Imperialistic History of the United States

  • News
  • Thread starter MaxS
  • Start date
  • #1
MaxS
33
0
"you can bet your sweet apples that they are natural warriors"

This comment, followed by a list of Middle Easter conflicts in another thread on this forum really pissed me off. Its incredibly misleading and very racist too.

The United States for instance has been involved in over 140 armed conflicts in its short 230 year existence.

United States Military Action From 1898 to the Present (note that the list is also incomplete)

(Note 1.) This list through 1975 is reprinted with few changes from: US Congress. House. Committee on International Relations [now Foreign Affairs]. Subcommittee on International Security and Scientific Affairs. Background Information on the Use of US Armed Forces in Foreign Countries, 1975 Revision. Committee print, 94th Congress, Ist session. Prepared by the Foreign Affairs Division, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. Washington, US Government Printing Office, 1975. 84 p.


http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl30172.htm
 
Last edited:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
kat
39
0
I'm sorry...how many of these wars were in the U.S.?
Although...some of my ancestors WERE natural born warriors..I wouldn't consider most Americans "warriors" at all..well, unless you want to consider wars over who gets the remote control.
 
  • #3
0TheSwerve0
195
0
Almost none of these actions after 1900 resulted in the expansion of US territory. A bit misleading to refer to this as an "Imperialistic History." Not all military action is imperialistic.
 
  • #4
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
Ah yes, 10,000th time this has been posted.
 
  • #5
MaxS
33
0
I would say any military action on foreign soil can be deemed imperialistic - expansion of the U.S. sphere of influence is still expansion
 
  • #6
The Smoking Man
47
0
0TheSwerve0 said:
Almost none of these actions after 1900 resulted in the expansion of US territory. A bit misleading to refer to this as an "Imperialistic History." Not all military action is imperialistic.
:zzz: I guess we could entitle it 'America discovers placing dictators who are sympathetic' then.

America discovered a long time ago that creating unofficial spheres of influence was more profitable without all the problems of making sure their constitution was applied in any external territory or having to pay for things like welfare.

Plus you had the benefits of being able to invade if the ruler or population became unruly. :wink:
 
  • #7
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,802
5
MaxS said:
I would say any military action on foreign soil can be deemed imperialistic - expansion of the U.S. sphere of influence is still expansion

I'd say you're intentionally misusing the word 'imperialistic' because of the negative connotations it carries. You can say that any military action on foreign soil might be considered imperialistic, and sure, it might be if you take the broadest possible consideration of what that would mean. What you cannot say is that all military action on foreign soil is bad. Nonetheless, you want to imply that all these actions were bad, so you call them 'imperialistic.' According to you, stopping a genocide is an act of imperialism. Come on, Max. The US has done plenty of legitimately wrong things in its past. Stick with those.
 
  • #8
kat said:
I'm sorry...how many of these wars were in the U.S.?
Although...some of my ancestors WERE natural born warriors..I wouldn't consider most Americans "warriors" at all..well, unless you want to consider wars over who gets the remote control.
That's why the US invented such things as cruise missiles, so the armchair warriors could fight wars from the luxury of their comfortable chairs using their remote controls :biggrin:
 
  • #9
MaxS
33
0
WOW ok chill out, calling the U.S. imperialistic wasn't even the point of this thread bad title get over it

the point was to show that the u.s. has been involved in many many many many armed conflicts, contrasting to the middle eastern list in the other thread

http://www.gandhara.com.au/afghan_table.html [Broken]

There it is for reference.

P.S. I don't believe the U.S. has ever gone to war to stop genocide. The U.S certainly stopped the genocide in Kosovo but it side stepped Africa entirely. I can't make an intelligent suggestion to what the motivation is, but I don't believe the betterment of humanity has anything to do with it.

P.P.S.

