On a trip to Russia many years ago, I asked about this.
One private in the army said his unit were told to pack by the sergeant and promptly loaded into trucks.
No other information was given.
After a couple of days of travelling, they were finally told to set up a perimeter. It was at Kabul airport.
Well there are US missiles here in the UK. Are they not pointing at anything?
I’m not saying the US were right (or wrong) to back the rebels in Afghanistan.
But your last sentence could surely apply to Iraq. When does ‘favouring one side and supporting it’ turn into ‘foreign terrorists causing an insurgency’?
Maybe. Do a search on fas.org for “nuclear missiles retarget”. Actually:
-
both sides agreed to detarget each other in 1994
-
but everyone admits there’s no way to verify that the missiles are, in fact, detargeted
-
and no one can agree on how long it would take to retarget the missiles; some say as little as 10 minutes (everyone hopes that it’s at least 10 minutes, so that the countries’ leaders have time to call each other in case of some error, false radar read, etc.), some half an hour, some longer
Well, I guess those fellows really were grumpy and sullen. They were always frowning in their pictures.
But the name of the revolution was the Sawr Revolution, because Sawr is the name used in Afghanistan for the zodiacal sign of Taurus (April 21-May 21). I don’t know how devoted the Afghans are to reading newspaper horoscopes, but the months of their calendar go according to the signs of the zodiac. The revolution took place when the sun was in Taurus. The name Sawr comes from the Arabic name for the Bull: Thawr. In Persian and other Eastern languages, they don’t pronounce the Arabic th sound, so they convert it to “s.” Like when a German speaks English. I sink zis is a sorough explanation.
Yes. Exactly. My mistake.
The US missles in the UK are pointing at France, just like the UK’s own missles. 
And of course the Soviet invasions of Eastern Europe and Afghanistan were purely defensive, and the Socialist guerillas in South America are all just a bunch of cool guys who would NEVER slaughter a church full of innocents to cow a village. Nope.
Soviet Communism had as a goal, as a STATED GOAL, bringing the revolution to all the world, by force if necessary.
Example: I live in my house. My neighbor, after taking over the house and taking over his other neighbor, tells me he’s gonna take over my house. He killed the folks down the street, and he’s incouraging other to take over the houses next door to them. I am going to arm myself, and help others arm themselves.
I don’t think anyone is saying quite that. I think they’re pointing out that there was some justification for fear of the U.S.
Or, to put it in your words,
“Of course the U.S. invasions of Latin America and Vietnam were purely defensive, and the deathsquads in Latin America are all just a bunch of cool guys who would NEVER rape and slaughter nuns or priests or kidnap and kill innocents to scare a village. Nope.”
You can argue about whether the U.S. was marginally better because it was indeed generally more open or whether the USSR was marginally better because it did indeed do more to better the lives of common people, but in general, neither was dramatically more moral in their actions in the third world.
It’s rather OT with respect to the OP, but I don’t think there are any more, at least in the sense of nuclear missiles. Most of the US’s nuclear deployments here were dismantled post-1989. The cruise missiles at Greenham went back and the submarine base at the Holy Loch was closed down. We obviously still retain the missiles on the other Trident subs on the Clyde, but those are only US missiles and subs in the sense that they sold them to us; the US doesn’t have a say in how we target them, because they’re now our missiles. I believe there may still be some nuclear-armed US bomber units based in the country, but they’re not - historical inertia about military infrastructures aside - obviously aimed at Russia. (US units have, after all, used their UK bases in bombing the Middle East in the past.)
If the rumours about Blair agreeing to deploy (non-nuclear) ABM missiles at Fylingdales are true, then this situation would obviously immediately change again.
My ex-boyfriend served in Spetznaz (the Soviet equivalent of the Green Berets) in Afghanistan, 1985-87. He said they were told that they were being sent to Afghanistan to liberate their Afghan brothers. He believed it, until they got off the troop transport and started marching, and the guy in front of him stepped on a mine.
That was when he got an inkling that perhaps some Afghans weren’t interested in their help. Unfortunately, I didn’t know enough at the time to ask any useful questions, and I have no idea where he is anymore.
As I recall, American and Russian missiles are now “aimed” at a nuetral point in the middle of an ocean. Which is good in case those dolphins start acting up.
This has been pretty much answered, but here’s an earlier thread with some more good info: