this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2023
222 points (72.9% liked)

World News

31895 readers
389 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 72 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We also didn't threaten to kill the farmers for growing it. No shit the Taliban was successful. Comply or die. They're the ones who were profiting from it anyway. Now that they're in charge again, religion trumps financial needs.

[–] [email protected] 41 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm pretty sure the Talibans (not to defend them, mind you), were already cracking down on poppy farming before 9/11 and the subsequent decade long war.

So how were they benefitting? Or do you mean to say the US and allied forces allowed mass poppy crop farming that was then utilized by the Taliban to fund itself? You know there is an alternative hypothesis: the US and other occupation allied forces tolerated poppy farming to pacify and win over tribal chiefs and keep corrupt Afghan officials squarely on their side. Maybe both were happening, who is to say.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Financed their war effort. We valued the whole hearts and minds over destroying farmers livelihood.

[–] [email protected] 41 points 1 year ago (1 children)

winning the hearts and minds of the people we brutally conquered and ruled over for 20 years

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Quite a few would disagree with that view, giving how many fled their own country when the Taliban took over again. But hey, don't let that narrative ruin your perspective. Lol

[–] [email protected] 39 points 1 year ago

Of course people who cooperate with occupiers usually want out when the occupation ends. They don't want to face the consequences of selling out their country.

And of course "when people leave a Bad Country it's for political reasons, when they leave a Good Country it's for economic reasons" applies.

[–] [email protected] 39 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Lol, winning hearts and minds by protecting child rapists

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Average soldier wanted to deal with that. It was high command keeping that shit going because they wanted to keep tribal leaders happy.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's even worse? Your senior officers are supposed to be the ones doing the right thing.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No no you see the rank and file totally wanted to stop all that child SA, but alas they simply had to follow orders

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 year ago

"Just following orders" I say at my trial, confident no one has used this argument before

[–] [email protected] 39 points 1 year ago

Lmao, how can you justify this shit? Do you really think American was actually trying to win hearts and minds when even you admit high command was protecting child rapists?

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago

So are you actually in favor of US action in Afghanistan?