Main Entry: im·pe·ri·al·ism
Pronunciation: im-'pir-E-&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : imperial government, authority, or system
2 : the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence <union imperialism>

Read that again: Broadly - the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
IMO wars should be settled by the leaders of the countries in dispute being equipped with clubs and locked in a large room together and kept there until there is a resolution. I suspect there would be an awful lot less wars. :approve:
Somehow I doubt G W Bush would be in politics :biggrin:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
MaxS said:
I would say any military action on foreign soil can be deemed imperialistic - expansion of the U.S. sphere of influence is still expansion

Don't worry the job is near complete. Our sphere of influence includes the entire planet Earth, the Moon, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, yoUranus, Neptune, Pluto, and a goodly part of the Oort cloud. We'll skip Venus and Mercury, a little to hot for our liking and in the wrong direction; that is unless oil is discovered.

...
 
  • #12
GENIERE said:
Don't worry the job is near complete. Our sphere of influence includes the entire planet Earth, the Moon, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, yoUranus, Neptune, Pluto, and a goodly part of the Oort cloud. We'll skip Venus and Mercury, a little to hot for our liking and in the wrong direction; that is unless oil is discovered.

...
Isn't the reason Venus is so hot something to do with a runaway greenhouse effect? Perhaps they had a civilisation with politicians like ours at some time. :bugeye:
 
  • #13
The Smoking Man
47
0
Art said:
IMO wars should be settled by the leaders of the countries in dispute being equipped with clubs and locked in a large room together and kept there until there is a resolution. I suspect there would be an awful lot less wars. :approve:
Somehow I doubt G W Bush would be in politics :biggrin:
Mike Tyson for president? :yuck:
 
  • #14
The Smoking Man said:
Mike Tyson for president? :yuck:
Not with his recent fight record :rofl:
It would be good fun though. You could vote for the person you really hate so they get a 'clubbing' :biggrin:
 
  • #15
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,802
5
MaxS said:
WOW ok chill out, calling the U.S. imperialistic wasn't even the point of this thread bad title get over it

the point was to show that the u.s. has been involved in many many many many armed conflicts, contrasting to the middle eastern list in the other thread

So you counteract a misrepresentation of one nation's history by misrepresenting another nation's history? How does that help things? Are we just going to continue running around in circles screaming at each other "No, your country is worse!?"

This comment, followed by a list of Middle Eastern conflicts in another thread on this forum really pissed me off. Its incredibly misleading and very racist too.

If you believe that, why go and do the same thing?
 
  • #16
MaxS
33
0
you're missing the point, I didn't go and say "The people of the United States are natural warriors! Just look at all this fighting they've done!"
 
  • #17
Art said:
politicians like ours at some time. :bugeye:

Well since your're being nice (I think) I'll agree. I'll encourage you to think about minimizing governments so they cause the least damage.


...
 
  • #18
It's incredible how a simple message from MaxS immediately triggers the defensive reflex and let people think how they can discredit the writer without having to discuss the core of the matter. He just says that we have no right to see Middle East people as "natural warriors" having the bloody history we have, in the US AND in Europe. And he's right. No need to try to sideline the discussion on semantics again.
 
  • #19
Mercator said:
It's incredible how a simple message from MaxS immediately triggers the defensive reflex and let people think how they can discredit the writer without having to discuss the core of the matter. He just says that we have no right to see Middle East people as "natural warriors" having the bloody history we have, in the US AND in Europe. And he's right. No need to try to sideline the discussion on semantics again.
here here :approve: Apologies for my little jaunt to Venus :blushing:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #20
fourier jr
757
13
MaxS said:
"you can bet your sweet apples that they are natural warriors"

This comment, followed by a list of Middle Easter conflicts in another thread on this forum really pissed me off. Its incredibly misleading and very racist too.

The United States for instance has been involved in over 140 armed conflicts in its short 230 year existence.

United States Military Action From 1898 to the Present (note that the list is also incomplete)

i think that's the document (or one like it) that inspired bill blum's awesome masterpiece "killing hope" which has a chapter on each US military or CIA operation since WWII.

i would also add this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_United_States_imperialism
 
Last edited:
  • #21
MaxS
33
0
Smedley Butler on Interventionism
-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC. [note -- Smedley Butler is one of a handful of men who have received the Congressional Medal of Honor TWICE]

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
 
  • #22
MaxS said:
Smedley Butler on Interventionism…

A remarkable general and Republican politician.
 
  • #23
MaxS
33
0
to me he's definitely a forgotton hero of the united states, for the statement he made to congress - it is sadly ignored today, but I believe it applies very well now as it did then.
 
  • #24
The Smoking Man
47
0
MaxS said:
to me he's definitely a forgotton hero of the united states, for the statement he made to congress - it is sadly ignored today, but I believe it applies very well now as it did then.
I believe he is being featured in a new 'documentary'/'activist' film http://www.thecorporation.tv/ where his honesty was cited as an example over the abuse of government power.
 
  • #25
Art said:
here here :approve: Apologies for my little jaunt to Venus :blushing:
No THAT was funny, though it was a little bit far fetched to speak about civilization. I was writing about the first, immediate reaction on MAxS post.

BTW this spelsjekk is graet!
 
  • #26
quetzalcoatl9
537
1
MaxS said:
"you can bet your sweet apples that they are natural warriors"

This comment, followed by a list of Middle Easter conflicts in another thread on this forum really pissed me off. Its incredibly misleading and very racist too.

I believe that was my comment that you took out of context regarding the warrior-resistance culture of Afghanistan.

I'm sorry to make you cry :cry:

Sorry, discussing politics isn't for babies or the weak of heart. My comment was supported by an extensive timeline of the history of Afghanistan for the purpose of showing the flawed assumption of the original article - whereas your only "sources" here seem to be your emotions.

Here is the original post, in the interested of authenticity:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=667517&postcount=10
 
  • #27
MaxS
33
0
Excuse me but try not to attack me personally when you're disagreeing with a point I'm making. I didn't mention who made the post for a reason. Note that my contention wasn't an attack on you.

Now -

I didn't take your quote out of context AT ALL. Your "support" of an "extensive timeline of the history of Afghanistan" to prove the Afghani's are natural born warriors is nothing but a list of conflicts that could lead a naive reader to assume, "Hey, jeez, they sure have had a lot of wars, those damn barbarians. Those uncivilized savages don't deserve the respect of being called being humans. No, they're natural born warriors."

Not only is this line of thinking logically flawed it is racist.

The reason I posted a list of U.S. conflicts was my "support" if you want to call it that to show you can do the same thing about our own country.

You have no platform to stand on as an American or European if you're trying to patronize the people of Afghanistan.

That was the purpose of my post, "warrior-resistance culture" indeed.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
MaxS said:
"you can bet your sweet apples that they are natural warriors"

This comment, followed by a list of Middle Easter conflicts in another thread on this forum really pissed me off. Its incredibly misleading and very racist too.

i agree. i also thought this comment showed a lapse in judgment.
 
  • #29
quetzalcoatl9
537
1
MaxS said:
I didn't take your quote out of context AT ALL. Your "support" of an "extensive timeline of the history of Afghanistan" to prove the Afghani's are natural born warriors is nothing but a list of conflicts that could lead a naive reader to assume, "Hey, jeez, they sure have had a lot of wars, those damn barbarians.


No, it is not the "conflicts" on the list, it is the fact that the list if full of "resistance" movements, especially in response to being occupied by foreign powers. You completely missed this point.

Furthermore, the comment was provided to illustrate that the US is going to have a tough time controlling Afghanistan in the long-term because, well, just look at their history.

What you have done is twisted my words out of context, in fashion no better than modern news media - bravo! - in order to get others riled up.
 
  • #30
MaxS
33
0
Nowhere in your comment does it state that the point of the list was to illustrate that the U.S. would have a tough time controlling Afghanistan. All it said was, paraphrasing, Afghanis are natural warriors, look at all these wars they fought.

Also just because they've had a lot of wars and resistance movements does not mean they are "natural warriors" any more than any other people under occupation.

I reiterate: The comment was racist.
 
  • #31
quetzalcoatl9
537
1
MaxS said:
Nowhere in your comment does it state that the point of the list was to illustrate that the U.S. would have a tough time controlling Afghanistan.

Yes, I do! Apparently you do not even read the sources for the thread that you start!

Here it is, in the same thread ("The surprising origins of the current "jihad") post #15:

quetzalcoatl9 said:
Relax, 2 cents. I actually considered it a compliment that they would be natural warriors.

If you look at the timeline, they seem to be a people who simply will not be defeated.

Where is there racism in that? Infact, if you knew anything about my posts on this forum, then the fact that they are a people who will not lie down defeated is something that troubles me, since I support the US war effort in Afghanistan.

incredible!

MaxS said:
All it said was, paraphrasing, Afghanis are natural warriors, look at all these wars they fought.

No, you are not paraphrasing since I was not talking about "all these wars they fought" and I would ask that you retract your statement stupidly arguing that I have ever done so.
 
  • #32
MaxS
33
0
From the article:

Quote:
"We were quite shocked," said Doug Pritchard, who reviewed the primers in December while visiting Pakistan on behalf of a Canada-based Christian nonprofit group. "The constant image of Afghans being natural warriors is wrong. Warriors are created. If you want a different kind of society, you have to create it."




who is this genius? you can bet your sweet apples that they are natural warriors

from http://www.gandhara.com.au/afghan_table.html [Broken]

522 BC -
486 BC Darius the Great expands the Persian empire to its peak, taking most of Afghanistan, including Aria (Herat), Bactriana (Balk, and present-day Mazar-i-Shariff, Margiana (Merv), Gandhara (Kabul, Jalalabad and Peshawar), Sattagydia (Ghazni to the Indus river), Arachosia (Kandahar, and Quetta), and Drangiana (Sistan). The Persian empire was plagued by constant bitter and bloody tribal revolts from Afghans living in Arachosia (Kandahar, and Quetta)

