Results 1 to 27 of 27

Thread: Ron Paul: Wrong on the Taliban

  1. #1

    Ron Paul: Wrong on the Taliban

    Ron Paul knows even less about the history of our enemies than he does about their proper treatment under the Constitution. He actually interrupted Monday night’s Republican candidates’ debate so he could interject the following:
    I would like to point out one thing about the Taliban. The Taliban used to be our allies when we were fighting the Russians. So Taliban are people who want — their main goal is to keep foreigners off their land. It’s the al-Qaeda — you can’t mix the two. The al-Qaeda want to come here to kill us. The Taliban just says, “We don’t want foreigners.” We need to understand that, or we can’t resolve this problem in the Middle East. We are going to spend a lot of lives and a lot of money for a long time to come.




    Everything in this statement is wrong. Everything. <-----writer's words

    Read full article here: httx ://www.nationalreview.com/articles/288510/ron-paul-wrong-taliban-andrew-c-mccarthy



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    I wasn't going to bring it up, but the mujahadeen (sp?) is the group we funded in the Russia / Afghan conflict. The Taliban didn't come to power until after that.

    ETA: Here's a good article about the differences between the two: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...hideen-taliban

  4. #3
    muhajideen is just arabic for freedom fighter. and taliban means 'student'(of the koran).they are all the same people.islamists who dont want others poking their noses in their affairs

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Dsylexic View Post
    muhajideen is just arabic for freedom fighter. and taliban means 'student'(of the koran).they are all the same people.islamists who dont want others poking their noses in their affairs
    "They're all the same?" Really? How Western. I won't profess to be an expert, but there are indeed differences between the two groups, and Ron Paul misspoke in that instance. We sided with the muhajideen against Russia, and with the Taliban in the drug war.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    "They're all the same?" Really? How Western. I won't profess to be an expert, but there are indeed differences between the two groups, and Ron Paul misspoke in that instance. We sided with the muhajideen against Russia, and with the Taliban in the drug war.
    how western? d-uh. i live in india.give me a break.i probably know 5 more languages than the average american having lived in multiple countries.
    take it or leave it.i know the nuances better than some neocon on National Review

  7. #6
    It's not our $#@!ing country and therefore none of our $#@!ing business.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Dsylexic View Post
    how western? d-uh. i live in india.give me a break.i probably know 5 more languages than the average american having lived in multiple countries.
    take it or leave it.i know the nuances better than some neocon on National Review
    And yet you still refuse to acknowledge that Paul misspoke, and that there are differences between the two groups. Sorry, you don't get it both ways. You don't get to claim your nuanced international superiority and yet refuse to acknowledge that nuances are imoportant.

    You've done nothing to refute the assertions of the NR writer, now have you?

  9. #8
    However, Al Qaida =/= The Taleban.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Isn't it possible, and even likely, that many of those who fought the Soviets with our support later became the so-called Taliban?
    Pfizer Macht Frei!

    Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.


    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  12. #10
    ^^ you are right and i was wrong. i misspoke.not out of 'western ignorance' though.

  13. #11
    As far as I'm concerned christans are all the same group. sure theirs different denominations but their all fundemeltaly crazy. That's why I'm nondenominational I want to be crazy all by my self. XD

    Muslims are no different, their all crazy just like Christians. WE DON'T NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCES OF THEM, WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THEIR USING THEIR RELIGION AS A JUSTIFICATION FOR DEFENDING THEIR LAND.

    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    And yet you still refuse to acknowledge that Paul misspoke, and that there are differences between the two groups. Sorry, you don't get it both ways. You don't get to claim your nuanced international superiority and yet refuse to acknowledge that nuances are imoportant.

    You've done nothing to refute the assertions of the NR writer, now have you?

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    Isn't it possible, and even likely, that many of those who fought the Soviets with our support later became the so-called Taliban?
    They are lol...It's kind of like arguing that Russia wasn't part of the Soviet Union. They are alot of the same people, using the same weapons given to them by the good old USA but now they are used against us.
    Click here for a free copper round. Every three people you get signed up, you get another free round! NO PURCHASE NECESSARY!

  15. #13
    How Washington Funded the Taliban

    by Ted Galen Carpenter


    This article appeared on cato.org on August 2, 2002.

