Dick and Dub's excellent adventure!

[conjur]

Oh, I agree totally. We certainly cannot pull out now but things are not going to get any better any time soon.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: conjur
Oh, I agree totally. We certainly cannot pull out now but things are not going to get any better any time soon.

Well if Rummy and his Neocon Wunderkids had listened to General Shineski and deployed an adequate number of troops to execute the Occupation correctly we definqately wouldn't be in the poor situation we are now. It seems just like Vietnam, the Politicos are running and ruining this Military situation which will ebd up a lot more costly than the cost of 200,000+ troops that would have done the job right.

 

[conjur]

And who f-ed in Vietnam? Nixon...Republicans aren't that good at actual strategery, apparently.


You know it's bad when John Dean, who recommended to Nixon that he come clean publicly re:Watergate, calls Bush corrupt and the most secretive administration in history.

He hit the nail on head last June:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/060703A.shtml

 

[Gaard]

Can't you do something other than plagarize others posts?

Be careful. Full text searching is on now?

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: conjur
And who f-ed in Vietnam? Nixon...Republicans aren't that good at actual strategery, apparently.


You know it's bad when John Dean, who recommended to Nixon that he come clean publicly re:Watergate, calls Bush corrupt and the most secretive administration in history.

He hit the nail on head last June:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/060703A.shtml

Um, Vietnam was JFK and LBJ's war.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: conjur
And who f-ed in Vietnam? Nixon...Republicans aren't that good at actual strategery, apparently.


You know it's bad when John Dean, who recommended to Nixon that he come clean publicly re:Watergate, calls Bush corrupt and the most secretive administration in history.

He hit the nail on head last June:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/060703A.shtml

Um, Vietnam was JFK and LBJ's war.

Nixon escalated it and brought it to Cambodia and Laos before the American Public forced his hand and made him withdraw.

 

[conjur]

Well, LBJ increased our involvement but Nixon really f-ed up by trying to exaggerate the importance of Cambodia as a target of military action. Then the failed Laotian incursion, the Kent State shootings.

 

[zillafurby]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: zillafurby
etech - im not debating any more points. think of it like this, the americans did iraq a service in it of freeing saddam. surely they are doing some bad things to have it this bad?

lets just wait and see. im not going to get wasted, and the poeple who are, are the people who caused half of the problems.

i think you will see a steady increase in popular violence, possibly including some of the shiites, and america will be forced to withdraw with her tail between her legs. basically they wont get the level of control and manipulation they want, but will spin it as a successful regime change. what a joke. all for the cost of $100bn and two battalions of body bags.

" think of it like this, the americans did iraq a service in it of freeing saddam. surely they are doing some bad things to have it this bad?"

It's possible that a miscalculation of the Arab culture is part of the problem. There were problems in the Axis countries after WWII but for the main the population accepted the loss of the war and wanted to move on to a better life and did their best to do so. I believe that a large majority of the Iraqis want the same thing but have been under the fear of Saddam for so long that they are having difficulty in helping the coalition. There are also the outside influences that have come into play.

The US has already said it would withdraw. What the Iraqis do with their country at that point is up to them. If they wish to stay in the dark ages and continue their tribal violence it is their choice. It would be a shame, but they had the chance for a better life. That cannot be forced upon them. That would not be a failure of the US but a failure of the Iraqis , the Arab culture and the "peaceful and tolerant" Muslim religion.

