AK>    
    AK>>> Taliban was created by the US as a weapon against the USSR, as   
    AK>>> well as Bin Laden, who was, one time, a   
      
    BK>> Not the Taliban, more Bin Laden's friends. The Taliban started with   
    BK>> an Afghan Cleric outraged at the corruption of the warlords. His   
    BK>> group would have been OK if they had brought and end to the   
    BK>> oppression of the warlords, but instead he changed one oppressor   
    BK>> for another.   
      
    AK>    The Taliban movement traces its origin to the   
    AK>    Pakistani-trained mujahideen in northern Pakistan,   
    AK>    during the Soviet war in Afghanistan. So, The Taliban is   
      
    Oh yes, the fighters of the Taliban. Also the Taliban was   
    supported by the Wahhabi religious groups such as Bin Laden,   
    even, perhaps, part of that alignment.   
      
    AK>    just a political personification of this movement after   
    AK>    the war with the USSR and falling Najibullah's   
    AK>    government.   
      
    Ok, that I do agree with.   
      
    ...   
      
    AK>>> It is not correct, by a simple reason - Saddam had never refused   
    AK>>> to sell Iraqi oil for the US. Vice versa - on   
      
    BK>> The US did not invade to get the oil, but to control the oil. A   
    BK>> group called the Project For A New American Century wanted to take   
    BK>> the oil and use it to break the Saudi control of OPEC. Big oil   
    BK>> wanted control of the oil also, but not to break Saudi control. Big   
    BK>> Oil had more power.   
      
    AK>    So what was in the result of the war? Does the US   
    AK>    control Iraqi oil now?   
      
    Nope. You gotta win the war to get what you want.   
      
    AK>    
    AK>>> You said, you don't have a special police force in the US which is   
    AK>>> trained to disperse people's rallies? I saw   
      
    BK>> Not Military.   
      
    AK>>> myself how violently were dispersed the people from "Occupy Wall   
    AK>>> street" movement.   
      
    BK>> Those were local police, not military.   
      
    AK>    Do you think there is a big difference who disperse   
    AK>    people's rallies? In general, all the forces that   
      
    Yes. The local police in one place can be quite different from   
    another place. We had our own small Occupy movement here, the   
    police did not bother them.   
      
    AK>    participate in it are the state armed forces, they carry   
    AK>    out orders and they have no right to discuss the orders   
    AK>    they get. If the police special forces need help the   
    AK>    military will get involved.   
      
    In this country that requires special circumstances. The local   
    police cannot call in the military, not even the State National   
    Guard or reserves. The governor has to call in the State troops,   
    and the president has to declare a national emergency to send in   
    federal troops. That would lead to even more protestors taking   
    to the streets.   
      
    AK>    In general, the coup in Egypt shows us what can happen   
    AK>    when the military and the police are out of public   
    AK>    control and replace democracy.   
      
    That is certainly true. It also shows what happens when you mix   
    religion and government.   
      
      
      
   BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn   
      
   ... (A)bort (R)etry (T)ake an ax to it?   
   --- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]   
    * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)