Lifestyle > Train of Thought

Opium Production Under the Taliban

<< < (2/3) > >>

*Jamal*:
Nah, I wasn't dissing your English... you just didn't really make it clear as to what you were saying...

You were just like "Now you understand it?"... I was just lost as to what you were talking about..

Ant:
Ok I dont know why this is so difficult to grasp but:

1.   Bush is the first US president to declare an outright "War on Terrorism"

2.  Terrorists are funded via the drug trade

3.   Under the Bush Admin's orders the US invaded Afghanistan as part of our fight on Terror

4.   In early 2001 the Taliban aggressively cut opium production

5.  After the US invasion opium production in Afghanistan surged.

6.  The Bush Administration often refers to Afghanistan as an amazing success story.

If you are fighting a war on terror, and the drug trade is part of that war, then don't you thin k its ineffective to invade a country, allow opium production to surge post-invasion, place the responsibility for stopping opium production on a newly formed government, and declare afghanistan one of your success stories?  I'm not just attacked Bush ever, I'm crticizing the whole administration.  Somebody fucked up.  If you are fighting a war on teror, as they claim to be, a country you JUST invaded, should not be the world's largest producer of opium just 2 years after your invasion.  Its as simple as that.  If their concern is fighting an effective war on terror, why shouldn't the afghanistan drug problem be an issue they should have dealt with?   

Yes, opium production may have been high under the Clinton years, but there are a host of problems for the world to deal with, they cannot all be managed.  Bush admin took on Terrorism as one of their main priorities.  By allowing opium production to surge in a country you JUST invaded, well maybe I'm an asshole, but in my mind it seems you just fucked up a lil bit.

Anywayz one liners like "i don't like bush, but your just being stupid"  are NOT effective arguments.  All your throwing at me is opinion, and again, I don't write posts calling anyone out or trying to diss people.  So please don't come in my posts with one-liner character attacks.   

acbaylove:

--- Quote from: *Jamal* on November 19, 2004, 08:30:59 AM ---Nah, I wasn't dissing your English... you just didn't really make it clear as to what you were saying...

You were just like "Now you understand it?"... I was just lost as to what you were talking about..

--- End quote ---

Yeah, cause that's the 2nd topic opened about the same thing (opium in Afghanistan). I was referring to the original one and to something i said to Ant (and viceversa).

*Jamal*:
The effective argument was the part where I told you to look into the U.S. foreign policy of the last 50 years. If you know anything about our actions in Central/South America, you'll know what I'm talking about. If you're not aware, then go read about it.

Ant:

--- Quote from: Antonio on November 19, 2004, 08:27:44 AM ---LOL i was talking to Ant!
Let me try it again (LOL! HELP!!): "Ant, now that even Jamal, a Bush hater, is writing the same things i did, do you understand i wasnt just "hating on Bush"? BETTER? ;D

Shit, you're worse than my ex english teacher. At least she had a nice ass!

--- End quote ---

Again, the fact that someone is a Bush-hater and they disagree with me doesn't prove your argument right.  If some random guy who liked Bush agreed with me, I wouldn't be like, look see this is conclusive proof I am right you are wrong.  The strength of your argument and the strength of your facts are what make your point correct or incorrect. 

If you declare a war on terror, and a country you just invaded to attack terrorism, is now producing 87% of the world's opium, and the drug trade and terrorism are closely connected, but you still go around saying how great a success sotry afghanistan is.  I'm sorry, but something is fucked up with all that.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page