Charlie Wilson: The Covert War on Communism

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Whoever voted that the fall of the Berlin Wall was NOT a good thing is a fvcking idiot... whoever you are.

just an FYI.

I sure hope that was a mistake vote. But then again, we seem to have a few closet communists running around here so who knows...

You're mistaking communists for monsters. There's a difference, you know (I big god damned difference, apples to bricks). There were PLENTY of communists who cheered and laughed/cried out of joy when the Berlin wall first fell.

I see the red scare still has you by the throat.

No, I'm mistaking anything. And no, I'm not scared of Communists as they have been relegated to the fringe(where they should be IMO).

Communism is an economic platform, not a government type. You can have a "Democratic Communism" in theory.

Uh, Communism is more than just an economic platform. If you think it is just an economic platform then I would suggest it is you that is the "fool".

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: event8horizon
surgeon- have u found any reasons why the cia was giving him a hard time???

Well Charlie wanted to get involved in a foreign affair and it seems to me (however unlikely) that the CIA actually was trying to be a non interventionist. I think fear had a part to play in it and maybe some other things we don't know about. A modern day Charlie Wilson would be considered a Neoconservative IMO.

I'm not sure you actually understand the definition of the term "neoconservative," and Charlie Wilson was hardly alone in his desires to fight proxy wars against the Soviets. He just happened to be the most vocal point man for the Afghan campaign...

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: event8horizon
surgeon- have u found any reasons why the cia was giving him a hard time???

Well Charlie wanted to get involved in a foreign affair and it seems to me (however unlikely) that the CIA actually was trying to be a non interventionist. I think fear had a part to play in it and maybe some other things we don't know about. A modern day Charlie Wilson would be considered a Neoconservative IMO.

I'm not sure you actually understand the definition of the term "neoconservative," and Charlie Wilson was hardly alone in his desires to fight proxy wars against the Soviets. He just happened to be the most vocal point man for the Afghan campaign...

What is the defining characteristic of a Neoconservative? Their foreign policy. They want more intervention abroad. Secondly, I have no doubt he wasn't the only one, he just happened to get the spot light.

 

[Tab]

I voted no on the fall of the berlin wall... In spite of everyone voting yes

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: event8horizon
surgeon- have u found any reasons why the cia was giving him a hard time???

Well Charlie wanted to get involved in a foreign affair and it seems to me (however unlikely) that the CIA actually was trying to be a non interventionist. I think fear had a part to play in it and maybe some other things we don't know about. A modern day Charlie Wilson would be considered a Neoconservative IMO.

I'm not sure you actually understand the definition of the term "neoconservative," and Charlie Wilson was hardly alone in his desires to fight proxy wars against the Soviets. He just happened to be the most vocal point man for the Afghan campaign...

What is the defining characteristic of a Neoconservative? Their foreign policy. They want more intervention abroad. Secondly, I have no doubt he wasn't the only one, he just happened to get the spot light.

AFAIK, their interventionist foreign policy is only one of several defining characteristics. Wiki has a better breakdown HERE; and, from what I can tell, Charlie Wilson didn't really fit the bill.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

AFAIK, their interventionist foreign policy is only one of several defining characteristics. Wiki has a better breakdown HERE; and, from what I can tell, Charlie Wilson didn't really fit the bill.

Well now we get into semantics. I see his foreign policy as right in line with Neoconservative values. Being a democrat he probably supported bigger government. I think he fits in quite well with being a Neoconservative. The five things listed on Wikipedia:

Taxes and Federal Budget: I don't know how he was regarding this.

Size of Government: As stated above, he was a democrat.

Traditional Moral Values: More like "forced" moral values from reading #3. I feel Wilson leaned this way, using the covert war as a way of pushing morality by force. But could be seen as a stretch.

Expansionist Foreign Policy:

National Interest: These two go hand in hand. And he definately displayed these characteristics while in office.

So at least 2 maybe 3 out of 5 things he is in agreement with. If we had documentation on his tax and federal budget votes, we might be able to add one more.

So IMO, he was a Neoconservative.

 

[ProfJohn]

Wilson was from Texas so I am betting he was a conservative Democrat.

But I don?t we can make the leap from that to Neocon.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Wilson was from Texas so I am betting he was a conservative Democrat.

But I don?t we can make the leap from that to Neocon.

Yes you can. Some of those founding Neoconservatives came from the democratic side

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Whoever voted that the fall of the Berlin Wall was NOT a good thing is a fvcking idiot... whoever you are.

just an FYI.

