I love it when a plan comes together

[foraker]

Your voices are making me sick.

 

[JayB]

isn't it JayB who was making a similar analogy the other day, i.e. how "anti-globalization" types and islamofascists had the same rhetoric.

 

In the case of the rhetoric in question, which you can feel free to quote rather than allude to, the blather about freedom in Western democracies constituting little more than supine fealty to the corporate state - the language is indeed similar. However, the Islamists actually have a coherent agenda and a vision of their ideal society that they can articulate without frequent recourse to the word "like" - so in that sense they have one up on the anti-globalists.

 

In the case of supplying stinger missiles to the Muslim fanatics in Afghanistan, the goal was thwarting the designs and expediting the demise of the Soviet Union. This is the same Soviet Union (gasp!) that we supplied all manner of weapons to in WWII, when Nazi Germany clearly constituted the greater threat to mankind. This is referred to as "strategy."

 

Its quite clear that the threat that the Soviet Union presented to the civilization that literally sustains you and the rest of the world was several orders of magnitude greater than that presented by the said Islamofascists. The argument that furnishing them with the weapons needed to inflict heavy losses on the Soviets was a strategic blunder of the highest magnitude relies upon ignoring the geopolitical context it occured within, the realization of the goal that it actually succeeded in bringing about, and on indulging in the bizarre conceit that the consequences stemming from our actions there were either predictable or predetermined.

 

Where may one find a copy your time-stamped position paper from the late 1980's with a title along the lines of "Arming the Muslims Fighting the Soviet Union in Afghanistan Will Guarantee Massive Terrorists Attacks Against the West by the Same, and Must Be Reconsidered in Light of this Foregone Conclusion"?

[cj001f]

This is referred to as "Strategy."

 

Its quite clear that the threat that the Soviet Union presented to the civilization that literally sustains you and the rest of the world was several orders of magnitude greater than that presented by the said Islamofascists. The argument that it was a strategic blunder of the highest magnitude relies upon ignoring the geopolitical context it occured within, the realization of the goal that it actually succeeded in bringing about, and of indulging in the bizarre conceit that the consequences stemming from our actions there were either predictable or predetermined.

Now JayB, surely you've read enough history to see that the US's antiSoviet "strategy" was far from a coherent process and often resolved around supporting any and every smuch who'd sign on the dotted line great men like Mobutu Sese-Seko, Augusto Pinochet, not to mention the esteamed members of the Mujahadeen? While the past can't be altered, the argument of folks like idotic homonym j_b that perhaps the US should be a bit more circumpsect in picking its friends is quite valid.

[j_b]

Go back and read you posts. If you do not support such groups/individuals you should change the manner in which you post.

 

the way i post is fine, even though it doesn't suit your extreme right wing point of view

 

And again insults and name calling, something you do often, does smear the progressive name.

 

hey Piss Pot, being progressive doesn't mean being spineless and responding with restraint to your lies. you support islamo-fascists when expedient, you support drug runners when expedient. you support thugs when expedient (and even support training them). basically, by association, like your agents you are a thug. let me also note that you failed to provide any evidence to support your assertions, and for good reason ... because you were lying.

[j_b]

the argument of folks like idotic homonym j_b

 

succintly argued . you keep calling me an idiot but you never told us why. perhaps today you'll grant us with an explanation ...

 

i now fully expect you to ignore the question.

[JayB]

"Now JayB, surely you've read enough history to see that the US's antiSoviet "strategy" was far from a coherent process and often resolved around supporting any and every smuch who'd sign on the dotted line great men like Mobutu Sese-Seko, Augusto Pinochet, not to mention the esteamed members of the Mujahadeen? While the past can't be altered, the argument of folks like idotic homonym j_b that perhaps the US should be a bit more circumpsect in picking its friends is quite valid."

 

 

True - but I think one has to accept the fact that the pickiness will always vary with the magnitude of the perceived threat - as the case of allying ourselves with Stalin and Co during WWII makes clear. Of course, this is reality that we are talking about rather than a utopian fantasy, so this fact will continue to prove terribly distressing for some, especially those who have never and will never find themselves or their representatives - if there are actually any in office anywhere - tasked with the responsibility for making hard choices with uncertain outcomes.

 

As for the many lesser evils that we've associated with over time, I think it's a regrettable source of potshots for retards, "Like, if your supposed to be about freedom, man, then how come like, you supported -insert tinpot dictator X-here - and shit, man..." The answer in just about every case has been that there's been bigger fish to fry, and that one doesn't decline assistance from a skunk when being threatened by a grizzly for fear of smelling bad in the event that one survives the attack. My sense in speaking with anyone alive during, say, the Cuban Missile crisis, was that the outcome of the Cold War was hardly considered a foregone conclusion at that time. It also seems safe to conclude that those entrusted with preserving the free world felt compelled to take assistance from whomever would give it, regardless of whether they were acting on principle, naked interest, or any combination thereof.

[cj001f]

succintly argued . you keep calling me an idiot but you never told us why. perhaps today you'll grant us with an explanation ...

 

i now fully expect you to ignore the question.

Umm, j_b, I'm often arguing a position similar to yours.

[j_b]

your "the end justifies the means" real politic is bankrupt and will always bring us blowback of the worse kind. instead of fostering democratic movement in the developing world, as you should have if you ever believed in democracy, you have agitated the spector of communism and now terror to keep access to resources and markets. the rest is just pretense.

[j_b]

Umm, j_b, I'm often arguing a position similar to yours.

 

indeed, you do, which is why the personal attacks are even more incomprehensible.

[Alex]

there are too many "J" "B"s on this thread!