Another funny story: Fooled by Regan's geopolitics

[WTF]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Will Bush 43 be the next Truman?

If only we could have kept Bush in Trumans world!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X5ueGi9Y5Q





Hell you've made Reagan out to be a man who decreased the size of government and cut spending!

[oden]

I just don't get when people try to compare Reagan with either Bush. He was so unique. Pray we will see a real Reagan in time to turn things around before the really comparable Presidencies of Carter and Obama do us in!

[Chainsaw Anthropologist]

Originally Posted by ..

no, just about Reagan-Bush irony of geopolitics.

Reagan's sharp plan was to support the Mujahideen in afganistan, he saw them as freedom fighters against the communists in soviet union

the soviets plans weren't much better, just the Mujahideen were infused by Reagan dollars, so soviets needed to think efficient and e.g. used and tested the Ilyushin Il-76 extensively in this war.

fast forward some year. Bush comes a long. Mujahideen are no longer seen as freedom fighter but as terrorists, hell even whole afganistan is declared a rouge state.

given the Reagan incompetence all what the all powerful US army has as long haul carrier is the C-130 Hercules. expensive, insecure and shitty. and totaly out-dated.

so what is bringing the bulk load of miliary and civil cargo to Iraq and Afganistan for the US, the soviet Ilyushin Il-76

Not really sure what your agenda is here....comparing the C-130 a turboprop cargo aircraft whose variants have been in service over 50 years (it's still in production C-130J Super Hercules is current model) to the Il-76 a full jet powered aircraft that is nearly twice as large based upon max takeoff weights.

If you're using popularity as a basis, the C-130 is operated by far more countries and has an overall far larger production run (nearly 2500 as compared to just less than a thousand Il-76.) The Il-76 more nearly parallels the C-141 which predates it by about 5 years, about the time it takes the Russian aircraft industry to back engineer, and in many cases, improve an equivalent American aircraft design.

Current US Air Force, not Army (the Army doesn't operate fixed wing aircraft with more than two engines) primary transport is the Boeing C-17 an aircraft with double the max takeoff weight of the Il-76. As far as the C-130 goes, if I'm going to be forced to ride in a noisy medium-sized tactical transport, the Herkybird is the plane for me.

Regarding Afghanistan being a rouge (sic) state, 'nuff said.

[Marcus Aurelius]

The only thing Russia can boast about in aircraft is counter rotating turboprops. The Bear was impressive. But now fucking archaic.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Oh yeah, and women. I love to fuck Russian women.

[..]

Originally Posted by Chainsaw Anthropologist

Not really sure what your agenda is here....

The "Reagan Doctrine" and Its Pitfalls
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa074.html

[..]

Originally Posted by Chainsaw Anthropologist

the Boeing C-17 an aircraft with double the max takeoff weight of the Il-76.

*LOL*

It's a Bird, It's a Plane, It's Pork!
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...4046738593.htm


ROFLMAO. the comparison btwn. IL-76 and the vaporware BC-17 or the C-17 kills the insider jokes..

[WTF]

Originally Posted by ..

The "Reagan Doctrine" and Its Pitfalls
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa074.html

That was so freaking spot on....now we are in Afaganastan because of the stupid doctrine. Charles Krauthammer is still spouting his crap of win the world over for democracy (with taxpayers money of course. A curious choice for such a proclaimed capitalist, free society kinda guy!) He's on Fox News now. Big suprise there.

[discreetgent]

IMO The mistake in Afghanistan was not in helping to drive out the Soviets back in the 1980s it was the failure to follow it up with support for civil institutions afterwards. For the fraction of the cost of the supplies sent to the mujhadeen the US could have built and funded schooling for all youth; does that mean the Taliban would NOT have ultimately come in and made it a haven for Al Queida? No idea, but it might have made things different and at the very least provided a potentially competent civil service

[WTF]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

IMO The mistake in Afghanistan was not in helping to drive out the Soviets back in the 1980s it was the failure to follow it up with support for civil institutions afterwards.

