A lesson on foreign policy.

snapperbait

Vice Admiral
Joined
Aug 20, 2002
Messages
5,754
Since many here like to place blame because of the faliures of past U.S. Presidents (re. Bill Clinton) I though some of you may be interested in the failures of past Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush...<br /> <br /><br />With the 1979 invasion of Soviet troops into Afghanistan, the war between anti-communist rebel forces and the Soviet-backed Afghan government was well underway. The number of Soviet troops in Afghanistan reached 100,000 by early 1980. Anti-communist guerrilla forces, jointly called the mujahidin (Islamic warriors), actively fought both the Soviet troops and the pro-Soviet Afghan government led by President Babrak Karmal. <br /><br />From the Soviet invasion onward, the United States sought ways to back the anti-Soviet forces. By 1983, the CIA was purchasing assault rifles, grenade launchers, mines, and SA-7 light antiaircraft weapons, totaling 10,000 tons, mainly from China. The Reagan administration had them shipped to Pakistan, a country that at the time was working closely with Washington. <br /><br />Then, in a move that marked a turning point in the relentless war, in 1985, President Ronald Reagan made a secret decision to escalate covert support to the mujahidin. Soon after, the CIA began to supply an extensive array of intelligence, military expertise and advanced weapons to the Muslim rebel forces. They included satellite reconnaissance data of Soviet targets in Afghanistan; Soviet plans for military operations based on satellite intelligence and intercepts of Soviet communications; covert communication technology for the rebels; detonating devices for tons of C-4 explosives for urban targets; long-range sniper rifles; a targeting system linked to a U.S. Navy satellite; and wire-guided anti-tank missiles.1 Furthermore, amidst intensifying debate within the CIA over the extent of U.S. involvement in the war, Reagan made the decision to equip the mujahidin with sophisticated U.S.-made Stinger antiaircraft missiles. American-trained Pakistani officers were sent to Afghanistan to set up a secret mujahidin Stinger training facility, which was complete with a U.S.-made electronic simulator. By 1987, the CIA was sending a steady supply of 65,000 tons of arms to the mujahidin. <br /><br />While it funneled equipment, intelligence and money to the mujahidin, Washington maintained its armchair supervisory role in the war by entrusting Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) to handle direct contact, operations with, and training of the mujahidin. In all, the United States provided over $2 billion in weapons and money to seven Islamic mujahidin factions in the 1980s, making this last Cold War battle the largest covert action program since World War II.2 <br /><br />Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev announced the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1988. With the Soviets out of the picture, however, the victorious mujahidin focused next on fighting the Afghan "puppet government" now headed by Mohammad Najibullah, who had replaced Karmal in 1986. Najibullah fell from power when the mujahidin finally captured Kabul in the spring of 1992. But the guerrilla factions proved unable to unite, and began another arduous power struggle amongst themselves. Afghanistan thus became a fragmented country of several independent zones, each ruled by different warlords. These political divisions exacerbated the schism already present between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, and between the many tribal and ethnic groups that reside in the country. <br /><br />Enter the Taliban. They came together in Pakistan in late 1994 as a militia of Pashtun Islamic fundamentalist students. A man who played a significant role in the advent and growth of the Taliban movement was Mullah Mohammed Omar, former fighter under a CIA-trained commander. Garnering power and support during a peak of political fractiousness, the Taliban captured Kabul in 1996, declaring themselves the legitimate government of Afghanistan. <br /><br />They appealed to many Afghans with their promises of peaceful rule. As a result, some of the people trained under CIA command in the 1980s turned into loyal fighters for the Taliban. Armed and inflamed by religious zeal, the Taliban spread throughout Afghanistan declaring to end the civil war, corruption and lawlessness. As they rose in popularity among other Pashtun Afghans, they also intensified in violence that displayed their Islamic extremism. The training grounds that the CIA maintained and operated during the anti-Soviet war soon became camps and safe havens for militant terrorists, among whom was Osama bin Laden. Indeed, when the U.S. launched cruise missile attacks at a camp near Khost in 1998, it was discovered that the training camps were being occupied by Pakistani military intelligence to train the Harakat-ul-Ansar, an Islamic guerrilla organization identified as a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department. <br /> <br /><br />Ultimately, the destructive persistence of the Taliban, the group's link with bin Laden, and the consequences of its extremist rule became part of American history on Sept. 11....... <br /><br />On to Iraq... <br /><br />Among those instrumental in tilting US policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war was Donald Rumsfeld, now defence secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Saddam as a special presidential envoy paved the way for normalization of US- Iraqi relations. Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld travelled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis in defiance of international conventions. <br /><br />The story of America's involvement with Saddam in the years before his 1990 attack on Kuwait - which included large-scale intelligence sharing, U.S. supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating Iraq's acquisition of chemical and biological precursors - is a perfect example of the underside of US foreign policy. It is a world in which deals can be struck with dictators, human rights violations overlooked, and accommodations made with arms proliferators, all on the principle that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend." <br /><br />Throughout the 1980s, Saddam's Iraq was the sworn enemy of Iran, then still in the throes of an Islamic revolution. US officials saw Baghdad as a bulwark against militant Shia extremism and the fall of pro-American states like Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and even Jordan - a Middle East version of the Communist "domino theory." That was enough to turn Saddam into a strategic partner and for US diplomats in Baghdad to refer routinely to Iraqi forces as "the good guys," in contrast to the Iranians, depicted as "the bad guys." <br /><br />A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that US intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defences against the attacks by Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague. <br /><br />In conclusion, I say that the problems that exist in Afganistan and Iraq in the present day, lies directly in the laps of Ronald Reagan, Donald Rumsfeld, and George H.W. Bush..... <br /><br />Have a nice day.. :) <br /><br />Uh-Oh!
 

