|
LostRook posted:The vast majority of the infrastructure the US installed was based solely around urban centers, such as Kabul, leaving the rest of the country for the Taliban to woo. It's not just the graft, it's the narrow vision. Wrong again. The US and others built or funded infrastructure like schools in rural areas. Taliban then moved in and blew them up and in some cases murdered teachers and pupils on the spot because guess what, Taliban didn't want them there and the coalition couldn't provide security in large parts of the country! Last school attack that I remember happened this May in Kabul killing 85 people, mostly school girls. According to UN in 2019 there were 70 attacks on schools and 75 on hospitals. You're the one with a narrow vision because you seem to think that there's just this one little trick that US/NATO hates.
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 15:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 01:14 |
|
|
Thread: tl;dr, US upping armed mil presence in Kabul for both security and passenger processing, upping flights per day, no US-Taliban hostilities so far, and US commanders are in contact with Taliban commanders to de-conflict and otherwise try to keep peace while the US and coalition evacuates and processes refugees. https://twitter.com/garretthaake/status/1427634680069869572?s=21
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 15:44
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:Opium stuff
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 15:45
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:The context was explaining that the Taliban were graciously letting the Americans 'control' the airport and evacuate at their leisure as a magnanimous gesture because the Taliban controlled literally everything else, and then some American-chauvinists popped in to say that it wasn't a favor, the Taliban were afraid of the awesome fighting force of America. The Taliban don't want to extend the war, and are outgunned fighting in the open. They are not going to fight us in an airport because an airport is not an advantageous place, and they've won all the places where they'd have an advantage. The US has tried to fight them without resorting to carpet bombing cities and failed, shooting down lower altitude planes that are trying to leave is a pretty good way to get cities carpet bombed by higher altitude planes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 15:53
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Wrong again. The US and others built or funded infrastructure like schools in rural areas. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/09/world/middleeast/afghanistan-war-cost.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 15:53
|
|
|
shirunei posted:Literally in the very stuff you are linking it says that opium production only accounts for a tiny fraction of the heroin supply in America. I mean you can argue semantics, but when people refer to the opiate crisis it is America's that is being referenced. The same article you claim to have read also said that supply increases affected pricing even in areas that supply did not directly reach. "But, as with any commodity, if there's more of it on the market, the cost will fall, and US drug enforcement was growing afraid that burgeoning production in Afghanistan would increase world supply and push prices down, making it even more accessible to Americans." It was literally the next sentence.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 15:56
|
|
|
Lol, great narrative that the devil US is a drug trafficking narco state while the noble, morally just gentlemen from the Taliban will put an end to this Though interesting what will happen to the meth production that they earn money from https://www.businessinsider.com/afghanistan-is-being-overrun-by-crystal-meth-2021-5 quote:The BBC, for you dumbasses who think news can't be real if a Russian observed reality posted: Since this is a dig at me, anti-vaxers and fox news pundits can observe reality as well, but when linking to them you can expect to be treated as at least a weirdo who can't link to normal sources of your opinions, or possibly an idiot who consumes propaganda and lacks critical thinking to evaluate the information you consume
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 15:59
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:The Taliban don't want to extend the war, and are outgunned fighting in the open. They are not going to fight us in an airport because an airport is not an advantageous place, and they've won all the places where they'd have an advantage. The US has tried to fight them without resorting to carpet bombing cities and failed, shooting down lower altitude planes that are trying to leave is a pretty good way to get cities carpet bombed by higher altitude planes. The Taliban isn't fighting them because they've won a complete and total victory and there's no point to it, and they can afford to be magnanimous in victory and its great PR watching the Americans completely mismanage the evacuation. You seem very attached to this narrative that the Taliban are inherently bloodthirsty and only being held at bay by the valor of American arms, but it looks like they just wanted their country back from the imperialist invaders and content to let them flee in disgrace
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 16:00
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:The Taliban isn't fighting them because they've won a complete and total victory and there's no point to it, and they can afford to be magnanimous in victory and its great PR watching the Americans completely mismanage the evacuation. You seem very attached to this narrative that the Taliban are inherently bloodthirsty and only being held at bay by the valor of American arms, but it looks like they just wanted their country back from the imperialist invaders and content to let them flee in disgrace It can be both. It's not like we would have just let the Taliban meekly go home with their tails between their legs if the situation had been reversed, so the Taliban don't have to be cartoonishly bloodthirsty savages or anything to have an incentive to kill fleeing invaders if they think they can get away with it. They're making a rational decision not to escalate both because it makes them look good and because it doesn't give the US a reason to annihilate them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 16:02
