I know it was posted on the other site. Watched it on Netflix, just finished it. Powerful.
We have the clocks, but they have the time...
Greg
We have the clocks, but they have the time...
Greg
Movie Theater Hyena Road
- Thread starter Greg Langelius *
- Start date
I have long held the view that the 'Stans equate to the old Uncle Remus tale about De Tar Baby. Touch it and it bonds irremediably to you for..., life?
The reference to Alexander's assessment is telling; even the dirt is lethal. During his pacification campaign in the area, he became so affected with the prevailing insanity that he eventually argued with his best friend, coming to blows, and slaying him. That act drove him out of his mind, and with five years, Alexander was dead at age 32.
I figure if we understand what drove the Hatfields and the McCoys, one can gain some insight into the crazies in that corner of the world. They war on each other. Cats fight cats, dogs fight dogs, and people kill each other. It is been such a dominant part of the societal core that there is no reason, no reason is necessary, it's just how life is lived (and lost) in the region.
I guess it would be easy to blame Islam, but Islam is really just a recent overlay upon this overall canvas. Alexander was there long before the advent of Islam, and the lethality of the underlying culture was already deeply entrenched. If anything, it does not trace to Islam, and maybe the more rotten parts of violent Islam really trace back to it. Many religions reflect the local attitudes and conditions prevalent at the time and place of their founding.
It's not a war. It's a bunch of wars, none of which can be won, they can only be lost; and resolution in not a possibility because such concepts get lost in the larger picture. The only winning move is not to play. The Greeks learned that, and there were almost certainly others in and around their time. The Brits learned that. The Russians learned that, and the Western Coalition is in the process of learning it too.
A searing flash might even be a kindness, and I suspect the world could be better for it. "But no," say the apologists, "there are good people there..." The only thing that evil needs in order to prosper is for good people to do nothing, and those good people are doing nothing of actual consequence. No real inroads are made into the underlying malaise, on occasion because corruption intervenes, on other occasion because of apathy, and mainly because the overweening culture demands that the status be preserved at quo. Change is evil.
There were good people in Germany, and there were undoubtedly some good people in Japan. Prosecuting WWII in their presence defined the difference between talking about winning a war and knuckling down and making that war end decisively. We are doing more than talking, and less than ending it decisively. That fence can only be sat upon as an expression of compromise. Compromise is where everyone loses something in order to gains something that is universally unsatisfying. It is what societies settle for when they lack the will to genuinely resole their differences. It's about backbone, and backbone is a woefully rare commodity in today's world.
We tolerate this stasis at our peril.
For more insight, look up The Hindu Kush.
Greg
The reference to Alexander's assessment is telling; even the dirt is lethal. During his pacification campaign in the area, he became so affected with the prevailing insanity that he eventually argued with his best friend, coming to blows, and slaying him. That act drove him out of his mind, and with five years, Alexander was dead at age 32.
I figure if we understand what drove the Hatfields and the McCoys, one can gain some insight into the crazies in that corner of the world. They war on each other. Cats fight cats, dogs fight dogs, and people kill each other. It is been such a dominant part of the societal core that there is no reason, no reason is necessary, it's just how life is lived (and lost) in the region.
I guess it would be easy to blame Islam, but Islam is really just a recent overlay upon this overall canvas. Alexander was there long before the advent of Islam, and the lethality of the underlying culture was already deeply entrenched. If anything, it does not trace to Islam, and maybe the more rotten parts of violent Islam really trace back to it. Many religions reflect the local attitudes and conditions prevalent at the time and place of their founding.
It's not a war. It's a bunch of wars, none of which can be won, they can only be lost; and resolution in not a possibility because such concepts get lost in the larger picture. The only winning move is not to play. The Greeks learned that, and there were almost certainly others in and around their time. The Brits learned that. The Russians learned that, and the Western Coalition is in the process of learning it too.
A searing flash might even be a kindness, and I suspect the world could be better for it. "But no," say the apologists, "there are good people there..." The only thing that evil needs in order to prosper is for good people to do nothing, and those good people are doing nothing of actual consequence. No real inroads are made into the underlying malaise, on occasion because corruption intervenes, on other occasion because of apathy, and mainly because the overweening culture demands that the status be preserved at quo. Change is evil.