Bowfinger, you've made two worthless posts so far, you're on a roll. As for you using my words, they applied to you, not to me. Can't you do something other than plagarize others posts?

you dont understadn the killings in fallujah are done by local people. there is local support and local opposition to ameria, oweing to america's imperialism in the region, its handling of the peace, its killing of civillians, and the loss of status for sunnies. after america pulls out they will just organise their own elections.

it is americans responsibility to ensure that each group is strong enough and democracy is strong enough to continue. however i think most of the resistance is aimed at america and not other iraqies, so i dont think there will be a civil war.

on the coup side, if america has an unrepresentative clique put in power and there to help her out at the expense of the population, you can guess who the guns will train themselves onto after america leaves.

klimmit, has described iraq as 'a blueprint' for the region, meaning you take out a regime install a client goverment and stay on in the country to support it. unfortunately the statement just shows how out of his depth he is. america cant stay because she is taking too many losses, and ultimately she cant control the governemnt because that wouldnt be popular with the people or safe for the politicans.

look at bremner. he cant control smuggling, so apparrently cheap manufactured goods have come in, and caused bankrupcy of manufacturers. also people are still unemployed but all they see is contracts going to non-iraqi firms, where if they get a job there is a risk of being killed. also all the prime businesses are getting sold off to westereners, like the communications business. iraq's economy is being made a cash cow for bush's contributors. do you think this will be workable after the handover, despite bremner instituting 'no-repeal of contract' rules fo rthe future government?

its a titanic short-sighted tarfu. everything is wrong. america needs to get its head down, stop interferring, and after the handover get out.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: zillafurby
etech - im not debating any more points. think of it like this, the americans did iraq a service in it of freeing saddam. surely they are doing some bad things to have it this bad?

lets just wait and see. im not going to get wasted, and the poeple who are, are the people who caused half of the problems.

i think you will see a steady increase in popular violence, possibly including some of the shiites, and america will be forced to withdraw with her tail between her legs. basically they wont get the level of control and manipulation they want, but will spin it as a successful regime change. what a joke. all for the cost of $100bn and two battalions of body bags.

" think of it like this, the americans did iraq a service in it of freeing saddam. surely they are doing some bad things to have it this bad?"

It's possible that a miscalculation of the Arab culture is part of the problem. There were problems in the Axis countries after WWII but for the main the population accepted the loss of the war and wanted to move on to a better life and did their best to do so. I believe that a large majority of the Iraqis want the same thing but have been under the fear of Saddam for so long that they are having difficulty in helping the coalition. There are also the outside influences that have come into play.

The US has already said it would withdraw. What the Iraqis do with their country at that point is up to them. If they wish to stay in the dark ages and continue their tribal violence it is their choice. It would be a shame, but they had the chance for a better life. That cannot be forced upon them. That would not be a failure of the US but a failure of the Iraqis , the Arab culture and the "peaceful and tolerant" Muslim religion.

Bowfinger, you've made two worthless posts so far, you're on a roll. As for you using my words, they applied to you, not to me. Can't you do something other than plagarize others posts?

you dont understadn the killings in fallujah are done by local people. there is local support and local opposition to ameria, oweing to america's imperialism in the region, its handling of the peace, its killing of civillians, and the loss of status for sunnies. after america pulls out they will just organise their own elections.

it is americans responsibility to ensure that each group is strong enough and democracy is strong enough to continue. however i think most of the resistance is aimed at america and not other iraqies, so i dont think there will be a civil war.

on the coup side, if america has an unrepresentative clique put in power and there to help her out at the expense of the population, you can guess who the guns will train themselves onto after america leaves.

klimmit, has described iraq as 'a blueprint' for the region, meaning you take out a regime install a client goverment and stay on in the country to support it. unfortunately the statement just shows how out of his depth he is. america cant stay because she is taking too many losses, and ultimately she cant control the governemnt because that wouldnt be popular with the people or safe for the politicans.

look at bremner. he cant control smuggling, so apparrently cheap manufactured goods have come in, and caused bankrupcy of manufacturers. also people are still unemployed but all they see is contracts going to non-iraqi firms, where if they get a job there is a risk of being killed. also all the prime businesses are getting sold off to westereners, like the communications business. iraq's economy is being made a cash cow for bush's contributors. do you think this will be workable after the handover, despite bremner instituting 'no-repeal of contract' rules fo rthe future government?

its a titanic short-sighted tarfu. everything is wrong. america needs to get its head down, stop interferring, and after the handover get out.