SpinnerBait_Nut

Honorary Moderator Emeritus
Joined
Aug 25, 2002
Messages
17,651
Re: A lesson on foreign policy.

OH BOY, HERE WE GO :eek: <br /><br />I knew you could not leave well enough alone. :D :p
 

JB

Honorary Moderator Emeritus
Joined
Mar 25, 2001
Messages
45,907
Re: A lesson on foreign policy.

The world is full of finger pointers with 20-20 hindsight, Snapper. :D <br /><br />Roosevelt coulda. . . :( <br /><br />Truman coulda. . . :( <br /><br />Eisenhower coulda. . . :( <br /><br />Kennedy coulda. . . :( <br /><br />Nixon coulda. . . :( <br /><br />Johnson coulda. . . :( <br /><br />Etc., etc.<br /><br />All you have to do is pick someone to bash and read a little. It doesn't require either talent or insight.<br /><br />We will now hear from . . . guess who :D
 

ob

Admiral
Joined
Aug 16, 2002
Messages
6,992
Re: A lesson on foreign policy.

Is it time for a limerick? Oh I'm sorry ,you meant PW. :D
 

NOSLEEP

Commander
Joined
Oct 30, 2002
Messages
2,442
Re: A lesson on foreign policy.

The problems in Afghanistan and Iraq, Syria ,<br />Lebanon, Israel ..... are only relatively new<br />to North America, but they have there roots<br />deeply embedded in racism for many centuries.
 

Ralph 123

Captain
Joined
Jun 24, 2003
Messages
3,983
Re: A lesson on foreign policy.

SB and your point is? Somehow this is comprable to ignoring UBL even after the Cole, African Embassy bombings, Kobart Towers and Mogadishu - yes folks UBL was behind Somalia!<br /><br />First, the Afhgan invasion by the Soviets happened under Carter. Jimmy Carter. Do you think they would have gone in if RR were president? ha, ha, ha Right! So everything you described would never had happened if we did not have such a weak, incompetent, indecisive President in the White House.<br /><br />Second, at the time the biggest threat was the UUSR. They had lots of nukes pointed at us remember? Old RR helped the mujahidin Kick the Soviets a$$ and hasten the end of the USSR - we then walked away because the job was done. Taliban, Shmaliban, Kaliban, who cared? They were no threat. Let them smoke their opium and shoot their herion in peace. It was a wasteland when the Soviets were finished.<br /><br />As for Iraq, we helped both sides just enough to slaughter each other. That was the goal. No winner, just slaughter. And it worked pretty well too. It kept both those barborous nations busy for a long time... too bad we couldn't have kept it going.<br /><br />If old RR or GB or GW were president during Clinton's selfish reign, they would have killed UBL after any of his terror attacks but certainly after the Cole - a act of war and the first time since WWII the US almost lost a warship.<br /><br />Want proof? Look what RR did to Libiya.<br /><br />So again I ask, what's your point?
 

Hooty

Rear Admiral
Joined
Oct 2, 2001
Messages
4,496
Re: A lesson on foreign policy.

It was also RR's intent to give the Russians thier very own Vietnam. The Russians knew of our involvement in Afghanistan but couldn't/wouldn't say or do anything because of thier involvement with the north Vietnamese and North Korea.<br />... and speaking of Russia,<br /><br />August 23, 2003 | Print | Send<br /><br />An article by Ion Pacepa, which appeared in Thursday's Washington Times is<br />much too important to simply be left to stand alone.<br /><br />Pacepa charges that General Yevgeny Primakov, a former Prime Minister of<br />Russia and onetime head of the Soviet foreign intelligence service, ran<br />Saddam Hussein's weapons program and personally oversaw the liquidation of<br />the evidence that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Pacepa doesn't<br />quite say it directly, but his article implies that Russian President<br />Vladimir Putin was aware of and approved Primakov's role in the WMD<br />disappearance program.<br /><br />If all this is true, it is the most important news about Iraq since the fall<br />of Saddam's government, for two reasons: first, it indicts the anti-American<br />axis of old Europe in complicity not just to prevent us from getting too big<br />for our britches, but in a willingness to prop up the most dreadful dictator<br />since Stalin in the process.<br /><br />Second, it provides the real answer to the embarrassing question: why<br />haven't you found any WMD's?<br /><br />Who is this Ion Pacepa, and why should we believe him? Once deputy chief of<br />Romanian foreign intelligence, he defected to the U.S. in 1978. He remains<br />the highest- ranking intelligence officer ever to defect from the Soviet<br />Bloc.<br /><br />To me, that pedigree means two things: he knows a lot about intelligence,<br />and he knows how to lie.<br /><br />Is he lying about Primakov? Or perhaps he's not exactly lying; but perhaps<br />his theory is simply wrong.<br /><br />Here is Pacepa's case. The Soviets and their allies always had a "standard<br />operating procedure" for getting rid of weapons of mass destruction. Pacepa<br />himself implemented the S.O.P. in Libya.<br /><br />Saddam had such a procedure in place; Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu<br />"told me so," Pacepa says, and so did Primakov, who "in the late 1970's.ran<br />Saddam's weapons programs." There is a problem with this assertion, because<br />Saddam did not officially come to power until July of 1979, and Ceausescu<br />certainly was not chatting up Pacepa after the latter's 1978 defection.<br />However, Saddam was the power behind the throne of his cousin General Ahmad<br />Hassan al-Bakr, who assumed control of Iraq in a 1968 coup d'etat, so it all<br />may be true at least de facto, if not de jure. But Pacepa needs to explain<br />just how this part of the story works to have real credibility.<br /><br />Primakov, according to Pacepa, worked with Saddam throughout the latter's<br />reign, and it is true that he was closely involved with the Iraqi leader in<br />1991, earning the enmity of the administration of Bush the Elder.<br /><br />Primakov's closeness to Saddam is attested by other sources as well. In<br />1999, when the general was Russian Prime Minister, journalist Seymour Hirsch<br />published an article in the New Yorker alleging that Primakov had received<br />an $800,000 Iraqi bribe hand-delivered by Tariq Aziz.<br /><br />But the truly important piece of information in Pacepa's story is this: that<br />Primakov was in Baghdad with two other former Soviet generals, Vladislav<br />Achalov and Igor Maltsev, "from December [2002] until a couple of days<br />before the war."<br /><br />I have confirmed that he was there at least part of that time. On February<br />24, 2003, Condoleezza Rice was asked by a reporter what she thought Primakov<br />was doing in Baghdad.<br /><br />She didn't know, but she knew he was there, and referenced his parallel 1991<br />visit in her answer.<br /><br />If Primakov spent anything like the three months before the Iraqi War in<br />Baghdad, it is patently obvious that he was up to no good, and logical,<br />given his expertise, to believe his mission may well have been orchestrating<br />the deep-sixing of Saddam's WMD stockpile.<br /><br />The worldwide press should pick up this story, investigate it thoroughly,<br />and if it vets out make it front page news for a long time. They should<br />smoke out Primakov - and his two cronies, too, perhaps even more so - and<br />ask them to explain what they was doing on the banks of the Tigris in the<br />winter of '03. Whatever lie they tell in answering, reporters should follow<br />up on, disprove and write another week's worth of stories.<br /><br />Putin, too should be made to feel the heat of this investigation. Primakov,<br />Achalov and Matlsev may have been there on their own, without Putin's<br />imprimatur, but I doubt it, and anyway, Putin should be put on the record<br />with that claim, if he chooses to make it.<br /><br />The world (not to mention the Democrats) is beating the Bush Administration<br />about the head and shoulders with the accusation that there are no WMD's in<br />Iraq. If the reason is because General Primakov implemented an old Soviet<br />plan and liquidated the whole stockpile, then the world needs to know it<br /><br />c/6<br /><br />Hooty
 

snapperbait

Vice Admiral
Joined
Aug 20, 2002
Messages
5,754
Re: A lesson on foreign policy.

