Conquer Club

mpjh wrote:better read the whole post

You edited that in after I started posting, hold your horses

The Taliban are one of the mujahideen ("holy warriors" or "freedom fighters") groups that formed during the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (1979-89). After the withdrawal of Soviet forces, the Soviet-backed government lost ground to the mujahideen. In 1992, Kabul was captured and an alliance of mujahideen set up a new government with Burhanuddin Rabbani as interim president. However, the various factions were unable to cooperate and fell to fighting each other. Afghanistan was reduced to a collection of territories held by competing warlords.

Groups of taliban ("religious students") were loosely organized on a regional basis during the occupation and civil war. Although they represented a potentially huge force, they didn't emerge as a united entity until the taliban of Kandahar made their move in 1994. In late 1994, a group of well-trained taliban were chosen by Pakistan to protect a convoy trying to open a trade route from Pakistan to Central Asia. They proved an able force, fighting off rival mujahideen and warlords. The taliban then went on to take the city of Kandahar, beginning a surprising advance that ended with their capture of Kabul in September 1996.

from research by
by Laura Hayes, Borgna Brunner, and Beth Rowen

mpjh wrote:February 2001

U.N. drug control officers said the Taliban religious militia has nearly wiped out opium production in Afghanistan -- once the world's largest producer -- since banning poppy cultivation last summer.

A 12-member team from the U.N. Drug Control Program spent two weeks searching most of the nation's largest opium-producing areas and found so few poppies that they do not expect any opium to come out of Afghanistan this year.

"We are not just guessing. We have seen the proof in the fields," said Bernard Frahi, regional director for the U.N. program in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He laid out photographs of vast tracts of land cultivated with wheat alongside pictures of the same fields taken a year earlier -- a sea of blood-red poppies.

A few things here - the Taliban didn't officially ban Opium until 2000, and it continued to be produced en masse until the end of that year. Then they issued a more harsh decree and backed it up with force.

Consider this, however - the Taliban is and almost always has been funded by opium revenues. In the year 2000, they had stockpiles.

While it is true that most opium fields in Afghanistan were (briefly) eliminated, what was the effect? The value of the stockpiles held by the Taliban increased exponentially.

That seems to fit with my previous quote. They aren't particularly concerned about the moral ramifications of opium so long as it winds up in the hands of westerners and no Muslims. Evidence now suggests that they are still being funded by opium revenues.

Point is, the Taliban's ban on opium was temporary and calculated.

mpjh wrote:

The Taliban are one of the mujahideen ("holy warriors" or "freedom fighters") groups that formed during the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (1979-89). After the withdrawal of Soviet forces, the Soviet-backed government lost ground to the mujahideen. In 1992, Kabul was captured and an alliance of mujahideen set up a new government with Burhanuddin Rabbani as interim president. However, the various factions were unable to cooperate and fell to fighting each other. Afghanistan was reduced to a collection of territories held by competing warlords.

Groups of taliban ("religious students") were loosely organized on a regional basis during the occupation and civil war. Although they represented a potentially huge force, they didn't emerge as a united entity until the taliban of Kandahar made their move in 1994. In late 1994, a group of well-trained taliban were chosen by Pakistan to protect a convoy trying to open a trade route from Pakistan to Central Asia. They proved an able force, fighting off rival mujahideen and warlords. The taliban then went on to take the city of Kandahar, beginning a surprising advance that ended with their capture of Kabul in September 1996.

from research by
by Laura Hayes, Borgna Brunner, and Beth Rowen

I don't see anything here which contradicts what I said. The "Taliban" (with a capital T, meaning the united organization we see today) did not engage in any sort of aggressive action until the Soviet withdrawal, when they acted against the Afghan warlords.

Ok, I gave you the drug enforcement source. What is yours -- wishful thinking?

OnlyAmbrose wrote:

mpjh wrote:

The Taliban are one of the mujahideen ("holy warriors" or "freedom fighters") groups that formed during the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (1979-89). After the withdrawal of Soviet forces, the Soviet-backed government lost ground to the mujahideen. In 1992, Kabul was captured and an alliance of mujahideen set up a new government with Burhanuddin Rabbani as interim president. However, the various factions were unable to cooperate and fell to fighting each other. Afghanistan was reduced to a collection of territories held by competing warlords.

Groups of taliban ("religious students") were loosely organized on a regional basis during the occupation and civil war. Although they represented a potentially huge force, they didn't emerge as a united entity until the taliban of Kandahar made their move in 1994. In late 1994, a group of well-trained taliban were chosen by Pakistan to protect a convoy trying to open a trade route from Pakistan to Central Asia. They proved an able force, fighting off rival mujahideen and warlords. The taliban then went on to take the city of Kandahar, beginning a surprising advance that ended with their capture of Kabul in September 1996.

from research by
by Laura Hayes, Borgna Brunner, and Beth Rowen

I don't see anything here which contradicts what I said. The "Taliban" (with a capital T, meaning the united organization we see today) did not engage in any sort of aggressive action until the Soviet withdrawal, when they acted against the Afghan warlords.

