Sure, if the Western Democracies roll 'snake eyes' 12 or more times in a row - again.
Get some perspective dude.
Bin Laden betrayed the people who helped his cause in his hour of greatest need. For every Bin Laden from the Soviet-Afghan conflict (i.e. 'one'), there are 50 or more 'warlords' who remembered who their true friends were.
The entire leadership of the Northern Alliance were 'warlords' trained and armed by the U.S. and the U.K. during the Soviet-Afhgan conflict. Many of the 'warlords' 'fighting for the Taliban' switched sides back to the (U.S. led) Northern Alliance as soon as there wasn't a couple of Al-Qaeda thugs pointing their guns at the back of the applicable 'warlord'.
It was Afghans loyal to the U.S. (as opposed to the Taliban and/or Al-Qaeda, not loyal to the U.S. over Afghanistan itself) that provided the targeting data for the first air strikes roughly 1 year ago.
And it was those same Afghans who were sometimes captured, and if captured, died while being tortured without revealing to Al-Qaeda thugs where their satphone and GPS units were hidden.
But you'll never read about that in the Terrorist Free Pres-er-I meant 'The Guardian'. That would imply that every person in Afghanistan (and the middle east in as well, with the exception of the 'dirty jews'-er-I mean Israelis, sorry got some 'Guardian' stuck in my mouth again for a second) didn't hate the U.S. with a passion.
Just because one lunatic as*hole decides to betray people who helped him doesn't mean we should cease helping everyone else who is seeking our help to overthrow a dictator that both the U.S. and the locals want gone.
And please, no one hit me with the sanctimonious "Yes everyone is labeled 'evil' if the U.S. doesn't like them" line. Damn straight we are coming after them if we feel the need. That's been the way of the world since someone began recording history in writing. Does anyone think Castro would have stayed in power a single additional week if he tried to oust the Soviet presence in Cuba? Nope - a new 'Pro-Soviet rebel leader' would have arranged Castro's 'overthrow' within a week. It's funny how the only 'foreign sponsored changes of regime' reported by the press and various mainstream writers are the ones conducted or attmpted by the U.S. Here's a clue - the U.S. is a little over 200 years old. The U.S. accounts for about 5% of the 'foreign sponsored changes of regime' that have taken place throughout history, and the U.S. attempts have been basically 'bloodless' compared to the vast majority of attempts. I shouldn't really be surprised though. There are still people who can say with a straight face that the U.S. didn't belong in Viet Nam 'because it was a war to determine rule amongst the people of Viet Nam'. Yeah, it was a civil war. Who was it that gave the NVA 2500+ MBTs? Who liquidated the remnants of the Viet Cong in 1975-76? Who set up a naval base at Cam Rahn bay?
Fact - more civilians died in the first 2 years of 'Communist Peace' in Viet Nam than were killed in the previous 14 years of war.
Ah, I digress. Sorry about that...
The only reason you only here about 'evil' U.S. attempts to overthrow regimes is because most other Nations would never allow the discussion/revelation to take place at all.
From David Horowitz' 'Another low dishonest decade on the left':
"It wasn't long before we in the radical left learned what the communists had learned long ago - the very liberties a democracy upholds are often the most powerful weapons that can be used against a democracy".
Most of the Iraqi people hate Hussein. He's a political leader in a tribal part of the world. I heard Iraqi POWs talk to a doctor about their hatred of Hussein. When I asked the doctor why they'd say such things, i.e. weren't they afraid of being branded traitors, he replied "They trust me - I would never betray them, they are Assyrian and so am I". This doctor was a citizen of Iran. See what I'm saying about political boundaries not fitting in a tribal world?
80% of the regimes in the middle east exist thru oppression for this reason alone - the majority of the people hold tribal bonds far more sacred than the political lines that have existed roughly 1 week by comparison to the age of most of the tribes. This is why the Saudi leadership has to walk the fence - the vast majority of their people see them as the tribe that lucked out and got the oil, then the money, then the influence, and then the power. This view leaves them (the rank and file of Saudi Arabia very open to 'fellow Muslim Brothers in the service of Allah' who *also* detest the fact that western money gives one small group power over the majority.
Keep some perspective. It wasn't the training that made Bin Laden dangerous - he could have been trained by any of a number of communist regimes if he wanted to lie to them, or he could have been trained by mercenary instructors in Libya, Syria, etc.
What made Bin Laden dangerous was that he had a great deal of $$$. He could hire/bribe/recruit who he needed to, and he could finance their travel and equip them well, and he could 'buy' a safe place to train/operate out of (from the Taliban, who were strapped for $$$ in a big way).
And Bin Laden being dangerous/having some misguided hatred of the U.S. wasn't enough in and of itself. He needed some pretty experienced 'terrorists' working the tactical and operational side of things. The mastermind behind 9/11/01 wasn't trained by the U.S. to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. The guy who bought his airline tickets and made the recruiting tapes was.
Mike/wulfie
