quote:

Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser Exerpt from Le Nouvel Observateur January 1998 (taken from: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html) 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. Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it? B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would. Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today? B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire. Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists? B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war? Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today. B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

and I'm sure the Russians are reveling in the fact that we're embroiled in another Vietnam now.

What's more important the Taliban or the fall of Communist...well since the Russian Commies didn't really do much but scare people and Taliban gave safe haven to a man who is responsible for the death of thousands...I'd say Taliban.

___________________
My SpaceMySpaceMUSIC
Anti-Purple Alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by Lepanto What's more important the Taliban or the fall of Communist...well since the Russian Commies didn't really do much but scare people and Taliban gave safe haven to a man who is responsible for the death of thousands...I'd say Taliban.

Let me reword this:

What's more important al Qaeda or the fall of Communist...well since the Russian Commies didn't really do much but scare people and al Qaeda gave safe haven to a man who is responsible for the death of thousands...I'd say al Qaeda.

Not much difference, right?

But it does beg the question - what the fuck have we done about al Qaeda lately? bin Laden caught yet?

But the question of great men has to likely, and sadly, leave one man out:

quote:

IS GEORGE BUSH THE WORST PRESIDENT -- EVER? By Richard Reeves Fri Dec 2, 6:42 PM ET PARIS -- President John F. Kennedy was considered a historian because of his book "Profiles in Courage," so he received periodic requests to rate the presidents, those lists that usually begin "1. Lincoln, 2. Washington ..." But after he actually became president himself, he stopped filling them out. "No one knows what it's like in this office," he said after being in the job. "Even with poor James Buchanan, you can't understand what he did and why without sitting in his place, looking at the papers that passed on his desk, knowing the people he talked with." Poor James Buchanan, the 15th president, is generally considered the worst president in history. Ironically, the Pennsylvania Democrat, elected in 1856, was one of the most qualified of the 43 men who have served in the highest office. A lawyer, a self-made man, Buchanan served with some distinction in the House, served as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and secretary of state under President James K. Polk. He had a great deal to do with the United States becoming a continental nation -- "Manifest Destiny," war with Mexico, and all that. He was also ambassador to Great Britain and was offered a seat on the Supreme Court three separate times. But he was a confused, indecisive president, who may have made the Civil War inevitable by trying to appease or negotiate with the South. His most recent biographer, Jean Clark, writing for the prestigious American Presidents Series, concluded this year that his actions probably constituted treason. It also did not help that his administration was as corrupt as any in history, and he was widely believed to be homosexual. Whatever his sexual preferences, his real failures were in refusing to move after South Carolina announced secession from the Union and attacked Fort Sumter, and in supporting both the legality of the pro-slavery constitution of Kansas and the Supreme Court ruling in the Dred Scott class declaring that escaped slaves were not people but property. He was the guy who in 1861 passed on the mess to the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln. Buchanan set the standard, a tough record to beat. But there are serious people who believe that George W. Bush will prove to do that, be worse than Buchanan. I have talked with three significant historians in the past few months who would not say it in public, but who are saying privately that Bush will be remembered as the worst of the presidents. There are some numbers. The History News Network at George Mason University has just polled historians informally on the Bush record. Four hundred and fifteen, about a third of those contacted, answered -- maybe they were all crazed liberals -- making the project as unofficial as it was interesting. These were the results: 338 said they believed Bush was failing, while 77 said he was succeeding. Fifty said they thought he was the worst president ever. Worse than Buchanan. This is what those historians said -- and it should be noted that some of the criticism about deficit spending and misuse of the military came from self-identified conservatives -- about the Bush record: He has taken the country into an unwinnable war and alienated friend and foe alike in the process; He is bankrupting the country with a combination of aggressive military spending and reduced taxation of the rich; He has deliberately and dangerously attacked separation of church and state; He has repeatedly "misled," to use a kind word, the American people on affairs domestic and foreign; He has proved to be incompetent in affairs domestic (New Orleans) and foreign (Iraq and the battle against al-Qaida); He has sacrificed American employment (including the toleration of pension and benefit elimination) to increase overall productivity; He is ignorantly hostile to science and technological progress; He has tolerated or ignored one of the republic's oldest problems, corporate cheating in supplying the military in wartime. Quite an indictment. It is, of course, too early to evaluate a president. That, historically, takes decades, and views change over times as results and impact become more obvious. Besides, many of the historians note that however bad Bush seems, they have indeed since worse men around the White House. Some say Buchanan. Many say Vice President Dick Cheney. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucrr/200512...wN5bnN1YmNhdA--

Must be all those damn liberal historians who don't know shit about their own subjects or somethin.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Let me reword this: What's more important al Qaeda or the fall of Communist...well since the Russian Commies didn't really do much but scare people and al Qaeda gave safe haven to a man who is responsible for the death of thousands...I'd say al Qaeda. Not much difference, right? But it does beg the question - what the fuck have we done about al Qaeda lately? bin Laden caught yet? But the question of great men has to likely, and sadly, leave one man out: Must be all those damn liberal historians who don't know shit about their own subjects or somethin.

You also know that last year Bush was voted the most popular president ever? I made a thread about that on Entensity Forums with a poll attached and it was also so. I would link but i have no link anymore.

Furthermore, tha taliban government was a puppet of Al Qaeda and you rewording my post changes nothing because the Taliban were more of a thread than a bunch of war mongering Russians who decided to play war with Afganistan.

___________________
My SpaceMySpaceMUSIC
Anti-Purple Alliance.

If they do anything about al Qaeda or catch bin Laden there wouldn't be much reason to continue the war on terrorism. Its convenient to have such a war with extremely fussy parameters and one with which you can pretty much justify anything if you play your cards right.

