To me he did nothing impressive except use U.S. tax money to fund U.S. imperalism and to help the oil idustry who ten years latter would benifit form the taliban controlled Afganstan. That money could have gone to help U.S. citezens .
P.S. I am a liberal and I think that he should be in jail for mismangment of U.S. funds
There is no oil in Afghanistan. So what are you going on about?
U.S. imperialism? So what do you call the Soviet Union invading and occupying Afghanistan?
It's sad to see some people use no rational standard for evaluating things like "imperialism" to even understand how to apply the word.
You have no idea at all. Perhaps you should find out what really happened. Or simply stick to Cartoons. They appear to be more your intelligence level.
shareA hero? I didn't really see him perceived as that. More of a guy who did the right thing. Here was a guy with considerable character flaws, that he readily admitted to, who became compassionate about a cause he deemed worthy. And to those of you who remember, the Soviet Union was very, very scary back then. And who knows what would have happened if we didn't aid the Afghanistans? The sad irony of it is that we help put the roots down for the Al-Quaeda. And the movie addresses that, first with the conversation between Charlie and Gust about the Zen Master, and then with Charlie trying to get aid to re-build their schools and being denied. Charlie himself said it best at the end, and I paraphrase, "We went in and did an honorable and admirable thing, but in the end we effed it up" We sure did!
Sand between my toes, Ocean City in my heart. ~Ocean Potion~
I actually don't like the last part of the film where Gust talks about the Zen Master. I think it ignores the context of the history here and unfairly paints a picture that doesn't put these events into a proper perspective.
I don't think it's fair to say the United States helped put the roots down for al-Qaeda. It implies that there should be some blame put on the United State for the actions of al-Qaeda when in fact we should only blame al-Qaeda for what al-Qaeda does. They are not children, and should be treated as adults, and thus they should bear the sole responsibility for their heinous actions.
It's like saying a rape victim should be blamed for being raped because the victim wore provocative clothing. I don't buy that. Only a rapist should be blamed for the rape. Granted there are steps one can take to better defend yourself from potential crimes, but never should we deflect blame from a criminal's actions because someone did not take all reasonable and unreasonable precautions to defend themselves.
As far as funding schools in Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal, I doubt that would've prevented the Taliban from taking power. Schools wasn't the issue, it was warring factions vying for power over Afghanistan. The only thing possible that would've stopped the Taliban from taking power would have been a direct overt US military intervention which no one would've supported, and would have probably lead to the creation of a new Islamic terrorist group anyways disgruntled with a Western power placing troops on "Islamic soil". Remember that this was al-Qaeda's reason for their creation, that American troops were on "Islamic soil" in the first Gulf War.
But weighing the costs and benefits of funding the Mujahadeen, I think without question we received a net benefit from it. Islamic terrorism is no where near the threat that the heavily nuclear armed Soviet Union was. We were constantly at risk of nuclear annihilation during the Cold War, not so today with terrorists who can't even fire an AK-47 straight half the time.
Word.
Sand between my toes, Ocean City in my heart. ~Ocean Potion~
bwolympicinnjk,
"As far as funding schools in Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal, I doubt that would've prevented the Taliban from taking power. Schools wasn't the issue, it was warring factions vying for power over Afghanistan. The only thing possible that would've stopped the Taliban from taking power would have been a direct overt US military intervention which no one would've supported, and would have probably lead to the creation of a new Islamic terrorist group anyways disgruntled with a Western power placing troops on "Islamic soil". Remember that this was al-Qaeda's reason for their creation, that American troops were on "Islamic soil" in the first Gulf War."
Sure there were warlords vying for power in Afghanistan and yes those warlords got their weapons from the US but there weapons need people to fire them.With all the teenagers in schools,those weapons would prove useless to the warlords.
If you actually fight the Taliban,you would know that the average age of their fighters would be around 20,at maximum Taliban fighters are around 35 years old.
These guys are nothing but juvenile delinquents with proper guns and sort of good training.
The cost of preventing 911 would have been 1 million dollars worth of schools.
Obviously he is not a Hero. He is kind of responsible for 9/11.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
emperorlastone, then what are your views on decades of Soviet support of insurgents including the Viet Cong, Pathet Lao, and the Khmer Rouge?
shareI think he is the 'typical American hero' not a proper hero.
Well I guess he is in a sense because he was the only one who went against conformity to help people even if it did seem unethical.
Lets collectively murder Adam Sandler, Rob Schneider, Will Smith and Chris Farley.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I think the entire part of the movie was the most ironical point that this totally *beep* dude from Texas, could change the entire model of the world just through sheer will lol Im pretty sure thats what should be gathered from the film.
[deleted]
smells like a buncha stinkin commies in here. you love the soviet union so much why don't you all go marry it.
-John Wayne.
If Charlie Wilson was a Republican he would be regarded as a devil. The fact is the Dems were undermining to US effort in Central America throughout the '80's. Now Hollywood makes a movie about a rogue congressman who is against the Russians. And he is a Democrat. I wonder why this movie didn't do well at the box office? Who's side is Hollywood on?
share
The thing I love about most politicians and others who change history is that they are always their own mini-Greek tragedy, part angel, part devil. It's like the end of the movie, "We'll See."
For the time being, Charlie Wilson's actions enforced a temporary good. But, the fall of Russia lead to even more weapons being leaked into the Middle East. Our part was covert. I'm sure it hasn't been the lone covert action our nation has made there. Since oil was first discovered in the region, we've been involved in the belly of the beast, long before we were entangled in the Cold War.
So, at this point, hopefully we can learn more about how actions in the region and what happened, both positive and negative, because of it. This isn't going away.
Join the cussing good times at http://mommalittle.com