Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
....The US did not turn their back on any allies by helping the Afghanis as the Soviets did when they helped the Germans.
Originally posted by Pakka Desi:
But they sure turned there back on Afghanis as soon as USSR was gone
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
The US never supported the Taliban. They never gave a penny of aid to the taliban. The US was helping a people achieve their independence from the USSR. .....
"Thanks to Indian media who has over the period of time swiped out intellectual taste from mass Indian population." - Chetan Parekh
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
There is a huge difference. The US never supported the Taliban. They never gave a penny of aid to the taliban. The US was helping a people achieve their independence from the USSR. There was no secret agrement to carve up India after Afghanistan won. The US did not turn their back on any allies by helping the Afghanis as the Soviets did when they helped the Germans.
Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
And where did anyone say that the act was selfless?Originally posted by Pakka Desi:
I don't find that policy wrong in any way but bit professing that your act is selfless seems childish at best.
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
And where did anyone say that the act was selfless?
Originally posted by Herb Slocomb:
You are very intent on bashing the US but when I ask what should have been done in an earlier post you change the topic...
I'm just saying...it's right there!
Originally posted by Pakka Desi:
You wrote in one of your earlier posts, "The US was helping a people achieve their independence from the USSR". I don't believe that was the aim and you know it. So why are you portraying it that way???
Originally posted by Pakka Desi:
I am not bashing US at all. I admire the way US works, seriously and truely. I would love if our government worked the way your does.
I am only critisizing the "holier than thau" attitude of some of US citizens. As I said before, I don't find anything wrong in the policy of self interest. But why not say so? What's the need of professing something that you don't do?
Regarding what should have been done in Afgn. : I don't know. I don't even think that US did something wrong. But don't give statements such as "US didn't turn their back on...". Because that's what you did. You left Afgn high and dry as soon as USSR was gone. You concern was not Afgn. it was USSR. So say so.
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Did Thomas ever say that was the aim? No, he didn't.
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
The US govt and US citizens do give humanitarian aid. I myself have donated regularly. This cannot be called self interest. There is nothing wrong with self interest, but not every action taken is for self interest. Do you find the concept of donating aid without self interest inconceivable?
Also consider this : If the govt says it is taking actions to free the Afghans from the Soviets and the US people then believe that, and support the action for that reason, is it possible
that a reason for the action is actually because US wanted Afghans free from Soviets? If the people are supporting the action for a certain reason and the action could not take place without their support, and the action actually helps accomplish the stated reason, then it is valid to say to some degree that the reason the action was taken was to free the Afghan people.
I'm just saying...it's right there!
Any posted remarks that may or may not seem offensive, intrusive or politically incorrect are not truly so.
RusUSA.com - Russian America today - Guide To Russia
Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Also consider this: If the govt says it is taking actions to free the Afghans from the Soviets and the US people then believe that, and support the action for that reason, is it possible
that a reason for the action is actually because US wanted Afghans free from Soviets? If the people are supporting the action for a certain reason and the action could not take place without their support, and the action actually helps accomplish the stated reason, then it is valid to say to some degree that the reason the action was taken was to free the Afghan people.
Herb, how do you think the Soviet officials explained reasons for invasion in Afghanistan? "We want to destroy this country and kill its people"? It was called "international duty to help brother Afghani people to get better life, to protect them from threat of turning into capitalistic way of development" and the ultimate reason was "if we did not bring our troops there, the USA would bring theirs". And who would doubt that our troops are better for Afghani people than American? So if the Soviet people kinda sorta believed in this, it means that the Soviets committed a heroic act of selfless help to Afghani people?
It was certainly one of the reasons. It was probably not the only reason. But I didn't imply anything. I made a statement of fact. The US helped the Afghanis get their independece from the USSR. I never stated or even implied why we did it.Originally posted by Don Kiddick:
But he did imply that that was one of the reasons. However, I don't believe it was. Do you ?
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
...
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Do they share in the guilt?
Any posted remarks that may or may not seem offensive, intrusive or politically incorrect are not truly so.
RusUSA.com - Russian America today - Guide To Russia
Originally posted by Pakka Desi:
Well, the reason Al Qaida gives for 9/11 is to free Palestine (or reprisals for US activity in the Arab world or whatever crap). And I imagine most of the Muslim world believes and supports that. Is this reason not better or equivalent to your reason of arming the Afgns againsts Soviets?
