Political correctness can kill - Part IV

Bill's forum was the first! All subjects are welcome. Participation by all encouraged.

Moderator: Available

AAAhmed46
Posts: 3493
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Post by AAAhmed46 »

Panther wrote:When discussing relations with the Muslim world, IMNSHO it is very important to learn about the true and complete history of Muslims and Hindus in India... and how the situation was "resolved" for a very long time.

Not that I think this is the way to go, but...

One way to obtain "solid, objective evidence" is by dropping a nuke. None of us would like the results of the evidence, but it would certainly be solid and objective... especially given the fact that the "radicals" such as OBL have stated that to be one of their goals here in the U.S.

I'm just sayin'... :shocked!:

The moghuls in India were oppressive and stupid(I don't care how lovely the Taj Mahal was. Building a stupid giant decoration while places like Oxford were being built in other empires shows the wrped priorities of the Indian sultans) You don't have to read polemic like robert spencer to know the stupidity of the mughal empire. Calling them religious extremists however is an over simplification.

(forgive the spelling)

But dropping a nuke would give evidence to what? That Sam Harris has a far too terrifying influence on the minds of people? Or Robert spencer.

I don't like Obama, he's basically the same ##### with a different face who says pretty words. Hasn't done anything but say pretty words.

But at the same time, saying he ruined america is also false, because all he does is say pretty things. He really doesn't do anything. Even health care reform wasn't really reform, it barely changes the system. Any change he makes is cosmetic. The man *****. Left or right, he just *****.
Val

"So you haven't convinced me that extending an olive branch to the muslim community is a bad idea."

Perhaps not, but given the very real problems of trying to prove a negative perhaps it would be a more constructive argument to present all the ways that such a outreach has actually worked ?
Perhaps comparing and contrasting the number of plots and attempted attacks and actual attacks on US soil under the "olive branch" policy and others?

Personally I question if Obama directing the head of NASA that one of his primary missions is conduct outreach to the muslim communiy is helping to reduce terrorism but I would love to hear the details and facts about how it is saving lives and making us safer.

I think a lot of things get lost under the charge that we somehow "provoke" terrorism---an argument that hinges on our attackers having factually legitmate beefs that we can address.
If their issues are not factual, they want things that we can't provide/address or are motivated by drives that we can't come to common understanding/agreement on then we have a set of serious problems.

Agreeing to disagree is a liberal western value/notion. It is not one shared by much of the world.

According to many of our attackers own words they are acting in accord with their relgious beliefs.
If that is the case then I don't think there is much that we can do by way of "olive branchs" to stop people postive that they have a direct instruction from God himself to kill infidels to stop the violence.

The numbers of muslims killed by "fellow" muslims over theological disputes, co-relgionists charging their "fellows" with not being "good" muslims, political in-fighting, land disputes etc is vastly larger than any "outsider" has done. (except maybe the Mongols)
Point being there is much to be considered by way of systemic intercine violence being the norm and not the exception.

I would also suggest that making peace with sets of people quite willing to kill total strangers all over the planet "because" the little nation of Denmark published some cartoons they don't like, or assault and rape women "because" they were dressed "imodestly", hang gays for the "crime" of being gay etc might be operating from a seriously different cognitive framework.....a framework that is going to make nearly impossible to work things out with.

Don't have an issue with "extending an olive branch." Just would like to know to whom we are extending it and if it works or not
Their own words also bitch about politics. Again and again. Go to the streets of pakistan, saudi arabia, Lebanon and ask the locals why they are upset. Or why they vote for extremist parties, why there is anti-western sentiment.

And in their own words, the grand mufti of saudi arabia more than once declared the killing of non-combatants strictly forbidden(i totally disagree with him on many many other issues) other saudi clerics followed suit. When 9/11 happened, there was a candle light vigil for the victims in Iran. Iran of all places. The mufti's in egypt(home of the brotherhood) also layed out the immorality of murdering innocent civilians and textually supported it. Hell nearly every major religious authority in the muslim world condemmned it, i don't even agree with half these ultra-orthodox fools on other theological issues.

But for all their religiously inspired crazyness, they have shown an abhorrance for slaughter, and are reasonable enough to have an olive branch extended to them.

