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: Sam who wrote (179184)	1/4/2006 4:50:30 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"Or will you ever concede that, even if the decision to take out Saddam was correct, the way the Bush admin went about it was half assed and incredibly incompetent?" I can agree with the above statement but still hope that the gang who couldnt seem to find the target is doing a better job at it now than before. Can you concede that that's possible??

To: Sam who wrote (179184)	1/4/2006 4:52:18 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

According to everything I've read, the Taliban didn't PROMOTE heroin growing, they STOPPED it. Actually, as I understand it, they confiscated and STORED it, thereby decreasing supply and propping up the price. * Due to a bumper crop and record heroin production in previous years, the prices of heroin in the international heroin market had been coming down. Pakistani smugglers, supported by the ISI, had enough heroin stocks to meet at least two years' demand of the market. Was the Taliban merely suspending cultivation during this period to stabilise the prices? fromthewilderness.com Btw, although none of us will likely ever know for sure, I highly doubt that the CIA officials actually authorized the ISI to use the heroin trade to fund the Mujahidin resistance against the Soviets. More likely the Pakis did it on their own and the CIA officials who may have been cognizant of the activity likely "looked the other way". Furthermore, since the Taliban were the creation of the (at that time) Islamist dominated Pakistani ISI, it makes sense that they wished to have the Taliban "hoard" Afghani heroin supplies in order to prop up the price of the drug. The Taliban did not act alone.. And had they been serious about doing away with heroin, they would have destroyed the drugs they confiscated, not warehoused them. Btw, along with confiscating heroin, the Taliban confiscated radios, TVs, Computers, and Kites (which were quite popular with young children in Afghanistan). So can we make the assumption that denying the Afghani people their TVs, Computers, and Radios, as well denying women the right to be educated, was "a good thing"?? If you wish to brainwash an entire society and create a population willing to provide a cadre of fanatical, and militant, robots, the first thing you must do is deny them the ability to educate themselves about the world around them. All of their education must be for the purpose of advancing the cause of "the cause", in this case.. Global Jihad. That what I saw Sam.. Everywhere Zarqawi's Al Qai'da militants set up shop, they TERRORIZED the population and attempted to implement Luddism. Tell me, will you blame those of us who are opposed to this war and speak out if Iraq turns out to be a Shia theocracy with stronger ties to Iran than to the US or Europe? I will blame you if you follow Murtha's BS advice to pull US troops out and let the Iraqis fend for themselves. There's no doubt that Iran is ALSO a major threat to Iraqi stability. They would love to have a Shi'a Islamic Republic in Iraq, where 80% of the oil is located in predominantly Shi'a provinces. Which is WHY the US, and the rest of the region (and world) have an interest in opposing ANY form of non-democratic Islamic republic being created in Iraq. Any government in Iraq that is non-democratic and thus, unaccountable to its citizenry, can not be tolerated. Nor should it be. This war, whether you (or France) agreed or not, is the result of UN sanctioned military action under UN binding resolutions. And the UN, and every member of the UN Security Council has an interest, if not duty, to insure that the government that follows Saddam's Ba'thist regime is democratic. Bottom line.. It matters not whether we disagreed or not over the necessity of overthrowing Saddam's regime. What's done is done and the "fat's in the fire". We have a DUTY to prevent OTHER non-democratic entities (Al Qai'da) and states (Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia) from trying to deter the obvious popular forces of democracy that were exhibited by the last election. Hawk