#1
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-endorses-1979-soviet-invasion-of-afghanistan-in-cabinet-meeting-2019-1

Great start to the year
#2
wow i guess you can’t just pin trump down as your average run of the mill imperialist after all. turns out he’s actually a breznevhite social-imperialist instead
#3
anyway this actually falls in line with the USG’s feelings in 1979, which welcomed the soviet invasion of afghanistan. they were only overjoyed that the soviets had done something so stupid.
#4

elias posted:

anyway this actually falls in line with the USG’s feelings in 1979, which welcomed the soviet invasion of afghanistan. they were only overjoyed that the soviets had done something so stupid.



So stupid that by 1984, the US & co-backed contra forces had gotten into such a bad position that US press reported that the Soviets had all but won, and it took bottomless funding and a huge counterrevolutionary global crest to finally topple the Afghan government three years after Soviet withdrawal (and one year after the overthrow of the USSR and much of the socialist bloc).

Obviously now that the former USSR is flooded with heroin, with Russia having the highest rate of injecting users in the world (and the third highest new HIV cases annually), we can say from atop our Forever War: Wow, they sure were stupid to fight THAT inevitability! They probably shouldve let imperialism overthrow the popular Afghan government and set up a deeply reactionary forward operating base right on its border..

Anyway, its time to go think about my friends who died from Afghan heroin here in the US lol

#5
Crows shall die but crow shall not.
#6

Crow posted:

elias posted:
anyway this actually falls in line with the USG’s feelings in 1979, which welcomed the soviet invasion of afghanistan. they were only overjoyed that the soviets had done something so stupid.



So stupid that by 1984, the US & co-backed contra forces had gotten into such a bad position that US press reported that the Soviets had all but won, and it took bottomless funding and a huge counterrevolutionary global crest to finally topple the Afghan government three years after Soviet withdrawal (and one year after the overthrow of the USSR and much of the socialist bloc).

Obviously now that the former USSR is flooded with heroin, with Russia having the highest rate of injecting users in the world (and the third highest new HIV cases annually), we can say from atop our Forever War: Wow, they sure were stupid to fight THAT inevitability! They probably shouldve let imperialism overthrow the popular Afghan government and set up a deeply reactionary forward operating base right on its border..

Anyway, its time to go think about my friends who died from Afghan heroin here in the US lol


hey don’t take my word for it, take the soviet politburo’s, several months before the occupation:

Andropov: Comrades , I have thought this issue over very thoroughly since yesterday and have concluded that we should consider very, very seriously whether it would make sense to send troops into Afghanistan. The economy is backward, the Islamic religion predominates, and nearly all of the rural population is illiterate. I do not think we can uphold the revolution in Afghanistan with the help of our bayonets. The idea is intolerable and we can not risk it.

Gromyko: I fully support Comrade Andropov’s view that we should exclude the dispatch of troops to Afghanistan. The Afghan army is unreliable and our army would become an aggressor. With whom will it fight? With the Afghan people! Our Army would have to shoot them! To be blunt, the Afghan leaders have made many mistakes and haven’t got the support of their own people.




#7
That doesn't contradict anything crow said.
#8
it tells you that soviet brass suspected what history would soon bear out: the pdpa leadership was sclerotic, with a very limited social base of support (centered mostly in kabul) and as a consequence the counter-insurgency would be brutal and legitimately unpopular. and that's with a large plurality of afghans, not just the reactionary islamist contras, who, like crow alludes to, weren't armed with the most serious weaponry until the mid-80s. this wasn't exactly a repeat of the liberation and bolshevization of the central asian soviet republics here, the soviet occupiers and their partners in kabul were not quite so sensitive. and why would they be, when the leadership of the cpsu itself was so uncommitted to leninism at home anyway?
#9
I don’f have much to add regarding the historical facts in question but I do think more serious study is needed of fhe conditions that enable foreign backed top down revolutions to succeed and what dooms them to failure.

Regarding that problem I highly reccomend Vincenzo Cuoco’s Historical Essay on the Neapolitan Revolution of 1799, which charts both the disastrous missteps and nobility of an attempt to create a republic with a very narrow social base in alliance with France.
#10
https://rhizzone.net/forum/post/317592/

#11

elias posted:

it tells you that soviet brass suspected what history would soon bear out: the pdpa leadership was sclerotic, with a very limited social base of support (centered mostly in kabul) and as a consequence the counter-insurgency would be brutal and legitimately unpopular. and that's with a large plurality of afghans, not just the reactionary islamist contras, who, like crow alludes to, weren't armed with the most serious weaponry until the mid-80s. this wasn't exactly a repeat of the liberation and bolshevization of the central asian soviet republics here, the soviet occupiers and their partners in kabul were not quite so sensitive. and why would they be, when the leadership of the cpsu itself was so uncommitted to leninism at home anyway?


So you're a glass half empty kind of guy.

