Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
XBoxBoy
ParticipantAllan,
Thanks for the clarification. I think we agree as to what happened in Afghanistan. As to Brzezinski, my impression is he’s doing what lots of people do. ie. after the fact he changes details to cast himself in a better light.
From what little I know, the Carter admin was not particularly supportive of the CIA, it’s covert operations, nor funding to the rebels in Afghanistan. But whether they were supportive or not, is kinda moot. The USA did fund the war and that’s fairly easy to document.
My only real point of disagreement then is whether we should have done what we did. I get the sense you supported what we did, and that you feel we probably should have done more. Sorry, but I disagree. However, since I’m not inclined to get into the lengthy debate about the value vs. the cost of covert operations, and the history of such, I’ll just leave it with I disagree, and hope you’ll agree to disagree on whether we should or should not have done what we did. Besides, in the end, that’s totally moot. We did it, and we will probably do it again. No one cares whether I support it or not. Such is life.
XBoxBoy
ParticipantAllan,
Thanks for the clarification. I think we agree as to what happened in Afghanistan. As to Brzezinski, my impression is he’s doing what lots of people do. ie. after the fact he changes details to cast himself in a better light.
From what little I know, the Carter admin was not particularly supportive of the CIA, it’s covert operations, nor funding to the rebels in Afghanistan. But whether they were supportive or not, is kinda moot. The USA did fund the war and that’s fairly easy to document.
My only real point of disagreement then is whether we should have done what we did. I get the sense you supported what we did, and that you feel we probably should have done more. Sorry, but I disagree. However, since I’m not inclined to get into the lengthy debate about the value vs. the cost of covert operations, and the history of such, I’ll just leave it with I disagree, and hope you’ll agree to disagree on whether we should or should not have done what we did. Besides, in the end, that’s totally moot. We did it, and we will probably do it again. No one cares whether I support it or not. Such is life.
XBoxBoy
ParticipantAllan,
You mock stockstradr’s post claiming: “What is really scary is if anyone believes that nonsense.”
Then you only go on to point out that the Soviets went into Afghanistan before Carter and the CIA started funding rebels. Personally, I took stockstradr’s post to imply that after the Soviets invaded, the CIA was able to pull the Soviets farther into a quagmire by funding the Afghan rebels, not that the CIA and Carter were the reason the Soviets went into Afghanistan in the first place.
But, my real question is, given that you have called stockstradr’s post nonsense, are you in dispute with his other points? Particularly:
The CIA war in Afghanistan was able to cause the Soviets significant Vietnam like problems. (Loss of lives, loss of prestige, wasted money, etc.)
The CIA was responsible for arming and training many Jihadist that later turned on the USA. (Including most notably Osama Bin-Laden)
That after the war against the Soviets, the USA did little if anything to help the Afghans rebuild their country?
And then finally, is stockstradr’s suggestion that the USA should have done more to help rebuild Afghanistan, part of the nonsense you are objecting to? (Particularly in light of what has happened in recent years with 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan by the USA)
If you are indeed calling stockstradr’s post nonsense, can you explain why you feel these points that he brought up are nonsense? I’m no expert on Afghanistan but I am under the impression that the above points are mostly on target.
Perhaps your objection is to Carter, since you seem kinda negative about him. (Which is okay by me) In that case, I doubly recommend reading Charlie Wilson’s War which overwhelmingly points out that the CIA’s involvement in Afghanistan had very little support from Carter, but was overwhelmingly driven by one congressman, Charlie Wilson.
And BTW, I’m can’t really speak for stockstradr, but I don’t think his point is that Carter and the CIA had a some master plan as you suggest. I think his point was that the USA and the CIA were a lot more involved in turning it into and then leaving Afghanistan in the mess that is today than most American understand. Not that the USA started this mess. And, so finally I ask the question which is do you dispute the USA’s role here? If so, can you explain?
XBoxBoy
ParticipantAllan,
You mock stockstradr’s post claiming: “What is really scary is if anyone believes that nonsense.”
Then you only go on to point out that the Soviets went into Afghanistan before Carter and the CIA started funding rebels. Personally, I took stockstradr’s post to imply that after the Soviets invaded, the CIA was able to pull the Soviets farther into a quagmire by funding the Afghan rebels, not that the CIA and Carter were the reason the Soviets went into Afghanistan in the first place.
But, my real question is, given that you have called stockstradr’s post nonsense, are you in dispute with his other points? Particularly:
The CIA war in Afghanistan was able to cause the Soviets significant Vietnam like problems. (Loss of lives, loss of prestige, wasted money, etc.)
The CIA was responsible for arming and training many Jihadist that later turned on the USA. (Including most notably Osama Bin-Laden)
That after the war against the Soviets, the USA did little if anything to help the Afghans rebuild their country?
And then finally, is stockstradr’s suggestion that the USA should have done more to help rebuild Afghanistan, part of the nonsense you are objecting to? (Particularly in light of what has happened in recent years with 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan by the USA)
If you are indeed calling stockstradr’s post nonsense, can you explain why you feel these points that he brought up are nonsense? I’m no expert on Afghanistan but I am under the impression that the above points are mostly on target.
