Forum Settings
       
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Afghani-what?Follow

#27 Jul 29 2004 at 1:31 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,858 posts
^ That's what I said.

Edited, Thu Jul 29 14:35:21 2004 by CrimsonMagician
#28 Jul 29 2004 at 1:36 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:
Somewhat more signfigantly opium exports have increased about 50 fold.


Like returning to moms womb for them. Seriously, this is all they've known for how many years? It's like expecting Columbians not to be involved with the coca plant. At all.
#29 Jul 29 2004 at 1:39 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The number of times I've posted something and had Smash say the same thing a post later are legion. I think he ignores anyone he's not arguing with.

Or maybe he just ignores me.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#30 Jul 29 2004 at 1:40 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
I wasn't hanging around this forum during the Afghan conflict, but I find it hard to believe that there hasn't already been a diatribe about the motivation behind the invasion.

Yes, the Al-Qaeda connection was true, but that was more so of Pakistan, but they have nukes so let's not carried away here!. It was about. . . wait for it. . . OIL!

Having successfully overcome the Taleban who we trained, funded and armed in the 80s, we gave them 'their own' Government. Just like in Iraq.

"Hey guys - look, your new head of state is Afghan. Hand-picked by MI5 and the CIA, approved by the people who just bombed the ***** out of you and your families, and dependent on the western axis for their survival. . . but they're Afghan!"

(Repeat the above paragraph replacing 'Afghan' with 'Iraqi')
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#31 Jul 29 2004 at 1:42 PM Rating: Good
****
4,596 posts
If we have control of this country how come we cant stop the export of opium? I would think that much opium would require large planes or boats to ship. Couldn't we just carpet bomb these fields? Or genetically engineer an opium plant that goes sterile in 2 or 3 generations and scatter the seeds everywhere? I don't see why we are having such a big issue with this.
____________________________
Nicroll 65 Assassin
Teltorid 52 Druid
Aude Sapere

Oh hell camp me all you want f**kers. I own this site and thus I own you. - Allakhazam
#32 Jul 29 2004 at 1:42 PM Rating: Default
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Like returning to moms womb for them. Seriously, this is all they've known for how many years? It's like expecting Columbians not to be involved with the coca plant. At all.


I guess. It's pretty clear that we and the new government can't do even vaugely as good of a job at curbing the drug trade as the Taliban did.

That's not our goal, obviously, so I'm not saying it was a bad idea to invade, but if you're going to have a "War on Drugs" and a "War on Terror" it'd be nice if one didn't directly conflict with the other.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#33 Jul 29 2004 at 1:45 PM Rating: Default
Iraq 657 thousand barrels per day

Venezuela 1547 thousand barrels per day


Plus I've said more than once don't believe anything you read unless it's something you already know to be true or have taken the time to research it yourself.

Varus
#34 Jul 29 2004 at 1:47 PM Rating: Decent
**
312 posts
Great fact, but that has nothing to do with what you said.

Quote:
You all realize the u.s. only receives 25% of it's crude oil from the mid east. We actually get more oil from venezuela.
#35 Jul 29 2004 at 1:47 PM Rating: Default
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

The number of times I've posted something and had Smash say the same thing a post later are legion.


and vice versa you *******.

We just have simmilar views and a silly relicance on facts.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#36 Jul 29 2004 at 1:47 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
but I find it hard to believe that there hasn't already been a diatribe about the motivation behind the invasion
Actually, we had a lot of debates about how the war would pan out and some of us (myself included) thought it'd go worse than it did, but no one I can think of was saying that we shouldn't invade Afghanistan. It was pretty obviously justified.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#37 Jul 29 2004 at 1:47 PM Rating: Default
LOL Smashed are you kidding? We can't control the drug problem in this country how can we be expected to control it in other countries?

Varus
#38 Jul 29 2004 at 1:47 PM Rating: Good
YAY! Canaduhian
*****
10,293 posts
And by "research" you mean looking to and examining more than one source, comparing arguments and finally compiling a valid list of sources to compliment your own arguement, right Varus? Smiley: rolleyes


____________________________
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
#39 Jul 29 2004 at 1:49 PM Rating: Default
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Yeah, we talked about it extensively.