And the response always comes down to one or two things. Real or imagined, this is what people fear: Western backed dictatorships and oppressive regimes, governments that provide little domestic support, leaving the brother hood to provide social services such as education(You can imagine what they are teaching) or medical supplies.
The second issue that terrifies and leaves the typical muslim open to radicalization is fear of genocide. Fox can be seen in the middle east. They see robert spencer sitting there with Sean Hannity, they see their holy book compared to Mein Kamf. Seeing calls to invade IranEven if they are right, it doesn't exactly make people feel safe.
Sam Harris and his call to drop nukes is supposed to make the conflict less full of fear? My skin shrivled when i read such statements out of the book of a so called intellectual.


Sam Harris writes how Pew results came in stating how most muslims support suicide bombings. But if you look at his soarces yourself, the question asked for the Pew polls was "UNDER ILLIGAL OCCUPATION" which is a significant difference. Dissagreement over suicide bombing under occupation is okay, but it changes the parameters. More over, later pew polls had varying results. Gallup is even more different.

Who is the olive branch directed too? Probably the governments. How exactly do you reach the people? The only way is overall media. And as stated above, the overall media isn't exactly extending an olive branch to the middle east at all.


My views on this new conflict has changed over time. It's really basically two entire people around the world east and west grossly misinformed about eachother. Many(not all) in the muslim world often have a strange conception of the west, that all teh woman are sluts, christian fanatics everywhere, secular forces destablizing morality, baby killing(abortion) and a strong will to conquar the muslim world. They see Obama kissing the saudi kings hand or shake the hand of other dicators and burn with anger. How can the self proclaimed leaders of democracy support these evil men? And the one voice opposing these greedy men is usually the extremists or nationalists.

While the west seems to think there is a powerful will to establish a new caliphate and forcefully take over. A belief that every conflict is religiously motivated(when nationalism plays a huge roll) woman being stoned every week, when it is rare even in the middle east(unfortuantly, there is a woman right now to be executed for adulty. Horrible, horrible) but still not the norm. People who are poorly educated, violent. When there are very intellegent people in the middle east, kind and highly hospitable. In Qatar you will see both woman wearing Bikinis and Burkas. Men with beards, and men with suits. Side by side.

Egypt has it's flaws, but you see the same trend. A woman in an Abaya walking with a woman wearing tight clothing, her hair down.

In lebanon, right wing condeleeza rices intern interviewed member of Hezbollah, while dancing at a night club. There were woman members of hezbullah drinking and partying away. Needless to say, he was astounded and had to rethink his conception of these groups. Are they violent due to religious zeal or political anger?

Religious langauge is a norm for every aspect of life, even secular actions. It's the same as bill clinton referencing god in speeches when his actions with monica lewinski really show his true beliefs.


yes there has always been violence in the region, but being a norm is a result of the last twenty years i would say.



On a brighter note, George Friedman says that in the view of history this war on terror will be nothing but irrelevent, a distraction for the people to bring back some semblance of a cold wor threat to keep everyone jumpy. But hey he could be horribley wrong.
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

So you ARE still reading the thread... ;)

- Bill
cxt
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 5:29 pm

Post by cxt »

AAAhmed

I disagree----having an "abhorance for slaughter" while funding radical Whabbism which revels in "slaughter" are contridictory positions.

That the Grand Mufti declared "the killing of non combatants strictly forbidden" didn't help those poor souls in Uganda--74 dead. Didn't help the poor souls in the last hospital attack....and those are just recently.

Depending on whom you talk to there is often a serious difference between exactly how the west defines "non-combatant and how others define it.

The west might be choosing to overlook what they know, but I don't see the west as "grossly misinformed."

But I will tell you how I fear it it is going to end up.

I fear that the radicals are going to drag the rest of their co-religionists into an actual religious war. In the normal use of the term war

And that is not going to bode well for all involved.

I also fear a serious Sunni/Shia conflict---the only people as much/more concerned about Iran getting a nuke than Israel is most of the Sunni world.
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.

HH
User avatar
Panther
Posts: 2807
Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Massachusetts

Post by Panther »

:roll:

AAAhmed, such a long response to my post.