Perhaps your objection is to Carter, since you seem kinda negative about him. (Which is okay by me) In that case, I doubly recommend reading Charlie Wilson’s War which overwhelmingly points out that the CIA’s involvement in Afghanistan had very little support from Carter, but was overwhelmingly driven by one congressman, Charlie Wilson.
And BTW, I’m can’t really speak for stockstradr, but I don’t think his point is that Carter and the CIA had a some master plan as you suggest. I think his point was that the USA and the CIA were a lot more involved in turning it into and then leaving Afghanistan in the mess that is today than most American understand. Not that the USA started this mess. And, so finally I ask the question which is do you dispute the USA’s role here? If so, can you explain?
XBoxBoy
ParticipantAllan,
You mock stockstradr’s post claiming: “What is really scary is if anyone believes that nonsense.”
Then you only go on to point out that the Soviets went into Afghanistan before Carter and the CIA started funding rebels. Personally, I took stockstradr’s post to imply that after the Soviets invaded, the CIA was able to pull the Soviets farther into a quagmire by funding the Afghan rebels, not that the CIA and Carter were the reason the Soviets went into Afghanistan in the first place.
But, my real question is, given that you have called stockstradr’s post nonsense, are you in dispute with his other points? Particularly:
The CIA war in Afghanistan was able to cause the Soviets significant Vietnam like problems. (Loss of lives, loss of prestige, wasted money, etc.)
The CIA was responsible for arming and training many Jihadist that later turned on the USA. (Including most notably Osama Bin-Laden)
That after the war against the Soviets, the USA did little if anything to help the Afghans rebuild their country?
And then finally, is stockstradr’s suggestion that the USA should have done more to help rebuild Afghanistan, part of the nonsense you are objecting to? (Particularly in light of what has happened in recent years with 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan by the USA)
If you are indeed calling stockstradr’s post nonsense, can you explain why you feel these points that he brought up are nonsense? I’m no expert on Afghanistan but I am under the impression that the above points are mostly on target.
Perhaps your objection is to Carter, since you seem kinda negative about him. (Which is okay by me) In that case, I doubly recommend reading Charlie Wilson’s War which overwhelmingly points out that the CIA’s involvement in Afghanistan had very little support from Carter, but was overwhelmingly driven by one congressman, Charlie Wilson.
And BTW, I’m can’t really speak for stockstradr, but I don’t think his point is that Carter and the CIA had a some master plan as you suggest. I think his point was that the USA and the CIA were a lot more involved in turning it into and then leaving Afghanistan in the mess that is today than most American understand. Not that the USA started this mess. And, so finally I ask the question which is do you dispute the USA’s role here? If so, can you explain?
XBoxBoy
ParticipantAllan,
You mock stockstradr’s post claiming: “What is really scary is if anyone believes that nonsense.”
Then you only go on to point out that the Soviets went into Afghanistan before Carter and the CIA started funding rebels. Personally, I took stockstradr’s post to imply that after the Soviets invaded, the CIA was able to pull the Soviets farther into a quagmire by funding the Afghan rebels, not that the CIA and Carter were the reason the Soviets went into Afghanistan in the first place.
But, my real question is, given that you have called stockstradr’s post nonsense, are you in dispute with his other points? Particularly:
The CIA war in Afghanistan was able to cause the Soviets significant Vietnam like problems. (Loss of lives, loss of prestige, wasted money, etc.)
The CIA was responsible for arming and training many Jihadist that later turned on the USA. (Including most notably Osama Bin-Laden)
That after the war against the Soviets, the USA did little if anything to help the Afghans rebuild their country?
And then finally, is stockstradr’s suggestion that the USA should have done more to help rebuild Afghanistan, part of the nonsense you are objecting to? (Particularly in light of what has happened in recent years with 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan by the USA)
If you are indeed calling stockstradr’s post nonsense, can you explain why you feel these points that he brought up are nonsense? I’m no expert on Afghanistan but I am under the impression that the above points are mostly on target.
Perhaps your objection is to Carter, since you seem kinda negative about him. (Which is okay by me) In that case, I doubly recommend reading Charlie Wilson’s War which overwhelmingly points out that the CIA’s involvement in Afghanistan had very little support from Carter, but was overwhelmingly driven by one congressman, Charlie Wilson.
And BTW, I’m can’t really speak for stockstradr, but I don’t think his point is that Carter and the CIA had a some master plan as you suggest. I think his point was that the USA and the CIA were a lot more involved in turning it into and then leaving Afghanistan in the mess that is today than most American understand. Not that the USA started this mess. And, so finally I ask the question which is do you dispute the USA’s role here? If so, can you explain?
XBoxBoy
ParticipantAllan,
You mock stockstradr’s post claiming: “What is really scary is if anyone believes that nonsense.”
Then you only go on to point out that the Soviets went into Afghanistan before Carter and the CIA started funding rebels. Personally, I took stockstradr’s post to imply that after the Soviets invaded, the CIA was able to pull the Soviets farther into a quagmire by funding the Afghan rebels, not that the CIA and Carter were the reason the Soviets went into Afghanistan in the first place.
