posted
Are we are now paying for Reagan era foreign policy?
quote:U.S. Sent Guns to Bin Laden in 1980s
By D. Ian Hopper Associated Press Writer Tuesday, Oct. 16, 2001; 8:13 a.m. EDT
WASHINGTON –– More than a decade ago, the U.S. government sent 25 high-powered sniper rifles to a group of Muslim fighters in Afghanistan that included Osama bin Laden, according to court testimony and the guns' maker.
The rifles, made by Barrett Firearms Manufacturing Inc. of Murfreesboro, Tenn., and paid for by the government, were shipped during the collaboration between the United States and Muslims then fighting to drive the Soviet Union from Afghanistan.
Experts doubt the weapons could still be used, but the transaction further accentuates how Americans are fighting an enemy that U.S. officials once supported and liberally armed.
In a trial early this year of suspects in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa, Essam Al-Ridi, identified as a former pilot for bin Laden, said he shipped the weapons in 1989 to Sheik Abdallah Azzam, bin Laden's ideological mentor. The weapons had range-finding equipment and night-vision scopes.
During the late 1980s, the United States supplied arms worth $500 million a year to anti-Soviet fighters including Afghanistan's current Taliban rulers, bin Laden and others. The supplies included a range of weapons from small arms to shoulder-fired Stinger anti-aircraft missiles.
And one can read a very interesting study on the issue here.
What's the phrase, sow the wind reap the whirlwind?
[ October 16, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
This is news?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
MIB
Ex-Member
posted
Our foreign relations policy has always been totally fucked up. We wouldn't hesitate to send weapons and shit to anyone who could become hostile towards us the very next year. Regan had a bad habit of doing this with Iran-contra, the supplying of weapons to Afghanistan and all that because he was practically paranoid over the commie invasion and what not. Not to say almost evey other President hasn't done this too. Clinton and the nuclaer secrets he gave to China, Bush Jr and his dumb-ass aid package he sent to the Taliban a few months ago, because the Taliban was an "anti-drug" government. Yeah right.....
IP: Logged
posted
To address the title of this thread, the ends may have justified the means, or they may not have. To determine that would require being able to make an objective value judgement of the outcome of both taking an action and not taking that action. While that might be workable for the Krenim or a Time Lord, us regular humans just have to to what's right at the time. For all we know, Afganistan might have fallen to the USSR without our support, which may well have changed the course of history, leading to a nuclear war that killed a lot more than 6,000 people. But then, it might not have. We can't know.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Because we as human beings can not see into the future, sans time ship and all that, it is not fair to criticize a policy that comes back to bite us in the butt?
So, if Farmer Reagan does not like the fox attacking the chickens, since the fox has a different economic point of view about chickens, and he can't kill the fox in person, he seeks a proxy to do the job. Farmer Regan makes a policy whereby he finds a big, bad and mean old dog, has the Central Farming Agency train it and loose it on the fox.
He gives the dog whatever he wants cause he's doing the dirty work. But when the fox is gone, Farmers Reagan and Bush dumps this newly trained and very mean dog back out on the streets and go on their merry way.
This rather angers the dog and he begins to rethink his stance toward Farmers Reagan and Bush. So later when the dog comes back and bites the hand that helped created it, they bear no responsibility.
Better than that, it's not even fair to criticize the policy, Farmers Reagan and Bush, or the Central Farming Agnecy that helped create the well trained mean dog in the fist place.
Yup, That's a pretty good way to view policy there don't ya think?
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
posted
Face it. ALL human beings, from Omega to Snay and every normal person in between, including our governments, our businesses, etc. do things for the exact same reason...
"Because it seemed like a good idea at the time."
Once you accept this fundamental truth, it will make it easier for you to accept the second fundamental truth...
"Those who can, do. Those who can't, criticize."
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
quote:"Those who can, do. Those who can't, criticize."
There's a big difference between Government policy, and me deciding whether I want to rent Cats and Dogs or Bridget Jones' Diary (which, BTW, was a waste of $$$).
posted
You know what Fo2, you've become quite the jerk of late. You seem to have no desire to get involved in rational discussion. Rather you prefere dropping angry little bombs.
"Because it seemed like a good idea at the time." is the stupidist way to carry out a foreign policy there can possibly be.
It gets people out in the world angry at the United States. And while I understand your seemingly "screw 'em if they feel that way" attitude, militaristic people tend to want to respond in militaristic ways. So why are we scratching our heads and wondering why something happened?
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
You, accusing Rob of deteriorating away from rational discussion. THAT's funny.
He's right. Those who can't, criticize, and that's you. What, pray tell, would you propose that Reagan SHOULD have done, based on the exact information that he had? Hmm? Even better: how 'bout we make YOU President, since you seem to know everything? Tell me, oh great prognosticator: what will eventually happen with the China situation? Details, please.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Jay is suggesting that when something is fundementally flawed, it should be given a serious re-examination.
You and Rob are just saying "stop criticizing you suck."
Well, you know what, you and Rob criticize Democrats and Liberals all the fucking time. And then you tell others not to criticize Republicans? You're both hipocrites, either stop criticizing people, or shut the fuck up about "those who can do, those who can't crit."
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
