Mujahideen during Soviet invasion

[ron doe]

What was Ron Paul's position on supporting the mujahideen during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? What is the general consensus on having supported them in the "Paul" community?

 

[eduardo89]

He probably said "we should mind our own business"

 

[ron doe]

I'm non-interventionist, but the collapse of the Soviet Union, our rival Communist superpower, was good was it not? I think is safe to say that this was basically a success.

If anything, it was that we had no good exit plan that was problematic.

 

[ron doe]

I'm non-interventionist, but the collapse of the Soviet Union, our rival Communist superpower, was good was it not? I think is safe to say that this was basically a success.

If anything, it was that we had no good exit plan that was problematic.

 

[TheLibertarianNationalist]

I'm non-interventionist, but the collapse of the Soviet Union, our rival Communist superpower, was good was it not? I think is safe to say that this was basically a success.

If anything, it was that we had no good exit plan that was problematic.

There were many cases of American interventionism that benefited America and the world. Even today, our presence in South Korea and Taiwan are essential in preventing a Communist take over and a Chinese Empire. You don't have to be a dogmatic non-interventionist to be a Ron Paul supporter. In fact Ron's son, Rand Paul, agrees with intervention to a certain extent. So do Justin Amash and Jeff Flake.

 

[pcosmar]

There were many cases of American interventionism that benefited America and the world.

Dubious claim..


And Communism is not anywhere in the world. IT DOES NOT EXIST. What does exist is varying flavors of socialism.
And that has been true of the US since the 1900s.

 

[Pericles]

S Korea and the ROC are willing to defend themselves, and selling the weapons that make it more able for them to do so is consistent with a non intervention strategy.

Supplying trainers and advisers is acceptable, as long as the allies are defensively oriented.

Sending in the US Army to defend people who will not defend themselves is a waste of the lives of our citizens.

American Volunteer Group operations should be the way to go for those who feel strongly about helping other vountries.

 

[moonshineplease]

I'm non-interventionist, but the collapse of the Soviet Union, our rival Communist superpower, was good was it not? I think is safe to say that this was basically a success.

If anything, it was that we had no good exit plan that was problematic.

The no exit plan thing is a sham. President of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haas was on John Stewart's show about a year ago when the subject of Afghanistan came up. Haas said our biggest problem was that "we took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan" and stopped paying attention to it. Stewart replied with a simple question that put a massive hole in that rationale by asking when it WOULD be okay take our eye off that country...Haas, of course, had no answer.

 

[ron doe]

Well, whether the Soviet Union was Communist is not really very relevant; the US eliminated a rival superpower with intervention in Afghanistan.

@moonshineplease, I see your point about the no exit plan (there was really no way to exit cleanly). I think it has to admitted though that our success in Afghanistan in the 80's had well outweighed the cost.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Well, whether the Soviet Union was Communist is not really very relevant; the US eliminated a rival superpower with intervention in Afghanistan.

@moonshineplease, I see your point about the no exit plan (there was really no way to exit cleanly). I think it has to admitted though that our success in Afghanistan in the 80's had well outweighed the cost.

Silliness. There's never a need to "eliminate" anyone unless they pose a real threat. The Soviets had been allies with the US regime since WWII. The Cold War was just a big prick-waving contest between egomaniacal sociopaths who wanted to dominate huge chunks of the world. (whether or not the ICBMs were a true threat is debatable. IMO the USSR was way too weak to ever even try to carry out a "hot" war)

ETA: The "success" in Afghanistan has outweighed the cost? Srsly? Do the maths for me to prove your claim.

 

[Acala]

The Soviet Union collapsed because communism doesn't work. Anyone who really understanding the economics of WHY communism doesn't work also understands that it was never necessary to try and contain communism around the world. It is an unworkable economic system.

 

[Acala]

Well, whether the Soviet Union was Communist is not really very relevant; the US eliminated a rival superpower with intervention in Afghanistan..

Rival in what sense? In the sense of contending with the USA for domination of other countries and their resources? Since when is that a legitimate or Constitutional function of our government?

 

[jmdrake]

Our involvement in Afghanistan was criminal. We funded the mujahadeen before the Soviets invaded in order to draw them in. We radicalized an entire nation, even going so far as to send jihadi textbooks to Afghan children. CIA money went to the same radical muslims we are supposedly fighting. Yes Osama Bin Laden got funding this way, though not directly through the U.S. During the "Cold War" we managed to hold on to most of our freedoms. Post 9/11? You tell me? Personally I'd gladly go back to 1979 geopolitically if we could.

 

[jmdrake]

Well, whether the Soviet Union was Communist is not really very relevant; the US eliminated a rival superpower with intervention in Afghanistan.

And in the process we set the stage for our own demise and the rise of Communist China as the new undisputed super power. Right now it's only a matter of time unless we get off the path we're on.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Our involvement in Afghanistan was criminal. We funded the mujahadeen before the Soviets invaded in order to draw them in. We radicalized an entire nation, even going so far as to send jihadi textbooks to Afghan children. CIA money went to the same radical muslims we are supposedly fighting. Yes Osama Bin Laden got funding this way, though not directly through the U.S. During the "Cold War" we managed to hold on to most of our freedoms. Post 9/11? You tell me? Personally I'd gladly go back to 1979 geopolitically if we could.

Great points! +rep thanx. ~hugs~

 

[LatinsforPaul]

BLOWBACK.....

How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?

Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic [integrisme], having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

 

[ron doe]

Thanks for helping me out guys. I am kind of playing devil's advocate here, but I do feel that intervention can be good in specific occasions (and I think this specific case did have a net positive).

Well, the Soviets did place nuclear weapons in Cuba, so they had seriously threatened our national security and directly violated our policies (Monroe Doctrine). They placed spies in our country. Also, our interventions in Afghanistan may very have been a ploy to draw the Soviets in, but it succeeded and brought about an end to the USSR.

With regards to civil liberties, there is no reason we can't have our "civil liberties of 1979" back. It is not a necessity, the current state of our civil liberties, but instead, a function of bad policy in my opinion.

Could someone also explain what was meant by "criminal" when referring to the invasion of Afghanistan? Thanks!

I am trying hard to better understand these issues and to form better, more informed opinions.

 

[eduardo89]

Well, the Soviets did place nuclear weapons in Cuba, so they had seriously threatened our national security and directly violated our policies (Monroe Doctrine). They placed spies in our country. Also, our interventions in Afghanistan may very have been a ploy to draw the Soviets in, but it succeeded and brought about an end to the USSR.

And the US had the USSR surrounded with nuclear weapons well before the Cuban Missile Crisis. The US had nuclear weapons in Germany, UK, France, Italy, Turkey and Spain.

Afghanistan is not the reason the USSR collapsed. It would have collapsed anyway, central planning simply does not work. (but don't the Fed that)

 

[talkingpointes]

Ron, as far as I know and can understand, no. As for The Big Flipper...

 

[John F Kennedy III]

Ron, as far as I know and can understand, no. As for The Big Flipper...

Lol wow.