550 AD Persians reassert control over all of what is now Afghanistan. Various Afghan tribes revolt.
652 AD Arabs introduce Islam
962 - 1030 Islamic era established with the Ghaznavid Dynasty (962-1140) Afghanistan becomes the centre of Islamic power and civilization.
1030 Mahmud Ghazni dies. Conflicts between various Ghaznavid rulers arise and as a result the empire starts to crumple.
1140 Ghorid leaders from central Afghanistan capture and burn Ghazni, then move on to conquer India.
1219 - 1221 Invasion of Afghanistan by Genghis Khan and the destruction of Irrigation systems, which turned fertile soil into permanent deserts.
1332 - 1370 Descendants of earlier Ghorid rulers reassert control over Afghanistan.
1370 - 1404 The rule of Timour-i-Lang (Tamerlane) Afghan resistance
1451 An Afghan named Buhlul invades Delhi, and seizes the throne.
1504 - 1519 Babur, founder of the Moghul dynasty takes control of Kabul
1520 - 1579 Bayazid Roshan (Afghan intellectual) revolts against the power of the Moghul government. Roshan was killed in a battle with the Moghuls in 1579, his struggle for independence continued.
1613 - 1689 Khushhal Khan Khattak (Afghan warrior & poet) initiates a national uprising against the foreign Moghul government.
1722 Mir Wais' son, Mir Mahmud, invades Persia and occupies Isfahan. At the same time, the Durranis revolt, and terminate the Persian occupation of Herat.
1725 Mir Mahmud is mysteriously killed and Afghans start to lose control of Persia.
1736 Nadir Shah (head of Persia) occupies southwest Afghanistan, and southeast Persia.
1738 Nadir Shah takes Kandahar.
1747 Nadir Shah is assassinated, and the Afghans rise once again. Afghans, under the leadership of Ahmad Shah Abdali retake Kandahar, and establish modern Afghanistan.
1747 - 1773 Rule of Ahmad Shah Abdali (Durrani). Ahmad Shah consolidates and enlarges Afghanistan. He defeats the Moghuls in the west of the Indus, and he takes Herat away from the Persians. Ahmad Shah Durrani's empire extended from Central Asia to Delhi, from Kashmir to the Arabian sea. It became the greatest Muslim empire in the second half of the 18th century.
1773 - 1793 Rule of Timur Shah Capital of Afghanistan transferred from Kandahar to Kabul because of tribal opposition. Constant internal revolts
1793 - 1801 Rule of Zaman Shah Constant internal revolts (1795) Persians invade Khurasan province
1801 - 1803 Rule of Mahmood Constant internal revolts
1803 - 1809 Rule of Shah Shujah (1805) Persian attack on Herat fails. Internal fighting
1809 - 1818 Mahmood returns to the throne. War with Persia - indecisive victory Internal fighting
1819 - 1826 Sons of Timur Shah struggle for the throne - Civil War, anarchy, Afghans lose Sind permanently
1826 Dost Mohammad Khan takes Kabul, and establishes control
1832 - 1833 Persia moves into Khurasan province, and threatens Herat. Afghans successfully defend Herat
1834 Afghans lose Peshawar to the Sikhs; later they crushed the Sikhs under the leadership of Akbar Khan who defeated the Sikhs near Jamrud, and killed the great Sikh general Hari Singh. However, they failed to retake Peshawar due to disunity and bad judgment on the part of Dost Mohammad Khan.
1836 Dost Mohammad Khan is proclaimed as Amir al-mu' minin (commander of the faithful). He was well on the road toward reunifying the whole of Afghanistan when the British, in collaboration with an ex-king (Shah Shuja), invade Afghanistan.
1839 - 1842 First Anglo-Afghan War After some resistance, Amir Dost Mohammad Khan surrenders to the British and is deported to India. Shah Shuja is installed as a 'puppet king' by the British. (1839-1842) April 1842 - Shah Shuja killed by Afghans. Afghans passionately continue their struggle against the British. Akbar Khan victorious against the British. In January 1842, out of 16,500 soldiers (and 12,000 dependants) only one survivor, of mixed British-Indian garrison, reaches the fort in Jalalabad, on a stumbling pony.
1843 After the annihilation of British troops, Afghanistan once again becomes independent, and the exiled Amir, Dost Mohammad Khan comes back and occupies the royal throne (1843-1863).
1845 Afghan hero, Akbar Khan dies
1855 Dost Mohammad Khan signs a peace treaty with India.
1859 British take Baluchistan, and Afghanistan becomes completely landlocked.
1863 - 1866 Sher Ali, Dost Mohammad Khan's son, succeeds to the throne. 1865 Russia takes Bukhara, Tashkent, and Samarkand.
1866 - 1867 Mohammad Afzal occupies Kabul and proclaims himself Amir. October 1867 Mohammad Afzal dies.
1867 - 1868 Mohammad Azam succeeds to the throne 1868--Mohammad Azam flees to Persia Sher Ali reasserts control (1868-1879).
1873 Russia established a fixed boundary between Afghanistan and it's new territories. Russia promises to respect Afghanistan's territorial integrity.
1878 Start of second Anglo-Afghan War The British invade and the Afghans quickly put up a strong resistance.
