Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: soda72 on January 06, 2008, 04:33:48 PM
-
I saw the 'true story of Charlie Wilson' on the History channel and found it very interesting... Anyone plan on seeing the movie?
Texas cowboy pwnz Soviet Union...
Don't mess with Texas....
:lol
-
I've been trying to talk wifey into Charlie Wilson's War for a few days, no joy so far. Might have to solo it.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I've been trying to talk wifey into Charlie Wilson's War for a few days, no joy so far. Might have to solo it.
I haven't seen any reviews for the movie but after seeing the history channel documentary I'm curious how good the movie will be... They wouldn't need to change much to keep the movie entertaining, the real story by itself is amazing...
-
so it was a Democratic Texas Congressman Charlie Wilson who armed the taliban, and all this time i thought it was the neocons. Learn something new every day. :lol
-
John9001, you a big supporter of the Soviet Union?
-
Originally posted by john9001
so it was a Democratic Texas Congressman Charlie Wilson who armed the taliban, and all this time i thought it was the neocons. Learn something new every day. :lol
Well, some people just need to feel persecuted more than they really are, I reckon. :D
-
Well, in fairness, we've been hearing for 15 years how Ronnie armed Saddam:lol
-
I saw and it was pretty funny and was a good movie. Philip Seymour Hoffman is great in the movie.
Heres a good clip from the movie. (http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc302/FurballAH/Baloon.gif)
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
John9001, you a big supporter of the Soviet Union?
isn't the Soviet Union/Russia our allies? Me so dumb. :O
-
I like how he defeated the one congressman he didn't like...
Drive as many people as possible to the voting both, that normally don't vote. After he drops them off he tells them that the congressman killed his dog...
:lol
-
I really enjoyed it... saw it with my mom while I was back home for Christmas, and she liked it a lot too.
-
Originally posted by john9001
isn't the Soviet Union/Russia our allies? Me so dumb. :O
We love and accept you for who you are. :D
Charlie Wilson's war isn't happening today.
You're welcome. :aok
-
someone correct me if I'm wrong but he didn't arm the taliban........he armed the mujahideen, some of which became taliban but the taliban were mostly created as a result of the vacuum left from the soviet invasion.
I saw it and it was a great movie.
-
Tom Hanks isn't it? Rarely dislike anything he's involved with (ok...Philadelphia)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
someone correct me if I'm wrong but he didn't arm the taliban........he armed the mujahideen, some of which became taliban but the taliban were mostly created as a result of the vacuum left from the soviet invasion.
I saw it and it was a great movie.
I plan to. Sounds like a good one.
Not sure if the semantics over how the "Taliban" ended up being armed with U.S. hardware bought with U.S. tax dollars matter (evolutionary inheritance?) if the subject doesn't really involve the context some claim. Not you .... but I have seen some look way too hard for an argument and see something they thought qualified and ending up never quite getting over the fact. There can be historical trails that don't mean what some either claim or think someone else claimed, as well.
*ShruG*
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
someone correct me if I'm wrong but he didn't arm the taliban........he armed the mujahideen, some of which became taliban but the taliban were mostly created as a result of the vacuum left from the soviet invasion.
I saw it and it was a great movie.
They mentioned that at the end of the History channel documentary... But they put most of the blame on not being involved with the country after the war allowing it to fall into chaos.
-
Originally posted by soda72
They mentioned that at the end of the History channel documentary... But they put most of the blame on not being involved with the country after the war allowing it to fall into chaos.
Which I happen to agree with. And before the war starts ... the problem isn't the party you blame, it's the parties who cover their own arses with blame. Effective foreign policy should be retained no matter who slides into the seat of power next.
-
If Ron Paul were pres. when USSR threw in the towel in Afghanistan, would he had not done the same thing? From his quotes, I think Britain is about the only place he would defend
-
Originally posted by bj229r
If Ron Paul were pres. when USSR threw in the towel in Afghanistan, would he had not done the same thing? From his quotes, I think Britain is about the only place he would defend
And bsaddict steps in and says...
:noid
-
In these times of War On Terror™ I would have thought American state sponsored terrorism would be a sensitive topic. Sure the Soviets weren't exactly the good guys, but that doesn't make the Mujahideen/Taliban any less of a terrorist organization. Osama Bin Laden was even a key figure in training the Mujahideen.
-
Originally posted by Viking
In these times of War On Terror™ I would have thought American state sponsored terrorism would be a sensitive topic. Sure the Soviets weren't exactly the good guys, but that doesn't make the Mujahideen/Taliban any less of a terrorist organization. Osama Bin Laden was even a key figure in training the Mujahideen.
Context is such an important historical consideration. Yes there's relationship, cause and effect, a timeline but that doesn't create equivalencies that just aren't there. The Mujahideen (or more accurately, the Afghani Mujahideen of "Charlie Wilson's War") were "various loosely-aligned Afghan opposition groups, initially fought against the incumbent pro-Soviet Afghan government during the 1980s. "
And they were ....
"The mujahideen were significantly financed, armed, and trained by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during the Carter and Reagan administrations and the governments of Saudi Arabia, the People's Republic of China, several European countries, Iran, and Zia-ul-Haq's military regime in Pakistan."
Then ....