May be it is valid to give such a reason...but only among those who also believe so. Your reason will not accepted by the people who know otherwise. And if you claim that your reason for supporting subverting activities is another country is "better" than somebody else, you'll definitely draw flak. The same thing is happening with AQ. No body (outside the Muslim world) is buying their logic. So why should somebody outside your world buy your logic??
What could be more selfless than blowing yourself up?? So does that make the suicide bombers "holier than thou"? Yes, as per your logic.
MobileBytes blog - Sharing Technology - My Programming Knols
Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
I never said selfless = holy, therefore all selfless acts are holy. You use the word logic quite carelessly, a class in formal logic may prove helpful.
But back to the Americans and why they are the holiest of all people. Americans live free and given the choice they would prefer everyone else be free also. Americans wanted the Afghans to be free from the evil Soviets and that is holy and noble.
Once they were free, the goal was accomplished. There was no 'turning of backs' as if there was a betrayal. Only an evil twisteed mind would even imagine to say such things.
Sorry, but among civilized peoples all "reasons" are not equal and all actions are not equal.
I'm just saying...it's right there!
Originally posted by Lalooprasad Yadav:
When I think as an Indian I support the US in their fight against Al Qaida.
I'm just saying...it's right there!
So what was the goal if it wasn't to free Afghanistan from the Soviets? Why don't you grace us with your unbounded wisdom?Originally posted by Pakka Desi:
Only a dumb would buy the theory that the goal of Americans was to free Afgn.
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
So what was the goal if it wasn't to free Afghanistan from the Soviets? Why don't you grace us with your unbounded wisdom?
I'm just saying...it's right there!
And you really think that supplying arms to Afghanis was going to undermine the USSR? Do you think we expected afghanis to march into Moscow? The only goal was to insure a free and independent Afghanistan because the US thought a free and independent Afghanistan would help to stabilize the region. As for the other places you named, they were not independent countries now were they?Originally posted by Pakka Desi:
The sole goal was to undermine USSR.
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
And you really think that supplying arms to Afghanis was going to undermine the USSR? Do you think we expected afghanis to march into Moscow? The only goal was to insure a free and independent Afghanistan because the US thought a free and independent Afghanistan would help to stabilize the region. As for the other places you named, they were not independent countries now were they?
I'm just saying...it's right there!
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
And you really think that supplying arms to Afghanis was going to undermine the USSR? Do you think we expected afghanis to march into Moscow?
I'm just saying...it's right there!
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
I myself have donated regularly. This cannot be called self interest.
How about since ever. When was Chechnya ever an independent nation?Originally posted by Pakka Desi:
Regd. other places: they were not free countries, true. But since when?
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
What a sad little man you are.Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
No one does favor to any one.
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
So they couldn't be beaten by 25 million dead during WWII but they bled to death on the loss of a few thousand in Afghanistan? (Soviet dead and missing in Afghanistan amounted to almost 15,000 troops.) The chief causes of the breakup of the USSR had nothing to do with Afghanistan.Originally posted by Pakka Desi:
As I understand, losses in Afgn. was one of the chief causes for the breakup of USSR.
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
.. lot of good things done to Afgn by US
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
How about since ever. When was Chechnya ever an independent nation?
I'm just saying...it's right there!
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
The chief causes of the breakup of the USSR had nothing to do with Afghanistan.
I'm just saying...it's right there!
Originally posted by Pakka Desi:
The sole goal was to undermine USSR. If it were not so, why don't you go ahead and "free" chechenya as well, Mr. Professor? Why not Xinxuan (a province in China, which is also facing a similar conflict. IMNS abt the name.)? Why not Kashmir? You like a free world, right?
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
However, in another situation, where a drowning man is in a fast river with many rocks and I would have to jump in to save him, I may hesitate because of the risk. It does not mean that I do not want to help him or would not help him in different circumstances, but that the risk of both of us dying makes the attempt foolhardy. It does not mean that my prior help to another man was for selfish reasons also. Weighing risks and benefits leads to different actions.
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
Yes, Americans are the holiest of the holies and favored by Allah.
I'm just saying...it's right there!
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
What a sad little man you are.
"Thanks to Indian media who has over the period of time swiped out intellectual taste from mass Indian population." - Chetan Parekh
Originally posted by Pakka Desi:
http://www.ereserves.uwaterloo.ca/CourseName/PSCI/psci281002.pdf
Thanks, Google!
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog