• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Afghanistan

Cosmic Yak said:
Now add the $4 million per day the former Afghan government was getting, which will now go to the Taliban. I imagine that total would go a long way to staving off a humanitarian disaster.
The problem, as I've repeatedly stated, is ensuring that any money donated from abroad will actually reach the people who need it. Most of the officials who siphoned off the money in the former government are still in office now, and I really don't imagine the Taliban are any less corrupt and venal.
I do wonder, though, how you are assigning blame for a future catastrophe on a government that has ceased to exist. How is the former Afghan government to blame for what might happen this winter? I also don't much care for the insinuation that the west is at fault for 'propping up' that government, whilst at the same time insisting that the west prop up the Taliban.
Click to expand...


It is, though.

The place was an unholy mess all through. Even without "the West" wading into the mess they may well have still be as deep in **** as they are now, or maybe not, or maybe in even worse condition, I don't know. But the fact remains that "the West" did invade that country. That means "the West" bears responsibility for the fallout of that.

Whether that invasion was justified is a separate discussion --- I happen to think it wasn't, but let's not get into that now --- but having perpetrated that horror on to them, "the West" cannot wash its hands off of its responsibility for what is happening there now as a result. (And, again, what should now be done is, once again, a separate discussion, that I'm not getting into at this point.)

My point is, "the West" can callously say "We did what we did because we thought it right and because we had the balls to do it, and to hell with whatever suffering we've caused as a result." That's what invaders and military adventurers have done all through history, and, while it is a morally reprehensible position, but it isn't, at all, any more so than is standard throughout history.

What one cannot do is pretend to hold to a standard that isn't outright indifferent to others' suffering caused as a direct result of one's actions, a standard that isn't (in some sense of the word) actually evil in its disregard for others, while at the same time claiming one bears no responsibility for what happened and continues to happen as a result of one's actions. Either embrace the amorality of military adventurism with zero concern for others; or else hold to a higher standard than murderous barbarians with tech, and own up to the responsibility for the actions that led to a great deal of unnecessary suffering. As far as this much I don't see a third alternative.



----------

ETA: On rereading, I see that I've criticized only one half of your two-part of argument. I guess I kind of agree with the full two-part argument you've made in that last sentence of your post (only one part of which I've highlighted and addressed up there).

I really don't know what the right thing to do might be at this time, not really, but yes, to try to set right the wrongs one has committed in the past, by advocating for more of what amounts to the exact same thing, that does sound just a bit off.
 
Last edited:
Planigale said:
Do you really want to refuse the Afghan government access to money so they have to continue to rely on poppy farming?
Click to expand...

Right now, I think pragmatism is the best policy. To deprive some Afghans of their only source of income, at a time when they need it most desperately, is to me heartless and counterproductive. Let them keep their poppy farms- there's nothing anyone can do about it anyway, at least not in the short term.
 
Chanakya said:
It is, though.

The place was an unholy mess all through. Even without "the West" wading into the mess they may well have still be as deep in **** as they are now, or maybe not, or maybe in even worse condition, I don't know. But the fact remains that "the West" did invade that country. That means "the West" bears responsibility for the fallout of that.
Click to expand...

Bravo!
 
Cosmic Yak said:
Right now, I think pragmatism is the best policy. To deprive some Afghans of their only source of income, at a time when they need it most desperately, is to me heartless and counterproductive. Let them keep their poppy farms- there's nothing anyone can do about it anyway, at least not in the short term.
Click to expand...

In Afghan fields poppies blow ...

Appropriate to the day and the sentiment I suppose.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
Right now, I think pragmatism is the best policy. To deprive some Afghans of their only source of income, at a time when they need it most desperately, is to me heartless and counterproductive. Let them keep their poppy farms- there's nothing anyone can do about it anyway, at least not in the short term.
Click to expand...

This is why there never was any success outside the "cosmopolitan" areas.

The allied forces should have guaranteed payments way above what the war lords would pay for any crops.

Without control of the "economy" and that for all practical extent means the money the war lords don't exist, therefore the taliban as a pseudo-organisation doesn't exist.
 
Darat said:
This is why there never was any success outside the "cosmopolitan" areas.

The allied forces should have guaranteed payments way above what the war lords would pay for any crops.

