The fact that we trained bin Laden is irrelevant

The BBQ Pit
41

I bet Osama bin Laden also believes that regarding human rights is “damned foolish.”

“But we were fighting against the Soviet Union. And had we backed away and said, “Well, we can’t support them, they’re too nasty”, the Soviets would have been more than happy to join in and support them in our stead.”

What precisely is this referring to? The Soviets would have backed the anti-Soviet mujahdeen against themselves? And if it’s the Sandanistas that you mean, we weren’t “fighting against” the Soviets in the early 1980s. You might argue that checking the spread of communism (in Chile as well as Nicaragua) was vital to national security given the Cold War. But the question remains, why was there so little popular support for these events; why did members of our government have to bypass our democratic institutions and resort to crime?

And–to return to the OP–what at all did the US get out of the CIA’s funding of bin Laden?

“Yes, we still do support governments that have abyssmal human rights records. But there’s more to existance that civil rights. Let me ask you- would you be willing to lose your job and be unemployed for the next five years if it means a move to democracy in China? Because for us to cut economic ties with them, remove MFN status- that would put a nasty hurt on our economy. Hate the fact that we support corrupt monarchies in the Middle East? Then be willing to cut half your salary, because should we back out, our oil supplies may be controlled by hostile interests (like Iraq). And maybe you don’t drive a car, but every good you purchase was driven or flown somewhere, and the jump in gas prices will hit you directly.”

First, I wonder if you’d be taking the same line if it was your human and civil rights that were being violated. Second, these are Hobson’s choices, John. There are tons of things that we could do that wouldn’t hurt our economy in the way that you suggest. Our trade deficit with China is enormous. We might have to pay a bit more for the cheap crap we buy from Walmart if we insisted that China improve its record, but it needn’t be much worse than that. I have yet to see any economic analysis to suggest that pressuring China would entail serious harm to the US economy. The truth is that we have everything to gain–including avoiding the kind of oversupply that is hurting our economy right now–by helping Chinese workers to earn the kind of living wage that would enable them to buy stuff from us.

As to oil supplies–there is so much more this country can do to conserve oil, so many alternative sources of energy we can use. Are you trying to tell me that this country can be at the forefront of Internet technologies, genetic engineering and so forth but can’t figure out how to make wind and solar power work? It’s the oil companies and the existing utilities who have been lobbying against these things for years.

Here is an interesting link for you, John, on the subject of the CIA (a review of a book written a few years ago predicting this kind of terrorist “blowback” from CIA activities).

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=archive&s=smith_wtc_20000807

FYI Bill H.: I don’t think anyone’s mentioned this to you yet but Osama bin Laden is a Saudi not an Afghan.

John, when you have a chance, would you please consider moving the “Ashcroft” thread to GD? Thanks.

42

You are still saying, John, that others must suffer so that we can be rich.

It doesn’t have to be either or. I see it as more-would you be willing to give up that second tennis court so that some woman in Guatemala won’t have to watch her children starve to death?

43

I am also reminded of a quote from Alexander Kerensky-
“He who does not defend liberty everywhere, defends it not at all.”

44

What I learned in history was that President Truman began a policy of “Containment” – i.e. preventing Communist military expansion. That policy was continued for four decades by fighting in Korea, by creating NATO and other alliances, and in many other ways. US support of the Afghans against the Soviets was a part of this policy. And, Containment was a key to ending Soviet totalitarianism.

I guess mandelstam learned a different history than I did.

I will have to ask for a cite. Is this what students are now being taught in their history classes? What source supports this allegation?

I’m befuddled and saddened. :frowning:

45

Sorry for coming in late on this one, John. Would you count the secret bombings of Cambodia?

46

Well, that’s what I’ve been told by people who LIVED in the former USSR.

But they’ve probably been brainwashed by communist propaganda.

:rolleyes:

47

<gulp, pinches self>

december, On Poland: go to search engine of choice and enter “Solidarity” “Lech Walesa” “Poland”. On Russia,
check out Time Magazine’s 100 Greatest Leaders, where you’ll find Mikhail Gorbachev described as the man who “by gently pushing open the gates of reform…unleashed a democratic flood that deluged the Soviet universe and washed away the cold war.”
http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/gorbachev.html
(See also “glasnost” and “perestroika”)

And here, courtesy of Encarta, you too can learn that “In October 1990, Germany…was reunited as one country. East Germany’s communist government fell in 1989… East Germany dissolved, becoming the Federal Republic of Germany and reunification occurred after the communist system disintegrated in eastern Europe in the late '80s.”

What were you doing in the 1980s? Weddings?

48

And, interestingly enough-one major factor I’ve heard in the fall of the USSR-the Russians invading Afghanistan.