"The mujahideen won when the Soviet Union pulled troops out of Afghanistan in 1989, followed by the fall of the Mohammad Najibullah regime in 1992. However, the mujahideen did not establish a united government, many of the larger mujahideen groups began to fight each other, and they were in turn ousted from power by the radical splinter group known as the Taliban in 1996."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen
The tenuous link:
"The Taliban initially had enormous goodwill from Afghans weary of the corruption, brutality and incessant fighting of Mujahideen warlords. Two contrasting narratives of the beginnings of the Taliban[12] are that the rape and murder of boys and girls from a family traveling to Kandahar or a similar outrage by Mujahideen bandits sparked Mullah Omar and his students to vow to rid Afghanistan of these criminals.[13] The other is that the Pakistan-based truck shipping mafia known as the "Afghanistan Transit Trade" and their allies in the Pakistan government, trained, armed and financed the Taliban to clear the southern road across Afghanistan to the Central Asian Republics of extortionate bandit gangs.[14]
Though there is no evidence that the CIA directly supported the Taliban or Al Qaeda, some basis for military support of the Taliban was provided when, in the early 1980s, the CIA and the ISI (Pakistan's Interservices Intelligence Agency) provided arms to Afghans resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the ISI assisted the process of gathering radical Muslims from around the world to fight against the Soviets. Osama Bin Laden was one of the key players in organizing training camps for the foreign Muslim volunteers. The U.S. poured funds and arms into Afghanistan and "by 1987, 65,000 tons of U.S.-made weapons and ammunition a year were entering the war".[15]"
12. ^ Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim world / editor in chief, Richard C. Martin, Macmillan Reference USA : Thomson/Gale, c2004
13. ^ Matinuddin, Kamal, The Taliban Phenomenon, Afghanistan 1994-1997, Oxford University Press, (1999), p.25-6
14. ^ Rashid, Taliban (2000), 25-29.
15. ^ Rashid, Taliban (2000)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Had there been sufficient "follow-through" (post Soviet pull-out) history may have unfolded in a significantly different manner. Granted, that's theory and not actual history (afterall, for it to be history, well, it had to happen) .... alas. Never-the-less, it's the sort of foreign policy that yielded better results than recent policy and that certainly seems supported by history. Context is the litmus test for historical lessons. Doesn't stop some from ignoring that fact, though. (Not singling you out as example). :)
-
Yes I agree, except that the "various loosely-aligned Afghan opposition groups" that "initially fought against the incumbent pro-Soviet Afghan government during the 1980s" were themselves terrorists when the US were supporting them. In fact they were doing the exact same thing to the Soviets that they are doing now to US/coalition forces. Only the opposition has changed.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Yes I agree, except that the "various loosely-aligned Afghan opposition groups" that "initially fought against the incumbent pro-Soviet Afghan government during the 1980s" were themselves terrorists when the US were supporting them. In fact they were doing the exact same thing to the Soviets that they are doing now to US/coalition forces. Only the opposition has changed.
To ... the Soviets ... in Afghanistan ... supporting the government oppressing them through superior military might .... until receiving support.
Context.
(Some are gonna love this)
WWII correlations:
The U.S. also sent military aid to the French underground who fought, using guerilla tactics, against the Vichy puppet government under Nazi control. Difference? Invaded and conquered by Nazis. Other than that? Not much.
And to the Chinese, defending themselves from Japanese invasion. Same difference without the conquering part. And still not so different.
The British supported (and organized) Arabic tribes against the Turks in WWI (Lawrence of Arabia). No significant difference to mention.
Insurgent support in Iraq? I can see where you're coming from regarding Mujhahideen tactics and motivation but not where the U.S. motivation comes in. As much. Guess there's room for some discussion.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
The British supported (and organized) Arabic tribes against the Turks in WWII (Lawrence of Arabia). No significant difference to mention.
that was WW one.
-
Originally posted by john9001
that was WW one.
Yes it was, John. I'm not immune to typos. (Under is also spelled with an "r" - fixed that too.) But very good. I know that thrilled ya. :D
-
i know it was a typo.
i was only correcting a error so other people would not get confused.
that was a good post other wise.:D
-
We're having a moment. ;)
If it happens ... con john?
I'm tryin to arrange an MRE banquet. :D
-
I stopped to watch the movie on the way back from Ft.Worth. Excellent performances by Hanks and Hoffman.
(Wade Phillips' baby girl did'nt do bad either.;) )
-
Originally posted by Arlo
To ... the Soviets ... in Afghanistan ... supporting the government oppressing them through superior military might .... until receiving support.
Context.
(Some are gonna love this)
WWII correlations:
The U.S. also sent military aid to the French underground who fought, using guerilla tactics, against the Vichy puppet government under Nazi control. Difference? Invaded and conquered by Nazis. Other than that? Not much.
Did the French resistance kill women and children. Did they indiscriminately bombard "pro-German" towns with mortars. No. Your comparison is rubbish.
This is a clear example of "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". It is just that in this case the hypocrisy is so very obvious since the "terrorists" and "freedom fighters" are the same people.
-
Originally posted by rpm
I stopped to watch the movie on the way back from Ft.Worth. Excellent performances by Hanks and Hoffman.
(Wade Phillips' baby girl did'nt do bad either.;) )
I'll have to go see it this weekend...
-
Originally posted by bj229r
If Ron Paul were pres. when USSR threw in the towel in Afghanistan, would he had not done the same thing? From his quotes, I think Britain is about the only place he would defend
The British cannot protect themselves?
Someone should have informed Hitler of this.
SIG 220