I stated that I thought it was important to understand the history of the two predominant religions in India and how they "resolved" their differences (and why that "resolution" worked for so long). Where in that short, simple statement of opinion, did I use a broad brush to paint either religion creating an over-simplification? I did not.

Please re-read what you quoted because my next statement was preceded by:

"Not that I think this is the way to go, ..."

I think that's pretty damn clear, don't you. However, my actual comment was a response to a previous statement that it was very difficult to obtain solid, objective evidence. I even went on to say that "None of us would like the results..." Which part of that didn't you get? I think it is obvious that taking such a drastic, basically internationally condemned action would give clear, solid evidence of the results and consequences of those actions.

I did refer to OBL as a "radical" (note the quotes)... Are you saying that you disagree with that assessment of OBL & Al-Qaeda? Can you give some evidence that I'm incorrect in believing that their goals are to destroy the U.S. & West... and that they would love to do so with a nuke or some "dirty bomb"? That would be interesting since it has been stated in OBL's videos & messages time and again...

:roll:

Back to my original statement... knowing the true, complete history of the beginning of the Sikh religion (actually a sect of Hinduism), why it was started, what it is about, how and why it has been continued... may make some people realize what we are truly up against. To relate this to martial arts, the Sikh fighting skills are more than just legend, they sound "mythical" but have been astonishingly backed up with historical records showing their martial abilities and attitudes! :mrgreen:
AAAhmed46
Posts: 3493
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Post by AAAhmed46 »

Panther wrote::roll:

AAAhmed, such a long response to my post.

I stated that I thought it was important to understand the history of the two predominant religions in India and how they "resolved" their differences (and why that "resolution" worked for so long). Where in that short, simple statement of opinion, did I use a broad brush to paint either religion creating an over-simplification? I did not.

Please re-read what you quoted because my next statement was preceded by:

"Not that I think this is the way to go, ..."

I think that's pretty damn clear, don't you. However, my actual comment was a response to a previous statement that it was very difficult to obtain solid, objective evidence. I even went on to say that "None of us would like the results..." Which part of that didn't you get? I think it is obvious that taking such a drastic, basically internationally condemned action would give clear, solid evidence of the results and consequences of those actions.

I did refer to OBL as a "radical" (note the quotes)... Are you saying that you disagree with that assessment of OBL & Al-Qaeda? Can you give some evidence that I'm incorrect in believing that their goals are to destroy the U.S. & West... and that they would love to do so with a nuke or some "dirty bomb"? That would be interesting since it has been stated in OBL's videos & messages time and again...

:roll:

Back to my original statement... knowing the true, complete history of the beginning of the Sikh religion (actually a sect of Hinduism), why it was started, what it is about, how and why it has been continued... may make some people realize what we are truly up against. To relate this to martial arts, the Sikh fighting skills are more than just legend, they sound "mythical" but have been astonishingly backed up with historical records showing their martial abilities and attitudes! :mrgreen:
I was actually responding to your response and CXT not just what you wrote. I didn't mind what you wrote too much.
It was more directed to readers of Sam Harris who actually support this notion. People who are willing to support fascist political parties and nuclear genocide in the name of militant athiesm.

I didn't say that OBL didn't want to destroy western civilization. He clearly does. But WHY he wants to is more polically charged than people think. He isn't just a fanatic(which he certainly is), but also a nationalist. If he was only a religious fanatic, his organization woudl nto be as succesful as it is. But add in nationalism and targetting political sensitivity, and suddenly we have the problems we have today. Within his own organization there is ideological fractures. Thats why two different terrorists may have significantly different motivations from the same organization.

And yes, sikh's fought very well, fought amazingly. Punjabi people are great warriors, and great wrestlers to this day.
Last edited by AAAhmed46 on Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
AAAhmed46
Posts: 3493
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Post by AAAhmed46 »

cxt wrote:AAAhmed

I disagree----having an "abhorance for slaughter" while funding radical Whabbism which revels in "slaughter" are contridictory positions.

