Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Something just does not add up in your comment about Russian “brutality”.
How come then that Russian installed government lasted nearly 7 years after the Russians left vs US installed government left while the US military group was still there?
Another comparison: we have shutdown our embassy already- before the Taliban even entered the capital.
The Russian Embassy is still open as far as I know- they are not evacuating
I looked up the official reason that made the Russians leave the Afghanistan in 1989- they said that their Constitution- USSR at the time- did not allow them “the interference into internal affairs of other countries.”
When half of the country became under the Taliban in 1989 and half was under the Russian friendly government who officially had military assistance pact with the USSR- the Russians said- it is the same as a civil war in the country- and they could not support just half of the population of Afghanistan…
That was an official explanation- not that they “lost” the war.
In their mind it was not the war, but military assistance to a friendly government next to their border.
because the soviets used the existing non-existent government which was at the time a loosely co-existing tribes. They paid the king pins in each area to keep the peace. What did we do? We took their drug money from them and try to make them change their underwear once a week instead of once a year.
Africans don't want Americans there. We have our own problems we need to fix Italy somalia Japan can all handle there affairs w out the US. Thats bs and an excuse to continue killing and wasting money
because the soviets used the existing non-existent government which was at the time a loosely co-existing tribes. They paid the king pins in each area to keep the peace. What did we do? We took their drug money from them and try to make them change their underwear once a week instead of once a year.
It amazes me sometimes how people will post the most inane comments about something they’re obviously not understanding.
After toppling the Ashraf Ghani government in August of this year, the Taliban has announced its intention[4] to rid Afghanistan of drugs. Taliban interlocutors stated that same objective in conversations with me in winter 2019.
After toppling the Ashraf Ghani government in August of this year, the Taliban has announced its intention[4] to rid Afghanistan of drugs. Taliban interlocutors stated that same objective in conversations with me in winter 2019.
So you’re saying, based on the article, that they are listening to Nancy Reagan and just saying no to drugs. Sounds great until they realize they have a $2.5 billion hole in their budget. And who wouldn’t wouldn’t take the tally-ban at their word?
So you’re saying, based on the article, that they are listening to Nancy Reagan and just saying no to drugs. Sounds great until they realize they have a $2.5 billion hole in their budget. And who wouldn’t wouldn’t take the tally-ban at their word?
It’s all so simple in your mind, huh? The Taliban functions an extremely fanatic version of Islam. Drugs are a no-go.
But I’m guessing you know more than Brookings. Thanks for the laugh.
It’s all so simple in your mind, huh? The Taliban functions an extremely fanatic version of Islam. Drugs are a no-go.
But I’m guessing you know more than Brookings. Thanks for the laugh.
You seriously don’t know history. There were opium fields in the 1990’s. Just because the Taliban doesn’t believe in drugs doesn’t mean they skip growing this crop
1999 was a bumper crop for opium under Taliban rule in Afghanistan. There was over 80,000 hectares growing opium. Interesting that the UN pulled their drug reporting on Afghanistan in the ‘90’s. https://moi.gov.af/sites/default/fil...duction%29.pdf
You’re funny. So you’ll counter my Brookings with the UN, then claim my source is left leaning? More left leaning than the UN. Probably impossible. Also, you follow that up with AlJazeera?
However, I’ll quote directly from the UN report, which I’m guessing you didn’t actually read:
Eradication and Local Bans
The survey shows widespread awareness of the ruling authorities’ decree requiring all poppy farmers in Taliban controlled areas to reduce their cultivation area by one third. However, the survey also shows that compliance with this decree has occurred only in parts of the country.
The survey notes that, in nine of the twenty-two provinces surveyed, all of the respondents reported that there had been no eradication efforts. In a further five provinces, more than 70% of respondents reported that there had been no eradication efforts in their village.
On the other hand, the 50% reduction registered in the three UNDCP target districts in Qandahar shows that alternative development programmes coupled with a political commitment can be successful.
So, while you stated that the Taliban “wants” opium profits, the truth isn’t supported by my link or your’s.
You’re funny. So you’ll counter my Brookings with the UN, then claim my source is left leaning? More left leaning than the UN. Probably impossible. Also, you follow that up with AlJazeera?
However, I’ll quote directly from the UN report, which I’m guessing you didn’t actually read:
Eradication and Local Bans
The survey shows widespread awareness of the ruling authorities’ decree requiring all poppy farmers in Taliban controlled areas to reduce their cultivation area by one third. However, the survey also shows that compliance with this decree has occurred only in parts of the country.
The survey notes that, in nine of the twenty-two provinces surveyed, all of the respondents reported that there had been no eradication efforts. In a further five provinces, more than 70% of respondents reported that there had been no eradication efforts in their village.
On the other hand, the 50% reduction registered in the three UNDCP target districts in Qandahar shows that alternative development programmes coupled with a political commitment can be successful.
So, while you stated that the Taliban “wants” opium profits, the truth isn’t supported by my link or your’s.
My inclusion of the UN report was to support even the “left leaning” angle that yes, Opium was growing under Taliban. So by including a “farther than left” of Brookings, which was much more accurate, shows the bias of Brookings. Even more political than then the UN and Brookings is not accurate.
Both the decree of “Reducing by a third” and the “non adherence” showed that was followed demonstrated a lassie faire attitude.
Try starting your own thread since you want to always be right. Try, “the Taliban are friendlier than fill-in-blank” or “Taliban to permit women to drive”.
Bottom line for Afghanistan, when they try stopping their $2.5 billion dollar drug crops, their economy will collapse even faster than it is now. Afghanistan has a serious money shortage problem. If drugs can help stave the economy collapsing, then the Taliban will embrace their version of Prop 64 (reference to California).
M1 thinks that 85% of world’s opioids, originating from Afghanistan, will cease to exist shortly with the rise of Taliban control. The rest of us think the Taliban’s taxation of Opium will continue and embrace begrudgingly as a large cash cow; despite the Taliban’s “public” disdain for drugs and their “public appeal” to the international community to get them off the drug trade.
Anyone that wants to wager that Taliban controlled Afghanistan will significantly reduce (or eliminate) their opioid production within a year, we’ll give 4:1 odds. Friendly wager here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Friendly wager
Friendly wager here.
