Exactly what part of "BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW!" is giving people on this 'liberal site' trouble???

[Keith Bee]

There is no longer a single justifiable reason for us to remain in Afghanistan. Not one! al Qaeda has departed the country: Those that were there are now in Pakistan, and guess what? We're not going to invade Pakistan! Jesus! :banghead:

As for the Taliban, what about the Taliban? Are they major-league assholes? Yep. Will they retake power in Afghanistan when we leave? Probably. But that's going to happen regardless of whether we depart next week, next month, next year, the 22nd century! Horrible regimes will continue to exist on this Earth: We CANNOT play nursemaid to the whole fucking planet!

Yes. I'm heavily emphasizing my words here. But it is only in response to those on DU who seemingly refuse to recognize that this is the time for us to go: The killing of bin Laden offers President Obama the ultimate talisman to silence the Rethugs and NeoCon Artists. When Boehner, or Bolton, or Kristol, or Krauthammer start bleating like the stupid goats they are about Obama's "weakness," he can look them all squarely in the eye and say, "I took out bin Laden. Your guy didn't. Now shut the fuck up!"

We've no legitimate goals remaining in the Graveyard of Empires, my friends: Let's bring our guys and gals back where they belong, starting immediately.

[AsahinaKimi]

1. If I am not mistaken ...

Does not Pakistan have NUKES? You want to invade a country that has Nukes?

Since the NPT entered into force in 1970, three states that were not parties to the Treaty have conducted nuclear tests, namely India, Pakistan, and North Korea.

[abelenkpe]

3. I doubrt anyone would wnat to invade pakistan

cause you're right...they have nukes. But leaving Afghanistan would be nice.

Why do we have to stay there?

[Snedder]

21. That's not what the OP said

It said the opposite in fact. You must have read it wrong.

[demwing]

29. How did you conclude that the OP wanted US to invade Pakistan?

The post says just the opposite

:shrug:

[AsahinaKimi]

30. Sorry, I did read it wrong

gomen nasai ~sorry!

[demwing]

31. Gotcha!

:)

[fascisthunter]

73. ha... I've Done the Same a Number of Times

it happens

[Autumn]

2. I don't get it either.

The people here were very much against the wars under Dick's boy. I guess it's a kinder, gentler war now. Of course the one who die are still fucking dead but that doesn't seem to matter.

[Bandit]

6. The dead don't feel pain or grief

It is those left behind broken and destroyed...Those are a hundred fold what the dead are...I hate destroying people and countries but the USA is just so damn good at it....

[Autumn]

7. Getting better all the time.

and no one seems to care any more. Some of the ones who have come home from these wars are soul destroyed. It's heart breaking.

[Snedder]

34. Well that's the thing, iswn't it?

Ultimately, we're destroying ourselves.

[blue neen]

4. While I might agree with the position of bringing the troops home ASAP,

I think it's okay for others to have some differing opinions. Admittedly, I don't know enough about foreign policy, Pakistan, Afghanistan to know what is the exact right answer.

IMHO, it's the acceptance of ideas other than our own that makes this a "liberal site".

Just sayin'...

:)

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ieoeja]

45. That is why some people today conflate liberal with anti-war.

Historically, most of our wars were started by Liberals. Conservatives were isolationist.

During Vietnam, most Liberals fully supported the war. But they also supported the rights of others to oppose the war. Conservatives called Liberals anti-American for supporting those rights. And today a lot of people who do not know their history have gotten the idea that pacifism is a liberal concept when it is actually quite a conservative concept.

[Leopolds Ghost]

52. As a populist, I got no problem with the idea that pacifism is conservative concept

But then, liberalism no longer means "supporter of liberal discourse" like it did when I was growing up.

I'm not sure that most "progressive" college students either (a) believe in liberal discourse (b) support liberalism in its current form (c) consider themselves to be liberal. They are Democrats because the center-right Democrats support THEIR social issues and THEIR (upper class, consumerist, authoritarian) pocketbook issues. It's a new day.

