Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We funded and armed Muslim extremists for our own benefit. It was another battle in the Cold War. And now we live with the Blow Back. And sadly, we're still making the same awful mistakes.
We armed and funded Afghans because a Democratic Rep from Texas named Charlie Wilson was touched by the suffering he witnessed when he visited an Afghan refugee camp in Pakistan. It wasn't just another "battle" in the Cold War to Wilson...it was personal. It was something he did because he thought it was immoral NOT to do it!
The question you'll have to answer for me is how the Mujahideen justified an attack on the nation that DID come to their aid when Soviet helicopter gunships were slaughtering their people?
Sounds romantically heroic, but it just isn't the reality. Our Government funded and armed Muslim extremists because it felt it could benefit from it strategically. There wasn't much emotion involved in the decision. It was a move on the Cold War Chess Board. Nothing more.
What Charlie Wilson did back then may sound "romantically heroic" to you, Paul but that doesn't mean it wasn't real! It WAS an emotional thing to Wilson. He was deeply affected by the suffering he witnessed in the Afghan refugee camps he visited in Pakistan and THAT was what led to the support we gave to Afghans fighting the Soviets.
Unintended consequences. That's Blow Back. Stop the meddling.
If a violent street gang starts terrorizing people on the other side of your town...what's the right thing to do? Ignore it? That's their problem and I'm not going to "meddle"?
Stepping up and doing the right thing carries risks. You very well MIGHT get "blow back" from taking a stand against evil but as Edmund Burke said "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
We armed and funded Afghans because a Democratic Rep from Texas named Charlie Wilson was touched by the suffering he witnessed when he visited an Afghan refugee camp in Pakistan. It wasn't just another "battle" in the Cold War to Wilson...it was personal. It was something he did because he thought it was immoral NOT to do it!
The question you'll have to answer for me is how the Mujahideen justified an attack on the nation that DID come to their aid when Soviet helicopter gunships were slaughtering their people?
Sounds romantically heroic, but it just isn't the reality. Our Government funded and armed Muslim extremists because it felt it could benefit from it strategically. There wasn't much emotion involved in the decision. It was a move on the Cold War Chess Board. Nothing more.
What Charlie Wilson did back then may sound "romantically heroic" to you, Paul but that doesn't mean it wasn't real! It WAS an emotional thing to Wilson. He was deeply affected by the suffering he witnessed in the Afghan refugee camps he visited in Pakistan and THAT was what led to the support we gave to Afghans fighting the Soviets.
Unintended consequences. That's Blow Back. Stop the meddling.
If a violent street gang starts terrorizing people on the other side of your town...what's the right thing to do? Ignore it? That's their problem and I'm not going to "meddle"?
Stepping up and doing the right thing carries risks. You very well MIGHT get "blow back" from taking a stand against evil but as Edmund Burke said "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Communists now own your Country. So in the end, the Cold War was Bullshite. It wasn't about some romantic heroic fight for freedom & justice. It was about money & power. Your Government never had a problem with Communism. If it did, it wouldn't have done so much business with China.
Sounds romantically heroic, but it just isn't the reality. Our Government funded and armed Muslim extremists because it felt it could benefit from it strategically. There wasn't much emotion involved in the decision. It was a move on the Cold War Chess Board. Nothing more.
What Charlie Wilson did back then may sound "romantically heroic" to you, Paul but that doesn't mean it wasn't real! It WAS an emotional thing to Wilson. He was deeply affected by the suffering he witnessed in the Afghan refugee camps he visited in Pakistan and THAT was what led to the support we gave to Afghans fighting the Soviets.
Unintended consequences. That's Blow Back. Stop the meddling.
If a violent street gang starts terrorizing people on the other side of your town...what's the right thing to do? Ignore it? That's their problem and I'm not going to "meddle"?
Stepping up and doing the right thing carries risks. You very well MIGHT get "blow back" from taking a stand against evil but as Edmund Burke said "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Communists now own your Country. So in the end, the Cold War was Bullshite. It wasn't about some romantic heroic fight for freedom & justice. It was about money & power. Your Government never had a problem with Communism. If it did, it wouldn't have done so much business with China.
China invests in America because it has one of the world's more stable economies. Our Government is so addicted to big spending that it would do business with ANYONE to keep getting its fix! That's the way addicts are.
What Charlie Wilson did back then may sound "romantically heroic" to you, Paul but that doesn't mean it wasn't real! It WAS an emotional thing to Wilson. He was deeply affected by the suffering he witnessed in the Afghan refugee camps he visited in Pakistan and THAT was what led to the support we gave to Afghans fighting the Soviets.
Unintended consequences. That's Blow Back. Stop the meddling.
If a violent street gang starts terrorizing people on the other side of your town...what's the right thing to do? Ignore it? That's their problem and I'm not going to "meddle"?
Stepping up and doing the right thing carries risks. You very well MIGHT get "blow back" from taking a stand against evil but as Edmund Burke said "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Communists now own your Country. So in the end, the Cold War was Bullshite. It wasn't about some romantic heroic fight for freedom & justice. It was about money & power. Your Government never had a problem with Communism. If it did, it wouldn't have done so much business with China.
China invests in America because it has one of the world's more stable economies. Our Government is so addicted to big spending that it would do business with ANYONE to keep getting its fix! That's the way addicts are.
It was never about Communism or Freedom. It was about money & power. And it still is. Communist China owns us. It is what it is.
What if that violent street gang on the other side of town is a creature of your own government?We funded and armed Muslim extremists for our own benefit. It was another battle in the Cold War. And now we live with the Blow Back. And sadly, we're still making the same awful mistakes.
We armed and funded Afghans because a Democratic Rep from Texas named Charlie Wilson was touched by the suffering he witnessed when he visited an Afghan refugee camp in Pakistan. It wasn't just another "battle" in the Cold War to Wilson...it was personal. It was something he did because he thought it was immoral NOT to do it!
The question you'll have to answer for me is how the Mujahideen justified an attack on the nation that DID come to their aid when Soviet helicopter gunships were slaughtering their people?
Sounds romantically heroic, but it just isn't the reality. Our Government funded and armed Muslim extremists because it felt it could benefit from it strategically. There wasn't much emotion involved in the decision. It was a move on the Cold War Chess Board. Nothing more.
What Charlie Wilson did back then may sound "romantically heroic" to you, Paul but that doesn't mean it wasn't real! It WAS an emotional thing to Wilson. He was deeply affected by the suffering he witnessed in the Afghan refugee camps he visited in Pakistan and THAT was what led to the support we gave to Afghans fighting the Soviets.
Unintended consequences. That's Blow Back. Stop the meddling.
If a violent street gang starts terrorizing people on the other side of your town...what's the right thing to do? Ignore it? That's their problem and I'm not going to "meddle"?
Stepping up and doing the right thing carries risks. You very well MIGHT get "blow back" from taking a stand against evil but as Edmund Burke said "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Unintended consequences. That's Blow Back. Stop the meddling.
If a violent street gang starts terrorizing people on the other side of your town...what's the right thing to do? Ignore it? That's their problem and I'm not going to "meddle"?
Stepping up and doing the right thing carries risks. You very well MIGHT get "blow back" from taking a stand against evil but as Edmund Burke said "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Communists now own your Country. So in the end, the Cold War was Bullshite. It wasn't about some romantic heroic fight for freedom & justice. It was about money & power. Your Government never had a problem with Communism. If it did, it wouldn't have done so much business with China.
China invests in America because it has one of the world's more stable economies. Our Government is so addicted to big spending that it would do business with ANYONE to keep getting its fix! That's the way addicts are.
It was never about Communism or Freedom. It was about money & power. And it still is. Communist China owns us. It is what it is.
So how does THAT make isolationism the right thing to do, Paul? You've taken off on a tangent here...
What if that violent street gang on the other side of town is a creature of your own government?We armed and funded Afghans because a Democratic Rep from Texas named Charlie Wilson was touched by the suffering he witnessed when he visited an Afghan refugee camp in Pakistan. It wasn't just another "battle" in the Cold War to Wilson...it was personal. It was something he did because he thought it was immoral NOT to do it!
The question you'll have to answer for me is how the Mujahideen justified an attack on the nation that DID come to their aid when Soviet helicopter gunships were slaughtering their people?
Sounds romantically heroic, but it just isn't the reality. Our Government funded and armed Muslim extremists because it felt it could benefit from it strategically. There wasn't much emotion involved in the decision. It was a move on the Cold War Chess Board. Nothing more.
What Charlie Wilson did back then may sound "romantically heroic" to you, Paul but that doesn't mean it wasn't real! It WAS an emotional thing to Wilson. He was deeply affected by the suffering he witnessed in the Afghan refugee camps he visited in Pakistan and THAT was what led to the support we gave to Afghans fighting the Soviets.
Unintended consequences. That's Blow Back. Stop the meddling.