You can't be that Myopic. If we did what you suggested those Savages would be right back po slaughtering each other and the place would turn into a bigger Hotbed of Islamic Terrorists than it already is.

 

[zillafurby]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: zillafurby
etech - im not debating any more points. think of it like this, the americans did iraq a service in it of freeing saddam. surely they are doing some bad things to have it this bad?

lets just wait and see. im not going to get wasted, and the poeple who are, are the people who caused half of the problems.

i think you will see a steady increase in popular violence, possibly including some of the shiites, and america will be forced to withdraw with her tail between her legs. basically they wont get the level of control and manipulation they want, but will spin it as a successful regime change. what a joke. all for the cost of $100bn and two battalions of body bags.

" think of it like this, the americans did iraq a service in it of freeing saddam. surely they are doing some bad things to have it this bad?"

It's possible that a miscalculation of the Arab culture is part of the problem. There were problems in the Axis countries after WWII but for the main the population accepted the loss of the war and wanted to move on to a better life and did their best to do so. I believe that a large majority of the Iraqis want the same thing but have been under the fear of Saddam for so long that they are having difficulty in helping the coalition. There are also the outside influences that have come into play.

The US has already said it would withdraw. What the Iraqis do with their country at that point is up to them. If they wish to stay in the dark ages and continue their tribal violence it is their choice. It would be a shame, but they had the chance for a better life. That cannot be forced upon them. That would not be a failure of the US but a failure of the Iraqis , the Arab culture and the "peaceful and tolerant" Muslim religion.

Bowfinger, you've made two worthless posts so far, you're on a roll. As for you using my words, they applied to you, not to me. Can't you do something other than plagarize others posts?

you dont understadn the killings in fallujah are done by local people. there is local support and local opposition to ameria, oweing to america's imperialism in the region, its handling of the peace, its killing of civillians, and the loss of status for sunnies. after america pulls out they will just organise their own elections.

it is americans responsibility to ensure that each group is strong enough and democracy is strong enough to continue. however i think most of the resistance is aimed at america and not other iraqies, so i dont think there will be a civil war.

on the coup side, if america has an unrepresentative clique put in power and there to help her out at the expense of the population, you can guess who the guns will train themselves onto after america leaves.

klimmit, has described iraq as 'a blueprint' for the region, meaning you take out a regime install a client goverment and stay on in the country to support it. unfortunately the statement just shows how out of his depth he is. america cant stay because she is taking too many losses, and ultimately she cant control the governemnt because that wouldnt be popular with the people or safe for the politicans.

look at bremner. he cant control smuggling, so apparrently cheap manufactured goods have come in, and caused bankrupcy of manufacturers. also people are still unemployed but all they see is contracts going to non-iraqi firms, where if they get a job there is a risk of being killed. also all the prime businesses are getting sold off to westereners, like the communications business. iraq's economy is being made a cash cow for bush's contributors. do you think this will be workable after the handover, despite bremner instituting 'no-repeal of contract' rules fo rthe future government?

its a titanic short-sighted tarfu. everything is wrong. america needs to get its head down, stop interferring, and after the handover get out.

You can't be that Myopic. If we did what you suggested those Savages would be right back po slaughtering each other and the place would turn into a bigger Hotbed of Islamic Terrorists than it already is.

no they wouldnt, that is a traditional 'orientalist' view of the middle east. im sure they all want to get along and be represented in a federalist iraq. anyway, im saying america should ensure that the institutions are strong enough and the threat of civil war is bad enough to ensure it stays a democracy.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: conjur
And who f-ed in Vietnam? Nixon...Republicans aren't that good at actual strategery, apparently.


You know it's bad when John Dean, who recommended to Nixon that he come clean publicly re:Watergate, calls Bush corrupt and the most secretive administration in history.

He hit the nail on head last June:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/060703A.shtml

Um, Vietnam was JFK and LBJ's war.

