Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mani1 who wrote (152724)	10/1/2002 12:29:21 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1586514

Re <<What's interesting about that period of time is why we felt the need to arm the Afghans.>> To keep USSR from reaching the Indian Ocean. For decades they wanted a rout to reach water through south. Through Afghanistan (and then Pakistan) was really the only choice since Iran and the Shah was already pretty cozy with US. Had they been successful, it would have been a big blow in the cold war. Afgans, Osama and his gang were the tool and they had the will, US showed them the way. I have a hard time buying that argument. First, since Afghanistan is land locked, they would have had to conquer both Afghanistan and Pakistan to get to the Indian Ocean. I can't imagine the world sitting back and watching both countries go under the USSR flag. Secondly, through the Black Sea, they did have access to the Mediterranean and then onto the Suez Canal and the Indian Ocean. I find it hard to believe that for a few extra hours off their travel time they fought a war for Afghanistan for almost 15 years. I do believe they wanted to expand their sphere of influence in that part of the world but I am not sure had they succeeded it would have a made a whole lot of difference in the grand scheme of things. History is full of such Ironic incidents. Saddam staying in power in the late eighties, toward the end of the war with Iran is another. IMO it had less to do with irony but rather through the intent of the US. ted