It was the Russian people who wanted communism to fall, not Reagan, not Bush, or SALT, or SDI, or whatever you want to call it.

49

Mandelstam, I thought you might have been a poorly educated young person. Now I realize that you’re just a garden-variety leftist, whose mind has been clouded by political passions. However, as you appear to believe that the battle against Communism did not begin until the 1980’s, it appears that you are also poorly educated.

The sources you cited certainly indicate that Gorbachov, Walensa, etc. took important actions, which helped to end the Cold War. OTOH the cites certainly don’t claim that those actions were the main reasons we won the Cold War.

I will not speculate on why you are determined to overlook the leading role played by the US over a 40 year period.

50

december, I am in my mid-thirties (old enough to kinda like it when someone mistakes for me a young person) ;). I don’t disagree that NATO and the containment policy helped to hasten the downfall of communism. However it is impossible to know exactly how great that role was, and how great the role of internal pressures. Let us remember that in China, which, unlike the Soviet Union, is isolated from Europe, Cold War policies haven’t produced anything remotely like a downfall of the present regime. This might make the substance of an interesting thread. For the present my point is only this: I see very little evidence that CIA activities were central to the downfall of Soviet-block communism, and none at all that Osama bin Laden was necessary to that end. And that I believe bears on the subject of this thread.

51

Who all here thinks it was inappropriate for the U.S. to support the mujahadeen in Afghanistan?

Please step forward and get your smack upside the head.

That support may have very well directly broken the back of Communism, and destroyed the Soviet Union.

When Berliners and Soviet states saw the Russians withdraw from Afghanistan, they became emboldened. They saw the Soviets simply didn’t have the money, equipment, or will to come and stop them from revolting. In large part because of their wasted decade in Afghanistan.

And the walls came down, within a year.

Given Russia’s growing relationship with the West now, who could possibly argue against that?

I’d like to also point out that a good number of those very same mujahadeen will be helping us kill bin Laden (come out of your little liberal fantasy cocoon if you think he’s going to be “arrested”), quash al Quaida and deal with the Taliban. They’re called the Northern Alliance.

So one of them since the 1980s when he was helping our cause became an anti-American freak, and he happens to have charisma and a lot of money.

What SPOOFE said.

52

Mandelstam:

Question- are you merely trying to set up the correlation because you think some fool might actually think I’m on the side of bin Laden, or are you so twisted by your own hate for those that don’t share your value system that you see me as just as evil?

Huh. So you’re saying that the Soviets and Cubans weren’t sending aid to Nicaragua? That’s new.

And I said “them or their equivalents”. Had Afghanistan stayed under the Soviet system, it would have been a Soviet-type Communist country. And we all know how happy and free those places were. And completely without massive violence against their citizenry, such as in the “Cultural Revolution” of the great capitalist Mao.

Because following the fiasco that was the Vietnam War, we became neo-isolationist, hoping that everything would turn out alright while we hid in our shells. And because the Left was constantly talking up American imperialism and how any American action regarding other countries was an American attempt to exploit them.

A massive drain on the Soviet economy as exponentially more funds needed to be spent on trying to conquer Afghanistan. One Stinger missle could take out a Soviet helicopter with no problems. Which is more expensive- the Stinger missle or the Soviet helicopter?

And if the Soviet economy hadn’t been so hampered by the twin problems of trying to deal with Afghanistan and trying to come up with something to counter Star Wars, then perhaps they could have invested more in their own economy and been better able to keep the support of its citizens.

Doubtful; I’d be out in the streets or the hills fighting against the government, so stating that I supported my government’s foreign policies would be kind of pointless.

Name some, please. So far you’ve just stated that we could somehow get China to pays its people a better wage, with no indication of how we could convice China to do so.

Apparently, because if we could, we’d have gotten it done by now. Lord knows, despite all the “oil company lobbying”, we’ve been putting money into solar and wind technologies for twenty-five years and still have no major alternatives to show for it. Maybe in ten to twenty years, we’ll have real alternatives. But right now, we don’t, and therefore we have to secure oil supplies.

Here is an interesting link for you, John, on the subject of the CIA (a review of a book written a few years ago predicting this kind of terrorist “blowback” from CIA activities).

Guinistasia:

Really? You have a second tennis court? Congratulations!

But I don’t. And despite what you see on “Dynasty” or “Melrose Place”, the average American doesn’t, either.

I live a good life. Some months are struggles to pay the bills, and some aren’t. Nearly all of my friends are in the same boat. None of us have a “second tennis court”. None of us have the kind of massively rich lifestyle you seem to assume all Americans do.

