Ronald Reagan and the Taliban

[Annie]

My 14 yo is studying terrorism in social studies right now. She showed me this site, I found it very interesting. My, how times change!

Ronald Reagan, Proclamation 5034—Afghanistan Day, 1983

The ironies from the Cold War will haunt US and Russia for many years to come. Back then, the 'taliban' loved US, we helped them beat the Soviets.

 

[Annie]

My 14 yo is studying terrorism in social studies right now. She showed me this site, I found it very interesting. My, how times change!

Ronald Reagan, Proclamation 5034—Afghanistan Day, 1983

One word from a history teacher, I do hope that this 'lesson' is being put into the broader spectrum of the Cold War, most don't get to that until Spring, if at all. If the lesson isn't tied together, the class is getting at best a skewed view of history, if not flat out wrong.

 

[Annie]

My 14 yo is studying terrorism in social studies right now. She showed me this site, I found it very interesting. My, how times change!

What's so interesting? We supported the Red Chinese during WW II against the Japaneese. We actually sold them missle technology so they could build ICBMS that could reach N. America AND carry nukes.

Clinton embraced Hafaz Assad.

Nothing new here, just another attempt by the teacher's unions to blame reagan for 9/11.

Next....

Actually most of our spending to the Chinese went through Chiang Kai-shek. If we had been truly savvy, would have backed Mao. Mao fought for his people, Shek for Shek.

 

[Annie]

Hey EZ, I was just making my way through the thread, posting as I went. I get what you said about the teacher. Smart daughter you have there, I hope you or the teacher can help guide her to things her books or the lecture so far might not have gotten to.

 

[midcan5]

I did not quote the whole article, its there to read, I could go point for point with anyone who supports chomsky, so many others much smarter than me have already done the work.

So you believe what David Horowitz writes, and that says what exactly about you. Read Chomsky, not his critics, then you'll have a foot to stand on.

 

[mdn2000]

I did not quote the whole article, its there to read, I could go point for point with anyone who supports chomsky, so many others much smarter than me have already done the work.

So you believe what David Horowitz writes, and that says what exactly about you. Read Chomsky, not his critics, then you'll have a foot to stand on.

I guess these are my first posts you have read, if you think I will only quote a Liberal like Horowitz than you are wrong.

All who like Chomsky cannot defend the ideas that Chomsky has taught the fools to think.

Horowitz did not merely critique Chomsky, Horowitz quoted Chomsky.

Me on the other hand will state that you cannot defend Chomsky, you can post a source but you cannot put what you were taught to think in your own words and defend what you beleive. I just challenged you to do just that, state what you think and I will show how your ideas as taught to you by Chomsky cannot stand up to the facts of history.

Its that simple, Chomsky is as I have posted, a low life scum, point to a thread or a source means nothing to me, there are many threads and sources that will easily destroy the best you can post. I notice you did not quote chomsky and for good reason, Chomsky is an ass that is easily discredited.

So if you want to discuss history and chomsky's lies go ahead and post in your own words and I will respond in mine, if I have a source it will be a book, not a google result or wikipedia.

 

[JakeStarkey]

mdn2000, take a pill and chill.

 

[mdn2000]

mdn2000, take a pill and chill.

Chomsky is nothing more than dog shit, Chomsky is nothing more than a liar, why dont you quit taking pills and offering them to me, I am not interested in doing drugs and chilling.

If you wish ot defend Chomsky try

Chomsky is nothing more than as I state, a user is telling people to read chomsky and I am here able to prove that all Chomsky speaks of is hateful, ugly, lies and distortions of fact.

Take your pills and chill if you cannot and will not defend chomsky.

 

[mdn2000]

My 14 yo is studying terrorism in social studies right now. She showed me this site, I found it very interesting. My, how times change!

What's so interesting? We supported the Red Chinese during WW II against the Japaneese. We actually sold them missle technology so they could build ICBMS that could reach N. America AND carry nukes.

Clinton embraced Hafaz Assad.

Nothing new here, just another attempt by the teacher's unions to blame reagan for 9/11.

Next....

Actually most of our spending to the Chinese went through Chiang Kai-shek. If we had been truly savvy, would have backed Mao. Mao fought for his people, Shek for Shek.

Wow, you think that the USA should of supported Marxism, Mao was a Marxist, millions died because of Mao's implimentation of Marxism. Mao was for the people, that is not fact, that is not truth, you may not even realize that is a pure lie but a lie it is.

Mao exiled millions from the cities to the countryside, Mao sent the best and the brightest to re-education camps, tens of millions died of famine under Mao's Marxism.

Mao fought for Marxism and relished the power that Marxism places solely in the hands fo the elite. Mao's lack of vision kept China a backwards country, even today China's population suffers cruel poverty.

Our politicians and corportations have moved industry to china so that their greed can be satisfied, so that they can hide from environmental laws, so they can use slave labor, without exporting the future of the USA's youth to China, China would be nothing.

Mao's legacy is death and Marxism, nothing more.

 

[RadiomanATL]

What's so interesting? We supported the Red Chinese during WW II against the Japaneese. We actually sold them missle technology so they could build ICBMS that could reach N. America AND carry nukes.

Clinton embraced Hafaz Assad.

Nothing new here, just another attempt by the teacher's unions to blame reagan for 9/11.

Next....

Actually most of our spending to the Chinese went through Chiang Kai-shek. If we had been truly savvy, would have backed Mao. Mao fought for his people, Shek for Shek.

Wow, you think that the USA should of supported Marxism, ...

Thats not what Annie said.

 

[manu1959]

Uh oh. Now you've done it. You've gone and insulted the great Conservative God.

In Reagan's defense, they weren't the Taliban when we were funding them. Only when we stopped funding them did they become the Taliban.

yep reagan paid them to fight the russians.....every president does it....obama is going to pay them to stop killing us.....

 

[mdn2000]

Actually most of our spending to the Chinese went through Chiang Kai-shek. If we had been truly savvy, would have backed Mao. Mao fought for his people, Shek for Shek.

Wow, you think that the USA should of supported Marxism, ...

Thats not what Annie said.

Mao was marxist, mao used marxism, mao made china marxist, if annie says we should of supported Mao that is supporting marxism.

If I misunderstood annie or if the statement reads poorly why did you not restate the sentence.

Mao was cruel Marxist, Mao's policies resulted directly in 10's of millions of chinese dead. Today chinese people suffer the cruelest poverty, Mao implimenting Marxism has kept china backwards and third world. Its only the greed of washington politicians, that is democrats and republicans, that have provided china with some wealth, capitalist wealth. Unfortunately this is at the expense of simple americans. We are suffering the begining of histories greatest lost of wealth and security ever known.

The capitalist will sell his enemy the rope the capitalist's enemy hangs the capitalist with.

 

[Article 15]

Seriously guys, I miss Ramo III being on TBS every other week. WTF.

 

[mdn2000]

did chomsky's defenders go home to cry or are they busy googling wikipedia for answers

where are the marxist, I like to think when they run up against facts they shit themselves and disappear for a bit.

 

[beowolfe]

How sad for your daughter that the first line of her link contains an editing error in Reagan's speech. He referred to "Afghan freedom fighters" and your daughter's educational tools included this editing comment, "[the Taliban]".

The Taliban were only one of the mujahideen, and one that the ISI supported.

No doubt there are other inexact errors and misleading information as well, but I have yet to look. That's really a shame.

It really doesn't change the fact that you can draw a pretty straight line between our behavior in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion and occupation, and the September 11, 2001 attacks. Short sightedness on the part of RWR and the US. Hopefully, we have learned to look a bit farther than the end of our noses or the next quarterly statement as we design policy now......................hopefully.

 

[Maple]

My 14 yo is studying terrorism in social studies right now. She showed me this site, I found it very interesting. My, how times change!

Ronald Reagan, Proclamation 5034—Afghanistan Day, 1983

You are how old and you didn't know this?????? We wonder why the country is in the shape it's in, it's because of historically challenged liberals who vote that don't have a clue what this country has been or has done historically, thank God for your 14 year old. You actually learned something today.

" History starts each and every new day for liberals." Ann Coulter- there is no past except Booooooooooooooooooooosh.

 

[random3434]

My 14 yo is studying terrorism in social studies right now. She showed me this site, I found it very interesting. My, how times change!

Ronald Reagan, Proclamation 5034—Afghanistan Day, 1983

You are how old and you didn't know this?????? We wonder why the country is in the shape it's in, it's because of historically challenged liberals who vote that don't have a clue what this country has been or has done historically, thank God for your 14 year old. You actually learned something today.

" History starts each and every new day for liberals." Ann Coulter- there is no past except Booooooooooooooooooooosh.

I bet Sarah Palin could single handedly beat the Taliban Maple!

 

[Old Rocks]

How sad for your daughter that the first line of her link contains an editing error in Reagan's speech. He referred to "Afghan freedom fighters" and your daughter's educational tools included this editing comment, "[the Taliban]".

The Taliban were only one of the mujahideen, and one that the ISI supported.

No doubt there are other inexact errors and misleading information as well, but I have yet to look. That's really a shame.

Oh, my, my. But not a thing to back up that lie? Come on, Modo, causation and all that other shit you throw around.

 

[Old Rocks]

How sad for your daughter that the first line of her link contains an editing error in Reagan's speech. He referred to "Afghan freedom fighters" and your daughter's educational tools included this editing comment, "[the Taliban]".

The Taliban were only one of the mujahideen, and one that the ISI supported.

No doubt there are other inexact errors and misleading information as well, but I have yet to look. That's really a shame.

The fact is, we were funding Hekmatyar, Haqquani, and the other Pashtun factions that would go on to become the Taliban and make our "most wanted" list.

We virtually ignored all other factions of the Muhajadeen, to include Massoud at our peril. We should have listened to the French, not the Paks.

It's not like we had any indication before the 80s that Hekmatyar was a ruthless thug.

Oh wait.... We totally did!

Yet, it is sad that an educational tool is not accurate - it is simplistic, misleading, and does not reflect the situation. At the time Reagan made the speech, the Taliban were not even organized. I have no idea what is so difficult about being accurate when presenting material to students.

You mean like Reagan was only half there most of the time, and people like Cheney were already setting us up for major problems?

 

[Old Rocks]

Or maybe some should go back to school so that they can understand non sequiturs. Just because I responded the way I did, does not mean that I don't comprehend what you wrote earlier. I didn't see it as I was busy elsewhere.

Piss off with your baseless and kneejerk assumption and gratuitous insult, EZ.

Speaking of piss....

Who pissed in your Wheaties this morning?

No one. I did not deserve that kneejerk assumption.

Really?