The US has Armed Forces guarding opium crops in Afghanistan under the idea that if we don't 'protect' the crops then the opposition will take them over and the money will go to fund Al-Qaeda. Some people point to this as evidence the US is involved in global drug running and funnelling the profits to black operations.
uuum you guys have been doing that since the french-connection, starting in ww2
united states military/intelligence services running drugs is definitely nothing new
pretty sure the british military are involved in afghani-opium, too. who wouldn't be? easy money in a narco-state.
united states military/intelligence services running drugs is definitely nothing new
pretty sure the british military are involved in afghani-opium, too. who wouldn't be? easy money in a narco-state.
Last edited by Uzique (2010-12-13 15:01:20)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
I was just commenting on the idea that the US can "stop the opium trade". There's a good amount of evidence that we are actively a part of the trade itself. It seems like we have no intention of stopping it at all.
Good point, but destroying the crops and replacing them with monitored farming subsidized by the Coalition is a much better option.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
The US has Armed Forces guarding opium crops in Afghanistan under the idea that if we don't 'protect' the crops then the opposition will take them over and the money will go to fund Al-Qaeda. Some people point to this as evidence the US is involved in global drug running and funnelling the profits to black operations.
That doesn't really sound like freedom to me.Turquoise wrote:
Good point, but destroying the crops and replacing them with monitored farming subsidized by the Coalition is a much better option.
Fuck Israel
Teach the afghanis to farm something else? Olives? Grapes?
Then what will they get high on while fighting?
olives and grapes won't be killing 35000 russians a year.Pubic wrote:
Teach the afghanis to farm something else? Olives? Grapes?
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Well, spreading freedom through foreign policy is bullshit rhetoric for the most part. We do need to stop pretending that this is one of our aims.Dilbert_X wrote:
That doesn't really sound like freedom to me.Turquoise wrote:
Good point, but destroying the crops and replacing them with monitored farming subsidized by the Coalition is a much better option.
Besides, Afghanistan is too chaotic and primitive for "free society" to work for them. Right now, they need a strongman government to force through reforms, maintain order, and industrialize them.
For example, even though South Korea had military rule for a while, they were able to push through a lot of reforms that eventually led to the modernization of their country. This amount of progress would have taken much longer under a true democratic republic. Afghanistan is a very different country from South Korea, but the principle is basically the same.
In short, freedom doesn't mean much if your country is plagued by insurgency and is poor as shit.
Once you industrialize and gain prosperity, that's when freedom is more relevant.
Freedom is not the top priority in a person's needs, actually its pretty low. Allot of things come first, like potable water, decent food (or any food, in some cases), a roof, and many other things. We put freedom at such high value because we already have all the rest.
afghanistan has a long way to go before spreading true freedom and democracy for all.
afghanistan has a long way to go before spreading true freedom and democracy for all.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Fuck Israel
the fuck?Shahter wrote:
olives and grapes won't be killing 35000 russians a year.Pubic wrote:
Teach the afghanis to farm something else? Olives? Grapes?
Drug addiction is a huge problem for Russia. Granted, it's even worse in Iran.11 Bravo wrote:
the fuck?Shahter wrote:
olives and grapes won't be killing 35000 russians a year.Pubic wrote:
Teach the afghanis to farm something else? Olives? Grapes?
I found an interesting article showing the differences between Daniel Ellsberg's leaking of the Pentagon Papers and Wikileaks's own leaks.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … 01528.html
In 1971, Daniel Ellsberg decided to make available to the New York Times (and then to other newspapers) 43 volumes of the Pentagon Papers, the top- secret study prepared for the Department of Defense examining how and why the United States had become embroiled in the Vietnam conflict. But he made another critical decision as well. That was to keep confidential the remaining four volumes of the study describing the diplomatic efforts of the United States to resolve the war.
Not at all coincidentally, those were the volumes that the government most feared would be disclosed. In a secret brief filed with the Supreme Court, the U.S. government described the diplomatic volumes as including information about negotiations secretly conducted on its behalf by foreign nations including Canada, Poland, Italy and Norway. Included as well, according to the government, were "derogatory comments about the perfidiousness of specific persons involved, and statements which might be offensive to nations or governments."
The diplomatic volumes were not published, even in part, for another dozen years. Mr. Ellsberg later explained his decision to keep them secret, according to Sanford Ungar's 1972 book "The Papers & The Papers," by saying, "I didn't want to get in the way of the diplomacy."
Julian Assange sure does. Can anyone doubt that he would have made those four volumes public on WikiLeaks regardless of their sensitivity? Or that he would have paid not even the slightest heed to the possibility that they might seriously compromise efforts to bring a speedier end to the war?
Mr. Ellsberg himself has recently denounced the "myth" of the "good" Pentagon Papers as opposed to the "bad" WikiLeaks. But the real myth is that the two disclosures are the same.
The Pentagon Papers revelations dealt with a discrete topic, the ever-increasing level of duplicity of our leaders over a score of years in increasing the nation's involvement in Vietnam while denying it. It revealed official wrongdoing or, at the least, a pervasive lack of candor by the government to its people.