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:The Taliban isn't fighting them because they've won a complete and total victory and there's no point to it, and they can afford to be magnanimous in victory and its great PR watching the Americans completely mismanage the evacuation. You seem very attached to this narrative that the Taliban are inherently bloodthirsty and only being held at bay by the valor of American arms, but it looks like they just wanted their country back from the imperialist invaders and content to let them flee in disgrace They've won a complete and total victory on the basis that the US stopped fighting them. You are trying desperately to create this narrative of US forces having been defeated in the field when we all know that's not how we got to where we are today.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 16:03
|
|
|
Somaen posted:Lol, great narrative that the devil US is a drug trafficking narco state while the noble, morally just gentlemen from the Taliban will put an end to this The Taliban literally did put an end to opium production, and were immediately invaded. That was my thesis, yes. It was the single greatest anti-drug campaign ever implemented, which I'm sure made a lot of people very upset. Also the US has a bit of a history around being a devil drug trafficking narco state, so not sure why you dismiss the thing that has actual support to believe the thing that ran counter to observable reality. Also I would argue you lack the critical thinking skills to evaluate information without having to resort to immediate dismissal if the source is something that makes you personally uncomfortable, but thats neither here nor there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 16:05
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:The Taliban isn't fighting them because they've won a complete and total victory and there's no point to it, and they can afford to be magnanimous in victory and its great PR watching the Americans completely mismanage the evacuation. You seem very attached to this narrative that the Taliban are inherently bloodthirsty and only being held at bay by the valor of American arms, but it looks like they just wanted their country back from the imperialist invaders and content to let them flee in disgrace You've misread me completely. I agree with you for the most part, but I'm talking about the people who are for whatever reason relishing a fantasy that the Taliban really has America by the balls and it's sure nice of them to not try to challenge our escape by shooting down evac choppers or trying to starve 6,000 troops in an airport (apparently these people have never heard of supply drops). Those are the people who are ascribing bloodthirsty characteristics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 16:06
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:They've won a complete and total victory on the basis that the US stopped fighting them. You are trying desperately to create this narrative of US forces having been defeated in the field when we all know that's not how we got to where we are today. That's what war is. "Come out and fisticuff the Apache helicopter you cowards!" has always been the stupid ego soothing mantra of imperialists who lose.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 16:07
|
|
|
Zedhe Khoja posted:That's what war is. "Come out and fisticuff the Apache helicopter you cowards!" has always been the stupid ego soothing mantra of imperialists who lose. That's not what we are talking about though. War is the totality of will to fight and the US has clearly lost that, so the Taliban won. We are talking about a tactical decision to steer clear of the airfield. One way to suddenly reignite US willingness to fight would be to directly attack US troops, which is why the Taliban are not attacking an airport which would be literally 'come out and fisticuff the Apache helicopter'.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 16:10
|
|
|
Zedhe Khoja posted:That's what war is. "Come out and fisticuff the Apache helicopter you cowards!" has always been the stupid ego soothing mantra of imperialists who lose. We did lose, but partially because the conspiracy theories are mostly wrong and the US never had that vital an interest in occupying the country forever, but mostly did so out of inertia after the initial invasion, partially because we believed our own propaganda about making the country safe for freedom and democracy and liberated women and puppies, and partially because we didn't succeed in killing bin Laden until a decade after we'd already been sitting there. There was no reason to stay after bin Laden was dead but sunk cost.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 16:10
|
|
|
We lost the totality of the war, indeed. We were not defeated on the battlefield. We decided we were done fighting, because we lost the stomach for it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 16:13
|
|
|
This is baby's first Vietnam discourse. It is possible to be undefeated on the battlefield and still comprehensively lose a war because victory on the battlefield was an insufficient condition for success.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 16:16
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:We did lose, but partially because the conspiracy theories are mostly wrong and the US never had that vital an interest in occupying the country forever, but mostly did so out of inertia after the initial invasion, partially because we believed our own propaganda about making the country safe for freedom and democracy and liberated women and puppies, and partially because we didn't succeed in killing bin Laden until a decade after we'd already been sitting there. There was no reason to stay after bin Laden was dead but sunk cost. Failing to achieve objectives is not the same thing as not having objectives.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 16:17
|
|
|
