aspose file tools*
The moose likes Meaningless Drivel and the fly likes On destroying fascism Big Moose Saloon
  Search | Java FAQ | Recent Topics | Flagged Topics | Hot Topics | Zero Replies
Register / Login
JavaRanch » Java Forums » Other » Meaningless Drivel
Reply locked New topic
Author

On destroying fascism

frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
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

In what way did the US turn its back on the Afghanis in the manner posted by Thomas Paul above? 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...
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
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. .....

tired ....


"Thanks to Indian media who has over the period of time swiped out intellectual taste from mass Indian population." - Chetan Parekh
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
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.

So if the USA did support Osama Bin Laden, which we know is pure nonsense, then it would be Ok to say that the USA deserved 9/11? For me the main problem is in mixing levels of abstraction. "The USA" or "The Soviet" are both abstractions, and these are real people who has to jump out of the window on 99th floor and who aren't personally responsible for anything anyway.
But I am glad to learn your opinion :roll:


Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
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.
And where did anyone say that the act was selfless?


Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Pakka Desi
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 11, 2002
Posts: 177
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
And where did anyone say that the act was selfless?

Our politians and you seem to have at least one thing in common: Selective Amnesia 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 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 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.


I'm just saying...it's right there!
Jason Menard
Sheriff

Joined: Nov 09, 2000
Posts: 6450
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???

Did Thomas ever say that was the aim? No, he didn't. Since you are bent on that one specific incident, let me point out that no matter what the aim/goal/intent of US actions during the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan were, the fact remains that those actions did indeed help those people achieve their independence, as Thomas pointed out. Don't let your prejudices try to lead you away from the facts.
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
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.

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?
Politicians of course give some reasons for actions that do not completely explain all the motives. Some US citizens believe those altruistic reasons and therefore support those actions. The problem in that case would not be their 'holier than thou attitude' you find so offensive, but rather that you do not agree with their interpretation of the stated motives of the govt officials.
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.
Don Kiddick
Ranch Hand

Joined: Dec 12, 2002
Posts: 580
Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Did Thomas ever say that was the aim? No, he didn't.

But he did imply that that was one of the reasons. However, I don't believe it was. Do you ?
Pakka Desi
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 11, 2002
Posts: 177
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?

No. But I am not talking about that.



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.

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.
Shura Balaganov
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 22, 2002
Posts: 664
herb slocomb: Solzhenitsyn bashed the Soviets because they murdered millions of their own citizens and enslaved hundreds of thosands in the Gulags. He wrote while in the Gulags risking his life that you could know the truth. Hardly a traitor to the Russian people.
I didn't say he was a traitor, I just said he is not a russian hero. Big difference. As far as murdering millions of people...I am not defendiing it, but I'll say that not only Stalin did this. Yeah, he wrote from Gulag, which usually means your life is over anyway, so there was not much heroism in actual writing. Just like there's not much heroism in someone writing about his government on a death row. But I won't keep you from other discussions, for this thread is taken a different route...
Everything is a matter of perspective.
Shura


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
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
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?
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
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?

My last point was not whether it was selfless, but rather what reasons can we legitimately attach to actions and use to explain them. The Soviet people had much less power and influence over foreign policy. Therefore it is more difficult to attach any of their motives to actions performed by the Soviet govt.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
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 ?
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.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
...

There is an interesting issue that arises from questions of responsibility... how culpable is a people for the actions of their leaders? Obviously Stalin did not kill millions of his own citizens by himself. Who else shares in his guilt? Only those who participated or also those who stood by and watched it happen?
Was the German populace responsible for WWII? Did they deserve to have their cities bombed? How culpable was a typical German for WWII? Is there such a thing as corporate guilt that infects all the citizens of a country who either participate or do nothing in the face of evil?
If we go back 150 years, the US had slavery. Were the people of the US guilty even if they did not own slaves themselves? What about the people of Great Britian who didn't have slaves (and in fact had outlawed slavery) but bought cotton from slaveowners? Do they share in the guilt?
Rufus BugleWeed
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 22, 2002
Posts: 1551
Do they share in the guilt?

yes, yes, yes ...
Shura Balaganov
Ranch Hand

Joined: Apr 22, 2002
Posts: 664
I don't think that's the right question to ask.
Were bolsheviks guilty of putting peoples into hunger and poverty after "revolution"? Were american piligrims guilty of driving indians away? Were Enron leaders guilty of wasting their employee's nesting eggs (despite having good lawyers)? Is that person guilty because he's got something the others don't? Are soldiers of one country guilty according to laws of the opponent because they killed enemies?
Am I guilty I write all this nonsense and you have to read it? :roll: Define guilt.
Shura
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
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?

Sorry, but among civilized peoples all "reasons" are not equal and all actions are not equal. Just because someone comes up with any old stupid rationalization for their action does not mean it is a valid reason among civilized people.

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??

Again, some reasons are better than others.


What could be more selfless than blowing yourself up?? So does that make the suicide bombers "holier than thou"? Yes, as per your logic.

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.
Michael Ernest
High Plains Drifter
Sheriff

Joined: Oct 25, 2000
Posts: 7292

Always interesting to wander into a thread and wander back out, only twice as fast.
Fred Grott
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 05, 2002
Posts: 346
The strangeness of history:
The foudners of Communism were many different ehtic grousp including Jews.Remember Lennin did not always have his name Lennin.
Several fouders os the National Socialist Party (NAZI) were also Jewish.
I am unsure about the Facism party in Italy..maybe some Italians can help me with that infromation..
USSR lost more people to non war casualites that WWII itslef during the same time period..
Remember the farm failures of this period? Or the jewish and religous purges of this period?

Don't assume you know history becasue someone in elementry school told you somehting..most history of this period was hidden until now..
We are stil paying for mistakes made on the side of allies during and immediately after that time period..
A great stat that was often repeated to show the hardness of stalin..out of hundreds of genreals that werelater shot for failure..there was only one general that stood up to Stalin and won on success alone and became the first five star general of USSR during this time..
I should note that no we did not support Taliban..however Cheney's former oil company did come close..how close? The meeting to sign the paperwork for the afganistan piple line for oil was supposed ot be held in Texas..the taliban leaders never showed up or gave a reason for their failure to show up..The OIL company was all set to agree to price..

The current adventure is OIL based not terrorist or weaposn of mass destruction based? How do I know? How much nerve gas did we shpi to Iraq? You might be inclined to sya none.bu tin fact you are wrong..
Reagon shipped weaposn of mass destruction to Iraq and so did Bush Sr..the only difference is that Iraq of today wanted nukes to be in tha tgroup as well..
How much bilogical weaposn are left fromthat time period..well since they did not use much..how much do you think?
Remember the embargo agsint Iraq was only ratified in the UN security council after Russia was convinced that OIl prices woudl be higher if they did the signing..alos remeber that the oil tarrifs in this current oil embargo pay for the aid goign to civilians of Iraq..
I am not saying that Isupport Iraq or Taliban, Facism or Communism buyt you must uderstand the true realities of what is happening rather thna be sheep lead by the dogs that herd that group of sheep...
and yes I am part Russian thank fully my grand parents saw fit to leave Russia when they had the chance


MobileBytes blog - Sharing Technology - My Programming Knols
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Sheriff

Joined: Aug 26, 2000
Posts: 10065
Michael wandered back out of this thread right in time
Lalooprasad Yadav
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 03, 2001
Posts: 92
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Herb Slocomb:
Sorry, but among civilized peoples all "reasons" are not equal and all actions are not equal.
Just because someone comes up with any old stupid rationalization for their action
does not mean it is a valid reason among civilized people.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I think as an Indian I support the US in their fight against Al Qaida.
It's a case of "if my enemy is your enemy then you must be my friend".
If I wanted to view this impartially I should agree with Pakka Desi.
Reasons given by both the US and the Al Qaida to justify their actions are equally flimsy.
Further to the argument "my reasons are better because I have a bigger stick than yours".
Very valid, who can argue with that.
However, a "might is right" attitude mixed with self righteousness is called hypocrisy.
Re "I imagine most of the Muslim world believes and supports that" .
It's curious how the Arab Israeli conflict has been gradually converted into
a Jew Muslim conflict. If anyone should be pissed it should be the Muslims.
Their religion has been turned into a vehicle for a political issue.
If you followed the same kind of logic India should support the LTTE in their
fight against the Srilankan government. Why didn't this turn into Hindu Buddist conflict.
I guess it's got something to do with "being civilised"
[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: Lalooprasad Yadav ]
Lalooprasad Yadav
Ranch Hand

Joined: Nov 03, 2001
Posts: 92
I gues being "civilized" is not the same as being "civilised"
Pakka Desi
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 11, 2002
Posts: 177
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.

OK, i might be using the wrong word. But it is evident that you think your justification for your action should hold good for the whole world but others justification for their actions holds no water. And that's what I am calling "holier than thau" attitude.


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.

That's exactly what I am saying....holy and noble...but for you. It could very well be devilish to somebody elase. Why should everybody buy your logic???


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.

Only a dumb would buy the theory that the goal of Americans was to free Afgn.

Sorry, but among civilized peoples all "reasons" are not equal and all actions are not equal.

There is no absolute. Your logic could be as absurd to somebody else as somebody else's logic is to you. You may live in a fool's paradise thinking that you are the best but then not every body is inside your "paradise".
Pakka Desi
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 11, 2002
Posts: 177
Originally posted by Lalooprasad Yadav:
When I think as an Indian I support the US in their fight against Al Qaida.

I am not a supporter of Al Qaida either. But at the same time, I don't think US is any holier than them. The fact is US is all powerfull and mighty. And of course, might is always right. I dont have a problem with that.
Earlier, both US and USSR used Afgn. for their own personal gratification. Neither had an iota of interest in the well beign of the Afgn people. Now they come up and say, "we wanted to free Afgn". That's disgusting.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Pakka Desi:
Only a dumb would buy the theory that the goal of Americans was to free Afgn.
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?
Pakka Desi
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 11, 2002
Posts: 177
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?

