As a matter of fact - almost correct. Except for one small adjustment - it was based upon Mujaheddeen movement that was sponsored and trained by US... From the same movement came Usama bin Ladden. Just another proof of the old saying "No matter how well you feed the wolf, it will still tear you apart on the first occasion". Now US has to fight against it's own spawn. I have no idea about the level of Iran involvement in this matter, though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">..... My reading suggests that the Talibsn was a creation of Pakistani security in cooperation with conservative Sunni madrassahs and financed in good part by Saudi Arabians with the object of establishing and maintaining a strong political influence in post-war Afghanistan.
Since the Western incursion into Afghanistan, I get the impression that Iran has also elected to back certain Taliban factions despite the apparent Sunni/Shia religious dichotomy,
Sorry, but Bin Laden is nothing more than a prestige target now. He is worthless to both the US and Al'Qaeda alive.
The wolf has no teeth.
Can't say that I'm sorry about it. But he left enough followers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Sorry, but Bin Laden is nothing more than a prestige target now. He is worthless to both the US and Al'Qaeda alive.
The wolf has no teeth.
You misunderstand the situation I think, as do many.
Bin laden has never been 'the leader' of anything. He showed up with the big bucks and they gave him the figure head slot. His beard on TV. Nothing more.
Furthermore, even from the Muslim perspective, this is not a religious thing. It's many different small warlords vying for ultimate power. Bin Laden perceived himself as one of these, chose the largest of the non-Palestinian groups to fund to make them 'largest', so that he could be A#1 by default.
This is about power politics. Whereas lying, cheating, and getting everything on tape is how you do this in Washington, you do it with guns and big-Allah in the Middle East in many places.
The big attack on New York gave them credibility. "Join Al'Qaeda and be part of *this*. We win by default." So by association your sand-filled a** is powerful, because you work for the powerful, and they got recruitment.
The real damage done was during the surge. It wasn't the troop numbers as much as how they were used. The allies had enough now to do something offensive. Anybody with a little historical knowledge KNOWS you don't immobilize a mobile army by fighting in cities or worse, garrisoning them. Now that the US troops were freed to fight, how many new recruits do you think the...somewhat less credible Al'Qaeda folks are getting this week?
ZERO
Last week the count of insurgents crossing the Syrian border was nil.
That's how it works. Political credibility through firepower politics. That's the Middle East.
There is no 'civil war' in Iraq, never was. It's all about vying for power in a perceived power vacuum.
And Bin Laden is not winning votes for President.
Freedom of speech is not a guarantee of an audience or freedom from ridicule. It is merely freedom from government persecution for your speech.Honestly, I don't think freedom of speech truly exists and I also think that all degrees of freedom of speech are useless since it is rare someone actually listens.
I did live in New York state for a while.ok. i gotta ask: which oppressed country were you in when you gained all this wisdom? i want to go there and become smart like you.Why do you have to live in a suppressed state to believe that your life is worth less than standing up for liberty? I can't speak for citizens of other countries, but the US was founded on this principal. I find it sad that so many of my fellow citizens no longer believe in this principal.
Of course I guess this was true during the founding of the nation as well. There have always been those that are Americans and those that merely live in America.
"Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, 'What should be the reward of such sacrifices?'...If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!"
"”Samuel Adams
As a matter of fact - almost correct. Except for one small adjustment - it was based upon Mujaheddeen movement that was sponsored and trained by US... From the same movement came Usama bin Ladden. Just another proof of the old saying "No matter how well you feed the wolf, it will still tear you apart on the first occasion". Now US has to fight against it's own spawn. I have no idea about the level of Iran involvement in this matter, though. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by FPSOLKOR:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">..... My reading suggests that the Talibsn was a creation of Pakistani security in cooperation with conservative Sunni madrassahs and financed in good part by Saudi Arabians with the object of establishing and maintaining a strong political influence in post-war Afghanistan.
Since the Western incursion into Afghanistan, I get the impression that Iran has also elected to back certain Taliban factions despite the apparent Sunni/Shia religious dichotomy,
..... I agree that the Afghan Mujahedeen resistance was supplied and largely financed by the USA through its CIA infrastructure in Pakistan. However, when the USSR withdrew, so did the US and taking their pocketbook with them. This left the clan leaders suddenly penniless and plunged Afghanistan into a lengthy period of inter-clan warfare. Kind of a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation for the US: if the US had maintained their presence in Afghanistan, they would have branded as 'imperialists"; when they withdrew, they were criticized for "abandoning their friends". I still don't know which option would have been best.
