Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Packmule" data-source="post: 1515968" data-attributes="member: 33558">No one ever said the US wasn&#039;t involved in funneling arms and such to the Mujahideen through Pakistan. What the CIA didn&#039;t do was fund or arm the Arab Afghans like Bin laden. In fact, the Mujahideen hated the likes of Bin Laden because they were haughty and acted like kings. Even though both elements shared the same agenda, pushing the soviets back out of Afghanistan, there was often blood spilled between them. As far as the CIA was concerned, we didn&#039;t need the Arab afghans when there were hundreds of thousands of Mujahideen eager to enter the fight. As for Bin Laden, he didn&#039;t need our help. He had his own money. In the long run there are two facts that never go away. One being that the greatest atrocities ever committed against Muslem people are committed BY Muslem people. Number two is number one leaves the rest of the world a choice. We can either look away (as we were trying to do with Europe in WWII) or we can try to intervene on behalf of persecuted peoples. Intervention also leaves us a choice. Direct confrontation via military action, as we did when Iraq invaded Kuwait, or by trying to arm an insurgency in the hopes that they can librate themselves. The latter rarely works out well as you generally end up with just another dictator committing just as many atrocities. Only now they have our sticky fingerprints all over them. Bush&#039;s efforts to exact a &quot;regime change&quot; came with the plan to keep troops and order in place until a representative government could be formed and a well trained military could take over the daunting task of keeping radical elements from overrunning things again. Iraq was taking longer than we would have liked, but it was on the right path.Now, because we pulled out in spite of everything the generals on the ground said would happen, Iraq has become a total bloodbath and stronghold for the worst terrorist organizations yet.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Packmule, post: 1515968, member: 33558"] No one ever said the US wasn't involved in funneling arms and such to the Mujahideen through Pakistan. What the CIA didn't do was fund or arm the Arab Afghans like Bin laden. In fact, the Mujahideen hated the likes of Bin Laden because they were haughty and acted like kings. Even though both elements shared the same agenda, pushing the soviets back out of Afghanistan, there was often blood spilled between them. As far as the CIA was concerned, we didn't need the Arab afghans when there were hundreds of thousands of Mujahideen eager to enter the fight. As for Bin Laden, he didn't need our help. He had his own money. In the long run there are two facts that never go away. One being that the greatest atrocities ever committed against Muslem people are committed BY Muslem people. Number two is number one leaves the rest of the world a choice. We can either look away (as we were trying to do with Europe in WWII) or we can try to intervene on behalf of persecuted peoples. Intervention also leaves us a choice. Direct confrontation via military action, as we did when Iraq invaded Kuwait, or by trying to arm an insurgency in the hopes that they can librate themselves. The latter rarely works out well as you generally end up with just another dictator committing just as many atrocities. Only now they have our sticky fingerprints all over them. Bush's efforts to exact a "regime change" came with the plan to keep troops and order in place until a representative government could be formed and a well trained military could take over the daunting task of keeping radical elements from overrunning things again. Iraq was taking longer than we would have liked, but it was on the right path. Now, because we pulled out in spite of everything the generals on the ground said would happen, Iraq has become a total bloodbath and stronghold for the worst terrorist organizations yet. [/QUOTE]

Verification