[readmoreoften]

60. A good argument for being neither a liberal nor a Democrat if I ever heard one.

And since being a conservative means being a nationalistic, pro-rich, racist thug, I guess that just leaves me with socialist.

[PuraVidaDreamin]

88. Make that two of us

None of it makes sense anymore.

[iwishiwas]

5. No problem for me.

[Tx4obama]

8. What part of - Obama said: 'Afghanistan troop drawn down in July' is giving you trouble?

And btw, there is NO 'now' when when having to logistically having to move that many people and that much equipment.
It's not just as easy as to put all the folks on a plane and fly them home, there's a lot of work that has to be done to pack up stuff and move supplies and equipment.

July will be here in less than two months.

Patience is a virtue.

[tekisui]

11. Oh right.July. We will be there past 2014 though, so whatever token

troops do leave in July will not actually be the beginning of the end. I doubt we will get to pre-Obama-surge numbers anytime in the near future.

[Recursion]

40. Sorry, do you think it's trivial to remove a quarter million troops from a combat theater? (nt)

[readmoreoften]

62. So Obama's surge is over? Great. And let's get it down to Bush levels of bombs over Pakistan.

Since Obama bombed more innocent Pakistanis in his sixteen months in office than Bush did in all 8 years of his presidency.

It's ABSOLUTELY TRIVIAL.

[tekisui]

76. What are you talking about?

There are currently 100,000 US troops in Afghanistan. 5,000 is not a quarter million. 10,000 is not a quarter million. 70,000 over 3 years is not a quarter million.

A quarter million is 250,000.

[Recursion]

82. Sorry, I was thinking of Iraq pre-drawdown

You're right.

Though I'll add it's also non-trivial to remove 100,000 troops from a combat theater.

[sibelian]

104. OK. How non-trivial is it remove 100,000 troops from a hideous fucked up bloodbath?

Is it less or mroe trivial than removing 100,000 troops from a combat theatre?

[Better Believe It]

28. 15 soldiers may be brought home if all goes well.

Or maybe not.

In any case, in a year or two the possible troop reduction may result in no more troops being in Afghanistan than at the end of Bush's presidency.

About 100,000 in 2013 .... or 2014.

Now that's progress!

[RyanPsych]

72. Patience isn't a virtue

when it comes at the expense of dead U.S. soldiers, Afghani civilians, and billions of dollars that could go toward building schools and bridges here.

There is no legitimate reason why we don't just up and leave tomorrow.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PeaceNikki]

10. Why did you put 'liberal site' in quotes?

Do you think this whole site's liberal cred is tainted because some people don't agree with you 100%?

[MineralMan]

12. +10

[SidDithers]

17. Good post...nt

Sid

[Forkboy]

22. I like the quotes around it.

Since November of '08 this site has steadily gotten less liberal. I think the quotes around the term accurately reflect that.

[Zorra]

46. It seems like that to me also.

And IMO, this has, unfortunately, had the compound effect of causing some really insightful hard-core anti-Bush anti-war anti-corporatist liberal old timer DUers to abandon DU because of what they perceived as an unacceptable increase in the acceptance and promotion of what they perceived to be corporatism/conservatism here.

I have seen a few goodbye posts by old time DUers stating that this was the primary reason that they were leaving DU, I'm sure I missed a bunch of them, or they just quietly left after hinting for awhile that they were thinking of leaving.

And possibly, these folks leaving also contributes to the perception that DU has become less progressive.

There also seems to be an increase in what appear to me to be hired trolls here, insidiously planting their "sensible corporate friendly liberal" views and using other active or passive propaganda techniques at DU as often as possible in order to sell the ongoing long term Third Way (DLC/corporatist) effort to swing DU and the Democratic party to the right as much as they can, with the goal of eventually making DU, and the Democratic party into a completely ineffective opposition forum/party promoting corporatist centrist values rather than progressive values.