But, my real question is, given that you have called stockstradr’s post nonsense, are you in dispute with his other points? Particularly:
The CIA war in Afghanistan was able to cause the Soviets significant Vietnam like problems. (Loss of lives, loss of prestige, wasted money, etc.)
The CIA was responsible for arming and training many Jihadist that later turned on the USA. (Including most notably Osama Bin-Laden)
That after the war against the Soviets, the USA did little if anything to help the Afghans rebuild their country?
And then finally, is stockstradr’s suggestion that the USA should have done more to help rebuild Afghanistan, part of the nonsense you are objecting to? (Particularly in light of what has happened in recent years with 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan by the USA)
If you are indeed calling stockstradr’s post nonsense, can you explain why you feel these points that he brought up are nonsense? I’m no expert on Afghanistan but I am under the impression that the above points are mostly on target.
Perhaps your objection is to Carter, since you seem kinda negative about him. (Which is okay by me) In that case, I doubly recommend reading Charlie Wilson’s War which overwhelmingly points out that the CIA’s involvement in Afghanistan had very little support from Carter, but was overwhelmingly driven by one congressman, Charlie Wilson.
And BTW, I’m can’t really speak for stockstradr, but I don’t think his point is that Carter and the CIA had a some master plan as you suggest. I think his point was that the USA and the CIA were a lot more involved in turning it into and then leaving Afghanistan in the mess that is today than most American understand. Not that the USA started this mess. And, so finally I ask the question which is do you dispute the USA’s role here? If so, can you explain?
XBoxBoy
ParticipantI have no idea if the CIA was involved in Bhutto’s death, but if any of you want something interesting to read, read Charlie Wilson’s War which details the CIA’s involvement in Afghanistan during the Russian invasion. It’s an incredible story and a fascinating read.
XBoxBoy
ParticipantI have no idea if the CIA was involved in Bhutto’s death, but if any of you want something interesting to read, read Charlie Wilson’s War which details the CIA’s involvement in Afghanistan during the Russian invasion. It’s an incredible story and a fascinating read.
XBoxBoy
ParticipantI have no idea if the CIA was involved in Bhutto’s death, but if any of you want something interesting to read, read Charlie Wilson’s War which details the CIA’s involvement in Afghanistan during the Russian invasion. It’s an incredible story and a fascinating read.
XBoxBoy
ParticipantI have no idea if the CIA was involved in Bhutto’s death, but if any of you want something interesting to read, read Charlie Wilson’s War which details the CIA’s involvement in Afghanistan during the Russian invasion. It’s an incredible story and a fascinating read.
XBoxBoy
ParticipantI have no idea if the CIA was involved in Bhutto’s death, but if any of you want something interesting to read, read Charlie Wilson’s War which details the CIA’s involvement in Afghanistan during the Russian invasion. It’s an incredible story and a fascinating read.
XBoxBoy
ParticipantCyphire,
You are definitely NOT crazy. I too am renting in La Jolla waiting for the prices to come down. But if I could I probably would be somewhere else. Problem is, I married a La Jolla girl who loves the beach and surfs. To her the idea of moving to a place with seasons is incomprehensible. Plus we share custody of her son with her ex, and he too is a La Jolla born surfer so moving would mean taking my stepson from his father.
But from my perspective… a 7400 sq ft home with a 5 car heated garage for under a million???? You ain’t ever gonna get near that in La Jolla!! I don’t care how far prices in San Diego crash, you will never get that kind of affordability.
Plus, as a parent in La Jolla, I often wonder how healthy this environment is for kids. I do see a lot of kids growing up, thinking that being cool, being a surfer, being good looking, being wealthy is what it is all about. I think if I had my pick, I’d rather raise kids in a boring place like Madison WI, rather than a ritzy glamorous place like La Jolla. If you need more proof of what I’m getting at, just look at the story of the bird rock bandits to make you shake your head.
XBoxBoy
ps to Rustico… this thread got hi-jacked a long time ago..
ParticipantCyphire,
You are definitely NOT crazy. I too am renting in La Jolla waiting for the prices to come down. But if I could I probably would be somewhere else. Problem is, I married a La Jolla girl who loves the beach and surfs. To her the idea of moving to a place with seasons is incomprehensible. Plus we share custody of her son with her ex, and he too is a La Jolla born surfer so moving would mean taking my stepson from his father.
But from my perspective… a 7400 sq ft home with a 5 car heated garage for under a million???? You ain’t ever gonna get near that in La Jolla!! I don’t care how far prices in San Diego crash, you will never get that kind of affordability.
Plus, as a parent in La Jolla, I often wonder how healthy this environment is for kids. I do see a lot of kids growing up, thinking that being cool, being a surfer, being good looking, being wealthy is what it is all about. I think if I had my pick, I’d rather raise kids in a boring place like Madison WI, rather than a ritzy glamorous place like La Jolla. If you need more proof of what I’m getting at, just look at the story of the bird rock bandits to make you shake your head.
XBoxBoy
ps to Rustico… this thread got hi-jacked a long time ago..
-
AuthorPosts