Re:Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Mi...
by wolfgke on Friday June 22, 2018 @10:22AM
(#17374149)
> Sure, I bet Afghanis sit around at night reminiscing of the good old days under the taliban...
Who were strongly financially supported (and thus in some sense "enthroned") by the CIA:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taliban&oldid=846...
"A while later, the U.S. CIA and Saudi Arabic General Intelligence Directorate (GID) funneled funding and equipment through the PakistanI Inter-Service Intelligence Agency (ISI) to the Afghan mujahideen."
Re:Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Mi...
by AmericanChopper on Friday June 22, 2018 @05:17PM
(#17377448)
Which again is completely irrelevant to the point I’m making.
Re:Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Mi...
by jeffreyrogers on Friday June 22, 2018 @10:44AM
(#17374307)
You're leaving out why they were given money: to fight back against a Communist coup supported by the Soviet Union.
Re:Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Mi...
by pofilat on Friday June 22, 2018 @12:14PM
(#17375113)
So? The Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight a few years later. The (negative) dividends of US militarization are still being paid.
Re:Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Mi...
by AmericanChopper on Friday June 22, 2018 @05:26PM
(#17377526)
You’re also leaving out the part where the Taliban didn’t exist during the time that Afghani forces were receiving US support. If you look at the reason for getting involved in the first place, most people would agree that it wasn’t entirely unreasonable. That said if you look at how they handled the aftermath, most people would agree that part was a fuck up.
Re:Google Engineers Refused to Build Security Tool to Win Mi...
by jeffreyrogers on Friday June 22, 2018 @02:00PM
(#17375965)
Because it's an important part of the context and explains why the US funded the Taliban.
However this is completely irrelevant to the point. The question was why do we need to have a superior military to our adversaries, and the answer is because our adversaries are real, and if we care about our liberty we need to take them seriously. To say otherwise is either laughably naive, or is an outright rejection of liberty. Try refusing to work on military contracts in Russia or China and see what that gets you. In China, your career pretty much has a hard ceiling unless you want to join the communist party.