|
Well, Skeet, you're right about the spending. It was American money that did it alright. Although you have to admit, a very large part of the reason for the collapse of the Communist Party in the USSR was the unsuccessful almost decade long war they fought against the Mujihadin in Afghanistan. The Russians lost 15,000 men in that fight. The political consequences in the USSR of the anger over those deaths was the final straw. The Mujihadin were supported to a very large extent with American money and arms. Lots of both.
Now the only difficulty is that after the Mujihadin beat the crap out of the Russians, the Taliban became the direct political arm of the Mujihadin. The Taliban were in power to support Osama Bin Laden only because American interference in the Middle East had given them the clout to be the only viable successor after the Russians left. The Taliban exists largely because American money and weapons created them.
Saddam Hussein's story is an exact parallel. He got to power with American help so he would be there to keep the Iranians in check. Now look at it.
So using money and military power to "influence" the course of another country's history is not always (history says "hardly ever" I think) wise. It tends to piss off a lot of people.
The present conflict is WAY more morally complicated than WWII and no such comparisons are valid. American industrial might, a very few British pilots, and about 20,000,000 dead Russians stopped what needed to be stopped. This fight is not nearly as justifiable.
Oh yeah, and Canadians are not and have never been "part of the problem."
|