Stop at this point and think why are you calling Amin as "leader"? He is no more than just a killer.

Your error is to think what everybody who named himself "marxist" became "supported by SU". It was often, but Afganistan is not the case.

According to Marx' theory it impossible to establish communism in a non-industrial country.

All what SU needed was stopping Islamic influence on its south region.

You are right at this point. But this "communist coup" (ha-ha... i wander how many pages of Marx these "communists" had read in all their life) provided a good ground for islamist. And Soviet leaders understood this.

Ha! Be ready - Lukoil is coming!

I have not many practice in English so typing a little bit slowly :)

Man they kept you guys isolated and brainwashed for way too long.

Ok, tell us why the wall was built...

Looks like it common error for many intelligence services. The Russian FSB (fomer KGB) trained and armored Shamil Basaev to fight against Georgia, but quite soon this chechen terrorist started to kill russians.

Alas, you are wrong once again. "They" are on the same page as you :) I already explained why.



...because the world was as it was. When you was living in times of your country is ruined and another was born, and one lier changed another lier, you learn to do not believe any evidences and authorities from one side and to see all the colors of the world from the other.

Also not much practice in taking a quote. Partial quotes tend to lead to confusion and misunderstanding.



This doesn't say much for the Soviet troops who took care of the villages around Kabul or took out the existing government to install their puppet.



Does it really matter how many pages they actually read? The point is that it was a coup by a Marxist party over the acknowledged government. Soviets wanted in and the 'leader' in power took out their favorite. Therefore they went in under pretense and took care of the problem.



It is easy now to look at Bush and his pretense for Iraq but the same type of excuse was used by Soviet Union for Afghanistan.

Oh please,
I studied and read two centuries of Afghan history, and the Invasion of Afghanistan by the USSR has no comparison to Bush's illegal war in Iraq!

>> Stop at this point and think why are you calling Amin as "leader"? He is no more than just a killer.

> This doesn't say much for the Soviet troops

It does. You are assuming what Amin was the only and the legitimate ruler of Afganistan. But he did not.

So your point "Amin refused soviet troops" is not equals to "Afganistan goverment refused soviet troops"

First off, to point the blame at Reagan, isn't accurate by a half, because Foriegn Policy guru , Zbignew Brzezinski,who has sat under Clinton and is sitting under Obama currently, sat once under a President, that people who've read any history can Identify when I call him Peanut.

Jimmy Carters era was the beginning for the funds and arms to flow to the Afghan fighters, Brzezinski himself has openly bragged about this.

>> But this "communist coup" (ha-ha... i wander how many pages of Marx these "communists" had read in all their life) provided a good ground for islamist

> Does it really matter how many pages they actually read? The point is that it was a coup by a Marxist party over the acknowledged government. Soviets wanted in and the 'leader' in power took out their favorite.

Well, do you prefer Soviet choose a murderer Amin? :)

Once again. Soviet were happy with Daud. These so-called communist s made troubles to Soviet Union. You are absolutely right saing they are not popular against pupil.

> It is easy now to look at Bush and his pretense for Iraq but the same type of excuse was used by Soviet Union for Afghanistan.

No. Soviet Union defended its south border from Islamic influence (supported or used by US).

What Bush is doing in Iraq i just do not understand, but i has no right to blame it - it is your country and it is your president.

Let's imagine the Soviet Union did not enter its troops in 79. What could follow?

For our country, it means no funds,training and arms sent to the Afghan Arabs, which means U.S. intervention in the area would probably be reduced a great deal today, we wouldn't have trained and funded Bin Laden and his guys. We wouldn't have been directly responsible for giving the Taliban teeth.

The USSR had already infiltrated every aspect of the Afghan military and gov. yrs before that. The fighting, which happened to put him in power was a direct result of the Soviets meddling . It was a civil war to kick the Commie puppets out. The killing you say Amin did was Russians and Russian sympathizers that he aimed to rid his country of.

In the 70’s there were two coups, the first was a bloodless coup, which occurred in July 1973. Prince Mohammed Daoud, who the West considered as pro-Soviet, initiated it, and placed himself in power of Afghanistan. At first, the Russians were pleased, but soon he began to reduce the Soviet’s influence in his country, he criticized Soviet Policies, removed and assassinated Generals that were pro-Soviet from the Afghan military, and attempted to make friends with Western allies in neighboring countries. The second coup, initiated by the military in April 1978 with the help of thousands of Russian military advisors, resulted in the assassination of Daoud, and placed Nur Mohammed Taraki in power. Taraki was the leader of the Khalag party and his nemesis Babrak Karmal, leader of the other pro-soviet party, Parcham (PDPA) was sent to Prague as an Ambassador signaling a truce between the previously opposing parties. The Soviets were now happy, but this was short lived, because policies initiated by Taraki were very unpopular and the country was soon in the midst of a civil war. Then in 1979 in an attempt to assassinate his greatest rival and biggest critic, Hafizullah Amin, the tables were turned and Amin assassinated Taraki instead, placing himself in power of the country, and causing renewed worry in the Soviet Union.

Look outside Russia and you can find the truth!!

You say this but, “in terms of per capita aid, between 1955 and 1970 Moscow gave Kabul more funds than to any other state.”

They wanted access to the warm waters of the Indian Ocean for their Navy, and to create a buffer state.

I stated that he was the legimate 'leader' of Afghanistan. He and the PDPA took over in a coup. On 27 April 1978 the PDPA, led by Nur Mohammad Taraki, Babrak Karmal and Amin overthrew the regime of Mohammad Daoud, who was killed along with his family.
Taraki was the favorite of Moscow and was replaced later by Amin. Amin took over the same way that Taraki had.

Amin refused Soviet military assistance and on Dec 24 - 27, 1979 Soviet aircraft landed in Kabul and Bagram dropping off an airborne division and support troops.
Dec 27 Soviet troops attacked the Darulaman Palace and killed Amin and some of his relatives. Prior to this Amin had been treated with respect by Soviet press and was now vilified.
Dec 29,1979 Soviet Motorized Rifle Divisions rolled into Afghanistan.

Soviets set up Karmal as their puppet in Afghanistan. A well planned and executed invasion. Not the 'assistance' proclaimed.

> For our country, it means no funds,training and arms sent to the Afghan Arabs, which means U.S. intervention

Hm... You said what Soviet forced US to train those fanatics and terrorists? Correct?

I see no reason why US could not just wait while soviet troops set non-religious government in Afganistan and left the country? Well they obviously continued to support this government because SU needed some buffer between soviet republics Uzbekistan, Taghikistan, Kazahstan and new Islamic world.

From the other side if Soviet Union did not enter troops in Afganistan in 1979 it would have got the war in Taghikstan in 1981-83. And something said to me that Reigan anyway did what he did.

> I stated that he was the legimate 'leader' of Afghanistan

Just a question "How many governments were in Afghanistan in 1979?"

>They wanted access to the warm waters of the Indian Ocean for their Navy,

It is not-science fiction

> and to create a buffer state.

It is truth. So you came to what i stated from the start. No "communism" - just more or less stable regime. Any. Is what was bad for anybody?