Centrists seem to very often use the "just because you don't agree with me doesn't mean I'm not a liberal" meme while at the very same time are espousing what, 3 years ago, the overwhelming majority of DU members considered a totally GOP owned position: Supporting the continuation of the wars begun by Bush.

This has certainly increased my personal perception that DU has become less progressive/liberal over the past two years.

How many, or which, specifically, GOP/conservative positions on issues can someone support/promote before we no longer consider them to be liberals/progressives?

[Forkboy]

47. Nothing I can add to that.

Good post. :thumbsup:

[sabrina 1]

51. Good post. Another interesting development

has been that everyone is now 'liberal' ~ :-)

[Recursion]

71. Wait. You *honestly* believe people are being paid to post on DU

by "the corporations"?

[Zorra]

83. Why did you put "the corporations" in quotes? I did not post that phrase.

Yes, I believe contracted trolls sometimes post here on behalf of private enterprises doing damage control, or on behalf of private enterprises wishing to promote a certain political POV. I also believe that there are trolls that post here on behalf of political organizations. That people are paid to sway opinion on political blogs/forums is not a new concept.

After studying propaganda techniques and then observing these techniques being used repeatedly by certain posters, I have concluded that there are most likely paid trolls at DU.

Personal insults and strawman arguments are frequently used. Ridicule is one primary example of a tactic frequently employed by paid trolls:

#4)Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.

"...Ridicule is almost impossible to counter. It’s irrational. It infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage. It also works as a pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

25 Rules of Disinformation
snip--
Internet Disinformation Methods

Because the MSM’s bag of tricks has been so exhausted over such a long period of time, many bitter and enraged consumers of information are now turning to alternative news sources, most of which exist on the collective commons we call the internet. At first, it appears, the government and elitists ignored the web as a kind of novelty, or just another mechanism they could exploit in spreading disinformation. As we all now well know, they dropped the ball, and the internet has become the most powerful tool for truth history has ever seen.

That being said, they are now expending incredible resources in order to catch up to their mistake, utilizing every trick in their arsenal to beat web users back into submission. While the anonymity of the internet allows for a certain immunity against many of Saul Alinsky’s manipulative tactics, it also allows governments to attack those trying to spread the truth covertly. In the world of web news, we call these people “disinfo trolls.” Trolls are now being openly employed by governments in countries like the U.S. and Israel specifically to scour the internet for alternative news sites and disrupt their ability to share information.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Ra...gers_1016.html

http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/new...-unveiled.html

Internet trolls, also known as “paid posters” or “paid bloggers,” are increasingly being employed by private corporations as well, often for marketing purposes. In fact, it is a rapidly growing industry.

http://thisbluemarble.com/showthread.php?t=29361

[Keith Bee]

107. Right on, Zorra

Just looking at some of the posts this Thursday night, I KNOW DAMN WELL there are trolls here, and I wouldn't bet a nickel against the proposition that some of them might be getting paid for it.

[frylock]

91. word up

[polichick]

13. Dems answer to the mic too.

[nonperson]

14. According to the latest information I can find at Global Research

The U.S. has over 1,000 bases worldwide in at least 63 countries. We aren't leaving Afghanistan, Iraq, or any of the others because the U.S. has only one export left, projecting military might to protect corporate interests worldwide.

In other words, our military is the only thing preventing a total collapse of the U.S. empire. This really sucks and I don't agree with it. I'm no expert but it appears that this is just how it is and how it will stay unless or until some sort of miracle happens.

[Nye Bevan]

16. Obama seems to know what he's doing, don't you think?

Given his track record, I trust him that our troops are still there for a good reason, not just to annoy you.

[mountainlion55]

18. I find

The word justifiable to be key. There are none. Mr. Obama and his DLC buddies love war. Just look at all the long term infrastructure that has been built in Iraq. The largest and most expensive spying facility in the middle east is there. Afghanistan offers other opportunities to these resource exploiters. Such as the recently di covered 1trillion $ deposit of lithium which powers all those batteries that run peoples i-phones and enables electric vehicles that people are going to want to drive. Huge amounts of other precious minerals. A gas oil pipeline that these exploiters have wanted for a long time. Last but not least is that its good for the MIC.

