We should just leave them alone to kill each other off. Maybe, just maybe, their populations will get tired of the killing and rise up against their leaders…. wait, what am I saying? It hasn’t happened in 5 or 6 millennium it ain’t gonna happen now. So, we should just leave them alone to kill each other off. But a lot of innocent civilians will be slaughtered? Oh, well, plenty more where those came from! What’s that you say? “That’s a horrible point of view”? Well, the alternative is their populations will get tired of the killing and rise up against their leaders. And so on…..and on….and on…..
Lonecat is correct, mostly, to simply not support repressive regimes. I did not mean to imply that we should. But when we have to take sides, often neither side is desireable. As other posters have mentioned in GC: Americans are “poker players” meaning we will stake all on the present hand, while the Russians are “chess players”, willing to take small losses here and there, while keeping their eyes on the ultimate goal.
The most recent example was when we wanted to get pay-back with the USSR, after their support of North Vietnam, by arming the mujahideen. That really paid off!
Then, because of the Iranian revolution, we jumped into bed with Saddam.
Did Reagan, Bush, Clinton, or Cheney ever try to look beyond the primary goal?
The USSR bled badly at the hands of the mujahideen, using our Stinger missiles. We probably enjoyed watching Iran & Iraq fight it out for eight years, until we got caught by Saddam feeding satellite intelligence to Iran. Now, they all hate us!
My point is, we didn’t have good options as to sides. But, neither did we do our homework, as to possible & probale outcomes.
This is why I think the U.S. should sit this one out.
moosemin almost 10 years ago
Often, it is said (and plainly true) that we support repressive regimes. But, often, we have no alternatives.
cmsears almost 10 years ago
a lot of the times we helped create the evil.
Ryan Plut almost 10 years ago
We should just leave them alone to kill each other off. Maybe, just maybe, their populations will get tired of the killing and rise up against their leaders…. wait, what am I saying? It hasn’t happened in 5 or 6 millennium it ain’t gonna happen now. So, we should just leave them alone to kill each other off. But a lot of innocent civilians will be slaughtered? Oh, well, plenty more where those came from! What’s that you say? “That’s a horrible point of view”? Well, the alternative is their populations will get tired of the killing and rise up against their leaders. And so on…..and on….and on…..
Dtroutma almost 10 years ago
^Our corporate profits = good.
Slave labor = good
Their true democracy = bad
moosemin almost 10 years ago
Lonecat is correct, mostly, to simply not support repressive regimes. I did not mean to imply that we should. But when we have to take sides, often neither side is desireable. As other posters have mentioned in GC: Americans are “poker players” meaning we will stake all on the present hand, while the Russians are “chess players”, willing to take small losses here and there, while keeping their eyes on the ultimate goal.
The most recent example was when we wanted to get pay-back with the USSR, after their support of North Vietnam, by arming the mujahideen. That really paid off!
Then, because of the Iranian revolution, we jumped into bed with Saddam.
Did Reagan, Bush, Clinton, or Cheney ever try to look beyond the primary goal?The USSR bled badly at the hands of the mujahideen, using our Stinger missiles. We probably enjoyed watching Iran & Iraq fight it out for eight years, until we got caught by Saddam feeding satellite intelligence to Iran. Now, they all hate us!
My point is, we didn’t have good options as to sides. But, neither did we do our homework, as to possible & probale outcomes.
This is why I think the U.S. should sit this one out.
Edward White almost 10 years ago
As long as they are Al-Qaeda on the posts Who cares. Ready Aim Fire!!!