HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
---------------------------
At 11:28 2001-12-09 -0800, Richard Roper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Well I don't know why you are a member of this list.
It's because I'm against the NATO and its actions,
of course.
You comment seems strange. It's probably caused by
my saying I was and am against the former social-
perialism in the Soviet Union and the present-day
continued new tsarism in Russia too, together with
your actually believing that ridiculous bullshit by the
Washington Pest, the NY Slimes, Cee No Nothing,
etc etc, that the Soviet Union (from the 60s on, say)
represented "communism" and that what was going
on in the world was a struggle between that "commu-
nism", on the one hand, and the ("traditional") im-
perialism, as represented by the USA and the NATO,
on the other - that "if you're not in favour of one of
these, then you're for the other".
But that was and is a very wrong picture of things,
you know. The people in the world had and have
very good reason to be strongly against both of
these reactionary forces. They should say "a plague
on both your houses", and that's what most of them
are doing too.
"Those who're not with us [the US imperialists]
are with the terrorists", Bush is saying today -
all the more ridiculously of course, since they
themselves precisely *are* the terrorists too.
And there are some other people too who're
saying: "If you oppose the US war against
Afghanista, then you're an adherent of Usama
bin Laden". Heard that one, Richard?
Well, 20 or so years ago, those same people
(or their predecessors) were saying, "if you
oppose us, then you're with the Soviet Union".
Equally ridiculous, of course. Then as now,
this was a trick of trying to put people between
to fires: "cholera or pest - choose what's best".
That one always was one quite important
"strategy" of the reactionaries', against ordinary
people.
>As it happens I am not a communist.
I never accused you of being one either.
Now that Washington Pest etc etc will tell you
that "communists", that's people who supported
that (really arch-reactionary) social-imperialism
of the leaders of the Soviet Union, that it was
"communism" that fell in East Europe in 1989-91,
etc. Not true, I can inform you. This nonsense
is intended to confuse people completely as to
what has been, and is, going on in the world too.
All actual communists know that what Mao Zedong
said, as far back as in 1964, about the Soviet Union
is quite true: That the earlier socialism there had been
overthrown and replaced by a bourgeois dictatorship
of the fascist type, of the Hitler fascist type. The
adherents of that regime rightly were and are called
revisionists, by the actual Marxists.
>Well yes, it was Carter and Brisinki who invaded
>Afganistan in July 1979 - it's just they did it in a
>Covert Operation - caused five million to flee,
>devestated large parts of the country, built up a huge
>para-miltary force etc. etc. This is the fairly
>standard description of a country subjected to a
>protracted Covert Intervention.
>
>It was the largest operation of the CIA since Vietnam,
>millions of dollars were spent on it, and
>unparralleled propaganda operations took place in its
>support.
Now you're being really ridiculous, Richard.
You actually believe that it was the CIA etc who
*invaded* Afghanistan in 1979, who "forced" the
social-imperialists into sending 100,000+ troops
into the country, so that:
¤ 1.5 million Afghans were killed
¤ 5-6 million were forced to leave the country - the
biggest refugee cathastrophy in our time - and 1 million
more forced to leave their homes, to become refugees in
Afghanistan itself
¤ 7000 villages were annihilated and 5000 more seriously
damaged
¤ between 10 million (UN estimate) and 60 million (other
estimates) mines were laid throughout the country by the
invaders
¤ these mines have so far caused 200,000 deaths and
400,000 maimings; they continue today to take a heavy
toll and several decades will be required for their
removal
¤ large parts of the vital and scarce forests were sys-
tematically destroyed by the Soviet forces
¤ the infrastructure and the fields for agriculture were
destroyed to a great extent
It's true of course that the CIA etc, even before this infamous social-
imperialist war of aggression, were doing what they could to
penetrate Afghanistan, and that they during that war pursued
reactionary interests of their own in their support, or "support",
of the people's resistance against it.
But to "blame" *this* war on the CIA, that's believing that the US
imperialists at the time were "all-powerful" (another thing those
stupid media I mention would want you to believe too, of course)
and that "those poor and innocent" Soviet social-imperialists
"had no will of their own".
I'm certain that if you just reflect a little on this, Richard, you'll
see yourself how ridiculous this idea is which you've so far
been "buying".
Btw, for your benefit and for that of Barry Stoller, for instance,
I shall post to this list (in 4 parts) one thing I sent in 1996:
"Social-imperialism's Afghan war".
Rolf M.
==^================================================================
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9WB2D
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================