WikiLeaks is different. It revels in the revelation of "secrets" simply because they are secret. It assaults the very notion of diplomacy that is not presented live on C-Span. It has sometimes served the public by its revelations but it also offers, at considerable potential price, a vast amount of material that discloses no abuses of power at all.
...
Mr. Assange is no boon to American journalists. His activities have already doomed proposed federal shield-law legislation protecting journalists' use of confidential sources in the just-adjourned Congress. An indictment of him could be followed by the judicial articulation of far more speech-limiting legal principles than currently exist with respect to even the most responsible reporting about both diplomacy and defense. If he is not charged or is acquitted of whatever charges may be made, that may well lead to the adoption of new and dangerously restrictive legislation. In more than one way, Mr. Assange may yet have much to answer for."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … 01528.html
In 1971, Daniel Ellsberg decided to make available to the New York Times (and then to other newspapers) 43 volumes of the Pentagon Papers, the top- secret study prepared for the Department of Defense examining how and why the United States had become embroiled in the Vietnam conflict. But he made another critical decision as well. That was to keep confidential the remaining four volumes of the study describing the diplomatic efforts of the United States to resolve the war.
Not at all coincidentally, those were the volumes that the government most feared would be disclosed. In a secret brief filed with the Supreme Court, the U.S. government described the diplomatic volumes as including information about negotiations secretly conducted on its behalf by foreign nations including Canada, Poland, Italy and Norway. Included as well, according to the government, were "derogatory comments about the perfidiousness of specific persons involved, and statements which might be offensive to nations or governments."
The diplomatic volumes were not published, even in part, for another dozen years. Mr. Ellsberg later explained his decision to keep them secret, according to Sanford Ungar's 1972 book "The Papers & The Papers," by saying, "I didn't want to get in the way of the diplomacy."
Julian Assange sure does. Can anyone doubt that he would have made those four volumes public on WikiLeaks regardless of their sensitivity? Or that he would have paid not even the slightest heed to the possibility that they might seriously compromise efforts to bring a speedier end to the war?
Mr. Ellsberg himself has recently denounced the "myth" of the "good" Pentagon Papers as opposed to the "bad" WikiLeaks. But the real myth is that the two disclosures are the same.
The Pentagon Papers revelations dealt with a discrete topic, the ever-increasing level of duplicity of our leaders over a score of years in increasing the nation's involvement in Vietnam while denying it. It revealed official wrongdoing or, at the least, a pervasive lack of candor by the government to its people.
WikiLeaks is different. It revels in the revelation of "secrets" simply because they are secret. It assaults the very notion of diplomacy that is not presented live on C-Span. It has sometimes served the public by its revelations but it also offers, at considerable potential price, a vast amount of material that discloses no abuses of power at all.
...
Mr. Assange is no boon to American journalists. His activities have already doomed proposed federal shield-law legislation protecting journalists' use of confidential sources in the just-adjourned Congress. An indictment of him could be followed by the judicial articulation of far more speech-limiting legal principles than currently exist with respect to even the most responsible reporting about both diplomacy and defense. If he is not charged or is acquitted of whatever charges may be made, that may well lead to the adoption of new and dangerously restrictive legislation. In more than one way, Mr. Assange may yet have much to answer for."
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-12-29 14:13:12)
Every farmer in the EU receives farm subsidies.Dilbert_X wrote:
That doesn't really sound like freedom to me.Turquoise wrote:
Good point, but destroying the crops and replacing them with monitored farming subsidized by the Coalition is a much better option.
really? cant be as bad as the US where some farmers are paid to not plant things?
They aren't told by govt what to grow and what not to grow are they?11 Bravo wrote:
really? cant be as bad as the US where some farmers are paid to not plant things?
Fuck Israel
told...noDilbert_X wrote:
They aren't told by govt what to grow and what not to grow are they?11 Bravo wrote:
really? cant be as bad as the US where some farmers are paid to not plant things?
paid more not to...yes
fixed.Turquoise wrote:
Drug addiction is a huge problemfit for Russia USA.11 Bravo wrote:
the fuck?Shahter wrote:
olives and grapes won't be killing 35000 russians a year.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
hey shitler dont you have a nazi riot against muslims to go to?
How so?Shahter wrote:
fixed.Turquoise wrote:
Drug addiction is a huge problemfit for Russia USA.11 Bravo wrote:
the fuck?
Turquoise wrote:
How so?Shahter wrote:
fixed.Turquoise wrote:
Drug addiction is a huge problemfit for Russia USA.
Shahter wrote:
killing 35000 russians a year.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
you wouldnt say america has a drugs problem?Turquoise wrote:
How so?Shahter wrote:
fixed.Turquoise wrote:
Drug addiction is a huge problemfit for Russia USA.
talk about turning a blind eye
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
I didn't say that. I was asking exactly how we turn a profit from it. I realize the CIA does some shady shit, but overall, the War on Drugs costs our government more than it makes from it.Uzique wrote:
you wouldnt say america has a drugs problem?Turquoise wrote:
How so?Shahter wrote:
fixed.
talk about turning a blind eye
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-12-30 09:01:19)
Yes, the EU does the exact same thing.11 Bravo wrote:
really? cant be as bad as the US where some farmers are paid to not plant things?