US Government negotiates with Taliban

[Draica]

Look at the liberals here, rushing to defend their lord and savior, NDAA-Signing and patriot-act extending Emperor Barackus Hussien Obama the Third. "Yeah, he broke the law, but for good reason." So when Bush breaks the law it's bad, but when Obama does it it's good?

*Claps hands* Yes, let's all pray at the altar of Hussein. He is morally superior, that's right. let's love him and his administration now. It's Bush's fault that Obama broke the law, yes it's all bush's fault. When wwwe break the law, we normally pay a penalty. But our Emperor Hussein doesn't. Yes. Keep following Hussein NS brainwashed liberals.

Is this worth responding to? I mean whats up with the Republican fetish with his middle name? Is it because of his middle name they connect it to Muslims?

Of course it's worth responding to, I bring up a rational point in the midst of mockery.

My point is this: If any President breaks the law, it should be wrong. Even if it was done for a "good" purpose. If I stole something or beat someone for a good purpose, I would not get the pass Obama is getting. The law is the law. Bringing Bush or Reagan into this is nonsense, one is dead and another one is a twindiling old gentlemen who soon will be in a nursing home. Let's focus on the young, Barack Hussien Obama.

[Distruzio]

Ah... so poppy farmers equal terrorists. Got it.

Still confused here. I must've missed the article explaining how farming creates terrorism.

I think what he was trying to say is that the opium farming funds terrorism, as the opium is used to make heroin which is then sold. So, it helps it indirectly, though of course the farmers are not terrorists

Ah... a little clarity... but a little.

So... now we're asserting that opium finances the terrorists and proclaiming that opium farmers must be shut down in order to stop the terrorists?

[Farnhamia]

Where'd organized crime come in, Ostro? Where'd the selling of opium come in?

Are you saying that the taliban are farmers?

I'm not mocking or arguing with you at all. I genuinely have no idea how this makes sense. To me, you're saying that, since farmers are taliban, farmers are terrorists.

No, the Taliban are the drug trafficers and traders, and perhaps even producers in the sense of Poppy - > Opium.

Damn you, Yves Saint-Laurent!

[Distruzio]

Is this worth responding to? I mean whats up with the Republican fetish with his middle name? Is it because of his middle name they connect it to Muslims?

Of course it's worth responding to, I bring up a rational point in the midst of mockery.

My point is this: If any President breaks the law, it should be wrong. Even if it was done for a "good" purpose. If I stole something or beat someone for a good purpose, I would not get the pass Obama is getting. The law is the law. Bringing Bush or Reagan into this is nonsense, one is dead and another one is a twindiling old gentlemen who soon will be in a nursing home. Let's focus on the young, Barack Hussien Obama.

Why does his middle name matter?

Where has someone argued that the Prez violated the law for a good reason?

[The UK in Exile]

I think what he was trying to say is that the opium farming funds terrorism, as the opium is used to make heroin which is then sold. So, it helps it indirectly, though of course the farmers are not terrorists

Ah... a little clarity... but a little.

So... now we're asserting that opium finances the terrorists and proclaiming that opium farmers must be shut down in order to stop the terrorists?

Well actually he was asserting that the Opium farms had been shut down and this had stopped the terrorists.

Since A) isn't true. B) is looking distinctly dodgy.

[Ostroeuropa]

So visit more of them. It's working.

Not if they just grow more in the villages they don't visit and can't visit it isn't.

I already explained why it's still a gain. You even admitted it until that disappeared into your orwellian memory hole because it became inconvinient.

The villages where we purge opium are wrenched from the clutches of the Taliban, who can no longer reliably sustain a presence there or recruit there.
They will, as a result, become dramatically safer and more progressive etc. Eventually, if we keep that up, it will produce a knock on effect whereby this type of policing can occur by the afghani's without our help.

Edit in before you say "Well yes, that's true. But you can't prove the villages we revisit don't regrow them later!" and we repeat this cycle.

[Valaran]

I think what he was trying to say is that the opium farming funds terrorism, as the opium is used to make heroin which is then sold. So, it helps it indirectly, though of course the farmers are not terrorists

Ah... a little clarity... but a little.

So... now we're asserting that opium finances the terrorists and proclaiming that opium farmers must be shut down in order to stop the terrorists?

That was the US and UK plan (I don't agree with it, as it is impossible to actually make it work. Personally I felt that if they wanted to root it out, they should subsidize another crop). They burnt a few fields here and there and then kinda gave up.

Just to say, I'm not a fan of this standpoint, but was just attempting to clarify his.

[Korouse]

They should've slipped trackers into those 5 commanders. Watching all the conspiracy shows it seems like the U.S. Government could do that. Anyways, it's good a soldier is back home.

[Ostroeuropa]

Ah... a little clarity... but a little.