Without control of the "economy" and that for all practical extent means the money the war lords don't exist, therefore the taliban as a pseudo-organisation doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

You should read the link above. The warlords or Taliban did not buy the crops. The products were taxed, by the warlords or Taliban, but at a much lower rate than the US official estimates. Most of the opium business was small done by small "Mom and Pop" businesses, private enterprises, then bought by dealers to be taken across the border to Iran or Pakistan to be resold. You have a number of small businesses that rely on the trade for income. Farmers, the owners of the buildings where the opium is processed, the workers who process the opium, then those who sell the chemicals needed, the fuel, the barrels, and then those who buy the product and take it across the border.

That the business is done by multiple small businesses makes it resilient; there is no head of a cartel to target, but it also means that attacking the business impacts on many small businesses and breeds resentment. Perhaps the best option is to leave the business as is, but offer to buy the product and redirect it into the legitimate pharmaceutical industry where it could be processed by companies (e.g. Purdue) into prescription painkillers so would not be available on the street to fuel opiate addiction.

ETA
It is also a part time and seasonal business.
 
Last edited:
So now that a major theater of war has been closed, obviously the DOD budget is going to contract a bit. What should that extra money be used for?

Lol just kidding.
 
The war may be over, but the killing of civilians continues:

As Afghanistan’s harsh winter sets in, many are forced to choose between food and warmth

...

The country’s new rulers, cut off from most international aid as well as Afghan government assets held in U.S. accounts, have scant resources to protect millions of vulnerable people against another harsh winter. Aid groups estimate that nearly 23 million Afghans, out of a total population of 39 million, already do not have enough to eat. Many also lack solid shelter and money to heat their homes at night, forcing them to choose between food and fuel, and creating additional potential for a full-fledged humanitarian disaster, aid officials said.
Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/01/08/afghanistan-winter-crisis/
 
DEMOCRATS DICKER IN CONGRESS AS BIDEN FLIRTS WITH AFGHAN GENOCIDE
While congressional Democrats argue over conditions for relief, some 20 million Afghan people stand to starve.

The economic fallout has been extreme, much as it would be if the U.S. Federal Reserve suddenly lost access to its own capital. The result has been bank closures, mass business failures, soaring unemployment, collapse of the currency against the dollar, soaring inflation, and death by starvation. Desperate Afghans have resorted to selling off their belongings for food or burning them to stay warm. A migration crisis is brewing. The Biden administration’s sanctions have deepened the economic collapse, while the White House has also urged European partners and multilateral institutions like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund to similarly starve the nation of capital.
Click to expand...

The US is creating a man-made famine that threatens to kill 10's of millions of civilians.

IF AMERICA CONTINUES on its current trajectory, the United Nations warns, more than 20 million people face starvation.
Click to expand...

https://theintercept.com/2022/01/19/afghanistan-sanctions-conditions-congress/
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
The US is creating a man-made famine that threatens to kill 10's of millions of civilians.



https://theintercept.com/2022/01/19/afghanistan-sanctions-conditions-congress/
Click to expand...

Yes.

We are looking at the death of thousands if not millions of innocent Afghanis, inevitably many will be children.

One major contributor is that the Afghan governments bank accounts have been seized as court action is brought against the Afghanistan Taliban government for 9/11.

9/11 was a horrific act of terrorism launched from within the US by US residents, mostly planned and organised in Germany and mostly funded and carried out by Saudis. No one argues the Taliban played any role in planning or carrying out the attack. The main consequence of seizing these accounts will be the deaths of tens of equally innocent Afghanis in revenge for each death of an American on 9/11. I don't believe any American victims (including the dependents of those who died) will starve to death because they don't get more financial compensation.

Making the people of Sudan (at the time the poorest country in the world) pay money for events that did not involve then (attack on the US Cole) to the richest people in the world is the sort of extortion that gives the US a bad image in Islamic circles. The same thing is happening, what is seen is that the US extorts money from the starving to give to wealthy Americans.
 
International talks have been happening in Norway.

The Taliban say schools will open for girls in March.

Meanwhile Afghanis are burning furniture and allegedly selling their children to get money for food and warmth.

"The number one problem now is that Western sanctions are creating a liquidity crisis, which means we cannot get aid funding into the country," said Jan Egeland, secretary-general of the Norwegian Refugee Council, one of the humanitarian organisations taking part in the talks."

Taliban commits to opening schools for girls by March at aid talks in Norway
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-26/apn-norway-taliban-talks/100782068
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
The US is creating a man-made famine that threatens to kill 10's of millions of civilians.
Click to expand...

