No early exit for troops

[margrace]

On the forum last night on TVO the Globe and Mail newspaper reporter in Washington said he believes that the passport item will not hurt Canadians but it will hurt Americans coming to Canada when they try to go back home and find that their Illinois driver's liscence is not valad. He did not explain any more.

If terroriest want into the US all they have to do is go to Mexico. That border, to all intents and purposes is completely open.

Bush is attacking his own people with his laws and lies. The only thing Canada has that he wants to protect is our recources. He wants to guarantee that they have complete control of them and by using his propaganda machines, which stupid Canadians buy into, he plans to do just that. Selling the wheat board control out to companies like Cargill was always his governments plan.

It is easy to read the propaganda being fed to us on here by planted people from the US. American has always taught its children complete allegiance to its goverment. They are brain washed to believe that critizm of their government is tatamount to betrayal of their country. They cannot believe, with this mind set that the US is a very aggressive country behind the scenes, using horrible tactics to control other governments and backing regressive and killer government in other countries. They put Saddam in there and when he refused to take his orders like a good little robot the attacked him.

Canadians too are very gullible, we believe the propoganda fed to the Americans and to us by American puppets such as Harper.

[jdobbin]

Are you suggesting that people from Canada went to the US and Flew Planes into the towers?

The 9/11 Commission blew that argument out of the water. All of the hijackers received visas to the United States from the United States. They didn't first enter the U.S. through Canada. At some point, some possibly crossed into Canada and back again but it was the paperwork that they received in the U.S. that allowed them easy access.

[guyser]

They are doing this because they said our immigration system is too weak and poeple in our country pose a threat to the US.

Arar is a perfect example as well as the people from Canda who went to the US.. and,

and on that fateful sunny morning,

Flew the planes into the towers.

Guyser?

Wow....I am stunned that someone still believes that. Suffice to say I will let other blow your ideas out of the water.

[Argus]

If Harper is ready to lose the election, then let see it happen in the spring and then he can go over and fight in the cause he believes in!! That war is between 2 different groups who have abused their own people but the Taliban is less absusive, if there is just a thing.

The Taliban is less abusive than whom?

The Taliban stoppped the drug trade

That is a myth. The Taliban were and are actively involved in the drug trade.

[hiti]

It was right to overthrow the Taliban, under a UN mandate, because that regime was exporting terrorism. It was right for Canada to have been part of that successful effort. But Canada's mission in Afghanistan has changed.

In 2002 a Canadian battle group went to Kandahar. In 2003 two thousand troops went to Kabul as part of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force. In 2004 this was reduced to a seven hundred person reconnaissance team. In 2005 Canada sent a Provincial Reconstruction team to Kandahar. Then in 2006 Canada deployed a combat Task Force to Kandahar and took command of the multinational brigade headquarters.

Paul Martin's government approved the combat component for one year -until early 2007- to help ensure stability on the ground in Kandahar for reconstruction. But Steveie jammed the Parliament and has effectively tied up most of Canada's available military resources until 2009 and locked Canada into a mission geared mainly toward counter-insurgency. Harper has put Canada at war.

Canada's mission was to support reconstruction, diplomacy, police training, public institution building with a major CIDA deployment. Canada should get back to that original mission. Instead we have Harper substituting political and photo ops for policy. Look at me, I'm a war-monger just like Dubya,

[Jean_Poutine]

It was right to overthrow the Taliban, under a UN mandate, because that regime was exporting terrorism. It was right for Canada to have been part of that successful effort. But Canada's mission in Afghanistan has changed.

In 2002 a Canadian battle group went to Kandahar. In 2003 two thousand troops went to Kabul as part of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force. In 2004 this was reduced to a seven hundred person reconnaissance team. In 2005 Canada sent a Provincial Reconstruction team to Kandahar. Then in 2006 Canada deployed a combat Task Force to Kandahar and took command of the multinational brigade headquarters.

Paul Martin's government approved the combat component for one year -until early 2007- to help ensure stability on the ground in Kandahar for reconstruction. But Steveie jammed the Parliament and has effectively tied up most of Canada's available military resources until 2009 and locked Canada into a mission geared mainly toward counter-insurgency. Harper has put Canada at war.