In other news Taliban spokesman talking now. The deal on offer is pretty clear - international recognition and don't interfere in our rule and in exchange no more hosting international terrorists. All statements on rights and freedoms getting 'within sharia' or 'within our values' caveats.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 16:19
|
|
|
Zedhe Khoja posted:Failing to achieve objectives is not the same thing as not having objectives. We had objectives, they just weren't (after the initial crushing AQ stuff) rational objectives that justified the expense or sacrifice we made or provided any tangible benefit to the US at all really, and eventually Trump and Biden seem to have realized that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 16:20
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:Also I would argue you lack the critical thinking skills to evaluate information without having to resort to immediate dismissal if the source is something that makes you personally uncomfortable, but thats neither here nor there. That's reasonable, only those that read infowars and qanon forums have a truly open mind and a rounded, un-biased worldview
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 16:23
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Wow I guess that's why Bush did 9/11 then good to know. So your supposed occam's razor here is that Bush and the neocons that controlled him also really hated OBL and believed they had a righteous cause to go after Afghanistan to get the terrorist, but then just got lost in innocent nation building along with the rest of the plebs? It's probably a bigger stretch to make anyone believe that these neocons weren't at all interested in the most profound and most impacting anti-drug movement on this planet from day 0. https://www.tni.org/en/article/learning-lessons-from-the-taliban-opium-ban quote:The Taliban opium ban in 2000/2001 had, there is no doubt, the most profound impact on opium/heroin supply in modern history, as the authors argue. Exogenous global causes can indeed be eliminated as explanations. It was a rare historical moment that allowed almost absolute compliance in the south of the country, with hardly any direct enforcement or punishment required. From the eastern regions, where Taliban control was far from absolute, several cases of disobedience were reported, largely resolved by means of negotiations and pay-offs to local war lords. We sure got real lucky that the Northern Alliance there represented the mass bulk of the opium trade. It made restarting it back up and expanding it that much easier.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 16:23
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Wrong again. The US and others built or funded infrastructure like schools in rural areas. potemkin schools https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/azmatkhan/the-big-lie-that-helped-justify-americas-war-in-afghanistan quote:[A] BuzzFeed News investigation — the first comprehensive journalistic reckoning, based on visits to schools across the country, internal U.S. and Afghan databases and documents, and more than 150 interviews — has found those claims to be massively exaggerated, riddled with ghost schools, teachers, and students that exist only on paper. The American effort to educate Afghanistan’s children was hollowed out by corruption and by short-term political and military goals that, time and again, took precedence over building a viable school system. And the U.S. government has known for years that it has been peddling hype. Just a real banger of an article bonus lol quote:In spring 1994, a warlord tied to a trio of commanders including Habibullah Jan kidnapped two women from a checkpoint near the home of a cleric named Mullah Omar. Enough was enough. Mullah Omar gathered a band of religious guerrilla forces to free the women, only to find their naked corpses at the checkpoint. Fueled by the community’s outrage, they purged the area of the hated warlord and imposed Islamic law and order. The Taliban was born, with Mullah Omar at the helm. Within two years, the Taliban had seized Kabul.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 16:28
|
|
|
Lost Time posted:So your supposed occam's razor here is that Bush and the neocons that controlled him also really hated OBL and believed they had a righteous cause to go after Afghanistan to get the terrorist, but then just got lost in innocent nation building along with the rest of the plebs? I don't think the neocons particularly gave a poo poo about restarting the opium trade at all, so I don't see it as a lucky coincidence. Obviously the US got involved in both opium destruction and opium protection over the course of the war, but I certainly don't think it was a US objective to increase opium production when we invaded. In the early years my understanding is that we were mostly destroying it until that was viewed as counterproductive to the war effort. We got interested in opium because we were there, we didn't invade because we were interested in opium.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 16:37
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:potemkin schools this was 14 years on and the total spent building schools was a whopping billion lol lmao
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 16:42
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:I don't think the neocons particularly gave a poo poo about restarting the opium trade at all, so I don't see it as a lucky coincidence. Obviously the US got involved in both opium destruction and opium protection over the course of the war, but I certainly don't think it was a US objective to increase opium production when we invaded. In the early years my understanding is that we were mostly destroying it until that was viewed as counterproductive to the war effort. Weird then, how despite the US trying to destroy opium production rebounded immediately and then increased over the course of the occupation 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 16:44
