CIA trained Bin Laden and then he turns against U.S.

[Jeff_rys]

Very strange. I include a URL where it is stated that the CIA trainen Bin Laden. One of the dark sides of the CIA?

By the way it is not only mentionned in this URL. It was also on the news here in Belgium.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_155000/155236.stm

 

[manny78]

 

[shaolin]

Yes we trained and supported OBL when he fought the Russians.

Is this so surprising? We backed Noriega, then arrested and prosecuted him years later. We backed Saddam Hussein with money and weapons to fight Iran and he turned on us. There are many more examples from Central and South America. The US loves to manipulate world events and foreign governments, but does not learn from the past.

 

[Salami]

maybe we will help that northern alliance overthrow the taliban and then have to deal with them later.

 

[Jeff_rys]

Well Saddam should have been dead

but no, he stays alive and this is going to cost us (alies) in the future.

 

[The Dude]

We had good reason to assist all of those nations AT THAT TIME. However, the world changes and it doesn't always work in our favor for the long run.

Remember, the global fight used to be solely against Communism and for good reason. Always use the proper perspective when looking back on these things. Things change....always do.

 

[cyberflash]

Everyone wonder why this happened ? is it sensless ? NO

US Foreign Policy in the past ... has not all been good.

Yes, the CIA trained Bin Laden ... to fight the war against Russia. It is no secret that the US has supported several wars in other countries (Let's have warzones in other countries ... but let's not do it on our own backyard). Now, they have finally caught up with us ... a warzone in a major US city ... karmic retribution ...

And Yes, several civilians in the Middle East were killed during the gulf war ... just as several civilians in NY were killed a few days ago. In war, civilians are never spared. The sins of the father is being paid by the son.

Just a question ... did these terrorist have family (civilians) that died during the gulf war ... and they have been planning to get back at the US .. blaming the US for the death of their family ? were they just waiting for the US to relax on internal security?

Sure, the ends will never justify the means ... the perpetrators must pay for the NY incident ... but that's just the surface .. the root of the problem has to be evaluated ... clean up US foreign policy ... it stinks ...

 

[flexed1]

mY NEIGHBOR TOLD ME HE LIVED IN AUSTIN? iS THIS TRUE?

 

[shaolin]

We had good reason to assist all of those nations AT THAT TIME. However, the world changes and it doesn't always work in our favor for the long run.

Remember, the global fight used to be solely against Communism and for good reason. Always use the proper perspective when looking back on these things. Things change....always do.

Ahem. Good reason? My point is that all of our manipulations got us nowhere. The Viet Nam war accomplished nothing for anyone.

Please note that communism in Russia and East Germany died a natural economic death. America had nothing to do with its demise.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

.

Please note that communism in Russia and East Germany died a natural economic death.

America had nothing to do with its demise.

Not entirely true on either sentence.

1. By forcing the USSR to spend and spend and spend in a space race and then a nuclear arms race, we certainly hastened their economic death.


2. The war in Afghanistan decimated the USSR. Many poor Soviets in teh USSR military were Muslim, but the USSR couldn't send them to fight in Afghanistan. It would look bad on a world stage, and they couldn't be trusted to fight.

Instead, the USSR had to send real Russians, the better educated sons of well to do families from the cities, rather than the rural poor from outlying areas.

It is as if we were sending college kids to fight Viet Nam. Over time, this bankrupted the USSR of its bets and brightest.

These factors should not be forgotten when discussing the fall of the USSR.

 

[The Dude]

Actually, the Vietnam War did accomplish one it's goals albiet perversely. It showed the Soviets that we were willing, win or lose, to fight Communism every step of the way. We actually could have one the war if it was approached differently. This is widely acknowledged by military leaders from the U.S. and North Vietnam.

Support in Afghanistan served the same purpose. AT THAT TIME, it was the RIGHT THING TO DO. Perspective. Learn from the past, but also UNDERSTAND the past in your studies.

 

[FrankRizzo]

By forcing the USSR to spend and spend and spend in a space race and then a nuclear arms race, we certainly hastened their economic death.

They spent that money on their own volition. If you can't budget properly then you will fall, just like your weak ass communist gov/t infrastructure. Their nation, under that gov't, could not keep up with capitalist America. The standard of living in that country for the average citizen was FAR below what we have here with capitalism. Please don't tell me you are one of the "communism looks good on paper" people Matt. Communism is forced equality and there is no place for it on this earth, unless of course, you are substandard and need those around you to prop you up constantly.

Communism fell in those countries because it doesn't work. That must not be forgotten!

 

[Jeff_rys]

good answer Matt

Not entirely true on either sentence.

1. By forcing the USSR to spend and spend and spend in a space race and then a nuclear arms race, we certainly hastened their economic death.


2. The war in Afghanistan decimated the USSR. Many poor Soviets in teh USSR military were Muslim, but the USSR couldn't send them to fight in Afghanistan. It would look bad on a world stage, and they couldn't be trusted to fight.

Instead, the USSR had to send real Russians, the better educated sons of well to do families from the cities, rather than the rural poor from outlying areas.

It is as if we were sending college kids to fight Viet Nam. Over time, this bankrupted the USSR of its bets and brightest.

These factors should not be forgotten when discussing the fall of the USSR.

But it definitly is "knowledge" that made and keeps the US the number one country in the world.

The know how, the new inventions, all this is developed in the free world. The US has lost a lot of money in the Nam war also, but survived easily. The US has a greater income, so can spent more, while the USSR had not that ability.

 

[danielson]

not forgetting the US was the only country to be worth more when it finished WW2, it was twice it value....the soviets country was still virtually nothing with almost no infrastructure too

im amazed they managed to challenge so loing when u look at it.

and the soviets made MANY technological inovations, one i think iof now was a new submarine design which made it possible for their subs to travel faster and deeper than any other subs in the world at that time.

plus they developed the first supersonic commericail aircrafy, konkordski (which exploded coincedently while a french mirage fighter was spotted next to it with the french and UK producing their own plane at a later date )

both sides got their german scientists ya see

 

[Mandinka]

Danielson

Finally I get a chance to add to a comment you have made:
Make no mistake - There is so much talent in the former Soviet Bloc you would not believe it. When I used to compete in the IMO (International Mathematical Olympiad) the Russians regularly wiped the floor with every other nation under the sun , and they did it with less resources too. Hungary was the only country to even compete (and only on a per-capita basis).
That country was bled dry by the West , it's anomalous that freedom of speech is enshrined in the American constitution and yet they (the West) was unwilling to let them have a go. China is making a better go of it and good luck to them.
Before I get flamed outta sight I do not agree with SO many things done in the former Soviet Bloc , but seen against an international context , that was the time in which people lived.