My main critisizm was that we didn't move quickly enough. You had to remove the Taliban.

I really have zero problems with that front of the war aside from the resources that got pulled from it to work on Iraq, and some horrible tactical desicions early on that got some Delta guys killed because some idiot used them as an infantry force instead of a special ops force.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#40 Jul 29 2004 at 1:49 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,499 posts
Hmmm, anyone outside of the US remember this story?

There is a documentary out there, that supposedly has been broadcast and reported in a lot of places, but not the US.

Quote:
It tells the story of thousands of prisoners who surrendered to the US military’s Afghan allies after the siege of Kunduz. According to eyewitnesses, some three thousand of the prisoners were forced into sealed containers and loaded onto trucks for transport to Sheberghan prison. Eyewitnesses say when the prisoners began shouting for air, U.S.-allied Afghan soldiers fired directly into the truck, killing many of them. The rest suffered through an appalling road trip lasting up to four days, so thirsty they clawed at the skin of their fellow prisoners as they licked perspiration and even drank blood from open wounds.

Witnesses say that when the trucks arrived and soldiers opened the containers, most of the people inside were dead. They also say US Special Forces re-directed the containers carrying the living and dead into the desert and stood by as survivors were shot and buried. Now, up to three thousand bodies lie buried in a mass grave.


Oh wait, I guess a US news source did report on it in 2002. It looks like Newsweek did a story on it, which is no longer in their archive online, but reprinted at different websites.

Yes, things are just peachy there. USA USA USA!!!!!
#41 Jul 29 2004 at 1:50 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
I, for one, have no problem with an increase in opium trafficking. As long as it doesn't get my brother-in-law killed (101st Airborne)

What can I say, it makes a nice occasional replacement for weed.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#42 Jul 29 2004 at 1:51 PM Rating: Default
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

LOL Smashed are you kidding? We can't control the drug problem in this country how can we be expected to control it in other countries?


I don't know, but your party insists on spending about $100B a year trying.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#43 Jul 29 2004 at 1:52 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I remember that too. A lot of talk about how the military was using sexy Special Ops forces in situations where they should have been using conventional ground forces just because Delta Force or Rangers or the A-Team or whatever looked better in the headlines.

The main debates were whether or not we'd get bogged down in the mountians a la the Soviets and if we had enough men to stop a mass Taliban/al Qaeda exodus into Pakistan.

Oh, and Totem and I had a lengthy discussion on the use of tactical nuclear weapons.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#44 Jul 29 2004 at 1:54 PM Rating: Default
Smashed:

Quote:
I don't know, but your party insists on spending about $100B a year trying.


The libertarian party is doing this?

Varus
#45 Jul 29 2004 at 2:10 PM Rating: Default
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

The libertarian party is doing this?


Considering the primary members of the Libertarian party donate massive amounts of money to the GOP, yes, they are.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#46 Jul 29 2004 at 3:32 PM Rating: Default
Smashed

Quote:
Considering the primary members of the Libertarian party donate massive amounts of money to the GOP, yes, they are.


Lies!

Varus
#47 Jul 29 2004 at 3:43 PM Rating: Default
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Lies!


Sadly, no.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#48 Jul 29 2004 at 3:47 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:

I guess. It's pretty clear that we and the new government can't do even vaugely as good of a job at curbing the drug trade as the Taliban did.


Well let's face it, the Taliban had no qualms about killing. What better way to control your nations biggest cash crop than to kill them for growing it?

Quote:
That's not our goal, obviously, so I'm not saying it was a bad idea to invade, but if you're going to have a "War on Drugs" and a "War on Terror" it'd be nice if one didn't directly conflict with the other.


You're right about that. The biggest problem (as I see it) is they have all that resource, and yet we do nothing to give them a better chance at prosperity than opium does. (We could provide *commercial* technology to get them back on their feet.)

Really the WoD and the WoT are both jobs that require more manpower than we have, or ever will have. Didn't we, while the Taliban was in power, provide them with compensation for *not* growing Opium? (I know, the Government recieved all and didn't distribute the Aide.) What happened to that program?
1 2 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 209 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (209)