So... now we're asserting that opium finances the terrorists and proclaiming that opium farmers must be shut down in order to stop the terrorists?

Well actually he was asserting that the Opium farms had been shut down and this had stopped the terrorists.

Since A) isn't true. B) is looking distinctly dodgy.

Where did I assert that ALL the opium farms had been shut down?
I said the attack on opium farms had crippled the taliban.

[United States of Devonta]

Of course it's worth responding to, I bring up a rational point in the midst of mockery.

My point is this: If any President breaks the law, it should be wrong. Even if it was done for a "good" purpose. If I stole something or beat someone for a good purpose, I would not get the pass Obama is getting. The law is the law. Bringing Bush or Reagan into this is nonsense, one is dead and another one is a twindiling old gentlemen who soon will be in a nursing home. Let's focus on the young, Barack Hussien Obama.

Why does his middle name matter?

Where has someone argued that the Prez violated the law for a good reason?

Its because Republicans love that it sounds ethnic and like a dictator. It makes it easier to connect him to those evil Muslims and Saddam Hussein.

[Distruzio]

Where'd organized crime come in, Ostro? Where'd the selling of opium come in?

Are you saying that the taliban are farmers?

I'm not mocking or arguing with you at all. I genuinely have no idea how this makes sense. To me, you're saying that, since farmers are taliban, farmers are terrorists.

No, the Taliban are the drug trafficers and traders, and perhaps even producers in the sense of Poppy - > Opium.

... okay. So even if the heroin dealer on the corner is taliban, from whence does it follow that eliminating the ability of farmers to farm stops terrorism? How does "poppy farms are terrorism" make sense to you?

[The UK in Exile]

Not if they just grow more in the villages they don't visit and can't visit it isn't.

I already explained why it's still a gain. You even admitted it until that disappeared into your orwellian memory hole because it became inconvinient.

The villages where we purge opium are wrenched from the clutches of the Taliban, who can no longer reliably sustain a presence there or recruit there.
They will, as a result, become dramatically safer and more progressive etc. Eventually, if we keep that up, it will produce a knock on effect whereby this type of policing can occur by the afghani's without our help.

Except Opium production has nothing to do with taliban control. Its how they make their money in the parts where they control. In the parts the government controls, its how everyone else makes their money. And it already takes place by the Afghani's without our help, which explains this years bumper crop.

[Valaran]

Well actually he was asserting that the Opium farms had been shut down and this had stopped the terrorists.

Since A) isn't true. B) is looking distinctly dodgy.

Where did I assert that ALL the opium farms had been shut down?
I said the attack on opium farms had crippled the taliban.

But, it generally didn't as there is now record opium production. The Taliban are still there (also due to other reasons) and fighting, even if they don't control the country anymore. They are not crippled by any stretch (though the Afghan army has improved)

[Distruzio]

Ah... a little clarity... but a little.

So... now we're asserting that opium finances the terrorists and proclaiming that opium farmers must be shut down in order to stop the terrorists?

That was the US and UK plan (I don't agree with it, as it is impossible to actually make it work. Personally I felt that if they wanted to root it out, they should subsidize another crop). They burnt a few fields here and there and then kinda gave up.

Just to say, I'm not a fan of this standpoint, but was just attempting to clarify his.

I appreciate the attempt. I'm still confused about how farming equals drugs equals terrorism here. I must be missing some key information here.

[Tel]

Is this worth responding to? I mean whats up with the Republican fetish with his middle name? Is it because of his middle name they connect it to Muslims?

Of course it's worth responding to, I bring up a rational point in the midst of mockery.

Yeah, because responding to mockery with mockery is rational.

You lost your credibility when your disagreement descended into raving. I, personally lost my capacity to take you seriously when you started foaming at the mouth about "the liberals".

[The UK in Exile]

That was the US and UK plan (I don't agree with it, as it is impossible to actually make it work. Personally I felt that if they wanted to root it out, they should subsidize another crop). They burnt a few fields here and there and then kinda gave up.

Just to say, I'm not a fan of this standpoint, but was just attempting to clarify his.

I appreciate the attempt. I'm still confused about how farming equals drugs equals terrorism here. I must be missing some key information here.

Or a head injury.

[Valaran]

That was the US and UK plan (I don't agree with it, as it is impossible to actually make it work. Personally I felt that if they wanted to root it out, they should subsidize another crop). They burnt a few fields here and there and then kinda gave up.

Just to say, I'm not a fan of this standpoint, but was just attempting to clarify his.

I appreciate the attempt. I'm still confused about how farming equals drugs equals terrorism here. I must be missing some key information here.

Its just the selling of the opium to make drugs funds the Taliban, allowing them to buy weapons and continue to fight. Its their source of revenue (not the only one but a major one). Thanks for the appreciation

[Distruzio]

Well actually he was asserting that the Opium farms had been shut down and this had stopped the terrorists.