Canada's mission was to support reconstruction, diplomacy, police training, public institution building with a major CIDA deployment. Canada should get back to that original mission. Instead we have Harper substituting political and photo ops for policy. Look at me, I'm a war-monger just like Dubya,

In your first couple paragraphs, you sounded like a reasonable person that has an understanding of what's going on. You then proceeded with partisan comments and a lame link to Bush who you, of course, insult. I can't speak for anyone else, but that just loses my attention.

As for reconstruction and the like, how can you have that without security? So, what you're arguing is Canada should be like the countries that set caveats on what they will do and further undermine NATO efforts?

[hiti]

In your first couple paragraphs, you sounded like a reasonable person that has an understanding of what's going on. You then proceeded with partisan comments and a lame link to Bush who you, of course, insult. I can't speak for anyone else, but that just loses my attention.

Would you prefer praises for Bush for what he has done? You may commence........... Hardly anyone would agree with you.

As for reconstruction and the like, how can you have that without security? So, what you're arguing is Canada should be like the countries that set caveats on what they will do and further undermine NATO efforts?

Please refer to what I posted. The combat Task Force was originally deployed to Kandahar to provide that security for reconstruction. Except that reconstruction has been forgot in favour of combat. The last battle this fall was ineffective because the territory gained from the Taliban was then abandoned and now another offensive has been launched to regain that territory.

I may be wrong but you sound like Canada should just be a combat unit and forget the rest.

I think Canada should get back to it's original intent, reconstruction with security forces. And if we don't more Afghanistans will turn to the Taliban for their needs like groceries.

The other countries may have their hands full real soon as the Taliban has gone back into Kabal. Pakistan should be part of the effort to rescue Afghanistan and not part of the problem as they harbour the Taliban and wait for NATO to leave so they can move in.

[Jean_Poutine]

If Harper is ready to lose the election, then let see it happen in the spring and then he can go over and fight in the cause he believes in!! That war is between 2 different groups who have abused their own people but the Taliban is less absusive, if there is just a thing. The Taliban stoppped the drug trade while the Northern Alliance, are in the thick of it with many of them being within the government and Canadian soldiers are dying for this. The govt will always do what they want, and so if we succeed driving the Taliban out the Northern Alliance will still abuse their people. We should get out, its a civil war like Iraq is!!!

Afghanistan was a response to an attack whereas Iraq was a preemptive attack.

America has lost more soldiers in Iraq than the entire Canadian force in Afghanistan.

America is having a hard time getting the situation under control in Iraq with roughly 4 times the number of troops that NATO has in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan was a failed state while Iraq was a state with a bad regime. The difference is that when you get rid of a bad regime, everything that's been suppressed is released, and that creates just the sort of chaotic conditions that extremists thrive in. On the other hand, there wasn't anything to release in Afghanistan as it was already loose, and if you have any doubt of that, all you have to do is look at 9-11. If you want to fight an effective 'war on terrorism,' it makes more sense to deal with areas in which they are already free to operate and deny them that rather than create more.

Still want to compare Afghanistan to Iraq?

[White Doors]

Nice post JP

[Jean_Poutine]

Would you prefer praises for Bush for what he has done? You may commence........... Hardly anyone would agree with you.

No, I would prefer a mature debate about policy.

Please refer to what I posted. The combat Task Force was originally deployed to Kandahar to provide that security for reconstruction. Except that reconstruction has been forgot in favour of combat. The last battle this fall was ineffective because the territory gained from the Taliban was then abandoned and now another offensive has been launched to regain that territory.

I may be wrong but you sound like Canada should just be a combat unit and forget the rest.

You are right in that it was the Liberals that deployed troops to Kandahar and the Conservatives have since supported it. However, you cannot simply turn off any resistance to NATO like a lightswitch by 2007. It's important to understand what Kandahar is. It is the stronghold and birthplace of the Taliban.

Regaining territory is not the objective of Operation Baaz Tsuka. They launched an information campaign first, and it's objective is more to serve as a deterrent as well as to sort out the hard-core fighters from the rest.

