134
Taliban's Massively Successful Opium Eradication Raises Questions About What US Was Doing All Along
(www.mintpressnews.com)
this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2023
134 points (66.9% liked)
World News
33191 readers
1457 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
lmao, no it doesn’t. the US didn’t go to Afghanistan to eradicate opium. the US didn’t give a shit about it at all, lmao.
do tankies so blindly hate the US that they’ll give the Taliban a bj just to try to make the US look bad? wow...
We also didn't threaten to kill the farmers for growing it. No shit the Taliban was successful. Comply or die. They're the ones who were profiting from it anyway. Now that they're in charge again, religion trumps financial needs.
The Afghanistan Papers: A Secret History of the War is a summary of the Washington Post's reporting on Afghanistan, specifically on the US government's own internal assessments from all levels of the military and political administration. In it, you'll find this quote:
The US doesn't need "tankies" or anyone else to make themselves look bad as far as the Afghan drug trade goes.
lmao, so? we get it. you hate the US. what’s your point? just to come here and whine about it?
person replies back with factual evidence contradicting your personal beliefs in a foreign war, "lmao, so?"
Where is here? The World News community? The only one I see whining is the pickle. Is this a small step away from saying people should go back from where they came from and leave this social space you've claimed as your own? IDK wtf you're thinking coming into someone else's post, refuting verified evidence, then proclaiming hate because its context makes the US look subpar. What's your point, you love the US, why come on here and have to ignorantly shout it?
you mean an Association Fallacy that fails to prove their claims? US Maries also peed while they were there. That doesn’t prove it’s why they were there.
You:
Response:
You:
Now the goal post has been moved to WhY?!? were we there? Throw up some more pretty images to explain the situation please.
wow, that’s quite the pretzel you’d twisted yourself into trying score some imaginary “point”.
The “goal post” was always the “why” and it was never to eradicate opium. Every source, every article linked here bears that out. all that’s ben proven here is:
ya got me there. they did care. still doesn’t prove that it’s why the US was there, and, in fact, several of the linked sources directly state to the contrary against claims that it was.
try not to hurt yourself with more of those mental gymnastics. it’s hilarious to watch
edit: ya know, you probably wouldn’t be so outraged and angry all the time if you didn’t constant make stuff up to be outraged and angry about.
except they didn’t disprove them. US Marines also peed a lot while they were there, but it’s not why they are there. it proves nothing.
correlation ≠ causation
“I know you are but what am I?” is not a convincing argument. most people learn this when they’re 5. (borrowed form another comment)
see, you even admit that it wasn’t about opium.
you’re welcome to cite sources to back up your claims. and I’ll be happy to point out how the timeline doesn’t support your assertions that the war was about opium, it just happened to be something the US did while we were there.
what I think is irrelevant. that facts are what matter.
irrelevant. present facts. not anecdotes or your feelings.
I have, repeatedly. your inability/refusal to understand is not my problem.
I’m perfectly capable of noticing when people move the goalposts because they can’t prove their argument with facts, as I keep pouting out. raging about it doesn’t change this fact or any other facts.
not according to the facts. if this continues to confuse you, that’s not my problem.
not my job to prove your argument.
“I know you are but what am I?” is not a convincing argument. most people learn this when they’re 5.
you’ve presented nothing but anger, insults, and logical fallacies, none of which are convincing of anything other than that, when you can’t argue the facts in good faith, you resort to these bad-faith tactics ad nauseam because, so blinded by anger and hate, you can’t handle defeat.
so you admit to arguing from a position of clear and obvious bias. we get it— you hate the US. this has zero bearing on the facts— just that you like to insult people when you lose an argument.
I’m not responsible for your lack of comprehension.
the finest projection in all the land.