Quote:
Originally posted by Henry L.:
... the US economically supported the Afghan rebels in their fight with the USSR, and that was a good move. Carter refused to do so, and so Reagan undertook the task. Afghanistan was Russia's 'Vietnam' with about 18,000 troops killed. It was soon after that the Soviet system collapsed.
Our support for the Afghan insurgency went beyond economical. The CIA trained and supplied Bin Laden and his rebel force, as well as funding them. In hindsight, I must disagree with this being a "good move". When will we learn that the short term, short sighted practice of propping up and aiding the enemies of our enemies, especially when they also happen to hate us just as much as they do our enemies, is futile, and ultimately self destructive?

We did the same thing with Iraq during their war with Iran, and look where that got us! Was that a "good move", too? We keep doing the same dumb s**t, and getting the same result, and we still wonder "why"! When are we going to learn our lesson?

Are you suggesting that the reason the USSR collapsed is because they lost 18,000 troops in Afghanistan? The USSR collapsed primarily for economic reasons, not because of any defense issues. They were not conquered by a superior military force, they collapsed under the weight of their own failed economy.

Far too much credit for this is given to Reagan. This was the sum total of over 40 years of international diplomatic and financial pressure, not some miracle of the 8 years of Mr. Reagan's administration. And it was not accomplished at gun point. Military action was never an option with the Soviet Union, due to the threat of nuclear war.


 Quote:
Originally posted by Henry L.:

The US did send alot of money to the rebels, of which bin Laden was serving, but that was under the mujehadeen , not al-Qaeda. The latter was created after the end of Soviet occupation.

After the Soviet collapse, the country was torn by a civil war, and a power vacuum emerged that allowed the Taliban control of much of the country in the mid-1990s.

Remnants of the forces that we supported, thus became the Northern Alliance... These were the true recipients of that capital that we sent."
Those that went on to become the Northern Alliance were not the only ones who received or benefitted from that captial. Other "remnants" of that rebel force went on to form Al-Queda and the Taliban, which we also propped up and supported (the latter, not the former)! Those who went on to become the Taliban, and those who went on to become Al-Queda, (who supported, and were in turn supported by the Taliban) also benefitted from our training, supply of arms, and economic support. And it was that faction, the Al-Queda/Taliban "remnants", that ultimately went on to seize power in Afghanistan, and subsequently used the training and economic support they received from us to help plan and execute the attacks against us on 9/11.

If it was the Northern Alliance that benefitted from our support, that were the "true" recipients of our "capital", then why weren't they able to take control of the country after the USSR collapsed?


 Quote:
Originally posted by Henry L.:

Bin Laden himself donated large shares of money that he took in from a prosperous contracting business that he owned (and liberals complain about Halliburton \:D \:D :p )
Precisely why we fear the undue influence exercised by Halliburton on our government, and the favortism and preferential treatment Halliburton and other companies get from our government. Thank you for pointing out a prime example of what it is we on the left fear from such an unseemly alliance between government and big business.