Here are some quick facts:

- Not only military operations are extended to 2009, but also the mandate for the PRT in Kandahar for the same length of time.

- In total, Canadian aid to Afghanistan will be nearly $1 billion by 2011.

- Harper allocated $310 million to development on top of the $250 million that the Liberals allocated for 2004-2009.

http://w3.acdi-cida.gc.ca/CIDAWEB/acdicida...D-129153625-S6T

- The battlegroup in Afghanistan makes up approximately 50% of available forces there (roughly 1200 out of about 2400).

Based on those facts, how do you conclude that Canada is involved in combat at the expense of everything else?

Security should be a key component of the operation however. Without it, it's pretty hard to get anything else done.

[jdobbin]

Still want to compare Afghanistan to Iraq?

One big difference is that Afghanistan's violence is supplied and supported by another country, namely Pakistan.

Pakistan has created a mini-Taliban state within its borders to overthrow Afghanistan. There probably can be no peace ever until Pakistan is dealt with.

[geoffrey]

Still want to compare Afghanistan to Iraq?

One big difference is that Afghanistan's violence is supplied and supported by another country, namely Pakistan.

You don't think Syria or Iran play a hand in Iraq?

Not that I think the conflicts are comparable either... just saying.

[jdobbin]

You don't think Syria or Iran play a hand in Iraq?

Not that I think the conflicts are comparable either... just saying.

I don't think that Syria and Iran are innocent but Pakistan's complicity in Afghanistan's misery is overwhelming.

[mikedavid00]

One big difference is that Afghanistan's violence is supplied and supported by another country, namely Pakistan.

Pakistan has created a mini-Taliban state within its borders to overthrow Afghanistan. There probably can be no peace ever until Pakistan is dealt with.

Pakistan is Canada's third largest immigrant group.

Just thought you should know.

[Leafless]

One big difference is that Afghanistan's violence is supplied and supported by another country, namely Pakistan.

Pakistan has created a mini-Taliban state within its borders to overthrow Afghanistan. There probably can be no peace ever until Pakistan is dealt with.

Pakistan is Canada's third largest immigrant group.

Just thought you should know.

What about JIHADISTAN.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihadistan

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14975282/site/newsweek/

[mikedavid00]

Pakistan is Canada's third largest immigrant group.

Just thought you should know.

What about JIHADISTAN.

and their supporters.

They are here too. It's in the mosques and the kids being born here even.

Instead of going into goth which would be considred a white rebellion, these kids are going into jihad like it's cool.

on youtube.com on one of the video's these pakistani punks were leaving feedback and a race war broke out. The common rebuttle from the pakistani's was 'we flew the planes into the towers' blah blah. Like it's some kind of great thing.

there's also a sense that they are taking over the world. they stick so close to their community that they thinkk litterly everyone is muslim. I was carpooling on the way to work and this muslim guy was reading the Toronto star and it said that vegetable sales were down in Cnaada. He actually attributed that to so many muslims being in Canada becuase they don't each much veggies.

any italian girl in the mall would be a fair skin pakistani. they really think that they have a majority around them.

[madmax]

If Harper is ready to lose the election, then let see it happen in the spring and then he can go over and fight in the cause he believes in!! That war is between 2 different groups who have abused their own people but the Taliban is less absusive, if there is just a thing.

The Taliban is less abusive than whom?

The Taliban stoppped the drug trade

That is a myth. The Taliban were and are actively involved in the drug trade.

The Taliban, were equally as abusive as many different factions in the Northern Alliance. Some of these factions were worse than the Taliban. The Taliban were better than many Warlords that they displaced in the south. The warlords were so bad that the Taliban were welcomed. People choose religious tyrrany over anarchy and perpetual war amongst the warlords.

The Taliban, virtually stopped the drug trade. IIRC they used money from AID to pay the farmers not to grow poppies.

[madmax]

So, what you're arguing is Canada should be like the countries that set caveats on what they will do and further undermine NATO efforts?

