August 22nd, 2012, 10:06 AM | #91 | |
Former Staff
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 16,579
Thanks: 452,836
Thanked 222,662 Times in 16,567 Posts
|
Quote:
You are Russian, and want to get closer to India... or You are English, and don't want Russians getting closer to India... or You are Soviet, and wish to spread Socialism and prevent unrest in a difficult area... or You are American, and are paranoid about the USSR... or You are American, and need to kick some butt after 9/11 and have no other butt to kick... or You are weak-willed, and feel obliged to lick US-ass at cost of your citizens' lives/treasure/reputation etc etc... Aside from that, the land itself is strategically meaningless, imho. I share your frustration, Comrade |
|
The Following 18 Users Say Thank You to palo5 For This Useful Post: |
August 22nd, 2012, 03:48 PM | #92 | |
Banned!
Join Date: May 2008
Location: the south US near the west from Chicagoland born in the USA,just like the song says!
Posts: 3,719
Thanks: 13,008
Thanked 24,480 Times in 3,630 Posts
|
Quote:
Other Islamic countries that are progressive allow women to achieve academic & professional status, but thanx to the US,it was eliminated in this area,when they supported the religious fanatics there.The US policies made the area more unstable over the long run. |
|
August 22nd, 2012, 07:22 PM | #93 |
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Upper left corner
Posts: 7,213
Thanks: 48,029
Thanked 83,532 Times in 7,207 Posts
|
One interesting calculus is to look at nations' war aims entering a conflict, and ask "who got what they were aiming for?"
"wars of national liberation" seem the most reliable in achieving their goals. Wars beyond frontiers are much more doubtful propositions: Talleyrand once said "up to the Rhine the conquests belong to France, beyond the Rhine they belong to Napoleon, let him keep them if he can" He couldn't -- compare France's frontiers in 1793 to 1815 On that note: one rarely observed datum -- consider just how little the "loss" of Vietnam impacted US interests. Today, Vietnam's strategic interests (terrified of China) line up very well with the US. They'd have us back in Cam Ranh Bay, if we wanted Last edited by deepsepia; August 22nd, 2012 at 08:00 PM.. |
The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to deepsepia For This Useful Post: |
August 22nd, 2012, 08:39 PM | #94 | |
Former Staff
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 16,579
Thanks: 452,836
Thanked 222,662 Times in 16,567 Posts
|
Quote:
Being terrified of China is something they can live with, but being defended by America is a sure disaster, because in the worst case they'll trash the country (again) |
|
The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to palo5 For This Useful Post: |
August 23rd, 2012, 10:45 AM | #95 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,282
Thanks: 11,393
Thanked 48,590 Times in 2,258 Posts
|
Quote:
How US thought at that time, found per chance studying some other issues. I'm speaking of the support of the Mujahideen of the CIA at 3. July, 1979 , before the Russians entered Afghanistan at 24. December, 1979. (That was new to me too ). Zbigniew Brzezinski (former National Security Adviser (NSA) of Jimmy Carter) in 1979: "This covert operation was an excellent idea. They caused the Russians fell into the Afghan trap [...]. We immediately launched a twofold process when we heard that the Soviets had entered Afghanistan. The first involved direct reactions and sanctions focused on the Soviet Union, and both the State Department and the National Security Council prepared long lists of sanctions to be adopted, of steps to be taken to increase the international costs to the Soviet Union of their actions. And the second course of action led to my going to Pakistan a month or so after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, for the purpose of coordinating with the Pakistanis a joint response, the purpose of which would be to make the Soviets bleed for as much and as long as is possible; and we engaged in that effort in a collaborative sense with the Saudis, the Egyptians, the British, the Chinese, and we started providing weapons to the Mujaheddin, from various sources again – for example, some Soviet arms from the Egyptians and the Chinese. We even got Soviet arms from the Czechoslovak communist government, since it was obviously susceptible to material incentives; and at some point we started buying arms for the Mujaheddin from the Soviet army in Afghanistan, because that army was increasingly corrupt." (quoted of the Canadian Globalization critic Prof. Michel Chossudovsky) That's what the US are proud of .....
__________________
Don't forget to say To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. to your posters, don't just leech, be a member. |
The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to Puhbear69 For This Useful Post: |
August 23rd, 2012, 02:26 PM | #96 |
Long Suffering Bills Fan
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: The City of Good Neighbors
Posts: 9,669
Thanks: 304,243
Thanked 153,135 Times in 9,629 Posts
|
The arming of the Mujaheddin was something done by the US with a short-term goal in mind, making the Soviet Union look like we did in Vietnam. And that succeeded. But little or no thought was given to what would happen when the Soviets did what we eventually did in Vietnam, which is leave.
Considering that a great deal of the US foreign policy deals with the Middle East due to our insatiable oil habit, doing things to make the region unstable seems to be counterproductive.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. |
The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to tygrkhat40 For This Useful Post: |
August 24th, 2012, 02:59 PM | #97 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: In the fog
Posts: 3,868
Thanks: 105,797
Thanked 33,562 Times in 3,839 Posts
|
To me it made sense to go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Everything that has happened since he eluded capture then has been a waste of lives and resources, Afghani and American.
|
The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to bombermouse For This Useful Post: |
August 24th, 2012, 03:44 PM | #98 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,282
Thanks: 11,393
Thanked 48,590 Times in 2,258 Posts
|
Haven't you read the posts before ???
__________________
Don't forget to say To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. to your posters, don't just leech, be a member. |
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Puhbear69 For This Useful Post: |
August 24th, 2012, 05:37 PM | #99 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: In the fog
Posts: 3,868
Thanks: 105,797
Thanked 33,562 Times in 3,839 Posts
|
|
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to bombermouse For This Useful Post: |
August 24th, 2012, 06:12 PM | #100 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,282
Thanks: 11,393
Thanked 48,590 Times in 2,258 Posts
|
Sorry 'bombermouse', I misinterpreted your post. Now I got it.
__________________
Don't forget to say To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. to your posters, don't just leech, be a member. |
The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to Puhbear69 For This Useful Post: |
|
|