Re: [A-List] A Chinese Marxism view: Problems ofint'l.strategyfortoday's China

["tony black" <tal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

..It was also my understanding that the secular gov't of Afghanistan at the
time invited the Soviets in a number of times and that, at first, the
Russkies repeatedly refused to get involved....[I am, of course, willing to
be corrected if wrong on this matter]

Tony


----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Maki" <alanmaki@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 12:23 PM
Subject: Re: [A-List] A Chinese Marxism view: Problems
ofint'l.strategyfortoday's China


> What was the "imperialism" involved in Afghanistan?
>
> The Soviets neither exploited nor plundered resources. Nor did they
> attempt to control the government.
>
> On the other hand, take a look at what the United States is after there!
>
> > From: "Henry C.K. Liu" <hliu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reply-To: The A-List <a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: The A-List <a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: Re: [A-List] A Chinese Marxism view: Problems ofint'l.
> > strategyfortoday's China
> > Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 09:11:14 -0500
> >
> >
> >
> > Charles Brown wrote:
> >
> > > Henry:
> > > The US was also less exploitative during the Cold War with its allies.
> > >
> > > ^^^^
> > > CB: Well, yes, they were in a creative _destructive_ phase in their
> > > relationship to their colonies.
> > >
> > > Soviets didn't seem to have to carry out big imperialist wars as the U.S.
> > > did. This is an indirect indicator of less exploitation.
> > Yes, Charles.  That is because the Soviet imperilaist phase started late
> > and came into full bloom in Afghanistan, which eventually brought down the
> > USSR.
> >
> >
> > Henry
> >
> > >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
> http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/