Canada has Caveats on what we do within NATO. We had trouble with these caveats early on. We don't allow prisoners to be tortured. Thus when JTF2 was capturing true foreign fighters, and handing them over to the US (before Canadians even knew we were in Afghanistan participating, and the Americans for that matter), these prisoners were not guarranteed that they would not be tortured like those in Mazer e Sharif.

So, then we had a problem when it became public. We didn't have a separate Canadian Facility for prisoners, and the US wasn't being forthcoming at that time, that it was against torture. The British SAS was also handing over prisoners but had no political problems. The Afghans of the NA couldn't be trusted, because they were selling and killing prisoners. Eventually, we got past that, while leaving alot of murky water.

Canada also has a Caveat against Land Mines. Afghanistan is the most mine laid country in the world. Thanks USSR. The USA is laying portable land mines, most are, and hopefully they are picking them up as they leave their defensive position.

I don't mind countries that have Caveats, particularly when countries are not all that committed to the program. Fact is, if they are hiding behind their caveats they don't want to be there and aren't committed to the mission beyond what they are doing. So, putting them in a riskier situation, will only ensure their early departure, and possibly the toppling of a government that is semi supportive, for one that isn't supportive at all.

There is a military thought, that goes along the lines of, get em shot at and then the will commit. It doesn't always work.

[Jean_Poutine]

Canada has Caveats on what we do within NATO. We had trouble with these caveats early on. We don't allow prisoners to be tortured. Thus when JTF2 was capturing true foreign fighters, and handing them over to the US (before Canadians even knew we were in Afghanistan participating, and the Americans for that matter), these prisoners were not guarranteed that they would not be tortured like those in Mazer e Sharif.

So, then we had a problem when it became public. We didn't have a separate Canadian Facility for prisoners, and the US wasn't being forthcoming at that time, that it was against torture. The British SAS was also handing over prisoners but had no political problems. The Afghans of the NA couldn't be trusted, because they were selling and killing prisoners. Eventually, we got past that, while leaving alot of murky water.

Canada also has a Caveat against Land Mines. Afghanistan is the most mine laid country in the world. Thanks USSR. The USA is laying portable land mines, most are, and hopefully they are picking them up as they leave their defensive position.

There is a big difference between following international law and having caveats. For example, Canada signed and ratified the Ottawa Landmine Ban Treaty. On the other hand, the US and Russia have neither signed nor ratified it. It's also not just an issue of Canada not allowing prisoners to be tortured, but a debate about whether or not the Geneva Conventions should apply; thus bringing into it a matter of international law once again. In contrast, there is no law saying that forces cannot be called in as support where they are needed.

It shouldn't come as a surprise that special forces do things that are not announced and may contradict the official line.

[hiti]

Would you prefer praises for Bush for what he has done? You may commence........... Hardly anyone would agree with you.

No, I would prefer a mature debate about policy.

Unless it's about Bush policy. Got it.

Please refer to what I posted. The combat Task Force was originally deployed to Kandahar to provide that security for reconstruction. Except that reconstruction has been forgot in favour of combat. The last battle this fall was ineffective because the territory gained from the Taliban was then abandoned and now another offensive has been launched to regain that territory.

I may be wrong but you sound like Canada should just be a combat unit and forget the rest.

You are right in that it was the Liberals that deployed troops to Kandahar and the Conservatives have since supported it. However, you cannot simply turn off any resistance to NATO like a lightswitch by 2007. It's important to understand what Kandahar is. It is the stronghold and birthplace of the Taliban.

Regaining territory is not the objective of Operation Baaz Tsuka. They launched an information campaign first, and it's objective is more to serve as a deterrent as well as to sort out the hard-core fighters from the rest.

Here are some quick facts:

- Not only military operations are extended to 2009, but also the mandate for the PRT in Kandahar for the same length of time.

- In total, Canadian aid to Afghanistan will be nearly $1 billion by 2011.

- Harper allocated $310 million to development on top of the $250 million that the Liberals allocated for 2004-2009.

http://w3.acdi-cida.gc.ca/CIDAWEB/acdicida...D-129153625-S6T

- The battlegroup in Afghanistan makes up approximately 50% of available forces there (roughly 1200 out of about 2400).

Based on those facts, how do you conclude that Canada is involved in combat at the expense of everything else?