That is the common thought....it still employs the flawed strategy of making over the world in our image. Why in the world do you think after kicking out the Soviets the Afgans would have wanted American Democracy? Good Lord the Soviets were trying to improve their archaic view of women's rights and religious suffering .Look what that got them. We backed a monster because we thought the Soviets worse . We are the new Soviets...what are your thoughts on that?

[Clerkenwell]

You may be forgetting that quite a few countries participate in the Afghan military project (that's the kindest term I could think of). So in one regard it differs completely from the Soviet incursion. It carries the implied legitmiacy of co-operation between developed states. UK politicians have tended to justify the continuing presence by the thuggish logic that we're better fighting the terrorists in Helmand province than on our own streets. It's good to see the back of New Labour simply to stop having to listen to that rubbish.

However, we seem to be lingering out of fear of the worst consequences of withdrawal, whether in the form of a renewed Talibanocracy, version II being even angrier towards us and thus inclined to do all it can to promote terrorism, or of a 'domino theory' style contamination and radicalisation of Pakistan into the west's ultimate bogeyman, a nuclear tipped Islamic terror state.

There's a strong case for calling Karzai's bluff and simply walking away. The window dressing of some humanitarian aid would be essential. Irrelevant, but essential.

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by WTF

That is the common thought....it still employs the flawed strategy of making over the world in our image. Why in the world do you think after kicking out the Soviets the Afgans would have wanted American Democracy? Good Lord the Soviets were trying to improve their archaic view of women's rights and religious suffering .Look what that got them. We backed a monster because we thought the Soviets worse . We are the new Soviets...what are your thoughts on that?

My point is that typically an educated population is the best defense against extremism. Build and fund schools, let the locals teach and develop the curriculum. Many girls would have gone to school, some would not have. Still, there would have been a more literate population and in itself I think that could have made a difference.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

My point is that typically an educated population is the best defense against extremism. Build and fund schools, let the locals teach and develop the curriculum. Many girls would have gone to school, some would not have. Still, there would have been a more literate population and in itself I think that could have made a difference.

In that case we should have helped the Soviets!

I think you are living in a dream world if you think we can fund the World for the chance that everyone to experience Democracy. (Even if it worked , look how divided this country is. Good Lord half the country thinks we have a Commie in the White House)

That is the NeoCons (Krauthammer) reasoning. I do not agree with it. I'm suprised you do.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

. Still, there would have been a more literate population and in itself I think that could have made a difference.

Again your fallacy is relying on conventional wisdom.

http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/what-makes-a-terrorist

The clear finding was that people with a higher level of education are in general more likely to say that suicide attacks against Westerners in Iraq are justified. I have also broken this pattern down by income level. There is no indication that people with higher incomes are less likely to say that sui­cide-bombing attacks are justified

Claude Berrebi, now of the RAND Corporation’s Institute for Civil Justice, wrote his dissertation at Princeton on the characteristics of Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza Strip who were involved in terrorist activities. For example, he compared suicide bombers to the whole male pop­ulation aged 16 to 50 and found that the suicide bombers were less than half as likely to come from families that were below the poverty line. In addi­tion, almost 60 percent of the suicide bombers had more than a high school education, compared with less than 15 percent of the general population.

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by WTF

I think you are living in a dream world if you think we can fund the World for the chance that everyone to experience Democracy.

You're arguing for the sake of arguing lol. I didn't state anything like that in my response to you. I don't see democracy mentioned below, perhaps I am missing something.

Originally Posted by discreetgent

My point is that typically an educated population is the best defense against extremism. Build and fund schools, let the locals teach and develop the curriculum. Many girls would have gone to school, some would not have. Still, there would have been a more literate population and in itself I think that could have made a difference.

As far as suicide bombers goes; RAND is a pretty good research organization. OTOH my point is not about specific individuals but about a society as a whole and I don't think RAND addresses that.