#12
i am 70% sure trump will be reelected, but I’m somewhat impressed at the success of the dem strategy thus far. it seems to be to shift as little as possible on key issues and hope disgust with trump nudges the tide in their favour. they’ll hopefully ride a wave of meh into 2020, and imo winning the presidency while offering nothing is pretty bold and deserves respect. “not trump” is their entire sales pitch, and people seem to be responding with a resounding, "yeah, sure, i guess". party unity is good. warren running will probably split whatever constitutes the left vote on the blue side of the business and war party, thereby enabling POC centrist candidate beto o'rourke to bring everyone else together around some platform of means tested hope and opportunity. this should delay the undiluted fascism of whatever trump 2.0 is lurking in the republican camp for at least four years. good for the democrats. i am looking forward to an exciting campaign season in which the candidates sportingly duke it out for the greater good of the united states of america. a twitter account and suicide pills are a must this time around.
#13

ghostpinballer posted:

i am 70% sure trump will be reelected



70% sounds about right

#14
trump will be re-elected
#15

ghostpinballer posted:

i am 70% sure trump will be reelected, but I’m somewhat impressed at the success of the dem strategy thus far. it seems to be to shift as little as possible on key issues and hope disgust with trump nudges the tide in their favour. they’ll hopefully ride a wave of meh into 2020, and imo winning the presidency while offering nothing is pretty bold and deserves respect. “not trump” is their entire sales pitch, and people seem to be responding with a resounding, "yeah, sure, i guess". party unity is good. warren running will probably split whatever constitutes the left vote on the blue side of the business and war party, thereby enabling POC centrist candidate beto o'rourke to bring everyone else together around some platform of means tested hope and opportunity. this should delay the undiluted fascism of whatever trump 2.0 is lurking in the republican camp for at least four years. good for the democrats. i am looking forward to an exciting campaign season in which the candidates sportingly duke it out for the greater good of the united states of america. a twitter account and suicide pills are a must this time around.


cory booker is the centrist poc. beto o rourke is, as i think politico cheerfully put it, “obama, but white”

#16
either the dems will nominate a lady, and the seething & confused mommie issues of middle america take Trump over the top, or they nominate a dude who wins, accomplishes nothing other than slightly more competent empire maintenance, then loses to a full blown American Bolsonaro in 2024

or maybe Bernie wins, I see a lot more potential for vote splitting in the center than on the left. he could run the Dem 2020 primary exactly like Trump ran the 2016 GOP primary. god knows how a soc-dem US president with almost no legislative support turns out tho (probably real poorly)
#17
The death of the empire continues, in it's death throws it'll grab frantically trying to drag down anyone to hell with it. Stay safe.
#18
#19
so far the dems top choice to overthrow trump seems to be doing a better job making a case for joe liebermans candidacy than her own
#20


I can’t wait for drone operation badges and trophies for best sonic weapon design.
#21
heh, two
#22
warren is an imperial senator & enemy of all the world's people
#23

cory booker is the centrist poc. beto o rourke is, as i think politico cheerfully put it, “obama, but white”



i know, i was trying to do an irony bcos libs have been saying "no more white men" for 2 years and then a couple of leftish women of colour get elected last year and suddenly the same libs are saying "beto is the future of american politics" without skipping a beat, and it has very "bill clinton os the first black president" vibes to it all.

#24

ghostpinballer posted:

clinton os


pros: easy to install, compatible with all major corporate software, slick interface, huge userbase and lots of available support.
cons: giant gaping security holes, inexplicably hostile to common free software standards, tracks everything you do and sells the data to anyone, uses most of your resources to bitcoins for Goldman Sachs whenever it thinks you wouldn't notice

#25

swampman posted:



i am in support of politicians just saying things shouldn't be legal though. more of that.

i think warren will probably get the nomination, her discourse appeals heavily to the declassed and declassing former and transitional labor aristocracy. not just that, but her brand of capitalism, at the expense of the oppressed colonial nations, actually does have a material appeal to them, they will benefit from her presidency. so rather than choose naked fascism some are going to want to go for social fascism instead, imperial social democracy at least feels and looks better to a lot of people. unity with empire needs to be reinvented, in the eyes of a lot of the bourgeois elements of the ruling class, because they worry that unrestrained empire a la Trump will lose the assent of their subjects.

#26
peculiar timing with this attempted coup in gabon, a couple days after the us sent 80 special forces mercs there ostensibly due to the delayed election results in drc
#27
congratulations to mr maduro. i hope the cia do not kill him.
#28
ooooooooohhhhhhhh nnnnnnnnooooooooooooo
#29
Who is that news item even aimed at 😂
#30
Just tweeting about a fake radio free asia funding crisis so all the radio free asia fans out there who don't literally work for the CIA can stay up to date. No big deal.
#31
Take any tweet like that and read the most recent 10-20 tweets from the quickest people to fave it in a game I like to call "idiot or spook"
#32
he's a Senior Fellow who writes for WaPo,
#33
what kind of dumb name is isaac stone fish? who the hell is called fish, that's just moronic.
#34