Conquer Club

mpjh wrote: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.

Ok, I'm through. This debate went from me making a point supported by sources, you telling me I'm wrong with no source, followed by you telling me that my sources are "propaganda", and now you're just trolling by baselessly insulting the US military and the men and women in it without responding to a single point I made.

Peace out.

Yeah whatever, f*ck the taliban and f*ck everyone. f*ck all those "brave troopers" signing into the military without the slightest clue about how the government doesn't care about them.


I always wondered why soldiers get respect for being soldiers. To me they just sound like idiots for enlisting into a brach which does not give a f*ck about them or justice. I can respect that they're doing good when they can, but I can't respect the initial decision to join. Anyone who joins the military clearly has not the slightest clue about what it actually does. I have more sympathy for the ones who object to being send on a mission than the ones who follow orders without question.



f*ck the military and f*ck the government. f*ck any government, the ones who are in power are always the ones who are the least fit to be in power. A brilliant guy once asked why all the loving, caring and decent people never ended up in politics, and said it was probably for the same reason that vegitarians never took a job at a butcher. Any politician who worked his way up through the party immediately gets a red flag from me. The world sucks and nothing the US or any other country does will ever change that.

since its much more fun and informational to point out simple facts that get into actual debates with people...allow me to bring the thread back to the beginning. Mr nobunaga asked where the stats were compiled...

Probably one of these two places though its fair to assume there are others like it...

http://www.worldaudit.org/press.htm

http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=16

I believe the first one is more of just a compiler and then they do some things with the info. They seem to get their information from most of the standard watchdogs of different social conditions. They are a non-profit out of England. Second group is one of the major groups freedomhouse, which are pretty well known for doing work with different types of freedoms present in other countries. Im pretty sure they are one of the if not the source used in many different ventures. They have some of their 2008 stuff up, but you can view the full stuff for 2007. Methodolgy is hanging around both of the sites in some places.

Its not incredibly complex, but it does require a larger scope of the situation. Its also worth noting, that while we all love the word freedom and the connotations that we draw from it, it by no means equates to freedom always be a kind, pleasant or in some cases desirable state.

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.

First off, the taliban can not elimante poppy production, I have no idea where you came up with that one.

Secondly, why the hell would an occupying force that is trying to win over a populace destroy their livelihoods?

Hmmmm.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:

mpjh wrote: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.

Ok, I'm through. This debate went from me making a point supported by sources, you telling me I'm wrong with no source, followed by you telling me that my sources are "propaganda", and now you're just trolling by baselessly insulting the US military and the men and women in it without responding to a single point I made.

Peace out.

You must be in the military. Quitting when the logic has you down. I gave you sources which confirmed that the Taliban stopped opium production in 2001. Thus, clearly they could and did stop it. You gave me a source that says today they are using the opium trade to fund their rebellion. I gave you sources that showed that Karzai's brother was a kingpin in the drug trade. Thus, the Taliban is using an industry created by Karzai's family to defeat that family in a war. Seems the Taliban are pretty smart

But more importantly, they stopped the trade when they wanted to stop it. We are totally incapably of stopping the trade. Why.

Well, because our friends run it. Remember Karzai is our friend. Conclusion: we are idiots.

Seemed like we had a discussion with sources, and undisputed facts. Get over it.

mpjh wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:

mpjh wrote: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.

Ok, I'm through. This debate went from me making a point supported by sources, you telling me I'm wrong with no source, followed by you telling me that my sources are "propaganda", and now you're just trolling by baselessly insulting the US military and the men and women in it without responding to a single point I made.

Peace out.

You must be in the military. Quitting when the logic has you down. I gave you sources which confirmed that the Taliban stopped opium production in 2001. Thus, clearly they could and did stop it. You gave me a source that says today they are using the opium trade to fund their rebellion. I gave you sources that showed that Karzai's brother was a kingpin in the drug trade. Thus, the Taliban is using an industry created by Karzai's family to defeat that family in a war. Seems the Taliban are pretty smart

But more importantly, they stopped the trade when they wanted to stop it. We are totally incapably of stopping the trade. Why.

Well, because our friends run it. Remember Karzai is our friend. Conclusion: we are idiots.

Seemed like we had a discussion with sources, and undisputed facts. Get over it.

Even if the taliban actually eliminated the opium trade for te purpose of fighting illegal drug use (which they didn't), we dont want to eliminate the trade. Pissing off the Afghans (many of which are helping us, believe it or not) is stupid. We'd be idiots to stop the trade. It is impossible to win the war in Afghanistan if locals don't help us.