    The United States has made common cause with an assortment of dubious regimes around the world to wage the war on drugs. Perhaps the most shocking example was Washington's decision in May 2001 to financially reward Afghanistan's infamous Taliban government for its edict ordering a halt to the cultivation of opium poppies.

    When the Taliban implemented a ban on opium cultivation in early 2001, U.S. officials were most complimentary. James P. Callahan, director of Asian Affairs for the State Department's Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, uncritically relayed the alleged accounts of Afghan farmers that "the Taliban used a system of consensus-building" to develop and carry out the edict. That characterization was more than a little suspect because the Taliban was not known for pursuing consensus in other aspects of its rule. Columnist Robert Scheer was justifiably scathing in his criticism of the U.S. response. "That a totalitarian country can effectively crack down on its farmers is not surprising," Sheer noted, but he considered it "grotesque" for a U.S. official to describe the drug-crop crackdown in such benign terms.

    Yet the Bush administration did more than praise the Taliban's proclaimed ban of opium cultivation. In mid-May, 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell announced a $43 million grant to Afghanistan in addition to the humanitarian aid the United States had long been providing to agencies assisting Afghan refugees. Given Callahan's comment, there was little doubt that the new stipend was a reward for Kabul's anti-drug efforts. That $43 million grant needs to be placed in context. Afghanistan's estimated gross domestic product was a mere $2 billion. The equivalent financial impact on the U.S. economy would have required an infusion of $215 billion. In other words, $43 million was very serious money to Afghanistan's theocratic masters.

    To make matters worse, U.S. officials were naive to take the Taliban edict at face value. The much-touted crackdown on opium poppy cultivation appears to have been little more than an illusion. Despite U.S. and UN reports that the Taliban had virtually wiped out the poppy crop in 2000-2001, authorities in neighboring Tajikistan reported that the amounts coming across the border were actually increasing. In reality, the Taliban gave its order to halt cultivation merely to drive up the price of opium the regime had already stockpiled.

    Even if the Taliban had tried to stem cultivation for honest reasons, U.S. cooperation with that regime should have been morally repugnant. Among other outrages, the Taliban government prohibited the education of girls, tortured and executed political critics, and required non-Muslims to wear distinctive clothing--a practice eerily reminiscent of Nazi Germany's requirement that Jews display the Star of David on their clothing. Yet U.S. officials deemed none of that to be a bar to cooperation with the Taliban on drug policy.

    Even if the Bush administration had not been dissuaded by moral considerations, it should have been by purely pragmatic concerns. There was already ample evidence in the spring of 2001 that the Taliban was giving sanctuary to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network that had bombed two U.S. embassies in East Africa. For the State Department to ignore that connection and agree to subsidize the Taliban was inexcusably obtuse. Scheer was on the mark when he concluded, "The war on drugs has become our own fanatics' obsession and easily trumps all other concerns."

    Washington's approach came to an especially calamitous end in September 2001 when the Taliban regime was linked to bin Laden's terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that killed some 3,000 people. Moreover, evidence quickly emerged that the Taliban all along had been collecting millions of dollars in profits from the illicit drug trade, with much of that money going into the coffers of the terrorists. Rarely is there such graphic evidence of the bankruptcy of U.S. drug policy.
    Last edited by Danke; 01-19-2012 at 09:57 AM. Reason: highlight
    Pfizer Macht Frei!

    Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.


    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  16. #14
    Michael Scheuer supports Ron Paul. That's all I need to know.

  17. #15
    Wait, is Angela saying that the Taliban and the Mujahadeen aren't one and the same? Remind you that the vast majority of those we funded and aided in the 80s are the Taliban. Al-Qaeda is a different organization with different people. Osama didn't really take part in Afghanistan in the 80s. He was more of a recruiter and financier and partially did work for the CIA. National Review push a narrative which is entirely at odds with history.
    School of Salamanca - School of Austrian Economics - Liberty, Private Property, Free-Markets, Voluntaryist, Agorist. le monde va de lui même

    "No man hath power over my rights and liberties, and I over no mans [sic]."

    What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.

    www.mises.org
    www.antiwar.com
    An Arrow Against all Tyrants - Richard Overton vis. 1646 (Required reading!)

