Dems should be very happy with Afghanistan policy

[☭proletarian☭]

Yup, communists have tried to shove their ideology down people's throats a LOT haven't they?

Like America's actions in Viet Nam, Cuba, Russia, Iraq, Afghanistan...

I noticed none on your list WERE VOTED into power were they? Always by force of violence - wonder why?

Many were marxists and did not have the capital to buy an election or a brother running a state where the vote was contested

Advocacy of proletarian revolution — In order to overcome the fetters of private property the working class must seize political power internationally through a social revolution and expropriate the capitalist classes around the world and place the productive capacities of society into collective ownership. Upon this, material foundation classes would be abolished and the material basis for all forms of inequality between humankind would dissolve.

Marxism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The socialist party of ireland has had several members elected, if I recall.

Hell, Bush wasn't elected, either. JFK also lost the popular vote. So much for the consent of the governed...

Of course the first thing they have to do - IF they succeed - is disarm their own people, spy on their own people, and do everything within their power to protect their new government from the people they govern.

you mean the patriot act, illegal operations by the CIA on American soil, the 1968 Democratic Convention, Nixon's spies and anti-hippie activities...

The difference is that you keep citing nations without socialist or communist systems (merely speaking Marxi's name doesn't magically make fidel anything other than a dictator) whereas the system you advocate... well, just take a look

 

[Alvin]

.

I wouldn't say the Taliban were inherent to the Mujhadeen. The Taliban became prominent after Afghanistan fell. [/quote]
They came to prominance after the retreat of the Russians. They came on the scene in the refugee camps in Pakistan, when the refugees went back to fight the Russians as Muj, they brought this phylosophy with them.

I would lump the Muj into the Pashtuns and non-pashtuns (in the North).

We supported the Pashtuns. After we pulled out, there was a battle between the two groups of Muh over control.

That would be the Afghan civil war.

The Pashtuns grabbed the Taliban, destroyed Kabul, and took control. The rest is history. We supported the wrong freedom fighters.

But it was the Talliban that came out on top.

I also think it's a misnomer to say that the drug lords were the major opposition to the Taliban. The Taliban started in the Helmand province. The Helmand province is where most of the poppy crop in Afghanistan comes from.

That's why they were resisting them. They took away a major source of funds.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Yup, communists have tried to shove their ideology down people's throats a LOT haven't they?

Like America's actions in Viet Nam, Cuba, Russia, Iraq, Afghanistan...

I noticed none on your list WERE VOTED into power were they? Always by force of violence - wonder why?

Many were marxists and did not have the capital to buy an election or a brother running a state where the vote was contested

Advocacy of proletarian revolution — In order to overcome the fetters of private property the working class must seize political power internationally through a social revolution and expropriate the capitalist classes around the world and place the productive capacities of society into collective ownership. Upon this, material foundation classes would be abolished and the material basis for all forms of inequality between humankind would dissolve.

Marxism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The socialist party of ireland has had several members elected, if I recall.

Hell, Bush wasn't elected, either. JFK also lost the popular vote. So much for the consent of the governed...

Of course the first thing they have to do - IF they succeed - is disarm their own people, spy on their own people, and do everything within their power to protect their new government from the people they govern.

you mean the patriot act, illegal operations by the CIA on American soil, the 1968 Democratic Convention, Nixon's spies and anti-hippie activities...

The difference is that you keep citing nations without socialist or communist systems (merely speaking Marxi's name doesn't magically make fidel anything other than a dictator) whereas the system you advocate... well, just take a look

bbbutttt bbbbb bbbbutttt look at something else - ppppleease.

Deflection is not a defense.

 

[geauxtohell]

That would be the Afghan civil war.

Right. Which commenced after the Russians pulled out and was between Massoud and Hekmatyar.

Massoud had control, until Hekmatyar and the Taliban rubbled Kabul and drove him north.

That's why they were resisting them. They took away a major source of funds.

I think it's an over statement to lump everyone into two discrete groups that consists of Taliban and Drug Lords.

Massoud was never a drug lord, and the Panjshur Valley is not known for it's poppy trade.

The poppy came out of Taliban land in Helmand and the south east and central parts of the country. I am not aware of any significant resistance to the Taliban by those involved in the poppy trade.

Though I do know the Taliban cracked down on it.

Ironically, because now it's their major source of funding.

 

[namvet]

how many dead kids in exchange for a "policy" ?????

 

[geauxtohell]

how many dead kids in exchange for a "policy" ?????

I suppose that depends on which policy you are talking about.

 

[namvet]

how many dead kids in exchange for a "policy" ?????

I suppose that depends on which policy you are talking about.

the one he forgot last Jan. how many dead till the 011 pullout????

 

[geauxtohell]

how many dead kids in exchange for a "policy" ?????

I suppose that depends on which policy you are talking about.

the one he forgot last Jan. how many dead till the 011 pullout????

Hopefully as few as possible.

Policy always results in soldiers dying. It doesn't matter who the policy maker is. I am sure you know that.

"The King makes war, and the people die."

 

[Alvin]

Right. Which commenced after the Russians pulled out and was between Massoud and Hekmatyar.

Massoud had control, until Hekmatyar and the Taliban rubbled Kabul and drove him north.

/

That's what I understand.

I think it's an over statement to lump everyone into two discrete groups that consists of Taliban and Drug Lords.

It is more complicated than that, yes That's why I said quick and dirty history lesson.

Massoud was never a drug lord, and the Panjshur Valley is not known for it's poppy trade.

That was something I was unaware of. I'll file it away.

The poppy came out of Taliban land in Helmand and the south east and central parts of the country. I am not aware of any significant resistance to the Taliban by those involved in the poppy trade.

Though I do know the Taliban cracked down on it.

Ironically, because now it's their major source of funding.

That's where it ties all together. The infiltration and exfiltration routes for supplies manpower follow the same routes as the drug trade as far as I know. I know the Brits have a bitch of a time covering it.

 

[geauxtohell]

That's where it ties all together. The infiltration and exfiltration routes for supplies manpower follow the same routes as the drug trade as far as I know. I know the Brits have a bitch of a time covering it.

Again, if you are interested: "Ghost Wars" by Coll is phenominal.

The poppy problem is really a monetary issue.

We should be subsidizing the farmers not to grow it in perpetuity.

That would screw the Taliban far more than 30,000 soldiers.

We won't do it, because it's not politically popular, and that's just asinine.