Ron Paul: Wrong on the Taliban

[angelatc]

Thank you! Ron Paul proven right yet again!

But Danke's article discusses actions that took place much later than the original topic. What you're saying is true but it isn't related to the original discussion of what the situation was, and who the players were, when we were trying to undermine the Russians.

I think the real answer is probably that the Taliban were a subsect of the mujaheddin. After Russia pulled out, the group fell apart.

 

[jmdrake]

I wasn't going to bring it up, but the mujahadeen (sp?) is the group we funded in the Russia / Afghan conflict. The Taliban didn't come to power until after that.

ETA: Here's a good article about the differences between the two: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/28/afghanistan-mujahideen-taliban

That's not really a good article. It doesn't give the history of the Taliban, and the "differences" it cites are superficial. (Mujahadeen want to pillage, Taliban want control. Really?)

Here's a better overview.

http://middleeast.about.com/od/afghanistan/ss/me080914a.htm

The Taliban are the next generation of mujahadeen. The original mujahadeen warlords squandered their opportunity to rule by fighting against each other. The common thread between both the Taliban and the mujahadeen (besides Islam and hatred against outsiders ruling their country) is our ally Pakistan. U.S. money, funneled through Pakistan, found its way to both groups. And some of the people who fought with the mujahadeen did join the Taliban. The Taliban is a largely Pashtun movement and there were Pashtun mujahadeen.

 

[jmdrake]

But Danke's article discusses actions that took place much later than the original topic. What you're saying is true but it isn't related to the original discussion of what the situation was when we were trying to undermine the Russians.

That situation was we paid our allies in Pakistan to grow a force to oust the Soviets. (The mujahadeen). Later we paid our allies in Pakistan to develop a force to stabilize Afghanistan. (The Taliban). Different names. Somewhat different groups of people (although there was overlap). Different agendas. (Stabilizing the country versus drawing in, then kicking out the Soviets). Same pay source. Even into 2005 Pakistan, which was getting U.S. aid, was funneling money to the Taliban and to Al Qaeda.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4249525.stm

Edit: Ron's problem is that in the debates he only has 30 seconds to explain something that really takes 30 minutes to understand. He needs to go Ross Perot and do a foreign policy infomercial.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

If Biden down the road invited Taliban to the White House, it would be a 'Reaganesque' move sort of.

Trump's plan to host them at Camp David had been cut short due to election season issues.

 

[Anti Federalist]

We need to get out in front of those who now would mock the concept of "we just marched in, we can just march out".

Best response:

It's not our fucking country and therefore none of our fucking business.

 

[phill4paul]

We need to get out in front of those who now would mock the concept of "we just marched in, we can just march out".

Best response:

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again.

If two decades of military armaments, training and trillions didn't set up a democracy then fuck it. And the next time shit comes out of there just nuke the fuckers.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

We need to get out in front of those who now would mock the concept of "we just marched in, we can just march out".

Best response:

+rep.