It tells you that those that control the armies, the politicians, wanted the harvest protected obviously, the army didn;t think that for themselves. So if politicians are ordering the harvests to be restored and protected.. you might wonder why? What use have politicains for opium harvests when they are running a drug war at the same time? Well logically it would seem that protecting the harvests guarantees the supply of opium to some individuals and the war on drugs prevents other individuals from supplying the market, or tries to.. NATO troops did not only protect the harvests, they stopped the opium local suppliers sending it out of the country too. Now if I am not mistaken that all seems a bit like gangland stuff
It could well be argued that what they wanted was a strange version of stability in the country before they left so they could claim that at least that bit of the debacle had been a success.
They needed the populus on side. By turning a blind eye to the poppy fields they garnered local support, and differentiated themselves from the Taliban. Making the leap to suggesting that it was a decision based on bent poilticians who had financial gain as their driver, is a big leap.
"It could well be argued that what they wanted was a strange version of stability in the country " Have you anything at all to lend to this assumption?
Allowing the country to go form almost 0 opium production to around 90% of the supply is not getting the population on side. Furthermore, NATO were preventing the still being shipped out, blocking all export of it, so that would suggest otherwise. So if all that stuff was grown and processed, who received it. You need to think out what you claim man, it doesn't add up imo, your leap is over a bigger jump of imagination than mine mate Not sure how turning the place into heroine central yet they canot sell it, helps people
Only as much as you have for yours. You added this bit in to your earlier post after I quoted it and it is a bit confusing to me can you clarify it. "NATO troops did not only protect the harvests, they stopped the opium local suppliers sending it out of the country too" just seen your answer, so were NATO shipping it out?
Show me where you have as much as I have? I provided some accurate historical reference, and a pretty straightward set of questions that would suggest this is the case. You have actually not offered a sentence to lend to that comment actually. So no not as much as I have at all. Ever hear of Britain's 2 opium wars with China?
Of course, so we have yet again got to the "knock others knowledge and then run away" answer. Textbook Sisu
That was from a post I never made yet when you hit edit it was still there, I only copped it after and I removed it, before you replied so more fail
It's amazing how much you delude yourself and see how debates go. One can only assume you don't really read most of other people's posts and just wait for your turn to reply, you've already made up your mind That's without even getting into the fact you have not backed up anything you'e said in any way
BringBackFootie., 7 minutes ago That is from the post, where as your reply was terrifictraore, 3 minutes ago So I edited out that bit 4 minutes before you posted. Chronology So you are 100% proven wrong and yet laughing at your own stupidity because you can't read the timestaps on the posts
4 updates since I went for a *** You lads in lieu of even semi logical arguments go off on some manic accusation laughy smiley overload buzz. please log in to view this image "LIBEL!!"
Manic gif - tick Increased use of smileys - tick Illogical faux superiority smugness - tick Defcon 2 reached What you posted earlier was most definitely libellous btw. If in doubt, tweet Cameron and Osbourne with that supposed statement of 'fact' and see what response you get.
Says the one who never posts smileys, gifs etc BTW I can only see 2 updates also isnt asking for clarification on details how logical debate happens?
You guys are funny, ye leave out anything that is a valid point and troll in any way ye can what you think is a good straw man. Treat opinion as if it is stated as fact and ask for proof as if such things are easily proved and not providing "proof" is "proof" it is not true. So many false arguments. meanwhile neither of you have explained with even a shred of sound reasoning and anything to support your comments, how Afghanistan has gone from almost 0 opium production to what are record harverts never seen prior to Taliban destruction.. under NATO occupation. Previous British government forced China to legalise the trade which led to the addiction of millions in India and China. By 1900s China had reversed this though the fallout was still endemic in society. The fact the CIA also ran drugs in as recent as a few decades ago, the only real proven recent state involvement is also lending to this. The fact that politicians ordered the protection of harvests also lend to the assumption. "They were trying to get the locals onside" < There is no logical reasoning for this given that they could not sell it of thier own accord and who was getting this opium is a big unanswered question. I dunno what ye pair are cacking about but reading the posts it's pretty obvious ye are about me personally here not the subject, you couldn't give a **** about the subject, a subject you are utterly ignorant of like.
