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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (183464)	3/13/2006 2:58:57 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"The good news is that while a big hole might be made in New York or Los Angeles or Chicago or Washington, or all 4, even such a strike would, in the long run, not be anything worse than a lot of countries have suffered and the USA would be shocked, but recover quickly enough. Some cynics would even say that if the centre of Washington was removed, it wouldn't be such a bad thing." I dont find this amusing at all MQ. If you want to target, target your home not mine. And to say that a uninhabitable NY :The good news is that while a big hole might be made in New York or Los Angeles or Chicago or Washington, or all 4, even such a strike would, in the long run, not be anything worse than a lot of countries have suffered and the USA would be shocked, but recover quickly enough. Some cynics would even say that if the centre of Washington was removed, it wouldn't be such a bad thing "would recover quickly" is patently absurd.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (183464)	3/13/2006 3:17:33 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

It was daft to support Osama against Gorby. Wrong Maurice... The US provided support to Pakistan's ISI. It was THEY who dictated which Mujuhadin forces were allocated funds and training because they argued, rightly or wrongly, the repercussions from any resistance against the Soviets would be born by them. The intent of the Pakis (so they say) was to maintain instability in Afghanistan without provoking a Soviet incursion across the Paki border. And after the Soviets withdrew, the ISI policy was to try and maintain a regime that they believed would not threaten them as they faced off against India over Kashmir. In fact, the ISI used Al Qai'da and Taliban forces to assist them against the Indians. It's the same strategy, IMO, that the Iranians are pursuing in Iraq and it can be very successful if the proper strategies and tactics are not utilized. The CIA really had little control over the Muj groups. If anything, they were required to act via proxies like the ISI and Saudi intelligence in order to have any influence. ISI spefically DENIED the CIA any authorization to engage in direct efforts to fund, supply, or direct, the various Muj factions in Afghanistan. Needed to correct your errors... Btw, one good account of this is "Ghost Wars" amazon.com I have yet to read "Charlie Wilson's War", but I believe it supports the view that any DIRECT military support to the Muj had to be done circuitously, without direct involvement of the CIA, or ISI. Hawk