[arcane1]

26. Well said!! n/t

[Zax2me]

19. Are they? Here?

small numbers, loud noises.
I don't think it speaks for much of the site at all.

[msongs]

20. US drones killing women and kids are NOT sent by Osama bin laden nt

[LiberalAndProud]

23. No trouble for me.

It seems that we have generals and a president to convince, but me ... I've been convinced for a while that it is time to end these wars. We are wracking up a debt that our grandchildren's children will be required to pay, and I'm not talking only in monetary terms.

Peace. Now. Please.

Now is none too soon and far too late.

[bluestate10]

24. The far Left can't have it two ways.

The first argument put forward for days by the far Left was that bin Laden was a foggy old man who was assassinated. Now the argument is that bin Laden was the man all along, now that he is dead, why is the US staying in Afghanistan. What is the problem with the far Left fucking admitting that any war causes rashes on their asses, even when that war has more just elements than questionable elements. The United States would not have taken out bin Laden if it was not in Afghanistan. The United States will not get to the number 2 man in al qaeda without operating bases in Afghanistan. Pakistan is teetering on being a failed state. There is absolute no certainty that if the United States leaves Afghanistan now that it won't have to invade that nuclear armed nation a few years down the line to eliminate another incubator for terrorism. I trust President Obama more than I trust the far Left when the Establishment of a sane Afghan policy is on the table. When the day comes that sophisticated drones can travel hundreds or even thousands of miles, set up and perform precision missions, then I will say that the United States should withdraw from not only Afghanistan, but every other military base that is not on US soils. The the day of fighting machines is in the distant future, until machines can take the place of skilled soldiers, the United States will need soldiers in outposts like Afghanistan.

[VeryConfused]

35. Well said

and good points

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BobbyBoring]

57. And that's the arguement that will bankrupt this nation

if it hasn't already. Yes Pakistan has nukes. So does India and Turkey. So does Israel. What would be the sense in invading Pakistan? To find WMD? That worked out really well recently.

We need to get out of there NOW. Declare victory and leave while we have something we could call a victory, the death of Bin Laden.

China has Nukes. Russia has nukes.

My biggest fear is, what happens when another heavily armed country decides that the USA is overstepping it's bounds and decides to take "Preemptive action"? If I was the Grand Wazoo of China, it's something I would be thinking about~

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HankyDubs]

87. note the characterization here

"the far left" --> referring to the majority of Du'ers as if they were extremists. Marginalize and insult, good job!

The first argument put forward for days by the far Left was that bin Laden was a foggy old man who was assassinated. Now the argument is that bin Laden was the man all along, now that he is dead, why is the US staying in Afghanistan.

I don't think there's any inconsistency here. The "far left" (the majority of the US public wants to leave afghanistan, btw...far left?). The first part of your statement is straw man, never heard anyone describe him as a foggy old man. But even if we accept your characterization, the death of Bin Laden is a great excuse to GTFO of Afghanistan. That's why we invaded the country, remember? He's dead, mission accomplished time to go!

The United States would not have taken out bin Laden if it was not in Afghanistan.

How do you figure? We wouldn't have killed OBL if we weren't in an entirely different country?

The United States will not get to the number 2 man in al qaeda without operating bases in Afghanistan.

Oh so now the goalposts move. Then if we "get" the #2 man, then we need to "get" the #3 and then #4 and then on and on. Endless war, trillions wasted to "get" a few individuals?

There is absolute no certainty that if the United States leaves Afghanistan now that it won't have to invade that nuclear armed nation a few years down the line to eliminate another incubator for terrorism.