Security should be a key component of the operation however. Without it, it's pretty hard to get anything else done.

I was referring to the battle that was going on this fall when Canadians went in shooting and then left the area with the Taliban moving in behind them. Right now they are moving to regain that territory and making steps to keep it. Also just recently our troops have been given some tools for reconstruction which should help to stabilize the villages and the people.

And yet the Taliban is just over the border in Pakistan training with tank busters and other weaponry. Plus you better believe they are learning to make bigger bombs.

What is NATO doing about Pakistan?

Canada has made an agreement with the Afghanistan government to hand over prisoners to them.

[madmax]

It shouldn't come as a surprise that special forces do things that are not announced and may contradict the official line.

It is no surprise.

[madmax]

[in contrast, there is no law saying that forces cannot be called in as support where they are needed.

Well, that would be great in a perfect world, where countries hand over there sovereignty and control of their armies to the complete command of other countries. If you are suggesting a breakdown in NATO, I would agree. Starting with the lack of commitment that occurred in 2002 from the country whom had a long history in Afghanistan. The doctrine for the war in afghanistan, was only good for a short term romp.

Use Proxy fighters, keep a small footprint, replace the government, find Bin Laden, and get out, as there was to be little need for occupation.

The key in this of course, was to locate Bin Laden. The US lost its focus, when it removed Special Forces in 2002 to prepare them for the Iraq folly.

The articles in Yesterdays Toronto Star, reporting from Afghanistan, re affirm a posting earlier that I made with regards to Pakistans support for the Taliban. They are already viewing the war as a lost cause, and are hedging their bets with the Taliban/Pashtuns.

We can gripe all we want about other countries within Nato. But the US/Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, were a major factor in the Growth of Islamic Fundamentalism in Afghanistan, and right now Pakistan could do more to prevent supplying safe haven for foreign fighters, Al Qaida and Taliban Leaders.

So unless you have enough troops to pacify 5 million or more people, the most effective way to relieve pressure on our troops, is to remove the base where the "enemy" regroups, resupplies, and recruits.

Pakistan has a Caveat right now. The have left control of Waristan to the Pashtuns, for border control.

PashtunWali will be the code of control.

Pakistan on side will do more to relieve pressure on Canadian/Nato troops then all the NATO troops can do working together without Pakistan on side.

Like I said, if countries hide behind their Caveats, it is because they do not believe in the cause.

If the cause is great enough, then the Caveats will not exist.

Karzai has tried to convince Pakistan/Musharif to stop supporting the insurgents. The US should be more pressure on Pakistan. But one could wonder how much Musharef Fears US pressure after looking at the mess that Bush created in Iraq.

Out of their own interests, one could accuse Pakistan of being Duplicitous.

There is no law, saying that forces cannot be called to support where needed.

Only Politics and Geo Politics.

[Argus]

If Harper is ready to lose the election, then let see it happen in the spring and then he can go over and fight in the cause he believes in!! That war is between 2 different groups who have abused their own people but the Taliban is less absusive, if there is just a thing.

The Taliban is less abusive than whom?

The Taliban stoppped the drug trade

That is a myth. The Taliban were and are actively involved in the drug trade.

The Taliban, were equally as abusive as many different factions in the Northern Alliance. Some of these factions were worse than the Taliban.

Citation please?

The Taliban, virtually stopped the drug trade. IIRC they used money from AID to pay the farmers not to grow poppies.

The expert group's observation on the Taliban's drug record runs counter to the US view. The five-member panel has questioned the sincerity of the Taliban supreme leader Mullah Omar in banning cultivation of poppy last July. It says the Taliban was stockpiling drugs and it has halted production only to keep opium and heroin prices from plummeting.

Taliban stockpiling and selling drugs

Although the Taliban reportedly banned opium poppy cultivation in late

1997, opium production in Afghanistan increased through the year 2000, accounting for

72% of the worlds illicit opium supply, according to U.S. government sources. Most

Afghan opium is sold in Europe and not the United States.

On July 27, 2000, the Taliban again issued a decree banning opium poppy cultivation.

According to the March 2001 INCSR, the announcement of the ban caused prices to rise.