That the Grand Mufti declared "the killing of non combatants strictly forbidden" didn't help those poor souls in Uganda--74 dead. Didn't help the poor souls in the last hospital attack....and those are just recently.

Depending on whom you talk to there is often a serious difference between exactly how the west defines "non-combatant and how others define it.

The west might be choosing to overlook what they know, but I don't see the west as "grossly misinformed."

But I will tell you how I fear it it is going to end up.

I fear that the radicals are going to drag the rest of their co-religionists into an actual religious war. In the normal use of the term war

And that is not going to bode well for all involved.

I also fear a serious Sunni/Shia conflict---the only people as much/more concerned about Iran getting a nuke than Israel is most of the Sunni world.
Actually there is great misconceptions. Just have normal conversations with people i see great misconceptions, misunderstanding.

Your right, it doesn't bode well. And yes the condemnations haven't done squat. But it's not as if they have mind control over the crazies. And the crazies basically contridict undisputable commandments on principles that have unusually high levels of consensus among the highly decentralized religion of islam. It's simple what a non-combatant is: Someone not activly trying to kill you, woman, children, the injured, religious pilgrims, clergy of other religions.
You also need to recognize great success taking place, like the Sunni's in Iraq aiding U.S. soldiers etc. And hey, the tone between arab nations in Isreal is getting far warmer over time, with the exception of Turkey( new ottoman middle eastern domminance?) Maybe some good out of fear of Iran is happening.

The reason i brought it up is that the 'olive branch' would probably go to these folks or the governments, not the extremists.

If you don't want things to break into an all our real war, you really will have to win the hearts and minds of the layman. Sean Hannity doesn't exactly contribute to that. And they can see him.
But Canadian troops in afganistan have told me very interesting stories of cross cultural understanding which brings signs of hope as well. These canadians, unlike Hannity didn't come out as basically call the Afgans idiots and barbarians.
User avatar
Panther
Posts: 2807
Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Massachusetts

Post by Panther »

AAAhmed46 wrote:These canadians, unlike Hannity didn't come out as basically call the Afgans idiots and barbarians.
Anyone who would doesn't know their history too well.. The Afgani's are the ones who taught us that shepherds with nothing more than Molotov cocktails can disable and destroy tanks! They proved that small organized bands of determined people with small arms can successfully take on the most powerful armies in the world! That's why the U.S. trying to fight them head-to-head without first winning their hearts and souls is a problem. That tact was proven futile by the S.U. (U.S.S.R. -- now Russia)!
==================================
My God-given Rights are NOT "void where prohibited by law!"
AAAhmed46
Posts: 3493
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Post by AAAhmed46 »

One guy, about my age, who served over there talked about teh battle of hearts and minds.

The Taliban he said can be very bi-polar. One minute they warn woman and children before doing some operation or they target woman and children.

Often the Taliban will bribe or give promises of protection toward the families of ordinary men. He talked about how some of these guys would get captured and tell the soldiers about this, how the taliban either bribes or black mails ordinary afgans for recruitment.

Man, troops got a hard complex job!
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

Adam

The history of Afghanistan is one of opportunism. They'll side with the strongest party, and do what it takes to maintain their tribal independence. If the Taliban look like the best bet because they are more patient and persistent, then their loyalties will be with them.

The biggest problem with NATO forces in Afghanistan is that some bOnehead promised that troops would leave at a set date in 2011. The Taliban are capitalizing on that by telling the locals that they'll be there when the bOss turns the lights out and heads home.

Don't get me started...

The U.S. got it right in Iraq, which is why things are finally settling down there. That deal was done before the changing of the guard in 2008. Afghanistan can be won over with similar tactics. However ignoring the tribal nature of their country and the major sources of revenue (e.g. heroine) will only lead to long-term failure.

The other thing that has to happen is we need to starve the Pakistani ISI. They're the biggest mischief-makers in the region right now. Just ask anyone in India.

- Bill
AAAhmed46
Posts: 3493
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Post by AAAhmed46 »

Bill Glasheen wrote:Adam

The history of Afghanistan is one of opportunism. They'll side with the strongest party, and do what it takes to maintain their tribal independence. If the Taliban look like the best bet because they are more patient and persistent, then their loyalties will be with them.