You’re not asking us to give up a “second tennis court”. You’re asking us to give up our single car. Or our single house. Or send our pet to the pound because we can’t afford to feed him.

And I still haven’t seen you state that you’d be willing to be unemployed for the next five years on the chance that it would bring democracy to China. You keep implying that I’m immoral and horrible for not being willing to do it, without ever stating that you’d be willing do.

Put up or shut up.

Yes, Lord knows Reagan was doing everything he could to try and prop Communism up. :rolleyes:

Gadarene:

'Bout fricking time you showed up, Gad. Haven’t seen you in a while! Where you been?

As for the secret bombings of Cambodia- Illegal and possibly impeachable? Yes.

Terrorist? No. Not when it’s military striking military targets. Had the US bombed Cambodian cities in an attempt to scare the people of Cambodia into staying out of the conflict, that would be one thing. The bombings of Cambodia were focused upon the elimination of North Vietnamese training camps and supply routes.

53

Mandelstam:

In careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that my statement above was not nearly enough, and I need to tear you a new asshole, you fucking son of a bitch.
You have misquoted me and misrepresented my position.

Perhaps this is a lack of reading comprehension on your part.

Perhaps you are too stupid to realize the difference between, “I do not think human rights should be the sole focus of our foreign policy” (my position) and “I do not think human rights should have anything to do with our foreign policy” (the position you ascribe to me).

Or perhaps you wish to demonize me, perhaps you wish to win your point by lying about what I stated and trying to slander me.

I await your reply, you lying piece of shit.

54

Milo, I entered this thread to respond to John’s remarks and I’d like to hear his reply if he has one.

As to yours, in brief, I challenge you to find one reliable argument that traces the downfall of the Soviet Union, an event with multiple and complex causes, to the CIA’s support of bin Laden in Afghanistan. To emphasize the latter, while denying the importance of Poland’s trade unions and Gorbachev’s reforms is too ludicrous to warrant my time.

“Given Russia’s growing relationship with the West now, who could possibly argue against that?”

Actually, what has been happening in Russia for the last decade or so is pretty troubling. But that is the subject for another thread. Suffice it it say that is hardly an occasion for US self-congratulation.

I suggest you take a look at the link I posted: it has interesting information in it, including for your “side” of this debate. For the record, I don’t consider myself anything like an expert on this subject. But I know enough to keep quiet when, like you in this instance, I haven’t got the least bit of clue.

“So one of them since the 1980s when he was helping our cause became an anti-American freak, and he happens to have charisma and a lot of money.”

[O]ne of them? So you think that Osama bin Laden is an army of one? (I’ve seen the figure placed at around 30,000.) And you see no reason why such a fascistical fundamentalist band might have turned anti-American after the Soviets pulled out of the area? And you suggest that I am living in a fantasy?

55

Thanks for the response, John. I’d thought that the Cambodia bombings included civilian targets; I might be wrong, and a quick Google search turns up nothing of substance.

[off-topic]
Where’ve I been? I’m down in D.C. now. Drop me an e-mail!
[/off-topic]

56

John, I am not answering your question because I believe it is false-it is not always a choice between them or us and you damn well know it.

And no, I didn’t say Reagan and such propped up communism. I SAID, they were not truly responsible for its fall. Note the distinction.

The point is, WE would not like it if someone came into our country and tried to overthrow OUR government-why must we do it to others?

Call me foolish. Call me naive. Call me an asshole. But I will never, ever condone the deliberate suffering of others so that I can live well. Would I give up a job? Honestly, I can’t answer that, and I don’t believe it’s that goddamn simple.

When people are living under oppression, it breeds contempt. It breeds hatred and terrorism. Why should we support conditions that allow this sort of thing to build up?

Apparently, America only stands for freedom if you’re one of us. If you live in the third world, tough shit, too bad, so sad.

Sorry, not buying it.

If that makes me foolish to believe that people suffering is wrong, then that makes me foolish.

57

So, Mandlestam, fighting a losing war in Afghanistan for a decade did not play a big factor in the USSR more or less going broke?

And it was just a coincidence that overt rebellions rose up in Berlin and the Soviet republics within months of the USSR’s obvious defeat and withdrawl from Afghanistan?

Fuck off, moron.

And by the way, I didn’t say it was the only factor. Read better.

58

But in many cases it is. In the cases of China and the Middle East (at least, and possibly several others as well), for us to exert any real pressure upon a government means to make sacrifices on our own end- a loss of jobs when we curtail business, a rise in inflation as we lose access to oil, etc.

If you’re going to state that human rights should be the end-all be-all of our foreign policy, then you have to recognize that there is a cost. And one that won’t just be paid by the hoity-toits with second tennis courts. One that will be paid by working-class Americans as factories are closed down. One that will be paid by the poor as prices go up and therefore disposable income goes down.

