gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
So you're not going to tell us who this opium emperor is?
How disappointing.
-Andrew
War for Oil in Afghanistan
- Thread starter gumboot
- Start date
So you're not going to tell us who this opium emperor is?
How disappointing.
-Andrew
Childlike,
To convince us, you need to provide evidence.
Where does the revenue from Opium go?
Why doesn't the vastly greater costs of the war wipe out the profits?
Why was the invasion of Afghanistan chosen over any of other enterprise.
For instance, the profits from Opium are dwarfed by the potential profits from increasing space exploration. Why not fund a mission to Mars instead?
To convince us, you need to provide evidence.
Where does the revenue from Opium go?
Why doesn't the vastly greater costs of the war wipe out the profits?
Why was the invasion of Afghanistan chosen over any of other enterprise.
For instance, the profits from Opium are dwarfed by the potential profits from increasing space exploration. Why not fund a mission to Mars instead?
Kevin_Lowe
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2003
- Messages
- 12,221
I think there is a point here, which people are having too much fun playing at being skeptics to address. Namely, that despite the US government's "War on Drugs" justifying massive domestic and foreign efforts and expense to get at those terrible drug dealers, it doesn't seem to have motivated them to do anything at all about Afghanistan's role in opium production.
The standard political forum response to such facts is to duck the question of why this is, challenge whoever pointed the fact out to provide the "why" of it, and then attack whatever "why" they come up with. We've seen that right here in this thread.
I'm not going to play that game. I'm just pointing out that it's curious that the production and export of terrible, evil drugs is either unimpeded or flourishing under the US-installed regime, that this is not a significant political issue, and that nothing seems to be being done about it.
The standard political forum response to such facts is to duck the question of why this is, challenge whoever pointed the fact out to provide the "why" of it, and then attack whatever "why" they come up with. We've seen that right here in this thread.
I'm not going to play that game. I'm just pointing out that it's curious that the production and export of terrible, evil drugs is either unimpeded or flourishing under the US-installed regime, that this is not a significant political issue, and that nothing seems to be being done about it.
I agree that it would make no sense to exclude Afghanistan from the war on drugs, but are they really not making any efforts?
Childlike, please spare the drama. Your "discussion" thus far -- as always -- consists of posting random facts and references, in this case a statistically useless set of data points on yearly opium production and a labyrinthe treatise by an obscure and poorly regarded academic, and then hinting and teasing but never quite explaining what you mean. If you really want to discuss something, please do. Please share your viewpoint. I've asked you to do so here and in other threads. I respect opinions, even yours, but I grow tired of the bait and promises of pearls of wisdom that are never delivered.
For what it's worth, I followed your article, and even looked up Peter Dale Scott's other works. Yes, I read the whole darn article.
I'll soften my stance on Professor Scott. Upon reviewing his papers, I actually don't think he's necessarily a conspiracy theorist. His stories are full of admitted wild conjecture -- propositions, as he fairly refers to them -- and are so fantastically complex that they are surely incorrect, but he makes no pretensions otherwise. I tend to think that for him, this is all a cautionary example, a worst-case path through news items if you will, intended merely to stimulate discussion and further research. The problem is that other people interpret this incorrectly, miss or ignore his admissions that it's all circumstantial at best and a house of cards at worst, and proceed anyway as though it were gospel.
Again, I repeat, if you have an opinion you would like to discuss, please do. Please refrain from posting links and then abandoning them. I can search for things myself.
Afghanistan may be "occupied" by American/Canadian/British/International Forces, but last I checked it wasn't part of the USA, or any of the above countries. Should they try to stem opium production, sure. Last I checked my countrymen as well as americans were getting killed there just keeping the Taliban at bay.
Kind of like asking whether the USA should have tried to stop child prostitution in Vietnam when they were there...in a perfect world...yes I guess they should have.
TAM
Kind of like asking whether the USA should have tried to stop child prostitution in Vietnam when they were there...in a perfect world...yes I guess they should have.
TAM
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
I get tired of the whole "nothing is being done about drugs" line. Why is it people so happily believe the mainstream media representation of Afghanistan and Iraq? The mainstream media are only interested in sensationalising things to sell stories. And blood sells better than anything - specifically civilian and foreign troop blood. "Fighting drug production" or "building hospitals" doesn't sell well. It's not sensational, and it doesn't involve dead people.
And we call the Romans barbarians...
I can't speak for every unit in Afghanistan, but I know for a fact that combating drug production is one of the primary objectives of the New Zealand forces there (Bayman Provice). I would expect that ALL PRTs in Afghanistan have fighting drug production as one of their major objectives, but I wouldn't like to claim that since I don't know much about the other PRTs.
The US has frequently said it could immediately wipe out all opium production using aerial spraying. The Afghani government has refused to allow aerial spraying. They are the government. Their word is law.
However, last I heard, the Afghani government were saying they would allow spraying if coalition forces didn't produce results using other methods.
-Andrew
And we call the Romans barbarians...
I can't speak for every unit in Afghanistan, but I know for a fact that combating drug production is one of the primary objectives of the New Zealand forces there (Bayman Provice). I would expect that ALL PRTs in Afghanistan have fighting drug production as one of their major objectives, but I wouldn't like to claim that since I don't know much about the other PRTs.
The US has frequently said it could immediately wipe out all opium production using aerial spraying. The Afghani government has refused to allow aerial spraying. They are the government. Their word is law.
However, last I heard, the Afghani government were saying they would allow spraying if coalition forces didn't produce results using other methods.
-Andrew