Quote:
Originally Posted by SEE3772
|
Oh, for the love of God.
You are relentless in posting links to articles about Subject X, as it that proves we are in Afghanistan because of Subject X
Heroin? Really? Russia asks the US to eradicate the heroin supply, so that proves we are in Afghanistan to control the heroin supply? To destroy it or make money off it?
Afghanistan has been sending heroin to this country for generations. NOW, we decide to occupy it?
And if controlling drugs is our reason for occupying Afghanistan, why aren't we occupying Colombia? Why aren't we occupying Peru or Turkey? Why aren't we occupying Mexico? Why aren't we occupying Northern California?
Those places send us a LOT more drugs than Afghanistan.
We aren't going to waste lives occupying a narco-state because we can win the drug war any time we want to. Long before we will ever occupy anyone, we will just legalize the shit and tax it. We learned in Prohibition that you cannot permanently eliminate drug dealers. As long as there is a demand, there will be suppliers.
And that phony pipeline? The chin waggers in diplomatic circiles starting talking about that at least in the mid 90s, probably earlier. So it has been 15-20 years. Has any one STUCK A SHOVEL IN THE GROUND YET? No, I didn't think so.
And that NY Times articles about preliminary estimates of minerals in Afghanistan? Has anybody followed up on that? Has any of that been proved true? Is anybody even remotely interested in sinking money into Afghan to develop those supposedly vast resources? No I didn't think so.
No one has and no one will and the think tank chin waggers know that. They have absolutely no solution to the fanatical religious violence in that country. The biggest problem with Afghanistan is that it is full of Afghanis. And no one is going to occupy it for its natural resources for exactly that reason. If it has any resources, they might as well be on the Jupiter.