The biggest problem with NATO forces in Afghanistan is that some bOnehead promised that troops would leave at a set date in 2011. The Taliban are capitalizing on that by telling the locals that they'll be there when the bOss turns the lights out and heads home.

Don't get me started...

The U.S. got it right in Iraq, which is why things are finally settling down there. That deal was done before the changing of the guard in 2008. Afghanistan can be won over with similar tactics. However ignoring the tribal nature of their country and the major sources of revenue (e.g. heroine) will only lead to long-term failure.

The other thing that has to happen is we need to starve the Pakistani ISI. They're the biggest mischief-makers in the region right now. Just ask anyone in India.

- Bill
Later on yeah, but up until the last four years, American policy has been very short sighed. i think bush failed to heed the advice of many of his advisors.
The leaked footage of U.S. troops firing on the reuters reporters was BEFORE teh policy shift. Now things have changed. The real question to ask is WHY didn't they have this approche from the beginning in Iraq?
To bring it back to afganistan, the very same soldier i talked about in the previous post said that Kabul is prospering well, while tribes and villages are a totally different story.
Maybe the same tact used in Iraq with the sunni tribes can be applied to the villiages by convincing them of a longer term?
I got the impression taht most people open up to NATO troops once the they believe no taliban are in their presence. It may not be such a lost cause.

Ive posted enough for you guys to know i overall think the Iraq war was a bad idea. But now that the troops are there, they might as well do some good.Pulling out of Iraq won't make things better, there is vaccum now. Any study of history shows that pulling out is tentamount not only to defeat but Chaos. Pulling out would be bad for everyone involved.

I think the ISI has a pet that is now biting it in the ass now.
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

I agree that it does no good to ruminate over why we are in Iraq now. And as to why "Bush" didn't get it right in the beginning, I'll remind you of a quote from Winston Churchill.

The Americans will always do the right thing... after they've exhausted all the alternatives.

It's the nature of war. You have a plan, and then that goes out the window after the first 48 hours or so. Operation Iraqi Freedom was an evolutionary struggle. They ultimately got it right - at the village level.

As for Afghanistan... The history of order in Kabul and chaos in the countryside is the history of warfare in that country. The vast majority of the country is ungovernable in the autocratic sense. The Republic model would work well there, where power is at the regional level.

(Note: That's the way things were SUPPOSED to be in this country. Liberals instead want a strong - and hungry - central authority.)

- Bill
User avatar
Panther
Posts: 2807
Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Massachusetts

Post by Panther »

Bill Glasheen wrote:AdamHowever ignoring the tribal nature of their country and the major sources of revenue (e.g. heroine) will only lead to long-term failure.
Pet Peeve Alert!!!

Within the last six months, The U.S. Military in that region had surrounded, contained and controlled THE main poppy fields used for the heroin trade... (which, BTW has its main export to the U.S.). They informed command of the situation and asked permission to "torch" the entire area. After guarding the area for a long time, the orders came back from on high to LEAVE the fields alone. A number of the soldiers, boots on ground at that position cried foul and reiterated that they had the opportunity to essentially STOP heroin flow to the U.S. (Actually, world-wide since well over 90% of the worlds supply comes from this area). They AGAIN awaited response... and AGAIN were told from on high to "leave it all alone".


I say BS...

While I don't think people should be regulated with what they can do with their own bodies and I'm all for "free trade"... but this is completely counter to OTHER operations that our government is undertaking. Are we really in a "War on (some) drugs" or not?
User avatar
Glenn
Posts: 2186
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska

Post by Glenn »

Panther wrote: Within the last six months...had the opportunity to essentially STOP heroin flow to the U.S....were told from on high to "leave it all alone".
Actually it seems that occurred back in the summer of 2008 rather than within the last 6 months. From FoxNews
"Marines in Afghanistan Chase Taliban From World's Largest Poppy-Growing Region"
Saturday, June 21, 2008

The Marines arrived during the poppy harvest season but didn't cut down the flowery plants. That would have alienated farmers and labors with no other means of feeding their families, the Marines said. Most of the profits in the poppy trade go to traffickers, not farmers.