There were good people in Germany, and there were undoubtedly some good people in Japan. Prosecuting WWII in their presence defined the difference between talking about winning a war and knuckling down and making that war end decisively. We are doing more than talking, and less than ending it decisively. That fence can only be sat upon as an expression of compromise. Compromise is where everyone loses something in order to gains something that is universally unsatisfying. It is what societies settle for when they lack the will to genuinely resole their differences. It's about backbone, and backbone is a woefully rare commodity in today's world.
We tolerate this stasis at our peril.
For more insight, look up The Hindu Kush.
Greg
Last edited:
Characters, story and meaning that all together make for a thoughtful movie.
Going to war with Tim Hortons, yeah Canada.
Going to war with Tim Hortons, yeah Canada.
Greg, my friend, THAT statement there which I've quoted from above, is one of (if not THE) most eloquent manners of explaining the situation that has existed and hampered civilization (to one point or another) for centuries. ".....for good people to do nothing......" sounds kinda de-ja-vue right there.... but you summed it up best.
Now, the only other thing that worries me, is that other saying that I'm aware of. Great Minds Think Alike! Unfortunately though, fools seldom differ. Now what?
As the dialogue in Starship Trooper alleged, "In order to kill the bug, we must know the bug...". So much is expressed and implemented regarding the Arab world, mostly by those of us who lack a full understanding of that about which we speak. And when we say we understand the Arab world, we don't. Nobody understands the Arab world, although the Arabs may have some lead in this regard. And they may not even think it necessary to understand themselves when they can afford to buy any outcome they desire. Consider how Lawrence of Arabia really concludes with the Arabs incoherent arguing; the motorcycle crash is just a vignette. Even the Arabs can't understand the Arabs.
The pivotal questions aren't about religion, they are about culture, and Islam is rather late on that scene. Islam is the product of a culture that has bitter roots; emulating the aridity of the desert, the vast emptiness of the pan, the harsh, irresistible violence of the haboob, the small, rare kindnesses of the far flung oases.
Islam has been dissected, quoted, and redefined until it can have no single meaning, it resembles the chameleon far more than the cat. There can be many cats, but each remains essentially the same. The chameleon alters its appearance to suit its surroundings, and can only be described as it appears in but one situ at a time. Islam is far from unique in this respect. All the world's great religions evolve, just as creatures do, for stagnation in the face of a changing world spells extinction.
I neither like nor dislike Islam, such distinctions are really not to the point. Understanding it, and understanding the underlying Arab culture, is more to the point. Even if we can grasp that we don't understand it, and maybe can't, we still gain some valuable insight into the terrorist argument, which is inseparable from the entire Islam/Arab construct.
Maybe some diseases really have no cure, but that still doesn't keep us from treating cancer, etc., successfully. If we insist on finding the cure instead of treating the infestation, people die.
When we define our responses to Jihadi violence in terms of religion, we probably miss the key point. To respond to a problem, that response must address the problem's roots, and these roots go much further back than the religion of those who wreak the violence. They may believe they serve their religion, but their religion is but a manifestation of the underlying culture which spawned it.
When we know history, we understand roots. I wonder how many of the leaders wrestling with the terrorist threat have actually done this history homework. I'm sure the Arabs lead in this area, and where their history is involved, they are working from a vested interest that is separate from the rest of our world.
And then there's the oil. We need it and we want it. But satisfaction of these needs is not the key to this lock, these needs are, in fact, our worst weakness. The existence of the oil, and its presence in the hands of the Arabs constitutes the leverage that spells their demands in capital letters. Without that possession, much of this terror argument would be far more academic, and the funding of terror would be far more scarce
Consider the linkage between Oil, Arab money, and huge Arab donations to our higher education system. Consider that we supply the cash that undermines our foundations. College-born initiatives that downplay domestic oil exploitation are based in philosophical arguments that trace directly back to progressive educational goals inherent in that educational system They have us by our kids. Opposition on environmental grounds to oil transmission lines serve the Arab oil monopolies more than they do any practical or philosophical considerations. Its all of a single piece. When we think of money and politics, there are few sources bigger than those which originate, in one way or another, in oil.
The Arabs are a poor depository for our money. Most of their interests are in direct opposition to our base values. Yet we arm them comparable to ourselves. Many among us do not respect the responsibility we grasp, and cave at the sweet scent of easy oil money. Moreover, this is appeasement, pure and simple. It is also a slow form of national suicide, and serves only to postpone, and not stave off the inevitable. Nations which export their wealth are buying their own demise on the installment plan.