If a violent street gang starts terrorizing people on the other side of your town...what's the right thing to do? Ignore it? That's their problem and I'm not going to "meddle"?
Stepping up and doing the right thing carries risks. You very well MIGHT get "blow back" from taking a stand against evil but as Edmund Burke said "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
"BAGHDAD — The United States has conducted an escalating campaign of deadly airstrikes against the extremists of the Islamic State for more than a month.
"But that appears to have done little to tamp down the conspiracy theories still circulating from the streets of Baghdad to the highest levels of Iraqi government that the C.I.A. is secretly behind the same extremists that it is now attacking.
“'We know about who made Daesh,' said Bahaa al-Araji, a deputy prime minister, using an Arabic shorthand for the Islamic State on Saturday at a demonstration called by the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr to warn against the possible deployment of American ground troops."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/21/w...ia-and-the-islamic-state-are-united.html?_r=0
What "proof" would you require before believing the US government created IS in its present form?
I'm not sure if the greatest purveyor of violence in the world should be entrusted with ending Terror? It would seem the US is the biggest part of that problem.We need a permanent solution! help drive creation of a World Alliance Against Terror We the People Your Voice in Our Government
There doesn't seem to be any proof of the CIA creating IS, but I wonder if it would change any votes next month if, in fact, the allegation turns out to be true?What if that violent street gang on the other side of town is a creature of your own government?Sounds romantically heroic, but it just isn't the reality. Our Government funded and armed Muslim extremists because it felt it could benefit from it strategically. There wasn't much emotion involved in the decision. It was a move on the Cold War Chess Board. Nothing more.
What Charlie Wilson did back then may sound "romantically heroic" to you, Paul but that doesn't mean it wasn't real! It WAS an emotional thing to Wilson. He was deeply affected by the suffering he witnessed in the Afghan refugee camps he visited in Pakistan and THAT was what led to the support we gave to Afghans fighting the Soviets.
Unintended consequences. That's Blow Back. Stop the meddling.
If a violent street gang starts terrorizing people on the other side of your town...what's the right thing to do? Ignore it? That's their problem and I'm not going to "meddle"?
Stepping up and doing the right thing carries risks. You very well MIGHT get "blow back" from taking a stand against evil but as Edmund Burke said "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
"BAGHDAD — The United States has conducted an escalating campaign of deadly airstrikes against the extremists of the Islamic State for more than a month.
"But that appears to have done little to tamp down the conspiracy theories still circulating from the streets of Baghdad to the highest levels of Iraqi government that the C.I.A. is secretly behind the same extremists that it is now attacking.
“'We know about who made Daesh,' said Bahaa al-Araji, a deputy prime minister, using an Arabic shorthand for the Islamic State on Saturday at a demonstration called by the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr to warn against the possible deployment of American ground troops."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/21/w...ia-and-the-islamic-state-are-united.html?_r=0
What "proof" would you require before believing the US government created IS in its present form?
With all due respect...a lot more than "conspiracy theories circulating the streets of Baghdad or a rep for Al-Sadr who doesn't want US troops back in Iraq...
This notion that the CIA somehow "created" Al Queda or ISIS as they now exist because they provided help to some Islamic fighters in the past is a bit far fetched.
I'm not sure if the greatest purveyor of violence in the world should be entrusted with ending Terror? It would seem the US is the biggest part of that problem.We need a permanent solution! help drive creation of a World Alliance Against Terror We the People Your Voice in Our Government
"A time comes when silence is betrayal." Do you remember when Martin King made that pronouncement?I'm not sure if the greatest purveyor of violence in the world should be entrusted with ending Terror? It would seem the US is the biggest part of that problem.We need a permanent solution! help drive creation of a World Alliance Against Terror We the People Your Voice in Our Government
Come on, George...portraying the United States as "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world" ignores the good things that the US does globally. This worn out narrative that we are heartless Imperialists out to dominate the rest of the world plays so well in countless Political Science classrooms but doesn't translate to the real world. We are the world's super power that has a tendency to stumble and bumble our way through foreign policy at times but considering the vast power we DO have...we actually are rather constrained in how we flex our muscles. One could make the case that being the past enemy of the US usually means you end up getting billions in US aid once you are defeated. I dare say that if Vladamir Putin, Saddam Hussein or ISIS had a military such as ours that they would NOT be as constrained!
I wonder what Martin Luther King would have said to the million plus Cambodians that were killed by Pol Pot as we watched from afar? You want to talk about people "trembling" in fear...check out what happens when America ISN'T there to help protect the innocent!