Again, afghanistan and pakistan are two different countries, it seems like you don't understand this. There is no absolute certainty that we need to invade Pakistan either, seems like wasting trillions on "no absolute certainty" is quite foolish. I'll say what other have already said here...Pakistan has nuclear weapons! Invading countries with nuclear weapons is no joke. If we ever did "need" to invade pakistan we would find a ready ally in India, but again we are talking about the beginning of WWIII here.

I trust President Obama more than I trust the far Left..

60% of the american people want to get out of afghanistan. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-05-10-Afghanistan-mission-bin-Laden-troops-poll_n.htm?csp=34news Is that the far left? Marginalizing DU'ers again, btw.

The the day of fighting machines is in the distant future, until machines can take the place of skilled soldiers, the United States will need soldiers in outposts like Afghanistan.

Oh great, rise of the machines.

[frylock]

93. fucking straight up bullshit..

we need 100000+ troops in aghanistan so a crack team of commandos could take out osama?! why not just send SEAL team six into BFE in the first place?

[grahamhgreen]

97. No, the far left is arguing that the wars are scams to steal money. They have nothing to do with

protecting the American constitution - or the American people.

Your argument is a straw man.

[Martin Eden]

100. "Pakistan is teetering on being a failed state."

And they have nukes.

QUESTION:
What is our best strategy to prevent Pakistan's nukes from falling into the hands of extremists who might use them?

I think a compelling argument can be made that our continued military presence in Afghanistan along with drone strikes & collateral damage in Pakistan does more to destabilize Pakistan and fuel extremism than it does to safeguard that nuclear arsenal.

We need a stable nation-state in Pakistan that handles their nuclear weapons responsibly. How can such a goal be achieved by the application of military force?

You make a valid point regarding the killing of Osama bin Laden. It likely would not have happened without our military in Afghanistan. However, there are not a finite number of terrorist leaders whom we can kill and thereby end the threat of terrorism. Al Qaeda has grown and spread since we invaded Afghanistan. There are an almost unlimited number of potential recruits. The continued occupation of an Islamic country by the US military and the constant outrage when our bombs (unintentionally) kill women & children likely do more to enhance recruitment than anything the bin Ladens of this world can do or say.

We are playing a very costly game of whack-a-mole, and I am very unconvinced it is an intelligent or effective strategy for protecting our national security.

[arcane1]

25. We will be there, in some fashion, until the corporate world no longer needs us there

Whether it's a military presence, a CIA presence, or a mercenary presence :(

[ElsewheresDaughter]

27. K&R

[Sirveri]

32. Should we try and fix it first? Did we break it?

These are the complicated question I keep asking myself. In the case of Afghanistan, I can't think of a reason to stay. The place was broken before we got there, and it will remain so once we leave, so we might as well pick up and leave since I doubt we can fix it. Iraq however...

The base premise is, do we owe a duty to the people of the countries we have invaded, to repair the damage we've done? Is it enough to just leave and say; "Sorry! Have fun cleaning up the mess!"

[Warren Stupidity]

33. OMFG not the Pottery Barn Nooooooooooo!

[VeryConfused]

36. Beyond fixing the mess

there is the issue of those that supported our troops and their fates after we leave.

[bvar22]

48. The US Military does not "FIX" things.

It blows things up and kills people.

The "Bull in a China Shop" rule is more appropriate.
To "fix" the China Shop, one must first remove The Bull (US Military).

[readmoreoften]

63. +1

[spooked911]

81. exactly

I can't believe people still think we can "fix" Iraq by keeping troops there

[Sirveri]

105. The idea is that it provides security while you fix things.

Yes they break shit and blow it up.

Basically the theory is thus:
1. We need to fix stuff
2. People shoot the people who are fixing stuff
3. Use military to protect the people who are fixing stuff

So if we do need to fix it (which hasn't been established), do we also need to provide security for the fixers? Is there a better way to do that than to use the military (there might be)?

Right now I'm leaning away from the idea that we have a duty to fix any place we invade.

[poli_ticks]

53. We're not fixing it.

We're breaking it more.

[spooked911]

80. More BS

we cause more damage to them and to us by keeping our military there. It is a simple fact.