Since A) isn't true. B) is looking distinctly dodgy.

Where did I assert that ALL the opium farms had been shut down?
I said the attack on opium farms had crippled the taliban.

So... poppy farms are taliban owned? Are there no non-taliban farmers?

[Farnhamia]

I appreciate the attempt. I'm still confused about how farming equals drugs equals terrorism here. I must be missing some key information here.

Or a head injury.

Now, now.

Farming <> terrorism except maybe in western movies. Growing opium poppies, it is contended, funds terrorism because the terrorists sell the poppy juice to people who process it into all kinds of interesting compounds.

[Ostroeuropa]

I already explained why it's still a gain. You even admitted it until that disappeared into your orwellian memory hole because it became inconvinient.

The villages where we purge opium are wrenched from the clutches of the Taliban, who can no longer reliably sustain a presence there or recruit there.
They will, as a result, become dramatically safer and more progressive etc. Eventually, if we keep that up, it will produce a knock on effect whereby this type of policing can occur by the afghani's without our help.

Except Opium production has nothing to do with taliban control. Its how they make their money in the parts where they control. In the parts the government controls, its how everyone else makes their money. And it already takes place by the Afghani's without our help, which explains this years bumper crop.

Fine by me, as I said earlier.
So basically you're complaining that I refuse to advocate destroying ALL the opium, despite the fact I never said this should be our goal in the first place.
You're using statistics that show that areas we aren't concerned about are still growing opium to counter my claim that "Well, in the areas we do give a shit about, this is working."
You're baffled by the notion that the destruction of opium crops has crippled the taliban, because people unrelated to the taliban still grow opium.

How the hell do you manage to not defeat your own argument when you think about it?
I cannot comprehend how you could post something like this and not realize before you did "Wait, this is obviously wrong."
It's a literal what the fuck moment for me here.

[Ostroeuropa]

Where did I assert that ALL the opium farms had been shut down?
I said the attack on opium farms had crippled the taliban.

So... poppy farms are taliban owned? Are there no non-taliban farmers?

Where the hell did you get that idea?
Did I ever give you the impression that I said that?
Can you find where?

If I say
"The destruction of tank factories and oil pipelines was crucial to the defeat of X nation."
and then you spin around and say
"NUH-UH! COS WE STILL HAVE THOSE! SO CLEARLY NUFFIN TO DO WITH IT!"

What the hell man. I'm utterly fucking baffled how you people managed to justify that leap in logic.

Especially when you use the further argument
"Also, if you count all OUR tank factories and oil pipelines, it's increased year on year!"

[Draica]

Of course it's worth responding to, I bring up a rational point in the midst of mockery.

Yeah, because responding to mockery with mockery is rational.

You lost your credibility when your disagreement descended into raving. I, personally lost my capacity to take you seriously when you started foaming at the mouth about "the liberals".

Oh, so just because I "lost" credibility means I'm wrong? Obama did break the law..How can you deny that?

And I use his middle name not to mock him, I myself am black(even though this guy is half white/mulatto.) I don't believe he was born in Kenya or anything, so if you'd people kindly stop assuming..

[Distruzio]

I appreciate the attempt. I'm still confused about how farming equals drugs equals terrorism here. I must be missing some key information here.

Its just the selling of the opium to make drugs funds the Taliban, allowing them to buy weapons and continue to fight. Its their source of revenue (not the only one but a major one). Thanks for the appreciation

See.... here is the crux of my confusion. If attacking the taliban indirectly via purging poppy farms is considered legitimate, then why isn't Ostro arguing that the armed forces involved expand their indirect war to include the non-drug related farms? After all, don't the taliban eat? If we're supposed to be comfortable destroying the livelihood of some farmers then why shouldn't we make it all farmers?

Is this whole shebang just an excuse to combine two convenient enemies - drugs and terrorists?

[Ostroeuropa]

Its just the selling of the opium to make drugs funds the Taliban, allowing them to buy weapons and continue to fight. Its their source of revenue (not the only one but a major one). Thanks for the appreciation

See.... here is the crux of my confusion. If attacking the taliban indirectly via purging poppy farms is considered legitimate, then why isn't Ostro arguing that the armed forces involved expand their indirect war to include the non-drug related farms? After all, don't the taliban eat? If we're supposed to be comfortable destroying the livelihood of some farmers then why shouldn't we make it all farmers?

Is this whole shebang just an excuse to combine two convenient enemies - drugs and terrorists?

If the Taliban were selling the food you might have a point.
They aren't.
They sell the drugs to buy guns.

[Avenio]

Clearly this means that Obama should be publicly beheaded on the White House lawn and his head tarred and mounted on a spike outside Speaker Boehner's office. It's the only rational response to what might be a clerical error.