No matter what passive/renewable energy sources we devise, none of them can sustain a prosperous future. For now, prior to the widespread promotion of Fusion Power, Fossil fuels are indispensable. Efforts to supplant them are a distraction, and an expensive one, paid in more than just money. Efforts to reduce demand only really serve to prolong the Arab monopoly. The Arabs have their thumbs on the scale, pricing their oil just barely preferable to domestic oil production, ensuring that our wealth flows to them, and not to our local economy. Yes, our oil looks like a reserve, but you can't develop dormant oil field without working capital. Pinching those pennies does not achieve profit, it only achieves extinction.
Just imagine what would happen to the Arab oil market if the West decided to boycott the Arab Oil conglomerates, and pay the premium to consume non-Arab oil. Some of the most effective medicines still have a bitter taste. But again, this would require backbone. The box...; think outside of it...
Some day, its going to come down to them or us. The longer this runs, the more likely we face the pauper's choice. In the real sense, we are the bug and they know us well enough to play us like the violin.
Previous administrations have treated the Arabs like hooked fish, but what they are really is the circling sharks, content to have us hook their dinner for them, and serve it up on a line just before it's reeled all the way to the boat.
Greg
The pivotal questions aren't about religion, they are about culture, and Islam is rather late on that scene. Islam is the product of a culture that has bitter roots; emulating the aridity of the desert, the vast emptiness of the pan, the harsh, irresistible violence of the haboob, the small, rare kindnesses of the far flung oases.
Islam has been dissected, quoted, and redefined until it can have no single meaning, it resembles the chameleon far more than the cat. There can be many cats, but each remains essentially the same. The chameleon alters its appearance to suit its surroundings, and can only be described as it appears in but one situ at a time. Islam is far from unique in this respect. All the world's great religions evolve, just as creatures do, for stagnation in the face of a changing world spells extinction.
I neither like nor dislike Islam, such distinctions are really not to the point. Understanding it, and understanding the underlying Arab culture, is more to the point. Even if we can grasp that we don't understand it, and maybe can't, we still gain some valuable insight into the terrorist argument, which is inseparable from the entire Islam/Arab construct.
Maybe some diseases really have no cure, but that still doesn't keep us from treating cancer, etc., successfully. If we insist on finding the cure instead of treating the infestation, people die.
When we define our responses to Jihadi violence in terms of religion, we probably miss the key point. To respond to a problem, that response must address the problem's roots, and these roots go much further back than the religion of those who wreak the violence. They may believe they serve their religion, but their religion is but a manifestation of the underlying culture which spawned it.
When we know history, we understand roots. I wonder how many of the leaders wrestling with the terrorist threat have actually done this history homework. I'm sure the Arabs lead in this area, and where their history is involved, they are working from a vested interest that is separate from the rest of our world.
And then there's the oil. We need it and we want it. But satisfaction of these needs is not the key to this lock, these needs are, in fact, our worst weakness. The existence of the oil, and its presence in the hands of the Arabs constitutes the leverage that spells their demands in capital letters. Without that possession, much of this terror argument would be far more academic, and the funding of terror would be far more scarce
Consider the linkage between Oil, Arab money, and huge Arab donations to our higher education system. Consider that we supply the cash that undermines our foundations. College-born initiatives that downplay domestic oil exploitation are based in philosophical arguments that trace directly back to progressive educational goals inherent in that educational system They have us by our kids. Opposition on environmental grounds to oil transmission lines serve the Arab oil monopolies more than they do any practical or philosophical considerations. Its all of a single piece. When we think of money and politics, there are few sources bigger than those which originate, in one way or another, in oil.
The Arabs are a poor depository for our money. Most of their interests are in direct opposition to our base values. Yet we arm them comparable to ourselves. Many among us do not respect the responsibility we grasp, and cave at the sweet scent of easy oil money. Moreover, this is appeasement, pure and simple. It is also a slow form of national suicide, and serves only to postpone, and not stave off the inevitable. Nations which export their wealth are buying their own demise on the installment plan.
No matter what passive/renewable energy sources we devise, none of them can sustain a prosperous future. For now, prior to the widespread promotion of Fusion Power, Fossil fuels are indispensable. Efforts to supplant them are a distraction, and an expensive one, paid in more than just money. Efforts to reduce demand only really serve to prolong the Arab monopoly. The Arabs have their thumbs on the scale, pricing their oil just barely preferable to domestic oil production, ensuring that our wealth flows to them, and not to our local economy. Yes, our oil looks like a reserve, but you can't develop dormant oil field without working capital. Pinching those pennies does not achieve profit, it only achieves extinction.