Nixon escalated it and brought it to Cambodia and Laos before the American Public forced his hand and made him withdraw.

Like the Democrats, who got us into the war in the first place, did a great job mamaging it. After the The Tet Offensive, President Johnson's public approval handling of the war from 40 to 26 percent.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: conjur
And who f-ed in Vietnam? Nixon...Republicans aren't that good at actual strategery, apparently.


You know it's bad when John Dean, who recommended to Nixon that he come clean publicly re:Watergate, calls Bush corrupt and the most secretive administration in history.

He hit the nail on head last June:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/060703A.shtml

Um, Vietnam was JFK and LBJ's war.

Nixon escalated it and brought it to Cambodia and Laos before the American Public forced his hand and made him withdraw.

Like the Democrats, who got us into the war in the first place, did a great job mamaging it. After the The Tet Offensive, President Johnson's public approval handling of the war from 40 to 26 percent.

No doubt that Johnson sucked and there is speculation that Kennedy was going to pull the troops before he was assasinated (yeah I know, tin foil hats) but Nixon was totally fscked up. BTW after the Tet Offensive the truth bstarted filtering out about what a FUBAR that war was. Along with that the returning troops started telling about the horro0s and the futility of that war and the Anti War Campaign really took off. Not only was it Hippies and College students who were agqainst it but mainstream America.

Nam wasn't Nixon's war but he didn't do himself or America any favors the way he conducted it when he got into office.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: zillafurby

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: zillafurby
etech - im not debating any more points. think of it like this, the americans did iraq a service in it of freeing saddam. surely they are doing some bad things to have it this bad?

lets just wait and see. im not going to get wasted, and the poeple who are, are the people who caused half of the problems.

i think you will see a steady increase in popular violence, possibly including some of the shiites, and america will be forced to withdraw with her tail between her legs. basically they wont get the level of control and manipulation they want, but will spin it as a successful regime change. what a joke. all for the cost of $100bn and two battalions of body bags.

" think of it like this, the americans did iraq a service in it of freeing saddam. surely they are doing some bad things to have it this bad?"

It's possible that a miscalculation of the Arab culture is part of the problem. There were problems in the Axis countries after WWII but for the main the population accepted the loss of the war and wanted to move on to a better life and did their best to do so. I believe that a large majority of the Iraqis want the same thing but have been under the fear of Saddam for so long that they are having difficulty in helping the coalition. There are also the outside influences that have come into play.

The US has already said it would withdraw. What the Iraqis do with their country at that point is up to them. If they wish to stay in the dark ages and continue their tribal violence it is their choice. It would be a shame, but they had the chance for a better life. That cannot be forced upon them. That would not be a failure of the US but a failure of the Iraqis , the Arab culture and the "peaceful and tolerant" Muslim religion.

Bowfinger, you've made two worthless posts so far, you're on a roll. As for you using my words, they applied to you, not to me. Can't you do something other than plagarize others posts?

you dont understadn the killings in fallujah are done by local people. there is local support and local opposition to ameria, oweing to america's imperialism in the region, its handling of the peace, its killing of civillians, and the loss of status for sunnies. after america pulls out they will just organise their own elections.

it is americans responsibility to ensure that each group is strong enough and democracy is strong enough to continue. however i think most of the resistance is aimed at america and not other iraqies, so i dont think there will be a civil war.

on the coup side, if america has an unrepresentative clique put in power and there to help her out at the expense of the population, you can guess who the guns will train themselves onto after america leaves.

klimmit, has described iraq as 'a blueprint' for the region, meaning you take out a regime install a client goverment and stay on in the country to support it. unfortunately the statement just shows how out of his depth he is. america cant stay because she is taking too many losses, and ultimately she cant control the governemnt because that wouldnt be popular with the people or safe for the politicans.

look at bremner. he cant control smuggling, so apparrently cheap manufactured goods have come in, and caused bankrupcy of manufacturers. also people are still unemployed but all they see is contracts going to non-iraqi firms, where if they get a job there is a risk of being killed. also all the prime businesses are getting sold off to westereners, like the communications business. iraq's economy is being made a cash cow for bush's contributors. do you think this will be workable after the handover, despite bremner instituting 'no-repeal of contract' rules fo rthe future government?

its a titanic short-sighted tarfu. everything is wrong. america needs to get its head down, stop interferring, and after the handover get out.