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:Weird then, how despite the US trying to destroy opium production rebounded immediately and then increased over the course of the occupation He actually points out in his post that the US tried to destroy opium only initially until it gave up because it was viewed as counterproductive to the occupation, so I think you're maybe just talking past each other. Opium production fell to near zero under the Taliban because they were executing heroin growers. It rebounded to pre-ban levels after our invasion and the threat of execution ended, which is unsurprising. It then grew beyond that because we decided not to enforce a ban. OctaMurk fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Aug 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 16:48
|
|
|
We obviously never had the kind of control over the country that the Taliban did because we weren't the locals. We were working through intermediaries who had other interests.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 16:48
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:He actually points out in his post that the US tried to destroy opium only initially until it gave up because it was viewed as counterproductive to the occupation, so I think you're maybe just talking past each other. And my point is if that statement was true then we would see some kind of dip in the post invasion years as the US destruction programs were running. I instead advance the theory that the US wasn't doing poo poo to stop opium production except smoke and mirror PR stunts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 16:50
|
|
|
The idea that the US spent 20 years occupying Afghanistan, which just coincidentally happened to be where the terrorists who did 9/11 were operating out of, because we wanted to flood the world with heroin is so loving stupid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 16:53
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:And my point is if that statement was true then we would see some kind of dip in the post invasion years as the US destruction programs were running. I instead advance the theory that the US wasn't doing poo poo to stop opium production except smoke and mirror PR stunts. Destroying opium crops really pissed off the farmers involved, and they deemed it was doing more harm than good so they stopped it. It's not very complicated. Keeping the locals happy was more important than the war on drugs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 16:54
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:The idea that the US spent 20 years occupying Afghanistan, which just coincidentally happened to be where the terrorists who did 9/11 were operating out of, because we wanted to flood the world with heroin is so loving stupid. you see actually the US allowed 9/11 to happen in order to invade afghanistan in order to control the heroin supply
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 16:58
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:The idea that the US spent 20 years occupying Afghanistan, which just coincidentally happened to be where the terrorists who did 9/11 were operating out of, because we wanted to flood the world with heroin is so loving stupid. There were other reasons, like a whole lot of money to be made by contractors with ties to the US regime, or strategic encirclement of Iran, but turning the flow of drugs back on probably didn't hurt. Also the Taliban offered to turn over Bin Laden to a neutral country to stand trial several times and was rebuffed every time. Plus the 9/11 conspirators were Saudi, but the Saudis had close ties to the US regime. Also its not like starting wars over the drug trade is unprecedented in history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 16:58
|
|
|
I'm genuinely curious to know why you think the US even wants there to be more heroin in the first place. This all feels like super motivated reasoning. Like you're basically just assuming the US is nothing but a cartoonishly evil organization bent on global mayhem and then working backwards from there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 17:01
|
|
|
Nix Panicus posted:There were other reasons, like a whole lot of money to be made by contractors with ties to the US regime, or strategic encirclement of Iran, but turning the flow of drugs back on probably didn't hurt. Also the Taliban offered to turn over Bin Laden to a neutral country to stand trial several times and was rebuffed every time. Plus the 9/11 conspirators were Saudi, but the Saudis had close ties to the US regime. Were you even alive during any of these events? You dont seem to have much of a familiarity with the international atmosphere at the time or the dispositions of the individuals involved. The USA didnt need some alternative motive for invading Afghanistan. They completely lashed out to flex on the world how horrible they could be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 17:04
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:I'm genuinely curious to know why you think the US even wants there to be more heroin in the first place. This all feels like super motivated reasoning. Like you're basically just assuming the US is nothing but a cartoonishly evil organization bent on global mayhem and then working backwards from there. I think, based on the stuff the guy has posted over the last couple of days, that this is exactly what he thinks.  Probably going to have to agree to disagree, because he seems pretty adamant about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 17:07
|
|
|
Even if you buy into the idea that the destruction of the fields was a dog-and-pony show, jumping to the conclusion that it was done to keep the heroin flowing is a stretch. "We invaded a country notorious for it's poppy fields" combined with the local war on drugs would be plenty enough rationale for doing a strict-minimal performative crack-down in order to maintain consistent at-home messaging.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 17:08
|
|
|
The US doesn't want opium right now. What we want is COPIUM.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 17:09
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:The US doesn't want opium right now. What we want is COPIUM. What about hopium? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 17:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 01:14 |
|
|
I never understood why we didn't just take it legit, integrate Afghanistan into the worldwide pharmaceutical industry's supply chain.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2021 17:11
|
|