Just imagine what would happen to the Arab oil market if the West decided to boycott the Arab Oil conglomerates, and pay the premium to consume non-Arab oil. Some of the most effective medicines still have a bitter taste. But again, this would require backbone. The box...; think outside of it...
Some day, its going to come down to them or us. The longer this runs, the more likely we face the pauper's choice. In the real sense, we are the bug and they know us well enough to play us like the violin.
Previous administrations have treated the Arabs like hooked fish, but what they are really is the circling sharks, content to have us hook their dinner for them, and serve it up on a line just before it's reeled all the way to the boat.
Greg
Last edited:
Paul Gross is a great actor. If you want to see a really good western comedy watch him in "Gunless". This is one of the best movies you never heard of. And an added bonus...a cameo with Graham Greene.
[IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"http:\/\/media.coveringmedia.com\/media\/images\/movies\/2011\/08\/07\/gunless_02c.jpg"}[/IMG2]
[IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/www.tribute.ca\/tribute_objects\/images\/movies\/Gunless\/gunless13.jpg"}[/IMG2]
[IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"http:\/\/media.coveringmedia.com\/media\/images\/movies\/2011\/08\/07\/gunless_02c.jpg"}[/IMG2]
[IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/www.tribute.ca\/tribute_objects\/images\/movies\/Gunless\/gunless13.jpg"}[/IMG2]
Last edited:
I was one of the idiots out doing dismounted route clearance ahead of the Route Hyena extension out to the tip of The Horn.
They did a great job of mimicking Sperwan Ghar, where I lived during that op. They used a lot of real footage in the movie, including two scenes with a friend of mine in it. Sper was taken by SF during the brutal Operation Medusa. The bullet holes and RPG splashes still decorated the walls. The book "Lions of Kandahar" talks about what went into getting that foothold:
https://www.amazon.com/Lions-Kandahar-Story-Fight-Against/dp/0553386166
God bless my Canadian brothers for bringing Tim Hortons with them overseas, but the fuckers took Tims with them when they left, removing the only redeeming amenity on KAF. I hated flying into KAF like going to the dentist, but Tim bits and an iced Capuccino (not to mention the hot Canadian chicks at Canada House) were a bright spot on the asshole of Afgh.
They did a great job of mimicking Sperwan Ghar, where I lived during that op. They used a lot of real footage in the movie, including two scenes with a friend of mine in it. Sper was taken by SF during the brutal Operation Medusa. The bullet holes and RPG splashes still decorated the walls. The book "Lions of Kandahar" talks about what went into getting that foothold:
https://www.amazon.com/Lions-Kandahar-Story-Fight-Against/dp/0553386166
God bless my Canadian brothers for bringing Tim Hortons with them overseas, but the fuckers took Tims with them when they left, removing the only redeeming amenity on KAF. I hated flying into KAF like going to the dentist, but Tim bits and an iced Capuccino (not to mention the hot Canadian chicks at Canada House) were a bright spot on the asshole of Afgh.
Glad to hear you enjoyed some of our hospitality there, Bogey. Thank you for what you've accomplished, as well.
Now with regards to the removal of the Timmy's, upon our departure.... think of it as somewhat our version of ya'll's ITAR(d) laws. Call it:
ITCR
International Traffic in Coffee Regulations.
Only us Canuckians are able to handle and be trusted with such specialties and quality beverages. Whilst ya'll are in our presence, we (may) be willing to share such experiences with others... but obviously no-one else can be trusted to handle such perfection. Else it might be used against us.
(obviously tongue-in-cheek satire and sarcasm, but such is the idiocy us Canucks have to deal with, in the attempt to purchase practically ANYTHING ya'll produce down there, for firearms.) And we're your friends, neighbors, and allies.
Can you tell that I really HATE ya'll's ITARd laws?
Now with regards to the removal of the Timmy's, upon our departure.... think of it as somewhat our version of ya'll's ITAR(d) laws. Call it:
ITCR
International Traffic in Coffee Regulations.
Only us Canuckians are able to handle and be trusted with such specialties and quality beverages. Whilst ya'll are in our presence, we (may) be willing to share such experiences with others... but obviously no-one else can be trusted to handle such perfection. Else it might be used against us.
(obviously tongue-in-cheek satire and sarcasm, but such is the idiocy us Canucks have to deal with, in the attempt to purchase practically ANYTHING ya'll produce down there, for firearms.) And we're your friends, neighbors, and allies.
Can you tell that I really HATE ya'll's ITARd laws?
