[OT] Egypt

Dave Smith wrote:





The WMD charade was a biggie. But also:

(a) They shouldn't have invaded
(b) If they were going to invade, they needed 3X the number of troops
(c) They failed to put a government in place, since all the planners
were inexperienced political apointees (including lots of Bush campaign
workers given plum jobs).


S.
 
On Jan 31, 5:26?pm, Dave Smith wrote:

Easy to say that because you're male. Too bad the USA & UK Govts.
engineered the coup against Mohammad Mosaddegh. The USA deserved the
hostage thing. We deserved worse than that. I don't mean that the
individuals deserved harm, but our country deserved it. There's even
a good argument to be made that the USA deserved 9-11, again, no one
but a nut would think that any significant portion of the individuals
who suffered and died deserved to, but it was blowback from the USA's
activities in Afghanistan, and the subsequent abandonment of the
country once it had served our strategic needs, and the same applies
to our losses in Iraq, where we previously encouraged the Shia and
Kurd populations to rebel against S. Hussain, then left them to be
slaughtered.

Under Batista there were a few really rich folks, and everyone else
was poor. Under Castro there were/are no really rich people, and
everyone is poor, though educated and with decent health care. Under
Batista, speaking out against the govt. got you into trouble. Same
with Castro's regime.
IMO, the USA should have ended the Cuba embargo in the early 70s, if
not late 60s. All it did was sustain Castro, but that would have been
unacceptable to those who value property rights over human rights.
Nixon went to China, and Ford or Carter should have gone to Havana.
Once Reagan (may he rot in Hell) assumed office, it was too late.

--Bryan
 
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 14:29:32 -0800, "M. JL Esq."
wrote:


Are you sure? Which one?

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.
 
On 1/30/2011 9:55 AM, notbob wrote:

I suggest that it is only one version of "what is happening". You may
have fallen into thinking it is "the one and true version" because
something resonates with your belief system.

I think it is dangerous to think any one source is somehow the truth. I
like to sample across the range of opinions.
 
Michael Kuettner wrote:

Well over 3/4ths of the native borns I've ever talked to about politics
across the political spectrum. There's a lot of disagreement about
internal politics but very little satisfaction over external politics.


You don't mean the few who took up arms in Afghanistan nor the
occasional arrest for threatening the president. You live in a country
that suffered from being in the eastern bloc then has steadily improved
since joining the western bloc yet you only see the problems.


The main problems with American involvement in that war were late entry
(my grandfather was a WWI veteran) and pulling out of the League of
Nations post war so we had too little influence in the events that
followed. Not that I think a League of Nations with the US would have
prevented WWII anyways. Sometimes trying and not trying end up with the
same result. Exact same conundrum.
 
Bryan wrote:

Help a country enough that they can eject an invade with their own
efforts then not become an ivader ourselves. Yeah, get back to me when
that's a good reason to allow your citizens to wage acts of war against
a former benefactor who didn't turn into an invader.

Switching from a anti-Soviet resistance to an anti-US movement was an
idiocy on a level that does justify sending in troops to correct the
error. Sadly, as always the guy just trying to work and raise a family
is the one most screwed. But be clear over who's doing the screwing.
It's not the former benefactors to declined to turn into invaders, who
then turned into police after being attacked.
 
Back
Top