Bin Laden was, by my understanding, never a member of the fighting Mujahedeen. He appeared toward the end of the campaign as a Saudi bankroller.
Perhaps Keeping out of it in the first place, after all it was really all about one Cold War super power against another....... nothing else.Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
if the US had maintained their presence in Afghanistan, they would have branded as 'imperialists"; when they withdrew, they were criticized for "abandoning their friends". I still don't know which option would have been best.
I wonder if the increasing complexity and seemingly arbitrary nature of so-called "laws" will someday collapse the previously wealthy western system. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Aussom Pirsch.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In Germany, a cafe, restaurant, or pub has to pay a special, and expensive, tax to have music for their customers.
There was a theory I remember being passed around in my University days back last millenium that suggested one of factors contributing to the collapse of empires is exactly that, that eventually laws become increasingly arbitrary and non-sensical.
As for Stalin, one story that always summed things up was the installation of a buzzer at public events to signal when to stop clapping at his speeches. No one wanted to be the first person to stop clapping, or risk execution / gulag, so a buzzer sounded to let everyone stop at the same time.
I guess it's easier to see Stalin from a view of distance and rose-tinted glasses,especially when your State pension suddenly stopped, or your city filled with rich mafia and a skyrocketing crime rate.
It's also easy to forget the empty shelves, the long lines for anything, the year in the gulag for being 15 minutes late for work. Like all human beings, it's far easier to remember the good things than the bad.
At least Stalin aimed to build up his country. One dictator closer to my own time was Pol Pot, who aimed to move his country backwards, while still killing millions. Cambodia is still recovering to this day.
I would put up for thought that a working definition of a "free" government could be considered as a government that chooses not to kill its own civilians.
I've never been exposed to this theory in my studies, though I've suspected it for some time.There was a theory I remember being passed around in my University days back last millenium that suggested one of factors contributing to the collapse of empires is exactly that, that eventually laws become increasingly arbitrary and non-sensical.
I see it day to day, often with a quiet "what the...!" and often wonder where we are going with all this. A decade ago, under the Clinton administration in the US, it was reported by the White House that it cost the American people $10 billion per year just to maintain the current laws. It's considerably more now.
This condition is justified by many as an attempt to ensure justice for every special interest group, in a society made up of EVERY special interest group in the world!
Nothing good can come from this. Inevitably we will have a society of lawyers on one side, representing the rest of society who can't afford that representation.
To me, if the law doesn't make common sense, then the government cannot claim that 'ignorance of the law is no excuse'.
Once you are at least one generation removed from an event, it is no longer an emotional issue on the grand scale. Only then can it be discussed in a reasonable manner.I guess it's easier to see Stalin from a view of distance and rose-tinted glasses,especially when your State pension suddenly stopped, or your city filled with rich mafia and a skyrocketing crime rate.
I once did a discussion on how the Wehrmacht was so tough in comparison to other, very sizable armies. Much of it had to do with the fact that these men had been raised together! They went from Hitler Youth to the work force and inevitably the army, building comradeship for a lifetime among those sharing the bunkers.
But because today anybody who is perceived as conservative in their views are accused of being a NAZI still, it did not go over very well. The perception that NS Germany has nothing to offer or prove even today is due to this emotional rhetoric.
Yet if we view history from a neutral perspective, take no sides and analyze it, we learn much more than if we instead start lighting torches and march on Frankenstein's castle.
I often point out that Germany had superior technology, a generation ahead of others in many ways in 1940. Yet, they were beaten by 'inferior' allies with superior numbers. Comparing them to today's United States military is a reasonable assessment, but always draws fire from those more politically minded than scientifically.
In retrospect, Stalin was a necessary evil. Russia won the war against Germany, and would have single-handedly given enough time, this being entirely due to Stalin's policies.At least Stalin aimed to build up his country. One dictator closer to my own time was Pol Pot, who aimed to move his country backwards, while still killing millions. Cambodia is still recovering to this day.
The Russians are really an amazing people lol.
Well said. Excellent post btw.I would put up for thought that a working definition of a "free" government could be considered as a government that chooses not to kill its own civilians.
(yours not mine)