> You reversed cause and effect here. The former happened after the latter. Soviets invaded and then we supported the Islamic rebels to successfully win out aga

> You reversed cause and effect here. The former happened after the latter. Soviets invaded and then we supported the Islamic rebels to successfully win out against the Soviets. If we hadn't history would have taken a very different course. And as usual, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. No, you reversed cause and effect. Russia didn't invade Afghanistan for no reason. Why did it invade? Because the nation was plunged into a civil war with armed islamic groups, funded by the U.S., pouring into the country attacking the existing government that had good relations with Russia. Strange how the U.S. always funds radical, destabilizing groups all along the borders of its rivals. > You think the Soviets would have preserved Afghan society had they taken the place over and integrated it into the Soviet Union? The Soviets didn't care about "preserving society" because they are not hysterical children trying to engage in a moralizing foreign policy with a huge body count. E.g., they are not the United States. What the Soviets care about -- what any rational nation cares about -- is stability. They do not want radical groups causing chaos along its borders. Which is exactly why the U.S. funds radical groups causing chaos along Russia and China's borders. The U.S. is now getting kicked out of Syria -- why? Because they have been funding and arming radical Kurdish groups that have been causing terrorism in Turkey, Iran, and Syria, and all the nations of the region are uniting in opposition to this US proxy, and are actually inviting China in to help them deal with the Kurds. So the Kurds are going to get screwed once again - just like the last time the U.S. urged them to rise up against Saddam. The U.S. uses these groups as tools to smash enemies, and then the tools are the ones that get smashed. The same thing happened to the Uyghers, which the U.S. was supporting in various terror attacks in China and Southeast Asia until China had enough and decide to crack down on them. Again, the Uyghers suffer as a result of this policy. All over the world, you see this pattern, whether it is supporting contras in Nicaragua, neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine, muslim separatists in China, Kurdish separatists in Syria, Turkey, and Iran -- the U.S. funds these groups to attack and weaken their enemies, but the result is always blowback, first on the tools of U.S. policy, and then on the U.S. itself. This is not a rational foreign policy, nor a diplomacy-first foreign policy. This is a foreign policy based on destabilization and terror - of spreading chaos all over the world that ultimately weakens the U.S. and carries a great human toll. > Yeah this is pure lies. These are the facts. There is no defending the death squads and Georgian trained snipers of Maidan shooting police, anymore than there is no defending the violence of the Orange revolution. These are just violent coups to install puppet governments, using them as a tool to smash geopolitical enemies, and the result is great human suffering.