However, the State Department noted that “Neither the Taliban nor the Northern Alliance

has taken any significant action to seize stored opium, precursor chemicals or arrest and

prosecute narcotics traffickers. On the contrary, authorities continue to tax the opium

poppy crop at about ten percent, and allow it to be sold in open bazaars, traded and

transported”.3

Heroin production grows under Taliban

[madmax]

Edited and replaced

[madmax]

The Taliban is less abusive than whom?

That is a myth. The Taliban were and are actively involved in the drug trade.

Citation please

The expert group's observation on the Taliban's drug record runs counter to the US view. The five-member panel has questioned the sincerity of the Taliban supreme leader Mullah Omar in banning cultivation of poppy last July. It says the Taliban was stockpiling drugs and it has halted production only to keep opium and heroin prices from plummeting.

You required a citation for Northern Alliance Brutality. You don't have to look to hard. There are many books covering the period of Soviet withdrawl to the rise of the Taliban, which cover the actions of the warlords during this period. You can type Northern Alliance Attrocities on Google and you will be very busy, reading past and present badness amongst themselves and others.

Here is just a sample from Rawa

For years we have been trying to raise awareness about the situation of women in Afghanistan and for years we were being ignored. We had to beg people to arrange an event. Now people are listening to what we say about the Taliban, but they must listen to what we say about the Northern Alliance to not repeat the same type of tragedy for the country as a whole and especially for the women of Afghanistan. The Taliban are horrible and Afghanistan will be much better off without them, but we must not forget that the Northern Alliance committed so many atrocities, so many crimes during their rule between 1992 and 1996 that they made it easy for the Taliban to come to power.

for an individual account

http://rawa.org/mother2.html

With regards to your post on the levels of heroin increase under the rule of the Taliban. The quote is as accurate as any US observation. It is actually back up by other data I have found. However, like WMD and other US data, it can be manipulated to address only the facts that are of interest to the US.

During the Period of the USSR/Afghan war, the DEA was handcuffed by the drug trade because of the need to look the other way. ISI, CIA used/allowed the drug trade to finance the war. The problem was endemic after the USSR Withdrawl, and druglords/warlords fought over territory in the period prior to the rise of the Taliban.

My sources are from the Book "Taliban" by Ahmed Rashid, not to be confused with Abdul Rashid, who was in charge of the poppy cultivation going to Pakistan on behalf of the Taliban.

The Taliban, many times from 1996-2000 attempted to rein in the drug trade, but couldn't do it without international help, and they wanted international recognition, and used their ability to war on drugs to try to attain this. With no aid, and no recourse, the Taliban allow the farmers to farm poppies without persecution.

From 1997 to 2000 opium production increased.

Meanwhile the Taliban made a crackdown against hashish in order to demonstrate that if they crackdown on Opium it would be just as effective. Hashish production was reduced to insignificance.

In late 2000 and early 2001 the Taliban crackdown on Opium production. The amounts of the decrease were staggering. Those involved in monitoring had to determine if the reduction was a caused by famine/drought, or by the crackdown, or by both. The Taliban were desperate for international recognition and aid.

That said, if you want more, I will type up and quote from the book "Taliban" to orchestrate how this draconian regime operated against Drug Lords and Criminals. (Bush and Harper would really find out what tough on crime means ).

Here are some quotes from some current studies and observations.

Despite being outlawed by the Afghan government, opium poppy cultivation has expanded rapidly since 2001. Pierre-Arnaud Chouvy examines the dynamics behind the increase, and the impact of opium cultivation on stability in the country.

Afghanistan's opium production is expected to exceed 1999's record high of 4,581 tons in 2004. Sources in the US administration and the UK Foreign Office have reported, ahead of the forthcoming UN Afghanistan Annual Opium Survey, that farmers will produce between 5,400 and 7,200 tonnes of opium in 2004, depending on total acreage and average yields.

However, opium production is clearly rising in Afghanistan, as opium poppy cultivation has spread to new provinces and districts across the country. It should be noted, however, that what has been widely presented as a major expansion of production in 2002 and 2003 consists mainly of a restoration of previous normal levels of production.