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 If they do anything about al Qaeda or catch bin Laden there wouldn't be much reason to continue the war on terrorism. Its convenient to have such a war with extremely fussy parameters and one with which you can pretty much justify anything if you play your cards right.

because everyone still believes in Bush right?

___________________
My SpaceMySpaceMUSIC
Anti-Purple Alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by Lepanto You also know that last year Bush was voted the most popular president ever? I made a thread about that on Entensity Forums with a poll attached and it was also so. I would link but i have no link anymore.

Voted by whom? And what is Entensity forums? Are you referring to a poll you created on a different forum asking about the most popular president, or was there another actual poll by a statistically relevant group that asked this question?

I'm a little confused as to what you're referring to here.

quote:

Furthermore, tha taliban government was a puppet of Al Qaeda and you rewording my post changes nothing because the Taliban were more of a thread than a bunch of war mongering Russians who decided to play war with Afganistan.

Well I think you're seriously undermining exactly what the Cold War did to not just our country but the entire world. That's a mere handwave from the serious troubles that had occurred in fighting off Communism for over 5 decades. Couple that with the monumental $ and debt that incurred storing up all those lovely weapons by Reagan in order to effectively break Russia (and of course, it did, but it also contributed nicely to our lovely debt in the 80's). Not to mention all those wonderful dictatorships and brutal murderers we helped out along the way in Latin America in order to defeat Communism. Not to mention the near WWIII that almost occurred in Cuba with Kennedy. Not to mention the fact that the very fight against Communism with Russia's invasion of Afghanistan DIRECTLY help create the very same enemy that we are fighting today (*ahem*, bin Laden anyone?). And that's just the tip of the iceberg with my limited memory on our war against Communism.

So let's put things in context here. There's no doubt that al Qaeda and/or the Taliban are some seriously evil folks who attacked and killed our innocent people, and over the span of over a decade has created some serious harm. But is that really MORE than what Communism and our fight against that over the span over 5 decades has caused? I don't think there's a solid case on that.

I think the comparison is an apples to oranges one however, and it really wasn't my point in my rather tangential post. My point really is the fact that we had some pretty interesting strategies against fighting Communism over the span of time, most of the time it worked such as helping to bankrupt their government, but it did carry some serious consequences. My point really is a simple one: what the fuck are we doing against them now? Our strategy after 9/11 was a good one, and one that we should have continued pursuing. So what was the end result?

We abandoned our search for bin Laden to invade Iraq.

And that's how we fight the war on terrorism? By invading a country that had nothing to do with attacking us on 9/11?

You tell me, is that a logical approach to defeating our primary enemy in the war on terrorism - ignoring our pursuit of their leader and invade a country that had no operational ties to them whatsoever?

And is anyone in our Administration considered "a great man" for redirecting such a pursuit against our greatest enemy of today?

And BTW, things in Afghanistan hasn't been as smoothly as most would like to believe:

quote:

An onslaught of grisly and sophisticated attacks since parliamentary elections in September has left Afghan and international officials concerned that Taliban guerrillas are obtaining support from abroad to carry out strikes that increasingly mimic insurgent tactics in Iraq. The recent attacks -- including at least nine suicide bombings -- have shown unusual levels of coordination, technological knowledge and blood lust, according to officials. Although military forces and facilities have been the most common targets, religious leaders, judges, police officers and foreign reconstruction workers have also fallen prey to the violence. The attacks have been particularly noteworthy for their use of suicide bombers. Some have struck in waves, with one explosive-laden car following the next in an effort to maximize casualties. That sort of attack has been a hallmark of al Qaeda and a regular occurrence in Iraq. But in Afghanistan, suicide attacks of any kind have been relatively rare, despite a quarter-century of warfare. "We've seen a deterioration in the security situation. And that's something that all of us who work here are worried about," said Adrian Edwards, the Kabul-based U.N. spokesman. "I don't think any of us [at Bonn] would have expected that this kind of security environment is something we would be faced with four years down the road," he said. ...Afghan officials said the recent attacks demonstrate that the Taliban fighters are continuing to receive considerable outside assistance, such as advanced explosives and computerized timing devices that are being used to build more devastating bombs. "There has been . . . more money and more weapons flowing into their hands in recent months," Defense Minister Rahim Wardak said in a recent interview with the Associated Press. "We see similarities between the type of attacks here and in Iraq." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...&referrer=email

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1

The poll i was talking about was an actuall poll i found on reuters or cnn or another mass media source. the poll said that Bush was voted the best president or something along the lines. that's besides the point.

while i agree with what you said in your whole reply. i think we're getting away from the point here. Supporting the taliban and i suppose according to some, Al Qaeda themselves, would be less important than fighting communism. What i mean to say is, with hindsight ofcourse, that supporting Sadam or Osama is incredibly stupid. This is the worst case possible for "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". I mean hello! I'm sure America weren't under some illusion that osoma was going to thank them forever for what they did for him during the Afgani-Russian conflict.

___________________
My SpaceMySpaceMUSIC
Anti-Purple Alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by Lepanto What's more important the Taliban or the fall of Communist...well since the Russian Commies didn't really do much but scare people and Taliban gave safe haven to a man who is responsible for the death of thousands...I'd say Taliban.

Your central intelligence agency trained and supported the man you hate.

___________________
"This place isn't big enough for me to blow it up."
-MARCO V

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King Your central intelligence agency trained and supported the man you hate.

yes, MY CIA and the man ONLY I hate . This is exectly why I wrote what I wrote btw

___________________
My SpaceMySpaceMUSIC
Anti-Purple Alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X A great boy, soon to be a man... http://www.virginia.edu/insideuva/2...th_gregory.html

I once saw him give an interview on Oprah. His articulation, and speech in general, is amazing compare to those of his age and even some adults. I do concur with what his mom says about child prodigies.

___________________