1879 Sher Ali dies in Mazar-i-Shariff, and Amir Muhammad Yaqub Khan takes over until October. Amir Muhammad Yaqub Khan gives up the following Afghan territories to the British: Kurram, Khyber, Michni, Pishin, and Sibi. Afghans lose these territories permanently.
1880 Battle of Maiwand July 1880. Abdur Rahman takes throne of Afghanistan as Amir. The British, shortly after the accession of the new Amir, withdraw from Afghanistan, although they retain the right to handle Afghanistan's foreign relations. Abdur Rahman establishes fixed borders and he loses a lot of Afghan land. Nuristan converted to Islam.
1885 The Panjdeh Incident Russian forces seize the Panjdeh Oasis, a piece of Afghan territory north of the Oxus River. Afghans tried to retake it, but was finally forced toallow the Russians to keep Panjdeh, and the Russians promised to honor Afghan territorial integrity in the future.
1893 The Durand line fixes borders of Afghanistan with British India, splitting Afghan tribal areas, leaving half of these Afghans in what is now Pakistan.
1895 Afghanistan's northern border is fixed and guaranteed by Russia
1901 Abdur Rahman dies, his son Habibullah succeeds him. Slows steps toward modernization
1907 Russia and Great Britain sign the convention of St. Petersburg, in which Afghanistan is declared outside Russia's sphere of influence.
1918 Mahmud Tarzi (Afghan Intellectual) introduces modern Journalism into Afghanistan with the creation of several newspapers.
1919 Habibullah is assassinated, and succeeded by his son Amanullah 'The reform King' The first museum in Afghanistan is instituted at Baghe Bala.
1921 Third Anglo-Afghan war Once again, the British are defeated, and Afghanistan gains full control of her foreign affairs. Amanullah Khan initiates a series of ambitious efforts at social and political modernization.
1923 Amanullah Khan changes his title from Amir to Padshah (King).
1929 Amanullah Khan is overthrown by Habibullah Kalakani. After the fall of Amanullah Khan, Mahmud Tarzi seeks asylum in Turkey. The Rise and Fall of Habibullah Kalakani, popularly known as "Bache Saqao" Nadir Khan takes the throne; his tribal army loots government buildings and houses of wealthy citizens because the treasury was empty. Habibullah Kalakani, along with his supporters, and a few supporters of Amanullah Khan are killed by Nadir Khan. Now Nadir Khan establishes full control.
1930 Pro-Amanullah Khan uprising put down by Nadir Khan. Nadir Khan abolishes reforms set forth by Amanullah Khan to modernize Afghanistan.
1933 Nadir Khan assassinated by a college student, and his son, Zahir, inherits the throne. He rules until 1973. Zahir Shah's uncles serve as prime ministers and advisors until 1953. Mahmud Tarzi dies in Turkey at the age of 68 with a heart full of sorrow and despair toward his country.
1934 The United States of America formally recognizes Afghanistan
1940 Zahir Shah proclaims Afghanistan as neutral during WW2
1947 Britain withdraws from India. Pakistan is carved out of Indian and Afghan lands.
1949 Afghanistan's Parliament denounces the Durand Treaty and refuses to recognize the Durand line as a legal boundary between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Pashtuns in Pashtunistan (Occupied Afghan Land) proclaim an independent Pashtunistan, but their proclamation goes unacknowledged by the world community.
1953 Prince Mohammad Daoud becomes Prime Minister.
1954 The U.S. rejects Afghanistan's request to buy military equipment to modernize the army.
1955 Daoud turns to the Soviet Union (Russia) for military aid. The Pashtunistan (occupied Afghan land) issue flares up.
1956 Kruschev and Bulgaria agree to help Afghanistan. Close ties between Afghanistan and USSR.
1959 The Purdah is made optional, women begin to enrol in the University which has become coeducational. Women begin to enter the workforce, and the government.
1961 Pakistan and Afghanistan come close to war over Pashtunistan.
1963 - 1964 Zahir Shah demands Daoud's resignation. Dr. Mohammad Yusof becomes Prime Minister.
1965 The Afghan Communist Party was secretly formed in January. Babrak Karmal is one of the founders. In September, first nationwide elections under the new constitution. Karmal was elected to the Parliament, later instigates riots. Zahir and Yussof form second government.
1969 Second nationwide elections. Babrak and Hafizullah Amin are elected.
1972 Mohammad Moussa becomes Prime Minister.
1973 July 17th: Zahir Shah is on vacation in Europe, when his government is overthrown in a military coup headed by Daoud Khan and PDPA (Afghan Communist Party). Daoud Khan abolishes the monarchy, declares himself President and the Republic of Afghanistan is established.
1974 UNESCO names Herat as one of the first cities to be designated as a part of the worlds cultural heritage
1975 - 1977 Daoud Khan presents a new constitution. Women's rights confirmed. Daoud starts to oust suspected opponents from his government.