But the taliban were part of the Afghan warlords who received backing and funds. They weren't some peacefull group of fanatics who sat around doing nothing untill 1994.

mpjh wrote:Ok, I gave you the drug enforcement source. What is yours -- wishful thinking?

Common knowledge, really. How else do you expect them to make money in Afghanistan? But if you want a source, here's one:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LR693789.htm

LONDON, Nov 27 (Reuters) - The Taliban has earned up to $470 million from the Afghan opium trade this year alone, the United Nations said on Thursday, money that is being used to finance the insurgency against U.S. and Afghan forces.

As well as the income earned from directly taxing farmers' output and from levies on opium processing and on trafficking the drug, there is evidence the Taliban is hoarding opium stocks to prop up prices, the U.N. said in a report.

True, although, ironically, the Taliban did a really good job of stamping out the drug trade when they last held power.

EDIT: I suppose the irony is that a fundamentalist religious group that is strongly opposed to drug usage makes most of its money by selling heroin poppies.

TheProwler wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

TheProwler wrote:As an American, you should know that by focusing on the negative, you are reinforcing the negative opinions others have of your country. I know you have your rights and all that. You are lucky enough to be an American where you do have those rights. But if you don't like it there, and I am saying this seriously and calmly and respectfully, why don't you just leave?

Yeah MeDeFe! Why don't you just leave the US!?

He's German!?!?!?!?!?!

Hahaha! And he's criticizing the USA?

Germany's done nothing since....since....

Nevermind.

Actually I'm a Finnish citizen. Not that it matters.

Yeah, sure. that is from after their overthrow and is propaganda used to discredit them. Notice, however how they now control the country outside of Kabul -- seems the propagada is not working. I am sure than when they return, they will outlaw drugs as they did before and shut down the fields. It is amazing how the current family that controls heroine exports, the Karzai family, tries to discredit it enemy with a smear that they deal in drugs.

from the Blotter

U.S. military documents, obtained by ABC News, list the brother of Afghanistan president Karzai as a "problem maker" in the pay of drug lords.

Wali Karzai is described in the documents as "receives money from drug lords as bribe to facilitate their work and movement."

The documents, marked secret, appear to be part of a "U.S. military targeting assessment" produced in January 2005. The documents were downloaded from a computer flash disc sold at an Afghanistan street bazaar for $200.

Nine other prominent Afghanis are also listed as "problem makers" for a variety of reasons, including connections to opium drug lords.

mpjh wrote:Yeah, sure. that is from after their overthrow and is propaganda used to discredit them. Notice, however how they now control the country outside of Kabul -- seems the propagada is not working. I am sure than when they return, they will outlaw drugs as they did before and shut down the fields. It is amazing how the current family that controls heroine exports, the Karzai family, tries to discredit it enemy with a smear that they deal in drugs.

from the Blotter

U.S. military documents, obtained by ABC News, list the brother of Afghanistan president Karzai as a "problem maker" in the pay of drug lords.

Wali Karzai is described in the documents as "receives money from drug lords as bribe to facilitate their work and movement."

The documents, marked secret, appear to be part of a "U.S. military targeting assessment" produced in January 2005. The documents were downloaded from a computer flash disc sold at an Afghanistan street bazaar for $200.

Nine other prominent Afghanis are also listed as "problem makers" for a variety of reasons, including connections to opium drug lords.

Oh please.

So I can't cite the UN now because it's "propaganda". Who the hell can I cite? The spokesman for the Taliban?

I cited a pre-9/11 source written by a Muslim author quoting a man in the Taliban as saying that they were ambivalent about selling opium.

Now I'm citing a UN report on the topic which says basically the same thing.

And you're going to toss that out the window as propoganda?

We're not going to get anywhere with this, friend.

You have no date on your quote.

mpjh wrote:

jbrettlip wrote:Please ignore the mass graves in Iraq. Those were obviously not Saddam's troops doing. And destroying statues of Buddha, and stoning to death women who want to attend school sound like Afghanistan was on the BRINK of civilization. Screw the US for intervening in that utopian society.

Have you ever visited Wounded Knee or the mass graves of freed blacks in Roseville, Florida, or studied about the Trail of Tears, or the use of small pox contaminated blankets to kill of Native Americans, or read about the lynching capital of the world in Caro, Illinois, or visited a KKK office in today's Louisiana. These are just a few of the things we Americans love. We should clean up our own house before telling the rest of the world how to live.

Hmmm, so things that are presently occuring should be ignored due to our past? Perhaps you think our whole military budget should go into TIME MACHINE FUNDING so we can fix those errors. In case you haven't noticed you can't go back in time. You can only live in the present. And fixing things that are currently wrong is important. Guess what...all the people on the Trail of Tears would be dead by now anyone. That is the beauty of time, every one eventually will die.

mpjh wrote:You have no date on your quote.

What is this a discussion on how to properly write bibliographies?

fwiw the source is recent.

Taliban earns up to $470 mln from opium trade - U.N. 27 Nov 2008 13:50:32 GMT

got tonkaed wrote:fwiw the source is recent.

Taliban earns up to $470 mln from opium trade - U.N. 27 Nov 2008 13:50:32 GMT

Yeah. I figured that the link would be enough to figure that out, but apparently not

jbrettlip wrote: That is the beauty of time, every one eventually will die.

Why bother helping them then?

OnlyAmbrose wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:fwiw the source is recent.

Taliban earns up to $470 mln from opium trade - U.N. 27 Nov 2008 13:50:32 GMT

Yeah. I figured that the link would be enough to figure that out, but apparently not

Duh, That proves my point. When the Taliban were in power they eliminated poppy production. When they are fighting to get back they use the poppy production created by the Karzai family against them. Pretty smart, if you ask me.

Snorri1234 wrote:

jbrettlip wrote: That is the beauty of time, every one eventually will die.

Why bother helping them then?

To make the world a better place, while we ARE here.

jbrettlip wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

jbrettlip wrote: That is the beauty of time, every one eventually will die.

Why bother helping them then?

To make the world a better place, while we ARE here.

But it won't matter. As soon as you leave shit will go back to the way it was. Things don't change by violent struggle, they just change over time. Unless the people themselves change conflict won't solve any thing.

mpjh wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:fwiw the source is recent.

Taliban earns up to $470 mln from opium trade - U.N. 27 Nov 2008 13:50:32 GMT

Yeah. I figured that the link would be enough to figure that out, but apparently not

Duh, That proves my point. When the Taliban were in power they eliminated poppy production. When they are fighting to get back they use the poppy production created by the Karzai family against them. Pretty smart, if you ask me.

Grasping at straws dude. The Taliban eliminated poppy production when it was convenient for them. They were in power since 1994. They didn't make opium illegal until 2000. The value of their stockpiles skyrocketed. Then they were ousted in 2002. Now they're back growing it again.

Oh and about this:

Snorri wrote:But the taliban were part of the Afghan warlords who received backing and funds. They weren't some peacefull group of fanatics who sat around doing nothing untill 1994.

The "taliban" during the Russian occupation was a term used to describe young students opposed to atheistic communist rule. The "Taliban" as the government didn't come about until much later. The point is, suggesting that we funded or created the Taliban government which we know today isn't accurate.

Interesting, the Taliban could eliminate poppy growing when they wanted to end it. We take over and cannot stop it, in fact the exportation of heroine is now Afghanistan's chief cash crop.

Hmmmm. We are idiots.

All this talk makes me have to go take a #2

mpjh wrote:Interesting, the Taliban could eliminate poppy growing when they wanted to end it. We take over and cannot stop it, in fact the exportation of heroine is now Afghanistan's chief cash crop.

Hmmmm. We are idiots.

mpjh, your arguments are becoming less coherent as this thread progresses.

First of all, poppies have been Afghanistan's chief cash crop for decades. There's nothing else that can grow there that's anywhere near as valuable.

Secondly, there are two problems with what you seem to be proposing (ie that the US should have gone and wiped out all the Afghan poppy fields). (My source here is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, who came to speak to my unit, by the by).

Firstly, the quagmire in Iraq has drawn an enormous amount of resources. I have already indicated that I think the Iraq war was a mistake, but this fact does not reflect poorly on the US armed forces, it reflects on poor decision making on the part of Bush and company. This leads to my second point:

Secondly, the war in the Middle East is largely a war for "hearts and minds", given the nature of the conflict. The goal in Afghanistan is to create a stable, lasting government. Afghanistan relies on opium economically - that much is clear - and we don't have the resources to get it off of it at this moment (because of Iraq). To torch the poppy crops before we can establish a more legitimate economy would cause a downward spiral into greater disunion, desperation, and violence. Furthermore, to a population which relies on the poppy crop for money with which to sustain families, prematurely destroying it would create lasting enmity which would make it difficult to accept a state which the US helped build.

The long and the short of it is, while we certainly could drop all sorts of bombs to remove opium from Afghanistan, that would cause a great deal of collateral damage and economic strife which would cause the nation to tumble into anarchy.

Like I said before though, I'm fairly confident that President-elect Obama will do a good job of diverting resources from Iraq to Afghanistan so we can get it firmly on its feet and off the poppy trade for good.

You can piss and moan all you want about my posts. Nevertheless the Taliban was able to stop all opium production when they wanted to and we cannot. That is because we are idiots sending 18 year olds to do the job with absolute idiots in charge.