Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I would have expected him to have acted more than Carter did when the invasion occured. He would have had trouble attacking the USSR for something it had done well before he became President, wouldn't he? Instead, he armed the Mujahhadin and turned Afghanistan into a Vietnam that led to massive unrest. In turn, this was a big part of killing the USSR. So this one is a little odd.
|
Perhaps. But if you're being moral, you're being moral. Is it moral to use millions of Afganis as pawns?
As for SA, Apartheid fell apart despite Reagan and Bush, not because of them. It was the protests in the quad (yes, the protests in the quad) that brought public attention to the situation, not the Administration.
Okay, okay, I'm even willing to accept for the sake of argument there may have been behind the scenes pressure on SA from Reagan and Bush that contributed to the fall. But the fact that Reagan didn't invade within weeks, or at the most, months of taking office somewhat belies a moral absolutism that oppressive regimes should be dealt with extreme prejudice, and immediately.