1978 Bloody Communist coup: Daoud is killed, Taraki is named President, and Karmal becomes his deputy Prime Minister. Tensions rise. Mass arrests, tortures, and arrests takes place. Afghan flag is changed. Taraki signs treaty of friendship with the Soviet Union. June, Afghan guerrilla (Mujahideen) movement is born.
1979 Mass killings US ambassador killed Taraki is killed and Hafizullah Amin takes the Presidency. Amin is executed, and he is replaced with Babrak Karmal. Soviet Union invade in December.
1980 Dr. Najibullah is brought back from USSR to run the secret police.
1984 UN sends investigators to Afghanistan to examine reported human rights violations.
1986 Babrak Karmal is replaced by Dr. Najibullah.
1987 Najibullah proposes ceasefire, but the Mujahideen refuse to deal with a 'puppet government'. Mujahideen make great gains, defeat of Soviets eminent.
1988 - 1989 Peace accords signed in Geneva. Soviet Union defeated by Afghanistan, total withdrawal by the Soviets occurred on 15 February 1989. Experts agree that at least 40,000-50,000 Soviets lost their lives in action, besides the wounded, suicides, and murders. Mujahideen continue to fight against Najibullah's regime. May, Afghan guerrillas elect Sibhhatullah Mojadidi as head of their government-in-exile.
1992 April 15, The Mujahideen take Kabul and liberate Afghanistan, Najibullah is protected by UN. The Mujahideen form an Islamic State, Islamic Jihad Council, elections. Iranian and Pakistani interference increases, more fighting, Professor Burhannudin Rabbani is elected President.
1994 The Taliban militia are born, and advance rapidly against the Rabbani government. Dostum and Hekmatyar continued to clash against Rabbani's government, and as a result Kabul is reduced to rubble.
1995 Massive gains by the Taliban. Increased Pakistani and Iranian interference.
1996 June, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, head of Hezbi-Islami, having been eliminated as a military power, signs a peace pact with Rabbani, and returns to Kabul to rule as prime minister. 27 September Taliban militia force President Rabbani and his government out of Kabul. After the capture of Kabul, the Taliban execute Najibullah. Alliance between Government, Hezbi Wahdat, and Dostum Oppression of women by the Taliban, women must be fully veiled, no longer allowed to work, go out alone or even wear white socks. Men are forced to grow beards. Buzkashi, the Afghan national sport is outlawed. Tensions rise as Afghan government accuse Pakistan of aiding the Taliban. Massive human rights violations by the Taliban.
1997 Mass graves of Taliban soldiers containing between 1,500 and 2,000 bodies are found. The men were believed to have been captured in May by general Abdul Malik during the Taliban's brief takeover of Mazar-i-Sharif.
1998 February, Earthquake strikes in northeastern Afghansitan, killing over 4,000 people, destroying villages and leaving thousands of people homeless. August, Taliban finally capture Mazar-i-Sharif, and massacre thousands of innocent civilians afterwards, mostly Hazaras. August 20 United States launches cruise missiles hitting Afghanistan's Khost region. US states its intent was to destroy terrorist bases/training facilities used by Osama bin Laden and his followers. September, Tensions rise between Iran and the Taliban. Iranians are angry about the killing of their diplomats and a journalist by the Taliban when they captured Mazar-i-Sharif. Soon they deploy 70,000 troops to carry out military exercises near the Afghan border. In the end, no fighting occurs between the Taliban and the Iranian army.
1999 February, Earthquake hits eastern Afghanistan, affecting over 30,000 people, and killing at least 60 to 70 people. September, The ex-king of Afghanistan, Mohammad Zahir Shah, calls for a grand assembly, or Loya Jirga to discuss ways of bringing peace to the country. The United Front soon welcomes the idea, but the Taliban ridicule Mohammad Zahir Shah's attempts at establishing peace. October, UN Security Council Resolution 1267 is adopted; sanctions against the Taliban on grounds that they offered sanctuary to Osama bin Ladin.
2000 May, Taliban torture and kill civilians in the Robatak Pass (on the border between Baghlan and Samangan provinces). September, Taloqan finally falls to the Taliban. December, UN Security Council Resolution 1333 is adopted; additional sanctions against the Taliban for their continuing support of terrorism and cultivation of narcotics, etc.
2001 January, Taliban torture and kill numerous civilians in Yakaolang (Hazaras). March, Despite pleas and requests from various international diplomats, Islamic scholars, the Taliban destroy ancient historical statues in the Kabul Museum, historical sites in Ghazni, and blow up the giant Bamiyan Buddhas. World expresses outrage and disgust against the Taliban action. April, Ahmad Shah Masood visits Europe to gather support against the Taliban. April, UN accuses Pakistan of not allowing adequate supply of food and medicines to displaced Afghans, at the Jalozai camp, near Peshawar. June - All female foreign aid workers banned from driving.