I sure hope that was a mistake vote. But then again, we seem to have a few closet communists running around here so who knows...

You're mistaking communists for monsters. There's a difference, you know (I big god damned difference, apples to bricks). There were PLENTY of communists who cheered and laughed/cried out of joy when the Berlin wall first fell.

I see the red scare still has you by the throat.

No, I'm mistaking anything. And no, I'm not scared of Communists as they have been relegated to the fringe(where they should be IMO).

Communism is an economic platform, not a government type. You can have a "Democratic Communism" in theory.

Uh, Communism is more than just an economic platform. If you think it is just an economic platform then I would suggest it is you that is the "fool".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

Learn to read.

 

[teclis1023]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
why in the world would there be suicide bombers coming into israel??? what do those people want....what do they represent???

from what ive read, gaza strip and the west bank are also big prisons.

this is going nowhere. all im saying is the fall of the berlin wall represented peace. and one of these days, i would like to see the israeli walls fall after peace is achieved.

Are you playing dumb, or are you truly this monumentally stupid?

Equating the Berlin Wall and the Israeli border walls is such a ridiculous notion, it's no wonder only die-hard liberals can make that jump.

The Israeli border walls were a last-option choice - constructed after years of violence, and have had a marked effect on the number of suicide attacks perpetrated against Israeli civilians.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: event8horizon
why in the world would there be suicide bombers coming into israel??? what do those people want....what do they represent???

from what ive read, gaza strip and the west bank are also big prisons.

this is going nowhere. all im saying is the fall of the berlin wall represented peace. and one of these days, i would like to see the israeli walls fall after peace is achieved.

Before the wall was built, Israel experienced about 70 suicide attacks a year. Since the wall has been constructed, there have been less than 10. The wall was built because the Palestinian 'government' has no control over its people, because radicals within the Palestinian faction demand the destruction of Israel. Until those actions cease, I see little reason why Israel shouldn't actively try and defend its borders.

why in the world would they demand the destruction of israel?? like i said, it would be nice for peace then the wall falls.

Unfortunately, I don't know what "it would be nice for peace then the wall falls" means. As for the part of your post that makes grammatical sense, you do know the Hezbollah has sworn to see the destruction of Israel and that they do nothing to stop the daily rocket attacks on the country, right?

The wall should come down when the Palestinians demonstrate they can effectively police their population and that they are willing to negotiate a settlement of the land dispute. Until that time, I see no reason why Israel should tear down a wall that has reduced then number of suicide attacks so dramatically.

edit: typo.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: event8horizon
why in the world would there be suicide bombers coming into israel??? what do those people want....what do they represent???

from what ive read, gaza strip and the west bank are also big prisons.

this is going nowhere. all im saying is the fall of the berlin wall represented peace. and one of these days, i would like to see the israeli walls fall after peace is achieved.

Before the wall was built, Israel experienced about 70 suicide attacks a year. Since the wall has been constructed, there have been less than 10. The wall was built because the Palestinian 'government' has no control over its people, because radicals within the Palestinian faction demand the destruction of Israel. Until those actions cease, I see little reason why Israel shouldn't actively try and defend its borders.

why in the world would they demand the destruction of israel?? like i said, it would be nice for peace then the wall falls.

Unfortunately, I don't know what "it would be nice for peace then the wall falls" means. As for the part of your post that makes grammatical sense, you do know the Hezbollah has sworn to see the destruction of Israel and that they do nothing to stop the daily rocket attacks on the country, right?

The wall should come down when the Palestinians demonstrate they can effectively police their population and that they are willing to negotiate a settlement of the land dispute. Until that time, I see no reason why Israel should tear down a wall that has reduced then number of suicide attacks so dramatically.

edit: typo.

whatever happened to the original intentions-

The first is the Balfour Declaration of 1917: An official letter from the British Foreign Office headed by Arthur Balfour, the UK's Foreign Secretary (from December 1916 to October 1919), to Lord Rothschild, who was seen as a representative of the Jewish people. The letter stated that the British government "view[ed] with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".