You can't be that Myopic. If we did what you suggested those Savages would be right back po slaughtering each other and the place would turn into a bigger Hotbed of Islamic Terrorists than it already is.

no they wouldnt, that is a traditional 'orientalist' view of the middle east. im sure they all want to get along and be represented in a federalist iraq. anyway, im saying america should ensure that the institutions are strong enough and the threat of civil war is bad enough to ensure it stays a democracy.

They have their chance now. They can support a free and open society or go back to being ruled by the remnants of Saddam's regime. The faster the country settles down the faster our troops will come home. The terrorists there are only prolonging what they say they don't want, US troops in country.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: conjur

From Against All Enemies

The U.S. did, however, make four mistakes during the Reagan administration that
affect us today.

First, the fact that the CIA became dependent upon the Pakistani intelligence service to aid the Afghans meant that we developed fewer ties and loyalties among the Afghans that we should have been able to generate for our multibillion-dollar effort. (Later, in the 1990s, CIA would also make a simliar mistake, failing to put U.S. operatives into the country to kill bin Laden and the al Qaeda leadership, relying on hired Afghans instead.)

Second, when the U.S. engaged the Saudis, Egyptians, and other Arab states in the fighting against the Soviets, America sought (or acquiesced in) the importation into Afghanistan and Pakistan of an army of "Arabs" without considering who they were or what would happen to them after the Soviets left. The Saudis took the lead in assembling the group of volunteers. The Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Turki, relied upon a man from a wealthy construction family that was close to the Saudi royal family. Turki empowered a son of that family, one Usama bin Laden, to recruit, move, train and indoctrinate the Arab volunteers in Afghanistan. Many of those recruited were misfits in their own societies...Many of these volunteers later became the al Qaeda network of affiliated terrorist groups, staging campaigns in Algeria, Egypt, and elsewhere.

Learning history from Clarke again, I see. Once again, your boy doesn't outright lie but rather intentionally misleads the audience. Let's set the record straight, shall we?

First of all, two concepts that Mr. Clarke blames on "right-wingers" and "cabalists" (utilization of the Pakistani intelligence service and engaging Egyptians and Saudis) were actually conceived by Zbigniew Brzezinski during the Carter administration.

December 26, 1979
Memo to President from Zbigniew Brzezinski

What follows are some preliminary thoughts, which need to be discussed more fully:

A. It is essential that Afghanistani resistance continues. This means more money as well as arms shipments to the rebels, and some technical advice;

B. To make the above possible we must both reassure Pakistan and encourage it to help the rebels. This will require a review of our policy toward Pakistan, more guarantees to it, more arms aid.

C. We should encourage the Chinese to help the rebels also.

D. We should concert with Islamic countries both a propaganda campaign and in a covert action campaign to help the rebels;

Source: "US Memos on Afghanistan" - CNN

From the edited CNN interview, we don't learn much:

Interview: Zbigniew Brzezinski, U.S. national security adviser

"The purpose of coordinating with the Pakistanis would be to make the Soviets bleed for as much and as long as is possible. We started providing weapons to the Mujahedeen, from various sources again -- some ... 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 Mujahedeen from the Soviet army in Afghanistan, because that army was increasingly corrupt."

Source: CNN Cold War - Episode Script: "Soldiers of God"

However, from the same full, unedited interview, events become a little clearer to us:

INT: Right, describe your reaction when you heard that your suspicions had been fully justified: an invasion had happened.