I can envision a few different arguments for why you might.

1) the US clearly has some issues with drugs and heroin is not really a positively connotated one. Any country that is willing to spend the time and money on an somewhat questionably successful "War on Drugs" is clearly willing to place moral concerns above a simply pragmatic approach. Also if it were able to be argued these drugs could make it to the US, which considering how lucrative it seems the trade is, seems possible, there would be a rather compelling argument for many sectors of the population.

2) Rarely do many people argue that states which depend on cash crops used in the drug trade remain stable states for long. If the idea behind regime change in Afghanistan is to ensure a strong ally remains in the region we potentially limit that viabilty by allowing the poppy money to continue to flow. Certainly there is at least some historical precedent for areas which do more than dabble in such crops to be less stable and less centrally administratable. If there is a purely pragmatic long term argument that is going to be made, instability as a part of a long term participant in the drug trade could argue that we should attempt to eliminate the poppy trade or at the very least attempt to curtail it.

Short term point aside, there are reasons people could argue for cutting the poppy trade. Personally i dont think many of them carry a lot of weight, but they are important to consider when you try to make a compelling case for shifting a lot of resources to the country, especially when military approval is lower at present.

Sign that man up. He has got that hook set firmly in his square jaw. See how easy it is to come to the conclusion to drug dealers are our friends.

Wow, no wonder we are losing.

got tonkaed wrote:I can envision a few different arguments for why you might.

1) the US clearly has some issues with drugs and heroin is not really a positively connotated one. Any country that is willing to spend the time and money on an somewhat questionably successful "War on Drugs" is clearly willing to place moral concerns above a simply pragmatic approach. Also if it were able to be argued these drugs could make it to the US, which considering how lucrative it seems the trade is, seems possible, there would be a rather compelling argument for many sectors of the population.

Yeah, always stroke me as silly. Warring on drugs. It doesn't stop people from using, it just makes users more likely to commit crimes.

Then again, the "war on drugs" is an ideological one. And ideological wars don't work, especially when you're attacking another ideology.

2) Rarely do many people argue that states which depend on cash crops used in the drug trade remain stable states for long. If the idea behind regime change in Afghanistan is to ensure a strong ally remains in the region we potentially limit that viabilty by allowing the poppy money to continue to flow. Certainly there is at least some historical precedent for areas which do more than dabble in such crops to be less stable and less centrally administratable. If there is a purely pragmatic long term argument that is going to be made, instability as a part of a long term participant in the drug trade could argue that we should attempt to eliminate the poppy trade or at the very least attempt to curtail it.

I believe that in order to keep the region stable that allowing poppy-growth is the best way. I don't know if I agreed with you or not there because I just have trouble reading big texts like that.

mpjh wrote:Sign that man up. He has got that hook set firmly in his square jaw. See how easy it is to come to the conclusion to drug dealers are our friends.

Wow, no wonder we are losing.

They're the lesser of two evils. We can either fight the taliban and get some help from the peasent poppy growers, or we can fight them both at the same time. Now you tell me which is easier. fighting two foes, or one.

edit: I agree with snorri.

It would have disagreed with number 2. I didnt say that was necessarily my personal opinion, it was simply an argument i could see being argued by a pragmatic approach. It was a post in response to Grooves about why an invading force might destroy the trade, even though it would damage local opinion.

got tonkaed wrote:It would have disagreed with number 2. I didnt say that was necessarily my personal opinion, it was simply an argument i could see being argued by a pragmatic approach. It was a post in response to Grooves about why an invading force might destroy the trade, even though it would damage local opinion.

Ah okay. I wondered if I read it correctly being as it is normally not something I would think you'd say. (at least, not say as being your view.)

im not entirely sure what i would advocate to be honest. Im currently boycotting taking a stance on just about anything, until i get crackalacking on learning something about anything.

got tonkaed wrote:im not entirely sure what i would advocate to be honest. Im currently boycotting taking a stance on just about anything, until i get crackalacking on learning something about anything.

Always a good idea. I am not totally formed on an opinion either, especially regarding what to do if the US doesn't change it's stance. I know what I would like to see in an ideal world, but the US isn't going to change so one needs to look at what is possible.

But, guys we are losing. Hasn't anyone figured out that the guys running the poppy fields have no vested interest in a stable government in Kabul? The Taliban are winning and control the countryside. Geez, were did we see that before.

