Bush Strategy Has Aided Terrorism

[Taomon]

Um Tao I showed you mine..................please have the courtesy of showing me YOURS....................

Afghanistan has been "A DRUG LORD" historically as far back as I can remember...................

Not during the mid to late 1990's.

http://secint24.un.org/News/dh/latest/afghan/un-afghan-history.shtml

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2001/07/04/opium010704.html ..........this article is a lie!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why is this article a lie? Because it contradicts your friend?

 

[nibor]

Not during the mid to late 1990's.

http://secint24.un.org/News/dh/latest/afghan/un-afghan-history.shtml

Why is this article a lie? Because it contradicts your friend?

Yes it's a lie because if you know anything about poppies, you'd know that "naturalized" poppies on the scale of the pictures that I saw take generations to grow................

 

[Diuretic]

http://www.regional.org.au/au/asa/2001/plenary/1/fist.htm

Abstract
Tasmania is the world’s largest producer of opium alkaloids for the pharmaceutical market. The area sown to poppies is close to 20,000 ha, and the industry is one of the larger employers in the State.

The application of science and technology has been critical to the development of the poppy industry. High yielding varieties and efficient production methods allow the Tasmanian industry to compete successfully on the world market.

Farmers, government research agencies, and the processing companies have each been important in the development of new technology for the poppy industry. In recent years, the activity of government research agencies has declined and their role has largely been replaced by private enterprise.

The strengths of the industry include its strong market focus and the close relationship with poppy growers.

Amazing things, poppies.

 

[Taomon]

Yes it's a lie because if you know anything about poppies, you'd know that "naturalized" poppies on the scale of the pictures that I saw take generations to grow................

Riiiight, and the pictures you saw were dated when and from what source?

 

[nibor]

Riiiight, and the pictures you saw were dated when and from what source?

They were taken in the spring of 2002............taken directly by our members in the 10th Mtn Division and brought home by the same............they weren't from geeks in the press.........they had no agenduh other than to show what it was like................

 

[Warner]

What bullshit. Nice way to justify killing civilians. They are all guilty. Fukking copout.

I did not say that. I said "bear some responsibility". If you allow a government that participates in criminal acts then you are at least partially responsible. How else could it be? If not then in the end no country is ever responsible for its actions.

Were they fully responsible then it would be legitimate to actually target the civilians. But this is not what I'm suggesting. What I'm saying is that the price of allowing such a government is that some civilians may be killed in the process of attacking that government.

Did the people who were killed in 9-11 deserve it? After all they supported a government that the Taliban hated, so according to your logic they weren't innocent.

You really have poor logic skills don't you Ray? Civilians were the target of the 9/11 attacks (excepting the pentagon). Had there been some civilian losses in a legitimate attack upon the US government and/or military, then I suppose the answer might be Yes. But this was not the case.

 

[Warner]

In this case the Afghan people allowed the Taliban to rule and thus share some measure of the blame for 9/11. So they are not really "innocent".

So if the civilians of this country allowed Baby Bush to become president and someone doesn't like the bad things that Baby Bush did, civilian casualties in this country would be ok?

It always amazes me that the most extreme people have absolutely no ability to put themselves in the other guy's shoes.

Yes. If not then it is far to easy for government leaders to shelter themselves.

Lets presume our enemies have a legitimate reason for attacking us (I'm not saying they do/did). Then, as long as their targets are our government and/or military, and they do not seek civilian casualties, such collateral damage is just a part of how the world really works.

For example, if they'd only attacked the Pentagon on 9/11, and as a result some civilian janitors got killed, that would be acceptable and not criminal. By attacking the WTC however, where the targets were specifically civilians, the act was criminal.

 

[Warner]

So, basically, no one has any empathy for anyone else.

Loverly....

You are not getting it Jillian.

No where have I said that we should have caused any more collateral losses than necessary to exterminate the Taliban and A-Q. If I were arguing that we should have no empathy, I'd argue for a much larger kill area without regard for civilian losses.

My point is simply that civilians cannot be a shield protecting the enemy's leadership from our actions.

And furthermore, you have totally missed the primary point I made which was that in the long run CIVILIAN LOSSES WOULD HAVE BEEN LOWER had we eliminated the Taliban/A-Q at the start. Instead this just drags on and on and the death toll just keeps climbing a little every day.

You're kind of "empathy" just leads to misery and death.