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:
Of all the failures in Afghanistan, the war on opium ranked among the most feckless. During two decades, the United States spent more than $9 billion on a dizzying array of programs to deter Afghanistan from supplying the world with heroin. None of the measures worked. In many cases, they made things worse.
The US doesn’t need “tankies” or anyone else to make themselves look bad as far as the Afghan drug trade goes.
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?
person replies back with factual evidence contradicting your personal beliefs in a foreign war, “lmao, so?”
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.
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:
the US didn’t give a shit about it at all
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.
You selectively picked an activity that American soldiers would do everywhere (peeing) over something they did only in Afghanistan (guarding opium fields) only because it would support your argument.
That my dear good m’sir is a classic case of cherry picking.
You selectively picked an activity that American soldiers would do everywhere (peeing) over something they did only in Afghanistan (guarding opium fields) only because it would support your argument.
nope, just an example. you’re not very good at this
“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)
Operation Enduring Freedom was sold as a war on terrorism
see, you even admit that it wasn’t about opium.
the US repeatedly cited opium as a target of the war because they claimed it funded the Taliban.
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.
Or did you think it was retaliation for 9/11 or something?
what I think is irrelevant. that facts are what matter.
I have American friends who died defending those poppy fields. I remember it all very well.
irrelevant. present facts. not anecdotes or your feelings.
Also do feel free to explain how this is any way relevant to the conversation:
correlation ≠ causation
I have, repeatedly. your inability/refusal to understand is not my problem.
You don’t seem to be capable of following the conversation
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.
Oh my, you are really lost!
not according to the facts. if this continues to confuse you, that’s not my problem.
I’m sorry that I do not know how to find search results from 2001
not my job to prove your argument.
Yes, that’s why I was trying to figure out why you are struggling with them.
“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.
Well that pretty much confirms my suspicions
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.
Ah, so you do realize that it makes absolutely no sense lol
I’m not responsible for your lack of comprehension.
Looks like my job is done here. Rage on, little snowflake.
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 tankie so kindly 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.
deleted by creator
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
You selectively picked an activity that American soldiers would do everywhere (peeing) over something they did only in Afghanistan (guarding opium fields) only because it would support your argument.
That my dear good m’sir is a classic case of cherry picking.
nope, just an example. you’re not very good at this
Terrible argument. Textbook case of:
whatever you have to tell yourself to sleep at night.
deleted by creator
“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.
deleted by creator
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.