 

[event8horizon]

President Bush-
"I think the wall is a problem," he said in July during a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. "It is very difficult to develop confidence between the Palestinians and the Israelis ... with a wall snaking through the West Bank."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/ex...y-dec03/wall_9-22.html

and if u wanna look at where the walls are being built-

http://www.vtjp.org/background/wallgraphics.htm

Much of the 640km (400-mile) barrier, started in 2002, is being built on territory Israel occupied in 1967, rather than along the internationally recognised boundary between Israel and the West Bank.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3879057.stm

the wall is bigger and better than the berlin wall by far......and its really pretty!! just take a look at it.

i dont think our military industrial complex wants peace

 

[event8horizon]

surgeon-

if u get a chance, take a look at this book. The Best Enemy Money Can Buy

http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/best_enemy/foreword.htm


The invasion of Afghanistan was a landmark shift in Soviet military tactics. Departing from half a century of slow, plodding, "smother the enemy with raw power" tactics, the Soviet military leadership adopted the lightning strike. Overnight, the Soviets had captured the Kabul airfield and had surrounded the capital city with tanks.4

Tanks? In an overnight invasion? How did 30-ton Soviet tanks roll from the Soviet border to the interior city of Kabul in one day? What about the rugged Afghan terrain?

The answer is simple: there are two highways from the Soviet Union to Kabul, including one which is 647 miles long. Their bridges can support tanks. Do you think that Afghan peasants built these roads for yak-drawn carts? Do you think that Afghan peasants built these roads at all? No, you built them.

In 1966, reports on this huge construction project began to appear in obscure U.S. magainzes. The project was completed the following year. It was part of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. Soviet and U.S.' engineers worked side by side, spending U.S. foreign aid money and Soviet money, to get the highways built. One strip of road, 67 miles long, north through the Salang Pass to the U.S.S.R., cost $42 million, or $643,000 per mile. John W. Millers, the leader of the United National survey team in Afghanistan, commented at the time that it was the most expensive bit of road he had ever seen. The Soviets trained and used 8,000 Afghans to build it.5

If there were any justice in this world of international foreign aid, the Soviet tanks should have rolled by signs that read: "U.S. Highway Tax Dollars at Work."

Nice guys, the Soviets. They just wanted to help a technologically backward nation. Nice guys, American foreign aid officials. They also just wanted to help a technologically backward nation... the Soviet Union.

the u.s. helped the soviets in more ways than one.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
President Bush-
"I think the wall is a problem," he said in July during a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. "It is very difficult to develop confidence between the Palestinians and the Israelis ... with a wall snaking through the West Bank."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/ex...y-dec03/wall_9-22.html

and if u wanna look at where the walls are being built-

http://www.vtjp.org/background/wallgraphics.htm

Much of the 640km (400-mile) barrier, started in 2002, is being built on territory Israel occupied in 1967, rather than along the internationally recognised boundary between Israel and the West Bank.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3879057.stm

the wall is bigger and better than the berlin wall by far......and its really pretty!! just take a look at it.

i dont think our military industrial complex wants peace

First of all, the wall shouldn't be built where the Israeli's feel like (that's my biggest problem with), it should be built along the green line.

Anyway, comparing this wall to the Berlin was is pretty foolish. They addressed different isues. Unless you slept through history class, the Berlin Wall was designed to stop defectors from leaving the country. People who tried to defect were shot and killed if they were caught. The Israel wall is keeping out people who would otherwise want to do harm to the country. Through secured checkpoints Palestinians can get in and out of Israel relatively freely - yes the security is tight and I'm sure it's a pain in the ass, but, again the wall protects Israel from suicide bombers.

As for:

it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".

Israel has fucked up a lot. So have the Palestinians. Blaming Israel for not respecting the rights of Arabs in the country is denying the fact that they are only part of the problem. Again, the Palestinians cannot effectively control the West Bank or the Gaza Strip. The violence from those regions spills out into Israel on a daily basis. There isn't an effective government Israel can negotiate with. There isn't anybody to enforce the rules or the agreements that are reached. Hell, one of the representatives of the Palestinians has sworn to destroy Israel and, in the past, has actively funded suicide attacks against the country.

Besides criticizing Israel, you've presented no alternative - no other choices Israel could make to remedy the situation. Here are some specific questions:

What choices are left to Israel for seeking peace at this juncture considering most of the political bodies that represent the Arab states or the Palestinians do not even recognize Israel as a country?

What should Israel do about the rockets that are fired by Palestinians into Israel?

What should Israel do about the suicide attacks, assuming the wall had never been constructed?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Traditional Moral Values: More like "forced" moral values from reading #3. I feel Wilson leaned this way, using the covert war as a way of pushing morality by force. But could be seen as a stretch.

It's actually seen as completely off-base. With regards to Wilson's motivation, very little, if anything, had to do with "pushing morality by force." After all, the man was a well-known womanizing party animal and liberal product of the "free-love 70's."

You're trying to squeeze a round peg into a square hole. Nice try though...