Oh I agree Sean. Hitting Canada with ITAR always seemed silly, but then again so are the Canadian gun laws. What I did respect was that the CF made it a point to use as much Made in Canada equipment as possible, to include the weapons made under license in Canada.
As for the coffee situation: Green Beans, which was the Tims substitute after y'all left, was a miserable disappointment.
Plus one for thr searing flash . They sell their own effin kids and number one producer of poppy . Time for some permanent sidewalk shadow puppets .
I was getting over there during the 2010 fighting season, so IIRC that was towards the end of his time there. All I saw from him was the removal of some of the fast food options on the Boardwalk at KAF. I knew an Afghan who had worked as one of his interpreters though, he seemed to think McChrystal was "okay".
In the four years I was there I never paid much attention to who the commander was, since it really made zero difference on the ground. The major ground elements would each bring their own spin to the theater though: you could tell a difference in "personality" between the different Infantry Divisons that Big Army had in-country.
If you're curious about McChrystal, Netflix just did an original movie called War Machine. Brad Pitt plays McChrystal (although they use a different name in the movie). There's some pretty accurate commentary about how shitty our counter insurgency strategies are.
I actually watched it and thats what made me ask. Its a super jokey movie and makes em look awkward as hell. I do remember something about him basically being anti-2A.
I watched Hyena Road and was very impressed. Seems like they got the cultural differences down pretty well.
Well, for one thing; it would pay if somebody napalmed the poppy fields...
Eisenhower would never have tolerated the current strategy in Afghanistan. There would either be no involvement, or there would be decisive involvement. When contemplating brutal force, he made it clear that the US could not constrain itself with sentimentality. His view was that when America acts, there is no higher court. He understood that war was something your either avoided assiduously, or waged unconstrained to serve America's ends; without sentiment, and without remorse. He understood that wars are not won, do not end, that one can only manage the consequences, and do that with pragmatism. Snowflakes are supposed to melt.
He funneled huge aid to Afghanistan to fund roads, dams, and literally build cities. His intention was to foster an agricultural economy that brought prosperity and advancement to the country. But the farmers soon decided that it was more profitable to grow the Opium poppy than to engage in constructive agriculture. Karzai shed his insurgent role and became the Politician, his brother the Entrepreneur, and another brother went on to become a leader in Afghan Islamic circles. The Karzai brothers had Afghan politics, commerce, and religion in the palms of their hands. The Entrepreneur consolidated his position and became chief drug lord in Afghanistan. We have no friends in Afghanistan. Their chosen role as a nation is to export drug death to our cities.
I would forget about Afghan hearts and minds, and drive the understanding that American Warriors do not go places to build nations. They go there to kill America's enemies, and get on with the killing. I would napalm the poppy fields.
I'd make it clear that America is prepared to do the hard things, and does not coddle its enemies.
Greg
Eisenhower would never have tolerated the current strategy in Afghanistan. There would either be no involvement, or there would be decisive involvement. When contemplating brutal force, he made it clear that the US could not constrain itself with sentimentality. His view was that when America acts, there is no higher court. He understood that war was something your either avoided assiduously, or waged unconstrained to serve America's ends; without sentiment, and without remorse. He understood that wars are not won, do not end, that one can only manage the consequences, and do that with pragmatism. Snowflakes are supposed to melt.
He funneled huge aid to Afghanistan to fund roads, dams, and literally build cities. His intention was to foster an agricultural economy that brought prosperity and advancement to the country. But the farmers soon decided that it was more profitable to grow the Opium poppy than to engage in constructive agriculture. Karzai shed his insurgent role and became the Politician, his brother the Entrepreneur, and another brother went on to become a leader in Afghan Islamic circles. The Karzai brothers had Afghan politics, commerce, and religion in the palms of their hands. The Entrepreneur consolidated his position and became chief drug lord in Afghanistan. We have no friends in Afghanistan. Their chosen role as a nation is to export drug death to our cities.
I would forget about Afghan hearts and minds, and drive the understanding that American Warriors do not go places to build nations. They go there to kill America's enemies, and get on with the killing. I would napalm the poppy fields.
I'd make it clear that America is prepared to do the hard things, and does not coddle its enemies.
Greg
Last edited:
I read that article and find myself agreeing with some of it, and not with other parts of it. Eisenhower would definitely want to use overwhelming force if necessary. Gradualism, though, as the author referred to it was started by him in VietNam. And NO, we did not sit by idly while the French fought DienBienPhu. We had advisors, Intel networks, and provided nearly all of the material to fight that battle.