"Poppy fields in Afghanistan are [like] the cornfields of Ohio," said Staff Sgt. Jeremy Stover, 28, of Marion, Ohio. "When we got here they were asking us if it's OK to harvest poppy and we said, 'Yeah, just don't use an AK-47."'
This fits with the policy the U.S. government persuaded NATO to adopt in 2008 of Soldiers to target Afghan drug labs, not poppy fields. Part of focusing on drug lords and their networks instead of the fields was because
In the past, the destruction of poppy fields has prompted attacks by Afghans on troops and private security contractors.
This past March Russia and NATO debated the issue
Last week, one of the main debates in the Russia NATO Council was the poppy issue in Afghanistan. The core of the debate was the difference between the Russian and NATO approaches to tackling the poppy cultivation in the country. The Russians proposed destroying poppy fields and solving the problem by using hard measures that would definitely hamper the poppy production in 2010. Moreover, the Afghan authorities also demand a similar policy be implemented to weaken the economic instruments of the Taliban.

On the other hand, NATO did not accept this proposal due to its indirect and direct repercussions. NATO's thesis is based on the fact that eradication of the poppy fields was tried before, but this has not helped to reach a long lasting solution in fighting against the drug problem in the country. On the contrary, this process triggers another problematic mechanism that ends with pushing farmers to the ranks of Taliban. NATO's diagnosis seems to be fair, but the situation has turned into a structural problem and Russia wants to pursue a radical policy in Afghanistan. However, for a long lasting solution of the problem, hard power measures can only result in disappointments. The parties should go down to the root reasons of the problem.
Clearly there are many factors that are being considered and the debate over what to do with the fields will not be settled easily.
Glenn
AAAhmed46
Posts: 3493
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Post by AAAhmed46 »

Panther wrote:
Bill Glasheen wrote:AdamHowever ignoring the tribal nature of their country and the major sources of revenue (e.g. heroine) will only lead to long-term failure.
Pet Peeve Alert!!!

Within the last six months, The U.S. Military in that region had surrounded, contained and controlled THE main poppy fields used for the heroin trade... (which, BTW has its main export to the U.S.). They informed command of the situation and asked permission to "torch" the entire area. After guarding the area for a long time, the orders came back from on high to LEAVE the fields alone. A number of the soldiers, boots on ground at that position cried foul and reiterated that they had the opportunity to essentially STOP heroin flow to the U.S. (Actually, world-wide since well over 90% of the worlds supply comes from this area). They AGAIN awaited response... and AGAIN were told from on high to "leave it all alone".


I say BS...

While I don't think people should be regulated with what they can do with their own bodies and I'm all for "free trade"... but this is completely counter to OTHER operations that our government is undertaking. Are we really in a "War on (some) drugs" or not?
Why grow Heroin when they can just grow weed! The timeless drug!
User avatar
Panther
Posts: 2807
Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Massachusetts

Post by Panther »

Glenn wrote:Actually it seems that occurred back in the summer of 2008 rather than within the last 6 months.
That's probably true... I heard about it in the last six months or so from a friend of mine who was boots on the ground and is now back here. He decided to not re-up and even tho I haven't talked with him in a month or so, he should be out now. What he told me seems to contradict the story you posted in the fact that I was told they asked for permission to torch the fields and destroy them, waited, were told "no", asked again, re-waited and were directly order to NOT do it. This guy has dealt with drug addiction/rehab & the consequences with people he knows, so he really wanted to destroy the origination product.

While the story makes the case that "Poppy fields in Afghanistan are [like] the cornfields of Ohio", that is not really accurate. High priced, illegal, highly-addictive black-market items are not made from the crops in Ohio that are then smuggled in and sold creating addicts. Well... there could be an argument made that HFCS is "highly addictive" and should be made illegal, but that isn't the current situation... even tho I avoid HFCS as much as I avoid heroin! :wink:
Clearly there are many factors that are being considered and the debate over what to do with the fields will not be settled easily.


Fair enough... I was just relaying the frustration of some of our folks who've been on the ground there as those frustrations were relayed to me. There's more to it as well...
Post Reply

Return to “Bill Glasheen's Dojo Roundtable”