[Shagbark Hickory]

37. You're saying there's people on here that disagree with this?!

[Bigmack]

38. We simply cannot afford to stay...

we can't afford an Empire.

People... and not always Repubs... are talking about cutting some pretty basic stuff, all for a few paltry Billions of Bucks.

Huge savings by dumping our 2 loser wars.

It doesn't solve our problems, but it's a start.

[Recursion]

39. Isn't this why there's a pull-out scheduled for June?

Did everybody forget that?

[dionysus]

41. no, this is DU, we need one of these threads daily.

[Zorra]

56. Iraq Withdrawal Date For U.S. Troops May Be Pushed Back Beyond 2011

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/11/iraq-withdrawal-2011-delay_n_860188.html

In answer to your question, we didn't forget. We just don't believe it at this moment.

[readmoreoften]

59. Bwahahahaha. Yeah, sure there will be.

We are building massive bases and embassies in the ME. We're going nowhere. Oh, we might move troops into Pakistan or Yemen, but we're going to be in the Middle East for the long haul.

[Recursion]

66. I remember when you guys said that about Iraq too (nt)

[bvar22]

89. Over 50,000 US Troops remain in Iraq.

And we also employ over 50,000 "Armed Security Consultants" (everywhere else they are called "mercenaries").

Let me know when the US really pulls out of Iraq,
and not just says we have pulled out.

War is Peace.

Ignorance is Strength.

Freedom is Slavery.

Big Brother loves you,

and the US has pulled its troops out of Iraq.

[frylock]

94. a bunch of troops got advised and assisted to death in iraq last april..

didn't "you guys" say there were no more combat troops in iraq?

[KittyWampus]

42. You are ranting about DU'ers who don't exist. BTW, troops start leaving in July.

[readmoreoften]

61. Yeah, sure.

[frylock]

95. when do they end leaving iraq?

[frylock]

106. they're on this very thread..

and talk to me in august about that drawdown.

[mmonk]

43. TAPI and greed.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. They're the Scoop Jackson Democrats of today.

The same breed that "trusted" LBJ over Vietnam. And, like their earlier counterparts they find a great deal of difficulty in admitting to another lost war.

[aj_cd]

50. I had forgotten

So much that LBJ did and so much more he could have done. And that war and all the increase in troop levels and the lives lost and destroyed. It also destroyed LBJ and what could have been. Please don't let this happen again. How could I have forgotten what happened during a Democrats presidency, I have so associated Vietnam with Nixon that I forgot.

We can't forget.

[Modern_Matthew]

49. Doesn't give me trouble. I prefer isolationism. Bring them home from everywhere. nt

[Citizen Worker]

54. Bring 'em home from everywhere. WW II ended 65 years ago and the Korean War 57 years ago yet we're

still occupying Japan, Germany and Korea. Close ALL overseas bases and bring ALL of the troops home. End the US occupation of the world.

[Recursion]

70. The Korean War never ended, actually (nt)

[indepat]

55. We can pay nursemaid for as long as others are willing to finance our bloated

MIC and other governmental operations the Congress is unwilling to levy sufficient taxes to pay for. Till then, game on. :patriot:

[readmoreoften]

58. Well, liberal has become "not a rightwing extremist" in the past few years.

Now anyone who wants to end the wars is a commie, idealistic lunatic. Hell, people here were quoting Toby Keith the other day, I shit you not.

[liberation]

65. Well that explains why some of the arguments heard in this site

are almost verbatim to the stuff the GOP supporters were uttering in the first half of the decade, if you substitute the "need to invade Iraq" for "the bombing of Libya," and "the hanging of Saddam" for "the killing of OBL."

I assume that either those so-called "moderates" are very mobile in their political affiliation and naming, or maybe just maybe there really is not that much difference between the two major political parties in this country, not just at a policy-level but from a membership standpoint.

In any case, It has been a remarkable experience to read people in this forum advocate turning Pakistan into a parking lot recently, for example.