  18. #16
    It is worth noting that there was a lot of cross over between the groups, all three. The extremes had stark differences, but the moderates that moved between the groups had a common goal, and that was to push foreigners out of their land, and regain sovereignty of Afghanistan.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    It's not exactly true that mujaheddin = Taliban. I was kind of annoyed by that as well, but whatever.

    Anyway, the point is that the Taliban, while being some vicious horrible dudes, weren't invading other countries.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Coulter View Post
    It's not our $#@!ing country and therefore none of our $#@!ing business.
    +REP

  22. #19

    he was just

    ... trying to say a bit too much in a short sound bite.

    Way to split hairs over nothing.

  23. #20
    Thank you! Ron Paul proven right yet again! The fact is that while Al Qaeda =/= the Taliban, the U.S. has inadvertently funded both Al Qaeda and the Taliban. People need to read Peter Bergan's book Holy War Inc. The cliff notes version is that the U.S. gave Pakistan money to fund Afgan insurgents in order to entice the Soviets to invade. (Bergen didn't know or tell that last part, but that has been confirmed by Jimmy Carter's former national security adviser Zbignew Brzensinski). Pakistan gave the money to the most anti-western radical Islamists it could find. In part because Pakistan also wanted to use this force against India in Khasmir. After the fall of the Soviet backed government there was civil war and a power vacuum. Pakistan, again with U.S. money, helped fund the Taliban to take over. And yes, as Danke pointed out, we did help fund the Taliban anti-opium campaign and now we have U.S. soldiers protecting opium growers. Those are just the facts. The are uncomfortable facts, but they are the facts nonetheless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    How Washington Funded the Taliban

    by Ted Galen Carpenter


    This article appeared on cato.org on August 2, 2002.

    The United States has made common cause with an assortment of dubious regimes around the world to wage the war on drugs. Perhaps the most shocking example was Washington's decision in May 2001 to financially reward Afghanistan's infamous Taliban government for its edict ordering a halt to the cultivation of opium poppies.

    When the Taliban implemented a ban on opium cultivation in early 2001, U.S. officials were most complimentary. James P. Callahan, director of Asian Affairs for the State Department's Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, uncritically relayed the alleged accounts of Afghan farmers that "the Taliban used a system of consensus-building" to develop and carry out the edict. That characterization was more than a little suspect because the Taliban was not known for pursuing consensus in other aspects of its rule. Columnist Robert Scheer was justifiably scathing in his criticism of the U.S. response. "That a totalitarian country can effectively crack down on its farmers is not surprising," Sheer noted, but he considered it "grotesque" for a U.S. official to describe the drug-crop crackdown in such benign terms.

    Yet the Bush administration did more than praise the Taliban's proclaimed ban of opium cultivation. In mid-May, 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell announced a $43 million grant to Afghanistan in addition to the humanitarian aid the United States had long been providing to agencies assisting Afghan refugees. Given Callahan's comment, there was little doubt that the new stipend was a reward for Kabul's anti-drug efforts. That $43 million grant needs to be placed in context. Afghanistan's estimated gross domestic product was a mere $2 billion. The equivalent financial impact on the U.S. economy would have required an infusion of $215 billion. In other words, $43 million was very serious money to Afghanistan's theocratic masters.

    To make matters worse, U.S. officials were naive to take the Taliban edict at face value. The much-touted crackdown on opium poppy cultivation appears to have been little more than an illusion. Despite U.S. and UN reports that the Taliban had virtually wiped out the poppy crop in 2000-2001, authorities in neighboring Tajikistan reported that the amounts coming across the border were actually increasing. In reality, the Taliban gave its order to halt cultivation merely to drive up the price of opium the regime had already stockpiled.

    Even if the Taliban had tried to stem cultivation for honest reasons, U.S. cooperation with that regime should have been morally repugnant. Among other outrages, the Taliban government prohibited the education of girls, tortured and executed political critics, and required non-Muslims to wear distinctive clothing--a practice eerily reminiscent of Nazi Germany's requirement that Jews display the Star of David on their clothing. Yet U.S. officials deemed none of that to be a bar to cooperation with the Taliban on drug policy.