-------------------------------------------------
Show me where, in that comment, you mention the united states.

Show me where, in that comment, you use the list of wars to prove anything other than "they are natural warriors"

If you can show me that I would admit to an error.

P.S. keep in mind again I wasn't attacking you, I just didnt want to let something like that slip without showing the other side of the coin (that we have the same sort of history but somehow consider ourselves above being "natural born warriors")
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
quetzalcoatl9
537
1
MaxS said:
Show me where, in that comment, you mention the united states.

Show me where, in that comment, you use the list of wars to prove anything other than "they are natural warriors"

If you can show me that I would admit to an error.

P.S. keep in mind again I wasn't attacking you, I just didnt want to let something like that slip without showing the other side of the coin (that we have the same sort of history but somehow consider ourselves above being "natural born warriors")

as I have already said, it was in post #15 of that thread, which I have already posted, where I clarified my statement since you are not the only one to have assumed that it was because of "wars" that made them "natural warriors". We have been over this already.

I would think that it should be fairly obvious that simply because a country has a history of war that doesn't make them "natural warriors", since that would include every country on earth. What makes them natural warriors is that they have been occupied repeatedly and have a history of resistance. I don't understand what point it is that you are trying to make.
 
  • #34
danAlwyn
20
0
(shrugs)

It seems to me that Afghan society for the people who live outside of the main urban districts (and even to those who live inside them), is closer to what a sociologist or anthropologist might term a "warrior" culture, i.e. a culture where males are expected to encounter conflict with a local neighboring group (one of the same tribal ethnicity) within their lifetime. A traditional "warrior" culture would probably consist of the later Plain Indians in North America, where it was expected that every male would be involved either in raids against neighboring tribes, or in battles against white settlers, and hence this was one of the major yardsticks by which they were measured. Where this state was fairly recent for the Afghans (it was predominant in the 19th century if I recall correctly-and progressed in some areas well into the twentieth) it is a lot farther off for western cultures, who exited that state in the late feudal period at latest.

There have been speculations that people from this type of culture are socially conditioned to be better guerilla fighters than those from other cultures, because they are trained from youth at the art of raiding and protecting themselves from surprise attack. So far, I think the jury's still out on that. This is why military theory is so frustrating, there's no mathematics to help you out.

This is how I usually see it. It would then have nothing to do with amount of damage inflicted in their history, but rather with background and social conditioning.
 
  • #35
kat
39
0
MaxS said:
Excuse me but try not to attack me personally when you're disagreeing with a point I'm making. I didn't mention who made the post for a reason. Note that my contention wasn't an attack on you.
I don't about attacking him, but I th ink you've totally skewed his comment to mean something I don't think he intended.

"Hey, jeez, they sure have had a lot of wars, those damn barbarians. Those uncivilized savages don't deserve the respect of being called being humans. No, they're natural born warriors."
Who said anything about "uncivilized savages", who even suggested that's what he meant?

Not only is this line of thinking logically flawed it is racist.
I think your post here..is a bit of what we call "soft bigotry".

The reason I posted a list of U.S. conflicts was my "support" if you want to call it that to show you can do the same thing about our own country.
If the wars you showed involving the United States showed years upon years of being attacked on our own homeland and defending it with pride and vengeance over and over again. THEN I would think your argument had a leg to stand on. However, I think your concept of "natural born warriors" as being somehow demeaning...is what's a bit odd.

You have no platform to stand on as an American or European if you're trying to patronize the people of Afghanistan.
again..how is being proud and strong enough to defend your nation over and over and over again...something to be ashamed of? how can noting it be patronizing?

That was the purpose of my post, "warrior-resistance culture" indeed.
You say that like it's...er..dirty or something.
 

Suggested for: Imperialistic History of the United States

Replies
0
Views
183
Replies
0
Views
241
  • Last Post
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
Replies
0
Views
215
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
444
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
870
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
884
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
568
Replies
2
Views
356
  • Last Post
Replies
0
Views
395
Top