[Beaverhausen]

64. I think it's important to analyze the intell that was found with Bin Laden

I want the troops home as much as anyone, but there is a threat out there and now we have intell to find out more about that threat.

Then hopefully, we will wage this 'war on terror' in a more constructive way.

[Mimosa]

67. 'We'll' be in Afghanistan as long as it takes....

'We'll' be in Afghanistan as long as it takes to get those rare earths -especially lithium- in our control.

[Enthusiast]

68. Leave Afghanistan now!

Like a huge majority of Americans want us to do.

[StarburstClock]

69. Sure there is, we're a militaristic country of failed disaster capitalists

Who cares who the "evil others" are, as long as the media can create them a full 50% of the population will believe it. That's the real reason.

[RoccoR5955]

74. I couldn't agree more.

We should bring the troops home YESTERDAY already!
The only reason that we have troops in Afghanistan/Pakistan is because of the pipeline that Haliburton wants to build.

[drokhole]

75. We're there for the Opium, and we won't leave because the Opium is there...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan

Opium production in Afghanistan has been on the rise since U.S. occupation started in 2001. Based on UNODC data, there has been more opium poppy cultivation in each of the past four growing seasons (2004–2007) than in any one year during Taliban rule. Also, more land is now used for opium in Afghanistan than for coca cultivation in Latin America. In 2007, 92% of the opiates on the world market originated in Afghanistan.

and

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.

http://opioids.com/afghanistan/index.html
(check the date, this was written in February 2001)


The Taliban banned it in early 2001 (production was nearly eliminated), we invaded in late 2001. The CIA's involvement in the black market drug trade is no secret (especially the spread of heroin), our troops are protecting those fields. So much for the "war on drugs."

[hifiguy]

77. Can't imagine, and I agree

200%. I can't figure it out. :shrug:

[Yon_Yonson]

84. BRING EM ALL HOME NOW!

[salib]

85. No problem here.

[bertman]

86. I applaud you, Keith Bee, for a beautiful and righteous statement. REC. nt

[RufusTFirefly]

90. Why will we stay? A 1934 article in Fortune provides a hint as to the answer

This article is talking about Europe but could easily apply to the good ol' US of A

... the whole philosophy of most armament makers reveals itself. Keep Europe in a constant state of nerves. Publish periodical war scares. Impress governmental officials with the vital necessity of maintaining armaments against the "aggressions" of neighbour states. Bribe as necessary. In every practical way create suspicion that security is threatened. And if you do your job thoroughly enough you will be able to sink into your armchair and re-echo the contented words of Eugène Schneider, announcing a dividend to his shareholders: "The defense of our country has brought us satisfactions which cannot be ignored." For the armament industry operates with one curious advantage over any other business in the world; the greater the competition the greater the amount of business for all competitors.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

[sueh]

92. Well I, for one, am in total complete agreement !!! n/t

[grahamhgreen]

96. THIS IS WHY WE'RE THERE!

Oops, gracious me, bin Laden was actually killed in a crap-house outside Islamabad - my bad!

This image useful to remember the lies we've been told over the years as to the reasons for staying. They are all BS.

The only reason to stay is to continue to make money for the defense contractors at the expense of Americans.

[malaise]

98. You're right but

we have been invaded.

[drpepper67]

99. If al Qaeda isn't in Afghanistan

Who's shooting at our troops?

I feel that the US will be in Iraq and Afghanastan for a long time. Like Germany, Japan and Korea.

Even if we left tomorrow how long would it be until we were somewhere else?

I mean, look back. What's the longest the US has gone without some type of military action in the last 100 years? A few months?

[sibelian]

101. It's just that it's kinda lefty, ya know?

Who wants to look like a wimpy liberal these days?

[upi402]

102. DU is no more 'liberal' than Obama or Clinton are Democrats

n/t

[stevenleser]

103. There is absolutely nothing in this OP that is right or makes sense. And I am for leaving Af-Pak. nt