    Even if the Bush administration had not been dissuaded by moral considerations, it should have been by purely pragmatic concerns. There was already ample evidence in the spring of 2001 that the Taliban was giving sanctuary to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network that had bombed two U.S. embassies in East Africa. For the State Department to ignore that connection and agree to subsidize the Taliban was inexcusably obtuse. Scheer was on the mark when he concluded, "The war on drugs has become our own fanatics' obsession and easily trumps all other concerns."

    Washington's approach came to an especially calamitous end in September 2001 when the Taliban regime was linked to bin Laden's terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that killed some 3,000 people. Moreover, evidence quickly emerged that the Taliban all along had been collecting millions of dollars in profits from the illicit drug trade, with much of that money going into the coffers of the terrorists. Rarely is there such graphic evidence of the bankruptcy of U.S. drug policy.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Thank you! Ron Paul proven right yet again!
    But Danke's article discusses actions that took place much later than the original topic. What you're saying is true but it isn't related to the original discussion of what the situation was, and who the players were, when we were trying to undermine the Russians.

    I think the real answer is probably that the Taliban were a subsect of the mujaheddin. After Russia pulled out, the group fell apart.
    Last edited by angelatc; 02-23-2012 at 10:12 AM.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    I wasn't going to bring it up, but the mujahadeen (sp?) is the group we funded in the Russia / Afghan conflict. The Taliban didn't come to power until after that.

    ETA: Here's a good article about the differences between the two: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...hideen-taliban
    That's not really a good article. It doesn't give the history of the Taliban, and the "differences" it cites are superficial. (Mujahadeen want to pillage, Taliban want control. Really?)

    Here's a better overview.

    http://middleeast.about.com/od/afgha.../me080914a.htm

    The Taliban are the next generation of mujahadeen. The original mujahadeen warlords squandered their opportunity to rule by fighting against each other. The common thread between both the Taliban and the mujahadeen (besides Islam and hatred against outsiders ruling their country) is our ally Pakistan. U.S. money, funneled through Pakistan, found its way to both groups. And some of the people who fought with the mujahadeen did join the Taliban. The Taliban is a largely Pashtun movement and there were Pashtun mujahadeen.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    But Danke's article discusses actions that took place much later than the original topic. What you're saying is true but it isn't related to the original discussion of what the situation was when we were trying to undermine the Russians.
    That situation was we paid our allies in Pakistan to grow a force to oust the Soviets. (The mujahadeen). Later we paid our allies in Pakistan to develop a force to stabilize Afghanistan. (The Taliban). Different names. Somewhat different groups of people (although there was overlap). Different agendas. (Stabilizing the country versus drawing in, then kicking out the Soviets). Same pay source. Even into 2005 Pakistan, which was getting U.S. aid, was funneling money to the Taliban and to Al Qaeda.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4249525.stm

    Edit: Ron's problem is that in the debates he only has 30 seconds to explain something that really takes 30 minutes to understand. He needs to go Ross Perot and do a foreign policy infomercial.
    Last edited by jmdrake; 02-23-2012 at 10:15 AM.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  27. #24



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    We need to get out in front of those who now would mock the concept of "we just marched in, we can just march out".

    Best response:

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Coulter View Post
    It's not our $#@!ing country and therefore none of our $#@!ing business.
    “It is not true that all creeds and cultures are equally assimilable in a First World nation born of England, Christianity, and Western civilization. Race, faith, ethnicity and history leave genetic fingerprints no ‘proposition nation’ can erase." -- Pat Buchanan

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    We need to get out in front of those who now would mock the concept of "we just marched in, we can just march out".

    Best response:
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again.

    If two decades of military armaments, training and trillions didn't set up a democracy then $#@! it. And the next time $#@! comes out of there just nuke the $#@!ers.

  31. #27



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-11-2014, 09:51 AM
  2. Taliban Commander Says Taliban Cannot Win Afghan War
    By emazur in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-11-2012, 12:38 PM
  3. Wrong Answers to Wrong Questions, by Ron Paul
    By sailingaway in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-22-2011, 03:01 PM
  4. Ron Paul: Feds aiding Taliban
    By DadaOrwell in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-02-2010, 06:18 PM
  5. Replies: 61
    Last Post: 03-11-2008, 10:04 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •