GostHacked Posted January 18, 2014 Report Posted January 18, 2014 That is the best you got, Corporate agendas, is this why we as a nation do not support spending money on our military, or our troops because of corporate agendas.... Afghanistan. Pipelines, energy companies. Opium, pharmaceutical companies. If you are going to throw this slogan out there and stand behind it as some counter to "Support your troops" It's bullshit....It rings just as hollow as the "Support our troops " slogan does I've always hated the 'support the troops' agenda. The yellow ribbons and all the other campaigns. Then when you ask them how they are supporting the troops, you may get blank stares as they really don't know. We are told to believe it was to push back terrorism. And we know it's not like that at all. Oil, gas and opium are Afghanistan's Cash crops. So throw pharmaceutical companies on that list. ....Your talking as if our Military industrial complex is running this nation, only we don't have one, or are you suggesting that the US complex is actually running our country.... That would be a little closer to the truth, but I really thing we get our orders from the UK. But simply look at the hardware we run with. Mostly US hardware. It's not a crazy notion at all. Why are we everywhere the US military is? Ever ask yourself that question? Why after 9/11 are we fighting this war on terror? We were not attacked. Shit they can barely run themselfs let only 2 nations....So please explain how Canadian corporate agendas have been running the show in places like Bosina, Afghan cyprus, Haiti, the list goes on..... Afghanistan - energy and pharmaceutical companies. Remember the Taliban practially erradicated opium farming. Now it's bigger than ever and even being protected by foreign troops. Cyprus - banking industry. Bosnia - I am not sure. Haiti - I am not sure. So in the question is what are our troops doing there to begin with? Quote
overthere Posted January 21, 2014 Report Posted January 21, 2014 (edited) "So now...who is presuming to speak for whom, here?" You are presuming to speak for me,when you make this clear and unequivocal statement. "Which means, explicitly, "why don't you support the foreign policy as it involves the military?" That's what it means to you, not me. Any rational person can separate foreign policy from personal support for the military. It's not hard to separate what they are ordered to do from an appreciation of their personal sacrifice/willingness to do it. Well, it's not hard for some. Edited January 21, 2014 by overthere Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
bleeding heart Posted January 24, 2014 Report Posted January 24, 2014 No, I explicitly said that most people do NOT feel this way when they adorn their vehicles with the sentiment. I said the reason the sentiment is around in the first place is an unequivocal nod to political foreign policy; but, as with many consumer goods, the public tends to take it in a different direction from its original intent. That doesn't change the intent; nor does it change the fact that (as I pointed out) that those who buy the consumer goods often have their own reason for doing so. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
bleeding heart Posted January 24, 2014 Report Posted January 24, 2014 I should also add that the other bumper sticker we get to enjoy--"If you don't stand behind the troops, feel free to stand in front of them"--are a different beast altogether. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
BC_chick Posted January 25, 2014 Report Posted January 25, 2014 Supporting troops by not getting into unnecessary wars would be the best way... Yeah but then they'd be out of a job. Quote It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
overthere Posted January 30, 2014 Report Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) Afghanistan - energy and pharmaceutical companies. Remember the Taliban practially erradicated opium farming. Now it's bigger than ever and even being protected by foreign troops. The Taliban banned production briefly, and the objectives were a) to reduce stiockpiles of both opium and heroin that had built up from bumper crops and b. thereby increase export prices for both and profits for themselves. The Taliban are still heavily in the drug business and never left it. The revenue is substantial and crucial. Edited January 30, 2014 by overthere Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
GostHacked Posted January 31, 2014 Report Posted January 31, 2014 The Taliban banned production briefly, and the objectives were a) to reduce stiockpiles of both opium and heroin that had built up from bumper crops and b. thereby increase export prices for both and profits for themselves. The Taliban are still heavily in the drug business and never left it. The revenue is substantial and crucial. Wrong, the Taliban is not making money off the opium. Afghanistan and pharmaceutical companies are. Quote
GostHacked Posted January 31, 2014 Report Posted January 31, 2014 Yeah but then they'd be out of a job. Lots of hot heads would be upset with a world were we respect each other and have worldwide peace. They thrive on people living in fear. Quote
overthere Posted February 4, 2014 Report Posted February 4, 2014 Wrong, the Taliban is not making money off the opium. Afghanistan and pharmaceutical companies are.That is ridiculous. The Taliban still have control and influence in provinces like Helmand. Anything that generates cash- and the poppy is far and away the greatest cash generator- of course will be controlled and taxed by Taliban, warlords, govt officials, police, army etc. All have their finger in that pie, because it is becoming the only pie in that poor poor place. Just because the Taliban do not directly control the govt does not mean they have vanished or are impotent in the villages and fields. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
overthere Posted February 4, 2014 Report Posted February 4, 2014 " I said the reason the sentiment is around in the first place is an unequivocal nod to political foreign policy" and I say you are wrong in stating that reason. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
GostHacked Posted February 5, 2014 Report Posted February 5, 2014 That is ridiculous. The Taliban still have control and influence in provinces like Helmand. Anything that generates cash- and the poppy is far and away the greatest cash generator- of course will be controlled and taxed by Taliban, warlords, govt officials, police, army etc. All have their finger in that pie, because it is becoming the only pie in that poor poor place. Just because the Taliban do not directly control the govt does not mean they have vanished or are impotent in the villages and fields. Does it make sense for the Taliban to eradicate it when in power, and yet use it as a source of funding to push back the 'infidels'. Well, then again it might be like the CIA, one of the biggest drug running organizations on the planet! They say they don't but they do. Quote
Army Guy Posted February 5, 2014 Report Posted February 5, 2014 Taliban only banned opium for one year, and the result of that ban drove up the price to unheard of levels, in fact production tripled the following year, and the taliban were still in charge. just goggle it , there are plenty of sources. It should also be noted that the taliban was taken bribes from growers not to have their crops destroyed, for the taliban it was a win win... It should also be noted today the taliban does not have to have control over the actual growing fees, they are well inbeded in the distribution chain, thats were the money is. they are buying the opium off the war loerds and growers and transporting it out of the region... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
overthere Posted February 7, 2014 Report Posted February 7, 2014 "Does it make sense for the Taliban to eradicate it when in power, and yet use it as a source of funding to push back the 'infidels'. " Yes. They had other sources of income 10 and 15 years ago, sources that are not nearly so forthcoming now. It's a major source of ready cash inside a really poor place. Are you so naive to think that everybody with a gun isn't getting some of that, including the Taliban? Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.