Yes, it would be ideal to read every post in a thread before replying to any of them, but it isn't going to happen, at least in my case. Back in the Usenet days, the news reader I used was very good and convenient, and simply by hitting the space bar repeatedly I could read everything very, very quickly. On this board it is a slower process; additionally for some reason I find the layout and colors to slow reading.
So while what you ask would be ideal, occasionally there will be cases where I will take something that on a stand-alone basis has one appearance, but if one scoured the entire thread one would dedude "Ah hah, no one used this word before but Lixy, therefore he is not making a point of the spelling," unforunately I don't find it practical. Surely such occasioanal and easily and immediately corrected misunderstanding is not such a big deal.
I just have the feeling, as a very very high odds bet, that over time you've posted and elsewhere written or expressed in any way far less hard feelings and objections to the Soviets invading Afghanistan and grinding the people under their boots -- or ANY other Soviet action -- than you have against the United States taking actions resulting in peoples being freed from dictators.
Somehow the first sort of thing just doesn't seem to register with you very much, while the latter plainly sticks in your craw a lot.
I was simply noting this pattern which I'm sure many others have noted from your posts.
Anyway, as you view all our actions in and regarding Afghanistan to be "sticking our nose where it doesn't belong," paraphrase, and regard all such actions (as you characterize them) of ours as bad, then I was not wrong in saying that you viewed our action in question helping to free the Afghani people from the Soviets as bad.
Or will you now say it was good? And have something nice to say about what America does for a change? (Seems to me you'd be contradicting yourself if you did, but if you wish to clarify and your answer indeed is that it was good, then very well. ???)