Quote:
Originally Posted by aegsm76
Wii - you are really funny. Now I see why you do not like to post your sources.
http://www.e-ir.info/2014/10/09/why-...istan-in-1979/
"THIS CONTENT WAS WRITTEN BY A STUDENT AND ASSESSED AS PART OF A UNIVERSITY DEGREE".
And you are citing it as a knowledgeable source!!!!!!
Anyway let me help you!
Germans fighting us and killing Jews - BAD
Germans in the 1950's - GOOD
Taliban fighting Soviets - GOOD
Taliban fighting us - BAD
Taliban fighting Pakistan - BAD |
I read nothing there that was historically inaccurate. It is not that source that is important, the sources for that source are.
Anyway: i like your logic, except that bad is bad. If we arm and support good people they are good when we started and still good when we finish. If we arm and support bad people the same applied. Reagan did not seem to exercise good judgement in this, which created a legacy of problems that continued long after he was gone, even to today. Reagan was not arming and funding "Afghan people" he was arming and funding a scattered group of mercenaries, most of whom were from nowhere near Afghanistan. Hope you can infer the difference. We stayed in Germany for a long time and let Germany split for a reason. That reason is because we assumed they would change after WWI and they did not. After a generation or so they rejoined the world closing out 80 years of German problems. Afghanistan was destabilizing the southern USSR. In their place we would have invaded them too. They would have been stamped bad people for doing it too. Lol
Linear Mode