Although it is clear that the opium trade has a destabilising effect in the country it is argued by some that the opium economy, because of its importance for the resource-poor, should not be wiped out precipitately or without compensation. As noted by Frank Kenefick and Larry Morgan in Opium in Afghanistan: People and Poppies, the Good Evil (2004) 'the growing of opium poppies in Afghanistan can be viewed, as an interim measure, as beneficial in many respects'.

Several factors have favoured the rapid restoration of opium production since the Taliban prohibition. Prior to 2004 at least, the US largely condoned opiates production both in areas traditionally controlled by the Northern Alliance, for example in Badakhshan, and in areas held by local commanders whose support was deemed strategically necessary to fight the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Before 2003, when opium came to be denounced as the greatest threat to Afghanistan's stability, peace and forthcoming democracy, the US had been less interested in waging the 'war on drugs' than in using drug traffickers and affiliated warlords as allies to support its short-term Afghan strategy. In doing so, the US re-enacted a strategy largely used during the Cold War, notably in Afghanistan.

Equally seriously, the opium economy also partly funds - though it is not clear to what extent - opposition groups, such as the remnant Taliban movement and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's Hezb-i-Islami, that are attempting to disrupt the national election scheduled for 9 October 2004.

Ironically, it was the ousting of the Taliban, immediately after their successful 2000/01 prohibition on cultivation, that has made such a resurgence possible and the magnitude of the increase in production can be partly attributed to the economic consequences of the ban itself, which was almost certainly economically and politically unsustainable.

Abdul Rashid, the director of drug control for Kandahar province in 1997 said at the time that, at least without external aid, it was 'simply not possible to eradicate the poppy without alienating the farmers'. Nevertheless, the Taliban banned opium production in 2000, either to secure international support or, as some have speculated, to drive opium prices up to benefit from additional income. The move was unexpected and extremely successful, at least in the short term, as only 185 tonnes were harvested in 2001, much less than the 3,276 tonnes of 2000. Moreover, only 35 out of the overall 185 tonnes was effectively harvested across Taliban-held territory. The rest came from northern areas controlled by the United Front, notably from Badakhshan.

Ok, so you have the information, the studies and the data.

As of today, EVERYONE is using Opium as a means of survival, and a means of supporting the warlords and the insurgents of Afghanistan.

There is plenty of evidence and data, supporting the Taliban Crackdown in 2001. Only someone as draconian as the Taliban could pull off these crackdowns, Music, Kites, Drugs, Education.

As for comparison between authoritarian Clergy vs Randon Arbitrary violence of the warlords, is open to judgement between evil acts.

The Taliban, when handed a criminal (Guilty until Proven Innocent) (Someone in these forums supports this)

would then offer the afflicted family money as compensation many times through many courts and in the public soccer stadium.

The Eldest of the family could take the money and go to mecca 100 times and the prison forgiven by god. OR the Eldest, in the case at the start of the book in TALIBAN would refuse the offer, and exact JUSTICE upon the offender. In this case a young man whom killed the victims uncle in a botched robbery. The clerics plead with the eldest, yet he refuses is given the Gun and pulls the trigger, justice delivered. Of course this kind of strict interpretation goes back to the Ten Commandments, and adultry will get a women killed on the soccer field just as easily.

Again, Northern Alliance war crimes are limitless. Some Dandys occurred at Mazer e Sharif, (Not to be confused with the prior Taliban Crimes committed here earlier) When Northern Alliance Commander, Dostum, takes prisoners not wanted by the US, and not Evacuted out by Pakistan, and puts them into containers on trucks. When the British Observers mention the heat of these sealed containers have not ventilation and are filled with prisoners, he lets his soldiers fire shots into the containers with the prisoners still in them. They are being driven to an execution site anyways. However the wholes aren't enough, and sadly, according to Dostum, almost all were dead. You can watch this film, see the prisoners, and travel with the Brits and the Northern Alliance. The Documentary is called Afghan Massacre. It didn't get any coverage at the time because, this was the period of the "American Taliban" which captured media attention.

Although there were many "American Taliban and jihadists" but that is another story.