In short, that author does not know his ass from a hole in the ground as to either Eisenhower, or the American escalation in VietNam. We were "gradualizing" up until Johnson. Johnson was the one who escalated at an overwhelming level militarily. Except, he was remiss in not using the overwhelming advantage. He ceased bombing of N. VN. Keep in mind, Congress had their fingers in the mix too. Often times selecting the daily targets over breakfast with the president and high ranking generals. That needed to stop.
So, in agreement, yeah we should bomb the poppy fields. At least at that end of it the death trade would be curtailed. And, while we want these people to take control of their country, they'll do it in a way we don't understand or like. The bigger understanding would be why countries want to go there in the first place. Is it strategic? Is there oil, like everyone says there isn't? I know it's so out of the way that terrorists liked to train there. We accomplished that already. So what do we still need to accpomplish?
In short, that author does not know his ass from a hole in the ground as to either Eisenhower, or the American escalation in VietNam. We were "gradualizing" up until Johnson. Johnson was the one who escalated at an overwhelming level militarily. Except, he was remiss in not using the overwhelming advantage. He ceased bombing of N. VN. Keep in mind, Congress had their fingers in the mix too. Often times selecting the daily targets over breakfast with the president and high ranking generals. That needed to stop.
So, in agreement, yeah we should bomb the poppy fields. At least at that end of it the death trade would be curtailed. And, while we want these people to take control of their country, they'll do it in a way we don't understand or like. The bigger understanding would be why countries want to go there in the first place. Is it strategic? Is there oil, like everyone says there isn't? I know it's so out of the way that terrorists liked to train there. We accomplished that already. So what do we still need to accpomplish?
We accomplished all we were going to in Afgh within the first 6mos to a year when it was an SF / CIA operation using the warlords against the Taliban.
Once we we decided to make it a "real" war we were doomed to the current morass.
Once we we decided to make it a "real" war we were doomed to the current morass.
^^^ This. Not a place for ground armies or land wars....
The Chinese, the Mughuls, the British, the Soviets... all learned that lesson.
You can be the best land army in the world (and many of them were...) and still get your ass handed to you by the tribes. It's just what they do.
Cheers,
Sirhr
The Chinese, the Mughuls, the British, the Soviets... all learned that lesson.
You can be the best land army in the world (and many of them were...) and still get your ass handed to you by the tribes. It's just what they do.
Cheers,
Sirhr
Rumor is that Afghanistan is sitting on significant reserves of Lithium. The same Lithium used in batteries for electric vehicles and energy storage. I had heard that the Japanese were spreading around quite a bit of cash/graft, trying to ingratiatate themselves with Karzai and others.
FWIW Mr Greg.. the dope they grow in Afghanistan is #3 - it (mostly) goes to Europe/Russia. Large majority of American dope comes from our friendly neighbor to the south - Mexico. And to an increasingly lesser extent - Colombia and other South/Central American nations(heard about some amapola fields popping up in Guatemala recently..). This is according to the DEA and UNODC atleast. I think its around 4% of American heroin that comes from various Asian countries.
However China is a huge producer of fentanyl, and the Mexican cartels are also getting in on the fent action within the past couple years. Terrible drug that one..
bogeybrown - I know the DEA had some dudes in Afghanistan, the owner of Accurate Ordnance served with em over there(very cool gentleman). When you were there, did yall like just not touch friendlies' poppy crops and only target bad guy crops? Or what?
However China is a huge producer of fentanyl, and the Mexican cartels are also getting in on the fent action within the past couple years. Terrible drug that one..
bogeybrown - I know the DEA had some dudes in Afghanistan, the owner of Accurate Ordnance served with em over there(very cool gentleman). When you were there, did yall like just not touch friendlies' poppy crops and only target bad guy crops? Or what?
The lithium deposits were found several years ago. And in true Obama US foreign policy disaster form, it's my understanding that the Chinese bought the rights to it. One of the many Trump policies I agree with: if we sacrifice US lives and dollars in a country, then we should have dibs on the resources.
The policy when I was there was that we didn't mess with the poppies. In fact I slept in many a poppy field while our ANA partners got high to the point of being mission ineffective. My understanding was that we made the locals angry if we torched poppy and marijauana fields, so we didn't do any eradication.
It wasnt like the poppy fields were "hidden", I'm sure you could see them from space. Acres of pink in a brown country ain't like spotting a marijuana grow in a national forest.