My point being, enuff with the Clinton and liberal finger pointing already... Its getting real old, real fast.. Heck, enuff with the bashing all together, reguardless... There's more to life than running each other into the ground...<br /> <br />Like JB pointed out hindsight's always 20-20...<br /><br />Just a little reality check and example of how conservatives have made mistakes, just like everyone else has... It all stinks and nobodys clean.... ;)
 

Ralph 123

Captain
Joined
Jun 24, 2003
Messages
3,983
Re: A lesson on foreign policy.

SB, first for the record, I am NOT a Republican. I am an Idependent and have been my whole life. I vote for the preson not the party.<br /><br />Second, there is a lot of finger pointing going on right now about Iraq. It's 7-24. IMHO, this is coming from the people who caused the whole situation to exist in the first place. If they kept their mouths shut there would be no need to have to set the record straight.<br /><br />Third, this is the most important set of events in my lifetime. It is critical IMHO that the facts be presented and vigorously debated. There are a lot of people who apprecite the information in helping them to form their own opinions.<br /><br />Fourth, We are a year away from an election which may very well set the coarse of history. People should go into the voting booth informed.
 

snapperbait

Vice Admiral
Joined
Aug 20, 2002
Messages
5,754
Re: A lesson on foreign policy.

Ralph.. Not to be a smart azz, but could you please clarify this statement for me?
IMHO, this is coming from the people who caused the whole situation to exist in the first place. If they kept their mouths shut there would be no need to have to set the record straight
Is it not important that the citizens and representatives in our Democratic Republic have a right to speak our mind and question the actions of our political leaders... Is that not one of our freedoms? After all, elected officials represent everyone, not just the majority...
 

Ralph 123

Captain
Joined
Jun 24, 2003
Messages
3,983
Re: A lesson on foreign policy.

I mean the politicians not people who happen to share their political views. I mean the talking heads saying "I told you so, look at what a mess Iraq is, blah, blah, blah" These do nothings are unltimately responsible for where we are today. Their lack of resolve and inaction emboldened our enemies and encouraged them. That's who I mean<br /><br />Everybody should speak their mind - no question. I just heard a great quote from Charlie Daniels:<br /><br />"You have the right to say whatever you want but once its out of your mouth you gotta live with it"<br /><br />If they weren't trying so hard to pin the blame on someone else there would be no need to set the record straight. They can complain about Iraq as much as they want but we very likely wouldn't even be there if they had done their job and taken care of UBL and AQ years ago
 

Ralph 123

Captain
Joined
Jun 24, 2003
Messages
3,983
Re: A lesson on foreign policy.

Hey SB, here is something to think about. I have never tried to silence anyone. Ever. Have I? Never. I argue, I refute, but I never try to silence. I like the debate. So why would I?<br /><br />However, there have been attempts at silencing me. And Kenny was "encouraged" to change the title of his post about freedoms. Isn;t it ironic that the left is always accusing the right of trying to silence people when in reality, they are the ones who can not stand dissent and actually attempt to silence people? Funny how that works huh?
 

SoulWinner

Commander
Joined
Apr 16, 2002
Messages
2,423
Re: A lesson on foreign policy.