No. We did not create this potential famine. The Taliban did. The money that has been frozen is not money that the Taliban earned, it is not even money that the Afghan people earned. It is money that the US government provided. We are no longer providing it. We are, at worst, not preventing a famine, but we are not the cause.

And why did the Taliban ever expect us to keep paying them money? What did the Taliban ever do to deserve our charity? Nothing, obviously. Yet they decided they should conquer the country anyways, and damn the consequences. They had no plan in place to make sure they could feed the populace. They don't actually care. To the extent that this potential famine is man made, the Taliban made it.

But even that, honestly, isn't yet established. When we first invaded Afghanistan, there were cries that we were going to create a famine that would kill millions. That famine never materialized.
 
Ziggurat said:
No. We did not create this potential famine. The Taliban did. The money that has been frozen is not money that the Taliban earned, it is not even money that the Afghan people earned. It is money that the US government provided. We are no longer providing it. We are, at worst, not preventing a famine, but we are not the cause.



And why did the Taliban ever expect us to keep paying them money? What did the Taliban ever do to deserve our charity? Nothing, obviously. Yet they decided they should conquer the country anyways, and damn the consequences. They had no plan in place to make sure they could feed the populace. They don't actually care. To the extent that this potential famine is man made, the Taliban made it.



But even that, honestly, isn't yet established. When we first invaded Afghanistan, there were cries that we were going to create a famine that would kill millions. That famine never materialized.
Click to expand...
The money is property of the central bank of Afghanistan. Freezing the entire liquidity of the country is the direct cause of the crisis.

Denial of this is simply apologetics for an intentional policy of mass starvation.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
The money is property of the central bank of Afghanistan. Freezing the entire liquidity of the country is the direct cause of the crisis.
Click to expand...

It's the proximate cause, not the ultimate cause.

Denial of this is simply apologetics for an intentional policy of mass starvation.
Click to expand...

Our initial invasion was also described as intentional mass starvation as well. Except, no mass starvation actually happened.

The people who want that money have a vested interest in describing the situation this way. I don't trust their description.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
The money is property of the central bank of Afghanistan. Freezing the entire liquidity of the country is the direct cause of the crisis.

Denial of this is simply apologetics for an intentional policy of mass starvation.
Click to expand...

I think Ziggurat has a point. The Taliban must have been aware of the consequences of a violent takeover of the country- or if not, they damn well should have been.
They do not appear to have considered this at all. If the welfare of the Afghan people had been a concern of theirs, they should have chosen a course of action that did not imperil that welfare. They did not. Not only did they conquer the country by force, they also reneged almost immediately on pretty much all the promises they had made about human rights and inclusivity. Again, if they did not consider that this would have consequences, that insouciance is telling. They wanted power. It was not about helping the Afghan people. it was about them, their fanaticism and their lust for power. The apologetics I am seeing is trying to somehow absolve them of any responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
 
Ziggurat said:
No. We did not create this potential famine. The Taliban did.
Click to expand...

Much as I abhor defending America, I agree with you 100%.

It's a bit rich to swaggeringly take over a country then blame someone else for not fixing it after you've done so.

The famine - which I'm quite sure will occur - is the sole fault of the Taliban. These are people who have shot Malala in the face for attending school, and have killed doctors giving vaccines. Like that blood, the blood of the famine victims will be on their hands alone.

Maybe the good Afghan people should have done a little more.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
I think Ziggurat has a point. The Taliban must have been aware of the consequences of a violent takeover of the country- or if not, they damn well should have been.
They do not appear to have considered this at all. If the welfare of the Afghan people had been a concern of theirs, they should have chosen a course of action that did not imperil that welfare. They did not. Not only did they conquer the country by force, they also reneged almost immediately on pretty much all the promises they had made about human rights and inclusivity. Again, if they did not consider that this would have consequences, that insouciance is telling. They wanted power. It was not about helping the Afghan people. it was about them, their fanaticism and their lust for power. The apologetics I am seeing is trying to somehow absolve them of any responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
Click to expand...

I don't see how starving the Afghan public punishes the Taliban. The people in power are going to be the last ones to miss a meal.

This bloodthristy sanction action will not shake the grip on power that the Taliban hold, it will only punish the civilian population who have already suffered horribly through the 20 year civil war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom