stupid thing to do.
And becoming involved in open warfare is just as stupid... but then, governments always were stupid. They don't think of people, they think of numbers.

[Hunessai]

thaddius said:

True, but by supplying the weapons to the mujahdeen expedited the ending of a war which had killed 1 million civilians. Is that not just cause to provide aid?

The end didn't justify the means. It was good that the war ended, but ending a war with more wars doesn't seem very beneficial.

[darkhelmet]

In hindsight, it was a mistake. But I think, given the alternatives, it wasn't the worst thing we could've done.

[Ratwar]

Hunessai said:

I don't think any country is justified into going to war with another, let alone supplying weapons to promote killing.

So, if one country invades another, the one being invaded should politely ask the invaders to leave before playing dead?

We did the right thing by helping out the Afghans against the Soviets. Has it come back to hurt us too? Sure, but I'd rather be facing terrorist riding on camels that a Communist Block that controls the oil tap of the world. (If the Soviets had won, they might have extended their power further into the middle east). I mean, camels just are mean and all, but they just aren't as bad as Russian Tanks.

Oh, and I am perfectly aware that the terrorists technical abilitys are not limited to camel riding.

[mastab]

Psch! What were we supposed to do? Let those commies expand their nation? Not waist government supplies in unrelated foreign affairs? Let there be one war in the world not screwed with by the US? Give up our jobs as World Police?!?!?!?!? They send people to Guantanamo Bay for thinking things like that!

(If you cannot see the sarcasm in this, you need a new sarcasm-dar. IF you cannot see the sarcasm in that last sentence, go play with a yo-yo)

Being serious here, it is our fault. If I'm not mistaken, we gave resources dirrectly to the Tali-ban, although I may be mistaken. Sometimes I miss the Soviet Union. It gave balance to the world.

[mastab]

thaddius said:

Hunessai said:

I don't think any country is justified into going to war with another, let alone supplying weapons to promote killing.

True, but by supplying the weapons to the mujahdeen expedited the ending of a war which had killed 1 million civilians. Is that not just cause to provide aid?

HAve you considered that the weapons we gave them caused for MORE killing?

[thaddius]

mastab said:

Being serious here, it is our fault. If I'm not mistaken, we gave resources dirrectly to the Tali-ban, although I may be mistaken.

Indeed, you are. We funded the Mujahedeen, not the taliban, the taliban took power after the soviets were defeated.

Sometimes I miss the Soviet Union. It gave balance to the world.

I certianly think that the end of the major arms race was a good thing. There has also been an end to the wars that we meddeled with: Vietnam, Korea, the Afgan war...

[Ratwar]

mastab said:

Psch! What were we supposed to do? Let those commies expand their nation? Not waist government supplies in unrelated foreign affairs? Let there be one war in the world not screwed with by the US? Give up our jobs as World Police?!?!?!?!? They send people to Guantanamo Bay for thinking things like that!

(If you cannot see the sarcasm in this, you need a new sarcasm-dar. IF you cannot see the sarcasm in that last sentence, go play with a yo-yo).

You know, when another country is willing to step it up and take care of problems like the US does, the US will gladly give up it's job as the World's Police. Until then, I suggest that you take a look at what happens when the US doesn't get involved. Think about what's happened in Sudan, the world sure does pick up the slack when the US ain't around...

[mastab]

thaddius said:

mastab said:

Being serious here, it is our fault. If I'm not mistaken, we gave resources dirrectly to the Tali-ban, although I may be mistaken.

Indeed, you are. We funded the Mujahedeen, not the taliban, the taliban took power after the soviets were defeated.

Sometimes I miss the Soviet Union. It gave balance to the world.

I certianly think that the end of the major arms race was a good thing. There has also been an end to the wars that we meddeled with: Vietnam, Korea, the Afgan war...

The arms race was not a good thing. What I meant was now, without a giganto Communist Imperialist country to fight the giganto Capitalist Imperialist county, there's nothing to stop the capitalist country from taking over the world. It's like a monopoly. Vietnam we retreated from(and efectively lost), in Korea we managed to save South Korea, but North Korea will just do it again eventually, and the Afgan war is only working to inspire more wars.

[darkhelmet]

ratwar said:

mastab said:

Psch! What were we supposed to do? Let those commies expand their nation? Not waist government supplies in unrelated foreign affairs? Let there be one war in the world not screwed with by the US? Give up our jobs as World Police?!?!?!?!? They send people to Guantanamo Bay for thinking things like that!

(If you cannot see the sarcasm in this, you need a new sarcasm-dar. IF you cannot see the sarcasm in that last sentence, go play with a yo-yo).

You know, when another country is willing to step it up and take care of problems like the US does, the US will gladly give up it's job as the World's Police. Until then, I suggest that you take a look at what happens when the US doesn't get involved. Think about what's happened in Sudan, the world sure does pick up the slack when the US ain't around...

Yeah. That's the sad thing.

The U.N. is virtually powerless to do anything except say "oh, don't do that... please?".

[Ratwar]

Yeah... It's almost as sad as the Republican's that like to out statements about how the is to weak to do anything, but are unwilling to give the UN the power to do anything.

It's like playing fetch with a dog tided to a tree, if the rope is to short, the dog ain't to blame for not being able to bring back the stick.

[morty14]

Yes, it was a bad move. It was then, we just got lucky and it worked for while. I'd rather see the USSR own Afghanistan for a while than see the Taliban rule Afghanistan. The USSR was already on the downward spiral when they invaded Afghanistan there was no logical reason for us to come out with the support we did. Supplying a large amount of small arms, some heavy weaponry, missiles, all kinds of weapons to a group that wasn't even pro-US, just anti-Soviet seems a bit stupid on our part. Also, we should have seen the looming stablity problems of the region. We, of course, didn't but not only that we didn't even learn anything from the experience. See Iraq.

[ShadowLynx]

Well America supported Iraq during the Iraq-Iran War...

Fat load of good that did...

Except keeping out secular Shi-itism...

[Ratwar]

morty14 said:

Yes, it was a bad move. It was then, we just got lucky and it worked for while. I'd rather see the USSR own Afghanistan for a while than see the Taliban rule Afghanistan. The USSR was already on the downward spiral when they invaded Afghanistan there was no logical reason for us to come out with the support we did. Supplying a large amount of small arms, some heavy weaponry, missiles, all kinds of weapons to a group that wasn't even pro-US, just anti-Soviet seems a bit stupid on our part. Also, we should have seen the looming stablity problems of the region. We, of course, didn't but not only that we didn't even learn anything from the experience. See Iraq.

So the US should only support our best buds? Not worry about the rest of the world? Everyone on earth has a right to live freely. If the US doesn't help others fight foreign rule, we are fighting a war upon our own past. As for helping a group that isn't pro-US, innocent until proven guilty.

Sure, the USSR was already having internal troubles, but there was no guarranty that it was going to fall. The US pulled out of the economic depression of the late 1970s; the USSR could have done the same.

If you're really trying to compare the help we gave to Afgan rebels to the modern Iraq war, you must be totally unfamiliar with the two situations. If you'd like a list of reasons why they are different., I'd be happy to supply it.

[morty14]

ratwar said:

So the US should only support our best buds? Not worry about the rest of the world? Everyone on earth has a right to live freely. If the US doesn't help others fight foreign rule, we are fighting a war upon our own past. As for helping a group that isn't pro-US, innocent until proven guilty.

I'd say we should only support our best friends. I'm an isolationist, so that would be a lot better IMO than what we've got going on now. Not all the way to only worrying about ourselves, which is my true belief, but a good step. And I don't think we are fighting a war on our past. Up until World War I when that moron Wilson threw us into the global political spotlight we were very to ourselves. We didn't get politically involved in the rest of the world until then. So there was a much greater part of our history where we stood aloof than times when we got involved. I meant we should have been sure they were pro-US before giving aid. So we'd have to prove that they were pro-US before giving aid. To use your analogy they would have to be proven guility of being pro-US to receive aid from us.

Sure, the USSR was already having internal troubles, but there was no guarranty that it was going to fall. The US pulled out of the economic depression of the late 1970s; the USSR could have done the same.

I suppose, but I don't see why we felt the need to use the same outdated theories on foreign policy that we since the 50s. The "Domino Effect", spare me from that load of crap.

If you're really trying to compare the help we gave to Afgan rebels to the modern Iraq war, you must be totally unfamiliar with the two situations. If you'd like a list of reasons why they are different., I'd be happy to supply it.

That's not what I was saying at all. I was saying that after the war ended in Afghanistan and we expected a good democratic regime to pop up and we got the Taliban. Then we didn't learn anything from that and now we are trying to do the same thing in Iraq. I'm not comparing our aid of the Afghani paramilitary groups to what we are doing in Iraq.

[darkhelmet]

morty14 said:

Yes, it was a bad move. It was then, we just got lucky and it worked for while. I'd rather see the USSR own Afghanistan for a while than see the Taliban rule Afghanistan. The USSR was already on the downward spiral when they invaded Afghanistan there was no logical reason for us to come out with the support we did. Supplying a large amount of small arms, some heavy weaponry, missiles, all kinds of weapons to a group that wasn't even pro-US, just anti-Soviet seems a bit stupid on our part. Also, we should have seen the looming stablity problems of the region. We, of course, didn't but not only that we didn't even learn anything from the experience. See Iraq.