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Traditional Moral Values: More like "forced" moral values from reading #3. I feel Wilson leaned this way, using the covert war as a way of pushing morality by force. But could be seen as a stretch.

It's actually seen as completely off-base. With regards to Wilson's motivation, very little, if anything, had to do with "pushing morality by force." After all, the man was a well-known womanizing party animal and liberal product of the "free-love 70's."

You're trying to squeeze a round peg into a square hole. Nice try though...

I'll argue that he was pushing morality by force by using Afghan rebels as the conduit to enforce it. I'll give it to you that thats hard to prove but we don't know for sure that wasn't a part in his mind. If you saw the movie there is a place where he has moments of compassion for the people and decides he will get involved by lobbying to get money for weapons. Like I say though, it is a stretch and definitely not my strongest argument. Nice way to pick on the weak link to prove a point. I handed that argument to you on a silver platter, try the tougher points

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Meanwhile, here's what happens in "civilised" Afghanistan...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7216976.stm

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: event8horizon
President Bush-
"I think the wall is a problem," he said in July during a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. "It is very difficult to develop confidence between the Palestinians and the Israelis ... with a wall snaking through the West Bank."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/ex...y-dec03/wall_9-22.html

and if u wanna look at where the walls are being built-

http://www.vtjp.org/background/wallgraphics.htm

Much of the 640km (400-mile) barrier, started in 2002, is being built on territory Israel occupied in 1967, rather than along the internationally recognised boundary between Israel and the West Bank.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3879057.stm

the wall is bigger and better than the berlin wall by far......and its really pretty!! just take a look at it.

i dont think our military industrial complex wants peace

First of all, the wall shouldn't be built where the Israeli's feel like (that's my biggest problem with), it should be built along the green line.

Anyway, comparing this wall to the Berlin was is pretty foolish. They addressed different isues. Unless you slept through history class, the Berlin Wall was designed to stop defectors from leaving the country. People who tried to defect were shot and killed if they were caught. The Israel wall is keeping out people who would otherwise want to do harm to the country. Through secured checkpoints Palestinians can get in and out of Israel relatively freely - yes the security is tight and I'm sure it's a pain in the ass, but, again the wall protects Israel from suicide bombers.

As for:

it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".

Israel has fucked up a lot. So have the Palestinians. Blaming Israel for not respecting the rights of Arabs in the country is denying the fact that they are only part of the problem. Again, the Palestinians cannot effectively control the West Bank or the Gaza Strip. The violence from those regions spills out into Israel on a daily basis. There isn't an effective government Israel can negotiate with. There isn't anybody to enforce the rules or the agreements that are reached. Hell, one of the representatives of the Palestinians has sworn to destroy Israel and, in the past, has actively funded suicide attacks against the country.

Besides criticizing Israel, you've presented no alternative - no other choices Israel could make to remedy the situation. Here are some specific questions:

What choices are left to Israel for seeking peace at this juncture considering most of the political bodies that represent the Arab states or the Palestinians do not even recognize Israel as a country?

What should Israel do about the rockets that are fired by Palestinians into Israel?

What should Israel do about the suicide attacks, assuming the wall had never been constructed?

i agree with u on many of your points. im only trying to equate the two walls with peace. when the berlin wall fell, it was symbolic for peace. like u said, israel had to build the wall to protect the citizens. there was not peace. many different organizations are commited to the destruction of israel. i dont think israel has to fall like the soviet union before peace is reached. President Bush-
"I think the wall is a problem," he said in July during a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. "It is very difficult to develop confidence between the Palestinians and the Israelis ... with a wall snaking through the West Bank."
even our warmongering prez thinks it is a problem!! i get why it was build.
as to alternatives-
it will be hard on all parties involed. let the people back on their land. heres a video everyone needs to watch.

People And The Land

http://video.google.com/videop...&type=search&plindex=0

but then the statistics will be more arabs/palestinians than jews then it wont be "jewish" anymore. ive read the arguements.

-as for the rockets, ive watched this over the yrs and they seem to be reaching further and further into israel. i doubt that anything can be done. we are dealing with "thinking" people. their tactics will change as soon as israels tactics change. i bet when israel goes to war with hezbollah again, their rockets will reach even farther. thats just how war goes if peace isnt reached.
-as for the suicide bombers, it all goes back to what they want back....the land. i think they will find anyway to hit israel until peace is reached.
this topic needs a thread all to itself. so many variables involved. dont get me wrong. im sympathetic to all the people that made their way down to israel after ww2. i think arafat once said he didnt have a problem with the jews, just the zionists.