Yeah the thing is that the war on drugs is a massive failure, and everybody knows it. Drugs aren't hard to get, and the solution is not to do the same thing we've always done, but harder.
The United States is also one of the leading voices on international drug policy, arguably the reason cannabis got put in the single convention. And Russia argued then that it was mostly an internal thing and each country should deal with their own problems. An anti-drug stance domestically is not necessarily indicative of one's stance on international drug policy.
I certainly don't think it's smart to conclude beforehand that it will never work and there is no reason to try it.
Like I said, Russia's policy deals heavily with trafficking from Afghanistan so yeah I'm pretty sure it is indicative of their stance
Russia would obviously condemn everything just because US involvement anyway. But they won't do anything since the US occupies Afghanistan and they are not the Soviet Union so don't even have a theoretical army to do anything about it.
like, uh, what do you imagine is going to happen? What do you think international fallout even means? Do you think countries getting angry has an effect or something?
Arm the Taliban
Lean on CIS members to block or break the various bilateral trade agreements Afghanistan has with its neighbors
Coordinate with China to isolate Afghanistan from other regional partners
This is just what came to mind in literally 10 seconds. Did you think countries getting angry doesn't have an effect short of war?
Russia and Iran are already arming the Taliban, and Afghanistan is already pretty well isolated since the country is so unstable that no one can or wants to do business there.
You're talking as if Afghanistan is some stable US backed democracy already when half the country is under control of insurgents. We can worry about Afghanistan's geopolitical prospects after it isn't on the verge of reverting to the Islamic Emirate.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Russia is already arming the Taliban, and Afghanistan is already pretty well isolated since the country is so unstable that no one can or wants to do business there.
You're talking as if Afghanistan is some stable US backed democracy already when half the country is under control of insurgents. We can worry about Afghanistan's geopolitical prospects after it isn't on the verge of reverting to the Islamic Emirate.
You're talking as if you don't know what bilateral agreements Afghanistan is actually party to with its neighboring countries. Or how much of their aid comes from Western Europe, which is also a major recipient of Afghan opium and would not be likely to tolerate an Afghan narco-state.
Yes, Russia is already arming the Taliban, but not nearly as much as they could if they wanted to fuck with us. You remember that time we started giving the Mujahideen MANPADS?
You remember how I keep talking about GIROA's desperate need for helicopters, and how much of our strategy hinges on giving them Blackhawks?
Russia is already arming the Taliban, and Afghanistan is already pretty well isolated since the country is so unstable that no one can or wants to do business there.
You're talking as if Afghanistan is some stable US backed democracy already when half the country is under control of insurgents. We can worry about Afghanistan's geopolitical prospects after it isn't on the verge of reverting to the Islamic Emirate.
You're talking as if you don't know what bilateral agreements Afghanistan is actually party to with its neighboring countries.
Yes, Russia is already arming the Taliban, but not nearly as much as they could if they wanted to fuck with us. You remember that time we started giving the Mujahideen MANPADS?
You remember how I keep talking about GIROA's desperate need for helicopters, and how much of our strategy hinges on giving them Blackhawks?
Bilateral agreements mean jack shit when the government can't control half its territory.
The Taliban is already winning with what they have. You're making no sense.
Russia doesn't have to do anything more than it is doing now, and the Taliban wins if our strategy does not change. We can worry about Russia's response after the Taliban is on the back foot.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Russia is already arming the Taliban, and Afghanistan is already pretty well isolated since the country is so unstable that no one can or wants to do business there.
You're talking as if Afghanistan is some stable US backed democracy already when half the country is under control of insurgents. We can worry about Afghanistan's geopolitical prospects after it isn't on the verge of reverting to the Islamic Emirate.
You're talking as if you don't know what bilateral agreements Afghanistan is actually party to with its neighboring countries.
Yes, Russia is already arming the Taliban, but not nearly as much as they could if they wanted to fuck with us. You remember that time we started giving the Mujahideen MANPADS?
You remember how I keep talking about GIROA's desperate need for helicopters, and how much of our strategy hinges on giving them Blackhawks?
Bilateral agreements mean jack shit when the government can't control half its territory.
The Taliban is already winning with what they have. You're making no sense.
Neither of these (exaggerated) claims in any way justify the hope that the gains of legalizing opium would outweigh the cost of the Taliban becoming massively better-equipped and the government losing its flimsy external trade balance.
Like, it doesn't fucking matter if they can tax opium (they still can't, their tax collection capability is almost nil) if the Taliban starts killing their handful of T-55s with Russian-supplied Kornets and shooting down their handful of A-29s with Strela-2s. It is a ludicrous proposition.
Russia is already arming the Taliban, and Afghanistan is already pretty well isolated since the country is so unstable that no one can or wants to do business there.
You're talking as if Afghanistan is some stable US backed democracy already when half the country is under control of insurgents. We can worry about Afghanistan's geopolitical prospects after it isn't on the verge of reverting to the Islamic Emirate.
You're talking as if you don't know what bilateral agreements Afghanistan is actually party to with its neighboring countries.
Yes, Russia is already arming the Taliban, but not nearly as much as they could if they wanted to fuck with us. You remember that time we started giving the Mujahideen MANPADS?
You remember how I keep talking about GIROA's desperate need for helicopters, and how much of our strategy hinges on giving them Blackhawks?
Bilateral agreements mean jack shit when the government can't control half its territory.
The Taliban is already winning with what they have. You're making no sense.
Neither of these (exaggerated) claims in any way justify the hope that the gains of legalizing opium would outweigh the cost of the Taliban becoming massively better-equipped and the government losing its flimsy external trade balance.
The Afghan government is already completely dependent on US aid money and US military support. I cannot give a shit about their "trade balance" when they're on the verge of total collapse.
The immediate concern is cutting the Taliban's popular support and economic base so that efforts to push them back actually result in long term gains, instead of just sowing the seeds for the next Taliban offensive.
Any success by the US in turning back the Taliban advance would be enough reason for Russia to give them more support. It doesn't matter if its involves drugs to Russia or not, they're there to oppose US geopolitical strategy.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Russia is already arming the Taliban, and Afghanistan is already pretty well isolated since the country is so unstable that no one can or wants to do business there.
You're talking as if Afghanistan is some stable US backed democracy already when half the country is under control of insurgents. We can worry about Afghanistan's geopolitical prospects after it isn't on the verge of reverting to the Islamic Emirate.
You're talking as if you don't know what bilateral agreements Afghanistan is actually party to with its neighboring countries.
Yes, Russia is already arming the Taliban, but not nearly as much as they could if they wanted to fuck with us. You remember that time we started giving the Mujahideen MANPADS?
You remember how I keep talking about GIROA's desperate need for helicopters, and how much of our strategy hinges on giving them Blackhawks?
Bilateral agreements mean jack shit when the government can't control half its territory.
The Taliban is already winning with what they have. You're making no sense.
Neither of these (exaggerated) claims in any way justify the hope that the gains of legalizing opium would outweigh the cost of the Taliban becoming massively better-equipped and the government losing its flimsy external trade balance.
The Afghan government is already completely dependent on US aid money and US military support. I cannot give a shit about their "trade balance" when they're on the verge of total collapse.
The immediate concern is cutting the Taliban's popular support and economic base so that efforts to push them back actually result in long term gains, instead of just sowing the seeds for the next Taliban offensive.
Any success by the US in turning back the Taliban advance would be enough reason for Russia to give them more support. It doesn't matter if its involves drugs to Russia or not, they're there to oppose US geopolitical strategy.
If US geopolitical strategy involves creating the #1 narcostate on the Eurasian continent, their opposition will become radically more aggressive.
I simply cannot understand how anyone can dismiss antagonizing Russia, China and every neighboring country - not to mention Europe - as a nonissue.
Russia is already arming the Taliban, and Afghanistan is already pretty well isolated since the country is so unstable that no one can or wants to do business there.
You're talking as if Afghanistan is some stable US backed democracy already when half the country is under control of insurgents. We can worry about Afghanistan's geopolitical prospects after it isn't on the verge of reverting to the Islamic Emirate.
You're talking as if you don't know what bilateral agreements Afghanistan is actually party to with its neighboring countries.
Yes, Russia is already arming the Taliban, but not nearly as much as they could if they wanted to fuck with us. You remember that time we started giving the Mujahideen MANPADS?
You remember how I keep talking about GIROA's desperate need for helicopters, and how much of our strategy hinges on giving them Blackhawks?
Bilateral agreements mean jack shit when the government can't control half its territory.
The Taliban is already winning with what they have. You're making no sense.
Neither of these (exaggerated) claims in any way justify the hope that the gains of legalizing opium would outweigh the cost of the Taliban becoming massively better-equipped and the government losing its flimsy external trade balance.
The Afghan government is already completely dependent on US aid money and US military support. I cannot give a shit about their "trade balance" when they're on the verge of total collapse.
The immediate concern is cutting the Taliban's popular support and economic base so that efforts to push them back actually result in long term gains, instead of just sowing the seeds for the next Taliban offensive.
Any success by the US in turning back the Taliban advance would be enough reason for Russia to give them more support. It doesn't matter if its involves drugs to Russia or not, they're there to oppose US geopolitical strategy.
If US geopolitical strategy involves creating the #1 narcostate on the Eurasian continent, their opposition will become radically more aggressive.
I simply cannot understand how anyone can dismiss antagonizing Russia, China and every neighboring country - not to mention Europe - as a nonissue.
The Afghan rural population is dependent on the income flow from the narcotics trade, while our efforts to stymie that trade just gives more support to the Taliban. Russia and Iran seem perfectly fine with supporting the Taliban and looking the other way at the narcotics trade as long as the US is losing face because of it.
Russia and Iran would ramp support up for the Taliban up regardless because they want the US to lose. The nacrotics trade is a secondary concern for the moment for all parties, except it seems to idiotic US policy that cares more about the War on Drugs than defeating the Taliban.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Iran already has major trade agreements with GIROA and Russia is hostile to the US, not to Kabul itself. You're radically oversimplifying the regional dynamic to justify pissing off literally everybody.
Iran already has major trade agreements with GIROA. You're radically oversimplifying the regional dynamic to justify pissing off literally everybody.
While backstabbing them by supporting the Taliban. Iran hedges its bets.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
yeah, the literally dozens of videos of grown men, and teenage boys clashing with riot geared police and throwing rocks, sure counters the attempted narrative of that single still image.
yeah, the literally dozens of videos of grown men, and teenage boys clashing with riot geared police and throwing rocks, sure counters the attempted narrative of that single still image.
Wait, so you are claiming they didn't tear gas toddlers on foreign soil?
yeah, the literally dozens of videos of grown men, and teenage boys clashing with riot geared police and throwing rocks, sure counters the attempted narrative of that single still image.
“Other people may have done something wrong so it was ok for the government to illegally use chemical weapons on toddlers in another country” is not as powerful a rebuttal as you seem to believe.
The situation in the Crimea is escalating quite badly. As well as the exchange of gunfire at sea, the co-chair of the European Council of Foreign Relations is reporting blockades on land.
The situation in the Crimea is escalating quite badly. As well as the exchange of gunfire at sea, the co-chair of the European Council of Foreign Relations is reporting blockades on land.
Sounds like a declaration of war might be eminent?
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
The situation in the Crimea is escalating quite badly. As well as the exchange of gunfire at sea, the co-chair of the European Council of Foreign Relations is reporting blockades on land.
The situation in the Crimea is escalating quite badly. As well as the exchange of gunfire at sea, the co-chair of the European Council of Foreign Relations is reporting blockades on land.
yeah, the literally dozens of videos of grown men, and teenage boys clashing with riot geared police and throwing rocks, sure counters the attempted narrative of that single still image.
provide sources for claims like this and lose the snark
So far the two videos I've seen claimed to be from the border are old videos from the wrong hemisphere. I, too, would like to see a source on these "dozens of videos of armed men."
The situation in the Crimea is escalating quite badly. As well as the exchange of gunfire at sea, the co-chair of the European Council of Foreign Relations is reporting blockades on land.
Sounds like a declaration of war might be eminent?
Please god no, but if it is we’ll know within a few hours.
This comes immediately after Russia built a land bridge to the Crimea. It appears this is the second part of that plan, to strangle all other sea and land access. The part we don’t know is if it’s to place an iron grip on the Crimea itself, or if they’re securing it as a waystation.
Remember when it was seriously argued that US forces would refuse illegal orders to fire on civilians at the border?
The Army still hasn't been involved.
As I understand it, Army forces deployed to the border are purely "support" troops. Other than MPs, they're only armed with batons. Though... I dunno if tear gas was considered in those articles I read, since the reporters were probably thinking more about guns and tanks and such.
yeah, the literally dozens of videos of grown men, and teenage boys clashing with riot geared police and throwing rocks, sure counters the attempted narrative of that single still image.
I haven't seen any of these man
the one thing I have seen that's bad optics for the migrants is that, while one guy approaching the fence is carrying a white flag of nonaggression, some other guy is apparently carrying a Guatemalan(?) flag, which... I mean come on if you want to enter the country don't literally charge the border carrying a foreign flag
its just the one guy in one video though
I don't think the Ukraine have declared war on Russia. It seems they're debating declaring martial law, not war, and requesting international support.
Bear with me, I'm having to use Google translate here because I don't speak Ukrainian. These tweets are from the Ukrainian President's official Twitter account.
"The appeal of people's deputies to arrive in Kyiv at the extraordinary meeting of VR to discuss the draft decision on the implementation of martial law and immediately approve it."
"The introduction of martial law in no way will not involve actions outside the sovereign territory of Ukraine. Martial law does not imply announcement of war. It is introduced exclusively for defense of Ukraine."
Oh. Meanwhile, the situation in the US seems to be resolved by the simple fact that it turns out Mexico take a dim view of people storming fences too. According to BBC news, they plan to deport the people who tried to breach the barrier.
Posts
Arm the Taliban
Lean on CIS members to block or break the various bilateral trade agreements Afghanistan has with its neighbors
Coordinate with China to isolate Afghanistan from other regional partners
This is just what came to mind in literally 10 seconds. Did you think countries getting angry doesn't have an effect short of war?
You're talking as if Afghanistan is some stable US backed democracy already when half the country is under control of insurgents. We can worry about Afghanistan's geopolitical prospects after it isn't on the verge of reverting to the Islamic Emirate.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
You're talking as if you don't know what bilateral agreements Afghanistan is actually party to with its neighboring countries. Or how much of their aid comes from Western Europe, which is also a major recipient of Afghan opium and would not be likely to tolerate an Afghan narco-state.
Yes, Russia is already arming the Taliban, but not nearly as much as they could if they wanted to fuck with us. You remember that time we started giving the Mujahideen MANPADS?
You remember how I keep talking about GIROA's desperate need for helicopters, and how much of our strategy hinges on giving them Blackhawks?
Bilateral agreements mean jack shit when the government can't control half its territory.
The Taliban is already winning with what they have. You're making no sense.
Russia doesn't have to do anything more than it is doing now, and the Taliban wins if our strategy does not change. We can worry about Russia's response after the Taliban is on the back foot.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Neither of these (exaggerated) claims in any way justify the hope that the gains of legalizing opium would outweigh the cost of the Taliban becoming massively better-equipped and the government losing its flimsy external trade balance.
Like, it doesn't fucking matter if they can tax opium (they still can't, their tax collection capability is almost nil) if the Taliban starts killing their handful of T-55s with Russian-supplied Kornets and shooting down their handful of A-29s with Strela-2s. It is a ludicrous proposition.
The Afghan government is already completely dependent on US aid money and US military support. I cannot give a shit about their "trade balance" when they're on the verge of total collapse.
The immediate concern is cutting the Taliban's popular support and economic base so that efforts to push them back actually result in long term gains, instead of just sowing the seeds for the next Taliban offensive.
Any success by the US in turning back the Taliban advance would be enough reason for Russia to give them more support. It doesn't matter if its involves drugs to Russia or not, they're there to oppose US geopolitical strategy.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
I spoke to Putin and he says they didn't do it. It's a bad world and who's to say Ukraine didn't fire at themselves.
Also, Putin just bought a bunch of our weaponry, COD. Best deal!
If US geopolitical strategy involves creating the #1 narcostate on the Eurasian continent, their opposition will become radically more aggressive.
I simply cannot understand how anyone can dismiss antagonizing Russia, China and every neighboring country - not to mention Europe - as a nonissue.
The Afghan rural population is dependent on the income flow from the narcotics trade, while our efforts to stymie that trade just gives more support to the Taliban. Russia and Iran seem perfectly fine with supporting the Taliban and looking the other way at the narcotics trade as long as the US is losing face because of it.
Russia and Iran would ramp support up for the Taliban up regardless because they want the US to lose. The nacrotics trade is a secondary concern for the moment for all parties, except it seems to idiotic US policy that cares more about the War on Drugs than defeating the Taliban.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
While backstabbing them by supporting the Taliban. Iran hedges its bets.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Chris Herman is with the Associated Press, in Mexico
So
The US launched a chemical agent into another sovereign nation
That's fun
Fun fun fun
I can only laugh at this because every way I imagine it happening is just stupid.
Wait, so you are claiming they didn't tear gas toddlers on foreign soil?
“Other people may have done something wrong so it was ok for the government to illegally use chemical weapons on toddlers in another country” is not as powerful a rebuttal as you seem to believe.
Is what Trump said that he would do, is what his fanbase wanted, and is what they got. Question is, now what?
My god what monsters.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Sounds like a declaration of war might be eminent?
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Surely not timed to have our border crisis suck all the air out of our media
I very much doubt that the Ukraine/Russian border crisis developing here is planned to distract the US media cycle from the US/Mexico Border Crisis
After all, not everything is done to influence American politics
provide sources for claims like this and lose the snark
border patrol did it, soldiers have rules of engagement.
Reports I've seen have said it's not the military stationed there, but Border Patrol.
And they were always going to continue to be assholes at behest of the asshole-in-chief.
The Army still hasn't been involved.
Please god no, but if it is we’ll know within a few hours.
This comes immediately after Russia built a land bridge to the Crimea. It appears this is the second part of that plan, to strangle all other sea and land access. The part we don’t know is if it’s to place an iron grip on the Crimea itself, or if they’re securing it as a waystation.
As I understand it, Army forces deployed to the border are purely "support" troops. Other than MPs, they're only armed with batons. Though... I dunno if tear gas was considered in those articles I read, since the reporters were probably thinking more about guns and tanks and such.
Deputies have been called in to have a vote, but that's unconfirmed.
Also the earlier stuff isn't describing the situation correctly. Russia seized Ukrainian ships and has the sailors imprisoned.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46338671
Russian media is claiming they were in Russian water.
E: we should probably fork a GST.
I haven't seen any of these man
the one thing I have seen that's bad optics for the migrants is that, while one guy approaching the fence is carrying a white flag of nonaggression, some other guy is apparently carrying a Guatemalan(?) flag, which... I mean come on if you want to enter the country don't literally charge the border carrying a foreign flag
its just the one guy in one video though
Bear with me, I'm having to use Google translate here because I don't speak Ukrainian. These tweets are from the Ukrainian President's official Twitter account.