So, let's review. We funded the warlords and nascent Taliban to defeat the Soviet Union. The Pakistani secret service funded the Taliban to gain control of a border country, and succeeded. Al Qaeda allied with the Taliban and the Pakistani secret army units. The Taliban institute sharia law, eliminate the poppy fields, and manage an oppressive but stable Islamic state -- aided by the Pakistanis on their border and the Saudis through Al Qaeda.

We thought we were done and left the country to the Taliban and their allies. Then 9/11. Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We attack for the reason of removing Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda moves to Pakistan and is protected by the Pustan locals and the Pakistani army.

We leave NATO in charge. The Taliban regroup in Pakistan, our ally, and prepare to return. Meanwhile we ally with the poppy growing warlords of Afghanistan and with an absolutely corrupt government controlled by the durg lords.

The Talban return, and the local support them. They prefer the certainty of the Taliban to the oppressive instability of the drug warlords and Karzai. The Taliban gain control of everything outside Kabul. The Pakistani army fails to contain the Taliban in Pakistan.

We say we are allied with the drug warlords so we don't piss off the locals.

We have our heads up our asses. Osama in in Pakistan, the Taliban are in Afghanistan, we are in an economic depression brought on by failed leadership, lost wars, outrageous oil prices, and denial.

I agree. Let the taliban take over again. Why wait?? Mjph is obvisouly the smartest guy on th einternet, just ask him. (PS He will reference himself as a source when asked.).

'bout time you got it, dicehead.

Snorri1234 wrote:I always wondered why soldiers get respect for being soldiers. To me they just sound like idiots for enlisting into a brach which does not give a f*ck about them or justice.

88,630 have currently made the decision to stand up and fight (if necessary) to protect you and your country, and you think they are idiots for joining in the first place? Yes, you are right, they do so with the knowledge that they might die as a result of that decision, I certainly do see a reason to respect them for it. That is courage and a willingness to lay down their lives for their fellow citizens as necessary.

CrazyAnglican wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:I always wondered why soldiers get respect for being soldiers. To me they just sound like idiots for enlisting into a brach which does not give a f*ck about them or justice.

88,630 have currently made the decision to stand up and fight (if necessary) to protect you and your country, and you think they are idiots for joining in the first place? Yes, you are right, they do so with the knowledge that they might die as a result of that decision, I certainly do see a reason to respect them for it. That is courage and a willingness to lay down their lives for their fellow citizens as necessary.

Me and my country? What possible harm would that bunch of clueless idiots in Iraq have done to me if the US hadn't invaded? I don't think their "sacrifice" makes the slightest bit of difference. Their battle is not some heroic struggle against the forces of evil like in the movies. Killing some meaningless dictator does not strike me as "protecting me and my country". Ensuring that the oil is protected doesn't strike me as particularly heroic.

Why on earth would anyone enlist when chances are that the ones who order them around have not the best interest in mind for either them or their country? To willingly go into a conflict without thinking for yourself if it's right just seems to me as foolish. You can lay all your patriotism and your "they are protecting you" arguments in front of me, but at the end of the day they do not make the slightest bit of sense. This retarded reverence for soldiers just guilt-trips people into enlisting because they think it is heroic and someone who doesn't enlist must not love his country enough. I have seen few wars which I would lable "just", and to enlist without any idea of what war you are going to partake in is just fucking stupid. No matter how you spin it.


People who refuse to go on a mission are usually said to be cowards because they are unwilling to go through with an unjust war, but I call them heroic. To have the balls to refuse to be sent to a conflict you do not judge as just is heroic. To think "hey, this is stupid, why would I go to that?" is ballsy. Anyone who takes orders unquestionly is being the mindless robot the government wants them to be, and I am sorry that I don't have any respect for that but it's just the way it is.

Snorri1234 wrote:

CrazyAnglican wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:I always wondered why soldiers get respect for being soldiers. To me they just sound like idiots for enlisting into a brach which does not give a f*ck about them or justice.

88,630 have currently made the decision to stand up and fight (if necessary) to protect you and your country, and you think they are idiots for joining in the first place? Yes, you are right, they do so with the knowledge that they might die as a result of that decision, I certainly do see a reason to respect them for it. That is courage and a willingness to lay down their lives for their fellow citizens as necessary.

Me and my country? What possible harm would that bunch of clueless idiots in Iraq have done to me if the US hadn't invaded? I don't think their "sacrifice" makes the slightest bit of difference. Their battle is not some heroic struggle against the forces of evil like in the movies. Killing some meaningless dictator does not strike me as "protecting me and my country". Ensuring that the oil is protected doesn't strike me as particularly heroic.

Why on earth would anyone enlist when chances are that the ones who order them around have not the best interest in mind for either them or their country? To willingly go into a conflict without thinking for yourself if it's right just seems to me as foolish. You can lay all your patriotism and your "they are protecting you" arguments in front of me, but at the end of the day they do not make the slightest bit of sense. This retarded reverence for soldiers just guilt-trips people into enlisting because they think it is heroic and someone who doesn't enlist must not love his country enough. I have seen few wars which I would lable "just", and to enlist without any idea of what war you are going to partake in is just fucking stupid. No matter how you spin it.


People who refuse to go on a mission are usually said to be cowards because they are unwilling to go through with an unjust war, but I call them heroic. To have the balls to refuse to be sent to a conflict you do not judge as just is heroic. To think "hey, this is stupid, why would I go to that?" is ballsy. Anyone who takes orders unquestionly is being the mindless robot the government wants them to be, and I am sorry that I don't have any respect for that but it's just the way it is.

I'd call a struggle against numerous guerilla fighters who often employ cowardly tactics in an effort to curb Islamic extremism and terrorism pretty heroic. I'm going to be honest, I'm not in the military, nor do I plan to join; no one in my family is in the military (except for a cousin I haven't seen for 7 years and a grandfather I've never seen). I'm not going to pretend like I know why people sign up for the military and fight in this war, I can guess, but that's it. But one thing I know for certain is if someone voluntarily signs up to get shot at by people who are trying to kill him/her, they get my respect.

My opinion on the people who refuse to go on missions depends on the situation. If it seems to be an unethical mission, then I wait, if it seems to be something caused out of simple unwillingness, then I would label them a coward. I know that if you're gonna sign up for this kind of work, you have to be willing to accept that you could be called upon to fight, which is part of the reason I don't think I could sign up for the military. Typically, I wait to hear what other soldiers say about the person before I make a judgment on that person.

And it's your retarded irreverence for soldiers that would result in a welcoming party like when they returned from Vietnam.
I don't think I would have the guts to enlist in the military unless the country got invaded, but I have no doubt that anyone would question my patriotism. It's not joining the military or running for a political office that makes you a patriot, it is doing what you can to make this country a better place to live in.

its fairly releveant to note that snorri isnt American, nor would the situation in Iraq likely affect his nation had there been no intervention.

joe cool 360 wrote:And it's your retarded irreverence for soldiers that would result in a welcoming party like when they returned from Vietnam.
I don't think I would have the guts to enlist in the military unless the country got invaded, but I have no doubt that anyone would question my patriotism. It's not joining the military or running for a political office that makes you a patriot, it is doing what you can to make this country a better place to live in.

First irreverence is part of freedom of speech, so get over it.

Second, I was a returning vet during the end days of the war in Viet Nam. There was no problem with my family, friends, and even the larger community. The Veterans Administration was another matter. No help, no support, absolute disdain was the VA's modus operandi. I got more support from the anti-war hippies in my town than from the government.

got tonkaed wrote:its fairly releveant to note that snorri isnt American, nor would the situation in Iraq likely affect his nation had there been no intervention.

I, who am an American, endorse his thoughts and find them well thought out and stated. Better than I could do.

got tonkaed wrote:its fairly releveant to note that snorri isnt American, nor would the situation in Iraq likely affect his nation had there been no intervention.

Well other than that there wouldn't be any questioning from parliament as to why we supported the war in the first place. But that's is fairly minimal since nobody seems to give the slightest f*ck about it except for a few politicians.

mpjh wrote:First irreverence is part of freedom of speech, so get over it.

Second, I was a returning vet during the end days of the war in Viet Nam. There was no problem with my family, friends, and even the larger community. The Veterans Administration was another matter. No help, no support, absolute disdain was the VA's modus operandi. I got more support from the anti-war hippies in my town than from the government.

Thank you for your service even though I don't agree with your opinion.
I'm not saying all soldiers were unwelcome in their hometowns or upon their return, but I do know that many were spit on and cursed at when they arrived in the airports and when they came back home.
I also hate the lack of support that veterans are given from the government after they have served their country so valiantly, I completely agree with you. It's sad the the U.S. government often uses soldiers when they are needed, then simply tosses them into a corner when they no longer find any use for them.