Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"The PDPA came to power through a military coup known as the Saur Revolution, which ousted the government of Mohammad Daoud Khan. Daoud was succeeded by Nur Muhammad Taraki as head of state and government on 30 April 1978. Taraki and Hafizullah Amin, the organiser of the Saur Revolution, introduced several contentious reforms during their rule, the most notable being equal rights to women, universal education and land reform."
"The Soviet–Afghan War lasted over nine years, from December 1979 to February 1989. Insurgent groups known collectively as the mujahideen, as well as smaller Maoist groups, fought a guerrilla war against the Soviet Army and the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan government, mostly in the rural countryside. The mujahideen groups were backed primarily by the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, making it a Cold Warproxy war. Between 562,000[31] and 2,000,000 civilians were killed and millions of Afghans fled the country as refugees,[32][33][35][36] mostly to Pakistanand Iran."
Now where did YOUR/Reagan's consistency go I wonder?
The press and the left LOVED the Soviet Union. That went on for decades. They still love communism.
Look up Time Magazine's slobbering all over Gorby the Great, I'm sure back issues are available. It was sickening. "His hands! His hands have a variety of functions!" "His eyes!" It was amazing that adults actually wrote such slobber.
And on and on like that, like the grade school girls that they are, love Gorby, hate Reagan.
What the heck are you talking about. The press, Republicans and Democrats of the time were all unified in their condemnation of the Soviet Union. Gorbachev was a reformer trying to undo the worst aspects of the USSR and improve relations with the US.
In retrospect it doesn't really bother me, especially given the cartoonish, partisan nature of today's political climate. Also I could use similar, more nuanced language like 'dysfunctional' or 'corrupt' for the old U.S.S.R.
This would be more like it, BUT...
If we want to go this rout, how many capitalist countries are out there, that are "dysfunctional or corrupt?"
Plenty.
Quote:
which isn't far way from the adjective Reagan used.
Not really.
"Dysfunctional or corrupt" has no reference to the scriptures, nor "Satan like ideology."
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Overly simplified, but consistent throughout the ages.
That's understood, but we are talking about the different kind of "consistency," the consistency of "good vs evil."
Example;
So after the mujaheddin take over in Afghanistan, and, say, this woman receives the kind of treatment she receives as the direct result of it, instead of the equal rights and universal education promoted by the Soviets, (AND because of the support that America gives to her oppressors,) who/what becomes evil, if the world is seeing through HER eyes?
And what should happen to America ( and Soviet Union) if the world is judged through HER pain and troubles?
So be careful what you wish for as they say, when you bring the scriptures (and "good vs evil") into equation, as Reagan did.
And that's the answer regarding the controversy of his speech, as I've mentioned earlier.
That's understood, but we are talking about the different kind of "consistency," the consistency of "good vs evil."
Example;
So after the mujaheddin take over in Afghanistan, and, say, this woman receives the kind of treatment she receives as the direct result of it, instead of the equal rights and universal education promoted by the Soviets, (AND because of the support that America gives to her oppressors,) who/what becomes evil, if the world is seeing through HER eyes?
And what should happen to America ( and Soviet Union) if the world is judged through HER pain and troubles?
So be careful what you wish for as they say, when you bring the scriptures (and "good vs evil") into equation, as Reagan did.
And that's the answer regarding the controversy of his speech, as I've mentioned earlier.
I'm pretty sure the religious rights of Muslim men supersedes those of women, that's why feminists haven't started a crusade against the Muslim world, they only care about western/Christian men.
They also don't acknowledge that in women in Syria and even oppressive Iran have more women's rights than the gulf states.
for instance you would never find Saudi women dressed like these women in Syria. No wonder the Saudis supported ISIS in Syria.
That's understood, but we are talking about the different kind of "consistency," the consistency of "good vs evil."
Example;
So after the mujaheddin take over in Afghanistan, and, say, this woman receives the kind of treatment she receives as the direct result of it, instead of the equal rights and universal education promoted by the Soviets, (AND because of the support that America gives to her oppressors,) who/what becomes evil, if the world is seeing through HER eyes?
Would her life really be so rosy under a Soviet-backed dictatorship? And how do you know she is unhappy? Just because you wouldn't like it doesn't mean she doesn't.
Quote:
And what should happen to America ( and Soviet Union) if the world is judged through HER pain and troubles?
Why would the world be judged through the experience of a single person?
Quote:
So be careful what you wish for as they say, when you bring the scriptures (and "good vs evil") into equation, as Reagan did.
And that's the answer regarding the controversy of his speech, as I've mentioned earlier.
Sorry, representative democracy (people vote for freedom) is good and totalitarianism (people cannot vote against oppression) is evil.
I'm pretty sure the religious rights of Muslim men supersedes those of women, that's why feminists haven't started a crusade against the Muslim world, they only care about western/Christian men.
I'd rather not comment on it at this point. Particularly that Reagan made his speech referring to the scriptures already in the post-Woodstock and the *Summer of love* in America, supposedly "enjoined by Scripture and the Lord Jesus Christ."
Quote:
They also don't acknowledge that in women in Syria and even oppressive Iran have more women's rights than the gulf states.
for instance you would never find Saudi women dressed like these women in Syria. No wonder the Saudis supported ISIS in Syria.
Ahh... Latakia - the stronghold of the evil Bashar Assad and his evil sectarian Allawite, denying the freedom of worshiping true Islam to its followers in Syria.
And those evil, evil Russians on the sidelines as usual, supporting this truly diabolic arrangement.
And how do you know she is unhappy? Just because you wouldn't like it doesn't mean she doesn't.
I don't.
As much as I don't know whether you would be unhappy under the Soviet style totalitarianism.
Just because you say you wouldn't, doesn't mean you couldn't be happy.
Quote:
Would her life really be so rosy under a Soviet-backed dictatorship?
Oh, definitely rosier than what you see here.
See, when you remove Islam and money from equation (money didn't rule "Soviet totalitarianism" you know, unlike the capitalist societies, ) you would get women's equality with no lip service. Be they blond or dark-skinned, everyone was protected by the same laws equally, everyone was required to shoulder the same responsibilities. With other words - totalitarianism Soviet style, remember?
Quote:
Why would the world be judged through the experience of a single person?
It's in the scriptures, duh)))
Quote:
Sorry, representative democracy (people vote for freedom) is good and totalitarianism (people cannot vote against oppression) is evil.
Sorry but first of all - there is no such thing as "freedom" - the societies are ruled and controlled either via ideology or via money, and second - of course it's much nicer to be born in the category of the "oppressors ( and to be able to "vote for freedom") than to be born to the category of the "oppressed."
Who would argue about that?
After all, it's in the scriptures as well, that some will be put in bondage, while others will be enjoying the fruit of their labor.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) - 