Ralph, I think he just forgot that the USSR had been a sworn enemy of the US since the 1940's, with-hold MIA's and POW's from Korea and Viet Nam, and playing dirty every chance they got. So why on Earth should the US have wanted to see the USSR defeated in Afganistan? Hmmmm.....beats me.<br /><br />And I rekon he also doesn't remember the Iranian Hostage situation that originated during the Carter administration, was bungled by the carter administration, etc. After what those innocent Americans went through, why would the US have any desire to Iran defeated by the Iraqis? Who knows?<br /><br />I have two questions, What would the Democratic party be like today if JFK were still around? (Remember, "Ask not what your country can do you?", or his tax cut that caused an increase in federal revenue?)<br />And what would the Civil Rights movement look today if Dr King were still alive? (remeber the "I have a dream" speach where he wished for the day when his little children would one day be judged, not be the color of thier skin, BUT BY THE CONTENT OF THEIR CHARACTER.)<br /><br />I admit there are good folks on both sides of the fence, and some sitting on the fence, but the compromises made for the political gain of one party or the other at the expense of this great nation has thouroughly coated the politics and politians of America with filth.<br /><br />It's hillarious that Ben Franklin said that occasionally governments NEED to be fundamentally changed (overthrown) for the benefit of the country, so of course it is against the law to follow this recomendation, or to share it with others.<br /><br />America IS the best country on the planet, but at this rate, it makes you wonder for how long.
 

plywoody

Senior Chief Petty Officer
Joined
Aug 11, 2002
Messages
685
Re: A lesson on foreign policy.

Aww, poor Ralph! Now you got me feeling all sorry for you! Someone trying to silence you??? Who is it??? It is un-American! We can sick the ACLU on them. That's just the kind of cause they like!<br /><br />And all of the problems in Iraq are caused by those who dared to dissent? Amazing. If it isn't the all encompassing liberal media (which is all media that does not cheerlead for your specific political agenda, as I understand it) it is all those who dared to voice a dissenting opinion.<br /><br />Where is that vaunted personal responsibility I've been hearing about all these years? When a person or a government chooses a course of action, they have to be responsible for the consequences, or at least that's what all the conservatives have been telling me all these years!
 

Skinnywater

Commander
Joined
Mar 7, 2002
Messages
2,065
Re: A lesson on foreign policy.

Last month snapperbait stated sick and tiered and couldn't stand political disscussions. <br />Now he starts them! :D :D
 

samagee

Chief Petty Officer
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
644
Re: A lesson on foreign policy.

Snapperbait. The saying is not "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." It is the "enemy of my enemy is my pawn."<br /><br />It mean less that we have to do directly. The common people do not see it like this. They only see good vs bad scenarios. So, it has to be edited for the masses. Hence the interpertation you gave.<br /><br />Those at the head of the US at the time a "by product" showed its face, should have eliminated it. Yet, they were more concerned with their own lives over the lives of others. They had no clue about war, and only sought profit for themselves.<br /><br />That is what lies under neath it all.
 

LadyFish

Admiral
Joined
Mar 18, 2003
Messages
6,894
Re: A lesson on foreign policy.

Okay, IMHO the problem began the day we stopped being Americans and started being allies.
 

Skinnywater

Commander
Joined
Mar 7, 2002
Messages
2,065
Re: A lesson on foreign policy.

enuff with the Clinton and liberal finger pointing already... Its getting real old, real fast.. Heck, enuff with the bashing all together, reguardless... There's more to life than running each other into the ground...
It's all just political discussion, entertainment and the sharing or views and opinion.<br />It's obvious it's enjoyed here in NTDWB. <br /><br />Usually it can be recognised in the thread header if it's gonna have political content or not. There are several topics that I won't click on and it's simple to ignore them if they bother or simply don't interest me.<br /><br />There is a very considerable amount of people who participate in the iboats forum that never post in NTDWB's. This indicates the situation has a resolution.<br /><br />Bashing politicians or celebrities is fair, common and free. Debating political idealogy can be passionate and emotional and not for everyone to enjoy. The advice is to know your own limitations before you participate, or not.<br /><br />Most of what is considered attacks, are not. Unless the mistake is made of taking a political discussion personally.<br /><br />While ones own personal morality doesn't neccesarily occupy a particular political party.<br />The glorifying or reverence to an immoral leader or person does call into the question of the content of ones characture. <br />And characture, not political beliefs, color, national origin or stature, is how I judge a person.<br /><br />I've been guilty of attacking immorality, or a least calling attention to it , in one way or another a time or two. ;)
 

NOSLEEP

Commander
Joined
Oct 30, 2002
Messages
2,442
Re: A lesson on foreign policy.

Keep your freinds close.<br />And your enemies closer.
 

JGREGORY

Lieutenant
Joined
Jun 1, 2003
Messages
1,412
Re: A lesson on foreign policy.

I'm with Skinny and Ladyfish on this one. Skinny said it all and Ladies prudence took over. :D
 
Top