Back Stabbing The Armed Forces.

[bullseyebarb]

Originally Posted by Billcat

If there were any consistency to the USA sticking to its principles and only supporting democracies, or even leaders edging towards democracies, I might well agree with you. However, we have not done so. We have very generously supported all sorts of criminal and corrupt dictatorships, sometimes even against those within their country who were seeking democracy. Noriega, the Shah of Iran, the Saudi royals, Pinochet, Vietnam's Diem and Thieu, Saddam Hussein, and the ugly list goes on and on. We've not fooled much of anyone, save for those who uncritically believe only what they are asked to. That's why most of the country and most of the world believes that the USA is currently headed in the wrong direction.

As a patriotic American, I beleive that we should always practice what we preach. In the long term, it would help to spread our values to other countries, it would restore much of the trust our government has lost at home, and it would help to restore the world's good opinion of the USA.

I agree entirely. I have never liked the policy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Always comes back to bite. However, in reality needs must when the devil drives. It's also fair to say that the facts gets skewed many a time. Just one example would be the widespread belief that the U.S. sold weapons to Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war. We didn't - although we did provide some satellite intelligence. The U.S. did tilt diplomatically toward Saddam during those eight years, because he was fighting against the regime of the Ayatollah Khomeini and our government believed Saddam to be the lesser of two evils. We didn't support Bin Laden either when he was in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets in the 1980's, although a lot of people think we did.

[steeljack]

Originally Posted by bullseyebarb

I agree entirely. I have never liked the policy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Always comes back to bite. However, in reality needs must when the devil drives. It's also fair to say that the facts gets skewed many a time. Just one example would be the widespread belief that the U.S. sold weapons to Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war. We didn't - although we did provide some satellite intelligence. The U.S. did tilt diplomatically toward Saddam during those eight years, because he was fighting against the regime of the Ayatollah Khomeini and our government believed Saddam to be the lesser of two evils. We didn't support Bin Laden either when he was in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets in the 1980's, although a lot of people think we did.

At times , reading some of these posts is akin to reading Alice in Wonderland

[Billcat]

Originally Posted by bullseyebarb

The U.S. did tilt diplomatically toward Saddam during those eight years, because he was fighting against the regime of the Ayatollah Khomeini and our government believed Saddam to be the lesser of two evils. We didn't support Bin Laden either when he was in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets in the 1980's, although a lot of people think we did.

We certanly did support many of the folks who later became the Taliban regime. And if we did not overtly supply Hussein, we did covertly - and turned a nice, blind eye to his use of chemical weapons. Seems the name is familiar, too - Rumsfeld! http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._su..._Iran-Iraq_war

In any case, I've seen too many of our leaders either distorting the truth or just plain lying over the years to accept what I am told when the politicians are trying to sell me some idea.

[bullseyebarb]

Originally Posted by Billcat

We certanly did support many of the folks who later became the Taliban regime. And if we did not overtly supply Hussein, we did covertly - and turned a nice, blind eye to his use of chemical weapons. Seems the name is familiar, too - Rumsfeld! http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._su..._Iran-Iraq_war

In any case, I've seen too many of our leaders either distorting the truth or just plain lying over the years to accept what I am told when the politicians are trying to sell me some idea.

You are ignoring the role of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan here. In Afghanistan the U.S. role was to provide logistics and technological support as well as money. Our only interest there was to drive out the Soviets. We funneled money to the Mujahadeen via the Pakistanis so as to give ourselves "plausible deniability" with the USSR. The Saudis collaborated with Pakistan's intelligence service, ISI, to really run the war on the front lines. It was the Pakistani army, in particular the ISI, that picked the political winners and losers in the jihad. They favored radical Islamist factions because it suited the goal of the Pakistan army to pacify Afghanistan. The U.S. acquiesced with all of this because our government really didn't care about local politics in the region, only booting out the Soviets. The Saudi government lavishly funded Saudis who were fighting in Afghanistan. Bin Laden had no contact with America - nor does he appear to have needed funding from anyone due to his own considerable resources. The former foreign correspondent and editor at the Washinton Post, Steve Coll, covers this war in his book "Ghost Wars."

And I agree. Turning a blind eye to things others are doing is not good policy. Unfortunately, this is the way of the world.....and successive administrations. I wish we could put an end to it. I don't trust government either. Ditto large segments of the media establishment.