Economy produces 64% more under Bush!

[drboyd]

That's the good news. The bad news is that it's the economy in Afghanistan, and they produced 64% more opium poppies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/19/international/asia/19afghanistan.html?hp&ex=1100926800&en=12dc9e3c9d258065&ei=5094&partner=homepage

 

[Outspoken]

Yeah, but recently the afgan government has been pleeding for help on this matter and it looks like then UN will not hellp. typical.

 

[Doctrine1st]

I think the UN has called for NATO action, and the U.S. is pretty much NATO, but I think we're kind of busy right now.

Bottomline, even though the first female was able cast a vote for a newly elected President or not, Afghanistan is an issue that will need to be redressed in the future and soon before it's out of control more than it is now.

 

[Outspoken]

I think the UN has called for NATO action, and the U.S. is pretty much NATO, but I think we're kind of busy right now.

Bottomline, even though the first female was able cast a vote for a newly elected President or not, Afghanistan is an issue that will need to be redressed in the future and soon before it's out of control more than it is now.

In other words, the UN is basically turning their back and doing nothing, as usual.

 

[Doctrine1st]

In other words, the UN is basically turning their back and doing nothing, as usual.

I'm not to familiar with UN proceedures for dispatching Nato troops, maybe someone else can shed some light on how it goes, but although I am strongly supportive of the removal of the Taliban due to their terrorist connections with those of 9/11, the side effects of the war such as the ressurgence of warlords, the Taliban, and the increase on the drug trade is pretty much to a large degree our responsibility in compliance to the UN's concern. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Outspoken]

I'm not to familiar with UN proceedures for dispatching Nato troops, maybe someone else can shed some light on how it goes, but although I am strongly supportive of the removal of the Taliban due to their terrorist connections with those of 9/11, the side effects of the war such as the ressurgence of warlords, the Taliban, and the increase on the drug trade is pretty much to a large degree our responsibility in compliance to the UN's concern. Wouldn't you agree?

Nope I would not. It is no one's fault that warlords pop up other then the warlord themselves. It is no one's fault that people are growing opium but the people growing it themselves. I find the view of wanting to pass the buck on personal responsibity upsetting myself The UN does the same sort of thing all the time thus why they are useless.

 

[arnegrim]

I'm not to familiar with UN proceedures for dispatching Nato troops, maybe someone else can shed some light on how it goes, but although I am strongly supportive of the removal of the Taliban due to their terrorist connections with those of 9/11, the side effects of the war such as the ressurgence of warlords, the Taliban, and the increase on the drug trade is pretty much to a large degree our responsibility in compliance to the UN's concern. Wouldn't you agree?

The UN can't dispatch Nato troops.

 

[Zoot]

Install a government that nationalises the opium industry, so that everyone benefits from it.

 

[Nathan Poe]

In other words, the UN is basically turning their back and doing nothing, as usual.

Since when is the UN responsible for cleaning up America's messes around the world?

 

[Doctrine1st]

Nope I would not. It is no one's fault that warlords pop up other then the warlord themselves. It is no one's fault that people are growing opium but the people growing it themselves. I find your wanting to pass the buck on personal responsibity upsetting myself The UN does the same sort of thing all the time thus why they are useless.

Oh yeah, that's exactly what I'm talking about personal accountability, responsibility, and passing the buck. We knew the drug problem before the Taliban took over and supported them financially because of the swell job they were doing. To leave them in a far worse situation than we thought they were in before the war is, well frankly baffling for me, and will only fuel more contempt toward our policies and ultimatley us. Really sorry to hear that this idea upsets you.

 

[Doctrine1st]

The UN can't dispatch Nato troops.

Thanks arnegrim, do you know the process?

 

[Cowboy_VCIA]

Since when is the UN responsible for cleaning up America's messes around the world?

Since they were behind us going into Ghanny, and setting up refuge for those opressed by the Taliban. Just keep setting yourself up with stupid questions. I love answering them.

 

[arnegrim]

Thanks arnegrim, do you know the process?

Process for what... dispatching Nato troops or UN peacekeepers?

 

[Doctrine1st]

Process for what... dispatching Nato troops or UN peacekeepers?

Well I guess to subside the drug trade and put the resurging Taliban and warlords in check, it sounds like more than a peace keeping role?

 

[rahma]

One of my research projects in college was the Taliban's effect on the drug trade in Afghanistan. It was fascinating to note the change before and after the invasion.

Basically, Afghanistan has no infastructure. The russians bombed it, Afghans bombed each other, and then we bombed them. They don't have the structure to produce and support their population, without turning to narcotics.

Best way to solve it? A combination of religious edicts (Taliban did this) and rebuilding of the country.

 

[Zoot]

Since they were behind us going into Ghanny, and setting up refuge for those opressed by the Taliban. Just keep setting yourself up with stupid questions. I love answering them.

I'm afraid the Taliban themselves are another of America's messes.

 

[arnegrim]

Well I guess to subside the drug trade and put the resurging Taliban and warlords in check, it sounds like more than a peace keeping role?

Let's see if I can 'shotgun' your question.

UN peacekeepers are deployed by the UN Security Council...

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]The United Nations Security Council normally creates and defines peacekeeping missions. It does this by providing the mission with a mandate—a description of the mission’s tasks.To establish a new peacekeeping mission, or change the mandate or strength of an existing mission, nine of the Security Council’s 15 member States must vote in favour. [/size][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]However, if any one of the five permanent members—China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom or the United States—votes against the proposal, it fails. [/size][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1][/size][/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=-1]The concept of traditional UN peacekeeping holds that peacekeepers are unarmed or lightly armed and can use force only in self-defence. In the last few years, however, events have led to debate on how to make UN peacekeepers more effective in dangerous and complex missions, while ensuring their impartiality.

[/size][/font]

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/faq/q9.htm

As for NATO... they are very similar but on a smaller scale...