Originally posted by Fez
Suharto was corrupt and the US stopped supporting him after a while like Noriega. The Shah of Iran was not that bad but his plans were not on track. The talibans no... the US supported the mujahedins. The taliban were an extremist government the US never supported. Sure some of the taliban is some mujahedin commanders but Pashtun. The US mostly supported Uzbeks and Tajiks during the Soviet Occupation whom resisted. Pinochet did well to the chilean economy and made it grow and so did Somoza and Batitista to their economies. Under Somoza the economy was actually growing significantly, the same with Batitista with his country.
Suharto was corrupt and the US stopped supporting him after a while like Noriega. The Shah of Iran was not that bad but his plans were not on track. The talibans no... the US supported the mujahedins. The taliban were an extremist government the US never supported. Sure some of the taliban is some mujahedin commanders but Pashtun. The US mostly supported Uzbeks and Tajiks during the Soviet Occupation whom resisted. Pinochet did well to the chilean economy and made it grow and so did Somoza and Batitista to their economies. Under Somoza the economy was actually growing significantly, the same with Batitista with his country.
And they did support the mujahedins that later were to emerge as the talibans... Fact of the matter is that the US supported the talibans because they wanted someone under their heel that provided a stable enough government to allow its business interests to go through with the proposed oil and gas route through Afghanistan. As late as 1996 the US administration had welcomed Talibans control over Kabul with Acting State Department Spokesman Glyn Davies words: "There is nothing objectionable about the version of Islamic law, the Taliban has imposed in the areas controlled by it."
Comment