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?
You will never do that because none of these serve any of your purposes. There freedom has no benefit to you. Again, let me reiterate that I don't have any problem with that approach. Just with the way to you try to portry things.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Pakka Desi:
The sole goal was to undermine USSR.
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?
Pakka Desi
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 11, 2002
Posts: 177
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?

Come on...there was no instability as it is now. US caused the instability. The state of Afgn is a mess created only by the US and the USSR.
Regd. other places: they were not free countries, true. But since when? What is your "dead line" after which you think free should remain free and non-free should remain non-free?
Britain still has some colonies, I believe (some Islands, IMNS), do they not deserve to be free?
Pakka Desi
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 11, 2002
Posts: 177
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?

As I understand, losses in Afgn. was one of the chief causes for the breakup of USSR. That's exactly what the US wanted. USSR was blead to death by the US, in a way.
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
I myself have donated regularly. This cannot be called self interest.

Sorry, its slightly off topic ..
You donate because you feel happyness and it is self interest. You are doing it for your happyness. Can you donate me 200$ ? I need it. I dont have TV. I want to buy a TV.
You wont give it till you want to give it.
Cool ... everyone lives for himself. Say it and believe it.
No one does favor to any one.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Pakka Desi:
Regd. other places: they were not free countries, true. But since when?
How about since ever. When was Chechnya ever an independent nation?
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
No one does favor to any one.
What a sad little man you are.
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Pakka Desi:
As I understand, losses in Afgn. was one of the chief causes for the breakup of USSR.
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.
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
.. lot of good things done to Afgn by US

then why do they hate US so much ??
Pakka Desi
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 11, 2002
Posts: 177
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
How about since ever. When was Chechnya ever an independent nation?

INMS about the Chenchya, but Kashmir sure was independent (as much as any other british colony was) before 1947. Same thing about the province in China.
Also, Chechnya must have been free just like XXXstans before USSR came into existance.
Finally, the mother of all conflicts, Israel, was never a free country.
So your "for ever" logic has no basis.
Pakka Desi
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 11, 2002
Posts: 177
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
The chief causes of the breakup of the USSR had nothing to do with Afghanistan.

http://www.ereserves.uwaterloo.ca/CourseName/PSCI/psci281002.pdf
Thanks, Google!
frank davis
Ranch Hand

Joined: Feb 12, 2001
Posts: 1479
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?

In a strict logical sense it does not necessarily follow that the US would have to provide assistence to those other countries in order to be consistent with the motivations given earlier. There are many factors to consider in giving help and it is quite possible the negative onsequences would be too high for the US at this time. Just as I would not hestitate to throw a life preserver to a drowing man, the US throw some assistence to the help Afghans. 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.

You will never do that because none of these serve any of your purposes. There freedom has no benefit to you. Again, let me reiterate that I don't have any problem with that approach. Just with the way to you try to portry things.
In what way did US benefit from liberating Afghans, or in Bosnia, or in Somalia, or many other places in Africa where we have provided aid and our own sacred lives ? Yes, Americans are the holiest of the holies and favored by Allah.
Pakka Desi
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 11, 2002
Posts: 177
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.

At least you will not turn you head the other way. At least you'll call for help or try something. Right? But in these case, you are saying, "Oh, you are drawning?....what the hell, I gotta go."
Originally posted by herb slocomb:

Yes, Americans are the holiest of the holies and favored by Allah.

Don't convince me, I already know what you are. I don't even care whether you are or not holy. Neither do you care what I believe in.
Convince Al Qaida! They are the ones creating trouble for you. That's whom you should be bothered about!
What I am concerned about it that the whole world is now paying the price for what US did. This mujahidin business is a US creation but unfortunately, India is also paying a price. US pepped up Pakistan and the ISI, and now India is facing a problem because of that. [Ok, India has other problems too, but we are not talking about that right now.]
[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: Pakka Desi ]
R K Singh
Ranch Hand

Joined: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 5371
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
What a sad little man you are.

What a great man you are.
Can you send me $200 ??
This will be truly selfless act. You are not getting anything in return, not even the happyness
[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: Ravish Kumar ]
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Ranch Hand

Joined: May 05, 2000
Posts: 13974
Originally posted by Pakka Desi:
http://www.ereserves.uwaterloo.ca/CourseName/PSCI/psci281002.pdf
Thanks, Google!

From the article:
"Most scholars typically have viewed the Afghanistan war as a minor and containable conflict that had minimal impact on the basic institutions of the Soviet system. However, we view this war as one of the key causes, along with systemic and leadership-based factors, in the disintegration of the Soviet Union."
In other words, their's is a minority opinion not shared by most scholars. Thank you, google.
 
I agree. Here's the link: http://aspose.com/file-tools
 
subject: On destroying fascism