ZB: 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.

Full text of interview at GWU

Declassified Soviet documents apparently verify Brzezinski's account:

Extract from protocol No. 182 of the session of the Politburo of the CC CPSU of 1 February 1980

The facts establish that only a short time after the April revolution of 1978, an intense ?undeclared war? was instigated against Afghanistan. Bands of mercenaries, financed with money from the CIA and Beijing, have literally terrorized the civilian population of that country. Pakistan has become the principal staging ground for this war. Here, more than twenty bases and fifty support points have been created, at which terrorist and military detachments are trained under the direction of American, Chinese, Pakistani and Egyptian instructors. In just the period between July 1978 until November 1979, the training of not less than 15,000 individuals was carried out there. They are equipped with American and Chinese
weapons and then dispatched into the territory of Afghanistan. Moreover, they do not conceal their aim - to liquidate the April revolution, to reinstate the previous antipopular order, to convert Afghanistan into a staging ground for aggression against the USSR, with which that country has a 2,000
kilometer border.

[...]

It is apparent that Carter and Brzezinski are gambling on the prospect of intimidating the USSR, on the isolation of our country, and on the creation of difficulties wherever possible.

[Source: TsKhSD, f. 89, per. 34, dok. 4; obtained by D. Wolff; trans. M. Doctoroff.]

Above passages are from declassified Soviet documents available at National Security Archive, George Washington University in PDF format.

Meanwhile, Brzezinski, in the now infamous "we lured the Soviets" interview to the French journal, provides us with a bit more intriguing insight:

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

[...]

From: Le Nouvel Observateur, January 15-21, 1998. Referenced at: The Global Policy Forum

[Note: One theory holds that Brzezinski takes undue credit for triggering the Soviet invasion. In his book "From the Shadows: The Ultimate Insider's Story of Five Presidents and How They Won the Cold War", Robert Gates, the former CIA director, says we indeed launched covert actions in Afghanistan six months before the Soviet invasion. On the other hand, Noam Chomsky thinks Brzezinski may be "bragging" about "drawing" the Soviets into Afghanistan. Regardless, the Soviets felt a clear need to invade.]

There's more. During the complete, unedited interview conducted on 06/13/97 for the CNN Cold War series episodes titled "Good Guys, Bad Guys" (17) and "Soldiers of God" (20), Brzezinski had already alluded to as much:

INT: How did you interpret Soviet behavior in Afghanistan, such as the April revolution, the rise of... I mean, what did you think their long-term plans were, and what did you think should be done about it?

ZB: I told the President, about six months before the Soviets entered Afghanistan, that

in my judgment I thought they would be going into Afghanistan. And I decided then, and I recommended to the President, that we shouldn't be passive.

INT: What happened?

ZB: We weren't passive.

INT: But at the time...
(Interruption)

Most interesting. While Clarke relishes in passing the blame to the Reagan admin for making mistakes that "affect us today", he fails (conveniently, I might add) to mention the much more descriptive picture. Although Clarke's third point has merit, he again misleads the reader on the fourth. Termination of economic assistance to Pakistan first occured in April 1979 under Carter. After the Soviet invasion, Carter offered $400 million which Zia termed "peanuts".

Moving right along, during the '97 interview, Brzeziski makes the following remarks about US-Pakistani relations:

There was a certain coolness and distance in the American-Pakistan relationship prior to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. After that invasion, we collaborated very closely.

Finally, from the same interview, Brzezinski provides us with the most damning comment:

It was our response in those years which provided the basis for what subsequently was done by Reagan, and this is what is being said by Robert Gates and not by me.

 

[sMiLeYz]

This isnt about Vietnam, JFK, LBJ, and the original worse president in history, Nixon all fked up. Whats done is done.

What needs to happen is to stop stupid useless wars like Vietnam and Iraq from happening again. Sure it was a good idea to go after Saddam, than again it seemed like a good idea to stop Vietnam from turning commie. Now it looks like Iraq, is really going Iran or worse, Afghanistan.

