Comments on: UPDATED: Reeducating Occupied Afghanis

By: Van Wijk

Van Wijk — Thu, 25 Nov 2010 03:11:12 +0000

For example, to destroy their only source of income: the poppy fields.

A Tale of Two Substances

Substance A is highly addictive, instantly poisonous to every tissue in the body, is known to cause cancer of the esophagus, heart, and liver, as well as liver and heart disease, has very little medicinal value, and is a factor in many acts of aggression and vehicular crime and death. Substance A is legal to consume.

Substance B is highly addictive, is generally non-toxic (to the point that the only health hazards posed are addiction and overdose, and where the treated addict is often able to return to the state of health he had before becoming addicted), and is the greatest natural painkiller known to mankind. Substance B is illegal to consume.

Substance A is alcohol. Substance B is opium.

By: Escapist

Escapist — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 07:03:06 +0000

Perhaps the problem started with Charlie Wilson’s War (its irritating how he was relatively lionized in that movie), i.e. supporting the overthrow of a flawed/socialist but at least secular government there in the 80s.

Another problem is that a lot of people making these decisions (politicians/bureacrats) are detached from experiencing the on-the-ground realities of what they are deciding on (more broadly, this is also true for Congress/its staffers making new rules for business, when most have never run one)

By: Myron Pauli

Myron Pauli — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 22:12:39 +0000

We do not need to “EXPLAIN” to the Afghan people why “we” (as in American National Guard members in violation of the US Constitution) are in Afghanistan.
A burglar or trespasser does not need to explain his presence when he has no business being there.

American troops should just leave. Period.

[Good analogy, but you did get that this blog post was meant to be sardonic, right?!]