Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MSI who wrote (12101)	11/30/2001 1:16:40 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Would that were true. Unfortunately for recent example, the $43 million the US sent directly to the Taliban four months before their attack on the WTC belies that statement. Do you really believe the Talibs used that for control of opium production? $43mil sent to support our efforts against opium and heroin production, was in this case stupid, but it doesn't make us the Taliban's sponsor any more then the hundreds of millions of humanitarian aid does. The Taliban came into existance and then in to power without support from the US. It was never dependent on or controled by the US government. We didn't support the Taliban as freedom fighters, we did give weapons to some people who later joined the Taliban, but that hardly means we were the Taliban's sponsor. If we avoid M.E. oil and decriminalize drugs it only be the more ordinary capitalism at work creating democracies, If by this you mean that if we drasticly drop our oil use and important none for the ME and if we decriminalize drugs that democracy would spread through the middle east, then I disagree. Tim