Glad to see you care about people being oppressed in places across the world.

[mastab]

darkhelmet said:

morty14 said:

Yes, it was a bad move. It was then, we just got lucky and it worked for while. I'd rather see the USSR own Afghanistan for a while than see the Taliban rule Afghanistan. The USSR was already on the downward spiral when they invaded Afghanistan there was no logical reason for us to come out with the support we did. Supplying a large amount of small arms, some heavy weaponry, missiles, all kinds of weapons to a group that wasn't even pro-US, just anti-Soviet seems a bit stupid on our part. Also, we should have seen the looming stablity problems of the region. We, of course, didn't but not only that we didn't even learn anything from the experience. See Iraq.

Glad to see you care about people being oppressed in places across the world.

That's their problem, not mine. Why should the United states have to care for the entire world and impose its imperalist democracy on every country and call it liberation?

[Ratwar]

mastab said:

darkhelmet said:

Glad to see you care about people being oppressed in places across the world.

That's their problem, not mine. Why should the United states have to care for the entire world and impose its imperalist democracy on every country and call it liberation?

God... There's this scientific theory known as the Choas Theory. Basically what it means is that everything affects everything else.

Think of it this way, if I stole my roomate's computer, he would be forced to either steal or use someone elses computer. This could cause the person that he is 'borrowing' the computer from to complain about the loss of the computer to his girlfriend. His girlfriend could already be a bit pissed (parental problems, bad grade on a math test, that time of the month). Now her boyfriend complaining put her over the edge. So she calls her best friend and distracts her from driving, so she accidentally runs over and kills DH. Sad story, huh?

Basically, I'm saying that in an age where the entire world is becoming increasingly interconnected, we cannot ignore the plight of others, since their plight can affect us.

[Muad'dib]

mastab said:

That's their problem, not mine. Why should the United states have to care for the entire world and impose its imperalist democracy on every country and call it liberation?

Unless you are part of the U.S government, then your usage of "we" is incorrect.

[morty14]

darkhelmet said:

Glad to see you care about people being oppressed in places across the world.

If we could just solve the whole world's problems and not destroy ourselves in the process I'd be all for it. But being as that is completely impossible, I think the government should be more concerned with the people they govern rather than the rest of the world. Our foreign relations budget (military+foreign aid) is ridiculous. We already almost outspend the rest of the entire world in military. We give billions of dollars to other nations. And yet we have people in this country starving to death, living in horrible poverty, all kinds of terrible things. That just doesn't seem right to me. It isn't our fault other nations can't be as well off as ours. We need to look out for our own first, then if we have the resources to do so we can help the rest of the world. I care about their plight, just not as much as I care about the plight of my fellow Americans.

God... There's this scientific theory known as the Choas Theory. Basically what it means is that everything affects everything else.

Think of it this way, if I stole my roomate's computer, he would be forced to either steal or use someone elses computer. This could cause the person that he is 'borrowing' the computer from to complain about the loss of the computer to his girlfriend. His girlfriend could already be a bit pissed (parental problems, bad grade on a math test, that time of the month). Now her boyfriend complaining put her over the edge. So she calls her best friend and distracts her from driving, so she accidentally runs over and kills DH. Sad story, huh?

Basically, I'm saying that in an age where the entire world is becoming increasingly interconnected, we cannot ignore the plight of others, since their plight can affect us.

Wow. That was just about the most ridiculous thing I have heard in a while. If everything is interconnected then anything we do can have bad things happen. Or have good things happen. Here's you analogy with a few alterations:
If I gave my roommate a new computer, then he would have a better computer to do his work on. He increases his productivity and gets a nice raise. However because of his raise the company he worked for had to lower the pay of someone else. He goes to work on a day he could have taken off, because his pay is worth it now. The other employee is very angry and after exchanging some ill advised words with the boss gets himself fired. The next day at work that ex-employee shows up and kills everyone, including my roommate who didn't even have to go to work that day. Sad story, isn't it?
In an analogy like that, no matter what you do it has the ability to go bad. So how about we try an agruement that isn't so pointless?

[darkhelmet]

newbiezilla said:

mastab said:

That's their problem, not mine. Why should the United states have to care for the entire world and impose its imperalist democracy on every country and call it liberation?

Unless you are part of the U.S government, then your usage of "we" is incorrect.

Where did he say "we"?

[Muad'dib]

darkhelmet said:

newbiezilla said:

Unless you are part of the U.S government, then your usage of "we" is incorrect.

Where did he say "we"?

My mistake. He said "mine." Which is just as bad.