• Whiskey Pickle@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    lmao, no it doesn’t. the US didn’t go to Afghanistan to eradicate opium. the US didn’t give a shit about it at all, lmao.

    do tankies so blindly hate the US that they’ll give the Taliban a bj just to try to make the US look bad? wow…

    • NightOwl@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      The Afghanistan Papers: A Secret History of the War is a summary of the Washington Post’s reporting on Afghanistan, specifically on the US government’s own internal assessments from all levels of the military and political administration. In it, you’ll find this quote:

      Of all the failures in Afghanistan, the war on opium ranked among the most feckless. During two decades, the United States spent more than $9 billion on a dizzying array of programs to deter Afghanistan from supplying the world with heroin. None of the measures worked. In many cases, they made things worse.

      The US doesn’t need “tankies” or anyone else to make themselves look bad as far as the Afghan drug trade goes.

      • Whiskey Pickle@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        lmao, so? we get it. you hate the US. what’s your point? just to come here and whine about it?

        • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ha you were conclusively proven wrong and didn’t even blink. A brain so smooth no facts can get stuck on it.

          spoiler

          Post another 🤓 “I was on the debate team” graphic, that’s how discussions work

          • Whiskey Pickle@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Ha you were conclusively proven wrong and didn’t even blink

            oh, you mean here?

            the US didn’t give a shit about it at all

            ya got me there. they did care. still doesn’t prove that it’s why the US was there, and, in fact, several of the linked sources directly state to the contrary against claims that it was.

            too bad it’s meaningless and - like always - you’re wrong. lmao

            • 420blazeit69 [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Lol so you initially ignore being wrong, then acknowledge you were wrong somewhere else, then say “well that was meaningless” when you go back to claim you were adult enough to say you missed on that one? …What?

              Go back to reddit if you’re going to be a debatelord

          • Whiskey Pickle@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            They were directly responding to your words, to disprove them.

            except they didn’t disprove them. US Marines also peed a lot while they were there, but it’s not why they are there. it proves nothing.

            Do you really not see the connection between the comments?

            correlation ≠ causation

            • loathsome dongeater@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You selectively picked an activity that American soldiers would do everywhere (peeing) over something they did only in Afghanistan (guarding opium fields) only because it would support your argument.

              That my dear good m’sir is a classic case of cherry picking.

              • Whiskey Pickle@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                You selectively picked an activity that American soldiers would do everywhere (peeing) over something they did only in Afghanistan (guarding opium fields) only because it would support your argument.

                nope, just an example. you’re not very good at this

        • uralsolo [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          This flew over your head but it is heavily implied that the US’ “war on opium” was in fact a deliberate effort to subsidize opium production and transport, a policy that we have pursued for the benefit of our own state-backed terror organizations in many other countries. Regardless of all other opinions on the US and the Taliban, this is an issue that the Taliban is objectively better than us on, and saying “lol who cares” is not an argument against talking about it since obviously the people in this thread care because they’re in here talking about it.

          • Whiskey Pickle@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            This flew over your head but it is heavily implied

            are logical fallacies all you guys know?

            • UnicodeHamSic [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              You know we are leftists here. You can just say you are into your wife sleeping with other men. We respect a diversity of lifestyles. You don’t have to do the whiskey overcompensation persona thing here. We can accept and respect who you are.

              • Whiskey Pickle@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                You know we are leftists here. You can just say you are into your wife sleeping with other men. We respect a diversity of lifestyles. You don’t have to do the whiskey overcompensation persona thing here. We can accept and respect who you are.

                you have a talent for self-contradictory speech. the way you mix the word “respect” with overflowing disrespect, how you espouse leftism and diversity while speaking the sexism and misogyny of a fascist… it’s artful.

  • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is one of the dumbest articles I ever read. The entire government changed. Taliban can be dictators. The US couldn’t. On top of this, they essentially had two years to switch to wheat before this occurred. Something that was less economically feasible over two years ago due to an unfortunate food shortage in the area now.

    Asking why someone couldn’t get something done as quickly as a dictator is something a naive child asks.

  • awwwyissss@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m so tired of all this authoritarian propaganda on Lemmy, it’s killing the community

  • bauhaus@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    from MediaBiasFactCheck.com

    Mint Press News – Bias and Credibility

    FAR LEFT BIAS

    QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

    A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

    • Overall, we rate Mint Press Far-Left Biased and Questionable based on the publication of conspiracy theories, pseudoscience anti-Israel propaganda, poor sourcing, failed fact checks, and false claims.

    Detailed Report

    • Reasoning: Propaganda, Conspiracies, Pseudoscience, Poor Sources, Failed Fact Checks
    • Bias Rating: FAR LEFT
    • Factual Reporting: LOW
    • Country: USA
    • Press Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
    • Media Type: Website
    • Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
    • MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

    History

    Mint Press News is an independent Minnesota-based news website launched in 2012 by Mnar Muhawesh. It covers political, economic, foreign affairs, and environmental issues. According to their about page, “We focus our coverage on issues relating to the effects of special interest groups, big business and lobbying efforts and how they shape policies at home and abroad, including American foreign policy. Through the lens of social justice and human rights, we report on how these dynamics drive our foreign affairs and impact the world, and examine the effects they have on our democracy and freedoms as defined by the constitution.”

    Analysis / Bias

    Mint Press presents news with a strong left-leaning bias in story selection. Headlines and articles use moderately loaded language like this: NFL Freezes Policy Barring Players From Kneeling During Anthem. This particular story is republished from the conspiracy website ZeroHedge. Typically, Mint Press sources their information, but sometimes it is from Mixed factual or conspiracy websites. In general, story selection moderately favors the left, such as this Trump Administration Opens Door for Corporate Attack on Vulnerable Wildlife.

    Read more at MediaBiasFactCheck.com

  • unscholarly_source@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean… Sure there are major improvements that can be had in the US, but punishment and consequences as defined in Sharia law isn’t exactly something that the US can simply adopt.

    • Trudge [Comrade]@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Three million dead due to the Afghanistan war alone wasn’t brutal enough for you?

      The systematic, institutional rape and torture of men, women, and children in Abu Ghraib was more brutal than anything defined in Sharia law but we still pretend that the occupation was clean.

      • Smoogy@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Both can be wrong, Sounds like you’re just here to derail into having a different conversation you want to have entirely separate to the topic rather than addressing the actual topic.

        • Trudge [Comrade]@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’m staying on topic.

          I am demonstrating how the American occupational forces handed out harsher punishments and consequences than the Taliban did, yet couldn’t curb opium production. Ergo, the Americans were never interested in curbing opium production.

          • bluGill@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The Americans didn’t intend to kill all those people. They intended to kill soldiers, and lots of other people who they deemed evil, but growing drugs was never deemed evil enough to be worth killing someone over. The Taliban intended to kill those growing drugs, along with a lot of other people doing things they deem to be evil I’ll leave moral judgements to you.

  • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    LOL. Raises questions for whom? Libs? Everyone knows what the fucking USA was doing all along. Except the libs.

    NB: both USA Rs and Ds are both liberal in their political philosophy and are both subject to this critique.

  • Farman [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The us was using opium as a weapon of war against russia and iran. Its well known and the public health concequences in both those countries were horrific

    But since mexico has orders of mag itude more state capacity than the taliban their failure to solve opium problem makes one almost certain the us goverment is also behind that.

    • BirdyBoogleBop@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      You got a source on that? Last I checked Opium is an excellent cash crop that the Taliban used to fund their guerilla war with the US. Now that the Americans are out there is no point to keep growing it.