Now, either state that the cost is worth it and that you’d be willing to pay it (because, quite frankly, it will be you and me that pay it, not Bill Gates and Warren Buffet) or stop whining about how we’re not doing it.

Or, if you don’t think the cost needs to be paid, explain to me how we’ll convince China to change its policies without curtailing our trade and business with them.

I note the distinction, but categorically disagree with your point. U.S. foreign policy- as practiced by Reagan- was a great part of the fall of the Soviet Union. By acting belligerent and spending large amounts of money on defense, Reagan forced Brezhnev, Andropov, and Gorbachev to follow suit with higher defense spending, putting a major strain on the Soviet economy.

Because in many cases, we were trying to overthrow a system of government that in all previous cases had resulted in a totalitarian state with no respect for freedom and liberty, and which in a great number of cases had resulted in a massacre of the civilian population?

Or move here, like so many other people did. And continue to do.

Oh, for pity’s sake. If you’re going to be on the cross, I’ll be on the veranda.

Back in the Cold War, we were trying to stop people from being entrapped in a Communist system that was an epitome of suffering. Study up on the Gulags of Russia, or the Great Cultural Revolution of Mao, or the millions massacred by the Vietnamese after the war, or the Cambodians. Tell me how the state of East Germany was better in any way than West Germany.

No, we didn’t always bring perfect freedom and democracy to others. But what we brought was more free and open and involved less suffering than the Communist system ever did. We were trying to save the world from disaster, and we did.

And I will state again, as I have so many times before, now the situation is different. We no longer need fear another superpower fighting against us, so we can work to bring better governments and better rights to other countries. But there will always be countries where a stable government and a strong alliance is more important to us than the democratic nature of that government. And it becomes a question of whether we suffer, or they suffer.

You continue to dodge the question, but it stands and is not only valid, but the most important one. Are you willing to suffer to alleviate the suffering in China? In Saudi Arabia?

59

Oh really? Then why, so many times, did we overthrow oppressive regimes, only to end up with something worse? Look at Chile-the government run by Allende wasn’t that perfect, but it was no where near as vile as that of Pinochet.

Hell, look at the Russian revolution! Yes, the Tsarist system was very oppressive, I’m not doubting that. But look at what happened in return.

I’m not on a cross. I’m simply saying-this is my position, and I don’t CARE if it makes me look stupid. I’m not trying to be a martyr, I’m just saying, dammit, if that makes me foolish in your eyes, so be it. I don’t give a rat’s ASS. I’ll be damned if that’s self-pity.
I don’t pretend to have all the answers. I don’t say that human rights has to be THE end all. BUT…it should be a big part. I don’t know, I’m not an expert…I just know that I feel very, very upset when I read about the suffering of ANYONE.

60

John:"I await your reply, you lying piece of shit.

Piece of shit, now at your service ;). As to “lying”, well to call me a liar you will have to demonstrate that Osoma bin Laden doesn’t believe that “regarding human rights is ‘damned foolish.’”

If your concern is that I meant to say you were evil, as is Osama bin Laden, you are simply mistaken. I do not think you are evil. Rather, I think you are mistaken. I think that when you argue that human rights are a kind of luxury item that we can consume when we have extra cash on hand that you damage your own ethical position (as does our government when it traffics with human rights violators in order to boost the profits of multinational corporations). I think that when Guinastasia said that her commitment to human rights might make her “naive” that you might have extended her the courtesy to leave it at that instead of upping the ante and calling her “damned foolish.” That was “damned foolish” of you to, IMO, and you might like to think of that before you indulge in any further verbal fantasies involving doing violence to body.

I have no time right now to respond to the rest of your post, but I’ll do so tonight after my son goes to bed. I am a woman, by the way: not a “fucking son of a bitch” but the daughter of a very nice couple from the East side of Manhattan.

milo, I only very briefly read your post. I agree that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was an important contributing factor to their ultimate demise. I don’t the CIA should have supported the bin Laden’s though. There were other kinds of resistance that the US could have supported; indeed, the same kind of resistance that we will want to support now. The US can and IMO should send the message that it refuses to provide military support for groups that do not respect human rights.

In these questions of historical causation, which are ultimately irresolvable, one always has to ask, what if it had taken five, or ten, or fifteen years later for the Soviet system to collapse from its own contradictions? Again, I don’t say that the US shouldn’t have had any policy towards resisting the spread of that totalitarian regime. I simply say that what policies it had ought to have been towards extending the freedoms that we Americans enjoy, and not towards fighting one kind of totalitarianism with another.