Quote:Who are you talking about liking or not liking Mexico? The CIA armed the factions against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Seems that worked to stop a 10-year war. Nobody armed Osama. Osama didn't come along until well after the mujahadeen broke into the Taliban and al-Qaida. In the late 80s he became the figure head and organizer to what is known as al-Qaida today. For its intent, arming the mujahadeen was successful. It did not change the climate of Afghanistan, it kept it status quo, which has always been crap.

 

I agree taking out Sadaam had a negative impact on Iraq, which was corrupt anyways. Should we have left him to his brutality? It was certainly a mistake to think the corrupt Iraq country would band together for democracy when they were never acclimated to making those types of choices or even having the ability to do so. They were not educated enough and it seems neither were we. To say it destabilized the whole region is ignorant. You just became newly aware of what had been.

 

Taking out Gaddafi was necessary just like Sadaam. In fact, they both came into power in almost identical ways. The difference is we wanted to take out Sadaam because he was such an evil dictator, whereas NATO was asked to take out Gaddafi to end his illegal reign. It was just part of and the end piece to the civil war or "Arab Spring". It did not give rise to.

 

So the common picture to all these places? They were already unstable countries before any interaction. We faulted in thinking they could control their own mess after our assistance. Additionally, extremist groups were preexisting and lying in wait for the opportunity.