Dick and Dub fked up, theres no two ways about it. We need to suck it up, and get those bastards out of office, and get our troops home.

 

[zillafurby]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz


Dick and Dub fked up, theres no two ways about it. We need to suck it up, and get those bastards out of office, and get our troops home.

exactly now this message has to be conveyed to florida and california.

 

[burnedout]

And who f-ed in Vietnam? Nixon...Republicans aren't that good at actual strategery, apparently.

And who escalated the US presence in Vietnam? Bozo the Clown? Heck, no, that idiot with a teaching degree from (Southwest) Texas State University. And who withdrew us from Vietnam?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: conjur

From Against All Enemies

The U.S. did, however, make four mistakes during the Reagan administration that
affect us today.

First, the fact that the CIA became dependent upon the Pakistani intelligence service to aid the Afghans meant that we developed fewer ties and loyalties among the Afghans that we should have been able to generate for our multibillion-dollar effort. (Later, in the 1990s, CIA would also make a simliar mistake, failing to put U.S. operatives into the country to kill bin Laden and the al Qaeda leadership, relying on hired Afghans instead.)

Second, when the U.S. engaged the Saudis, Egyptians, and other Arab states in the fighting against the Soviets, America sought (or acquiesced in) the importation into Afghanistan and Pakistan of an army of "Arabs" without considering who they were or what would happen to them after the Soviets left. The Saudis took the lead in assembling the group of volunteers. The Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Turki, relied upon a man from a wealthy construction family that was close to the Saudi royal family. Turki empowered a son of that family, one Usama bin Laden, to recruit, move, train and indoctrinate the Arab volunteers in Afghanistan. Many of those recruited were misfits in their own societies...Many of these volunteers later became the al Qaeda network of affiliated terrorist groups, staging campaigns in Algeria, Egypt, and elsewhere.

Learning history from Clarke again, I see. Once again, your boy doesn't outright lie but rather intentionally misleads the audience. Let's set the record straight, shall we?

First of all, two concepts that Mr. Clarke blames on "right-wingers" and "cabalists" (utilization of the Pakistani intelligence service and engaging Egyptians and Saudis) were actually conceived by Zbigniew Brzezinski during the Carter administration.

I don't think you read those passages from Clarke properly. You're putting words into his mouth that he didn't write.

"First, the fact that the CIA became dependent upon the Pakistani intelligence service to aid the Afghans "

They became dependent upon the Pakistanis under Reagan. Carter may have started the funding but the dependency wasn't there yet.

Also, it wasn't until the early 80s that the flow of Arab rebels began into Afghanistan (over 35,000 from 1982-1992) to be trained by the CIA-funded (thru ISI) bin Laden.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: conjur

I don't think you read those passages from Clarke properly. You're putting words into his mouth that he didn't write.

Oh, I read the passage from Mr. Clarke just perfectly. He's a revisionist historian who blames Reagan for continuing policies initiated by Carter. Such misleading allegations are unfortunately expected from one who so ingeniously labels Republicans as "right-wing idealogues" and "cabalists".

"First, the fact that the CIA became dependent upon the Pakistani intelligence service to aid the Afghans "

They became dependent upon the Pakistanis under Reagan. Carter may have started the funding but the dependency wasn't there yet.

OK, I'll bite. So during 1980, how were U.S.-backed insurgents able to overcome geographical limitations after the Shah of Iran bailed? Did the insurgents somehow magically appear out of nowhere in land-locked Afghanistan? Please.

Also, it wasn't until the early 80s that the flow of Arab rebels began into Afghanistan (over 35,000 from 1982-1992) to be trained by the CIA-funded (thru ISI) bin Laden.

Brzezinski's conception of this particular strategy and presentation thereof to the CinC is a matter of record.

Nevertheless, now, just like back then, there's plenty of blame to go around.