Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

You forgot this piece I added. I can admit a mistake and work to correct it. Look at my post above under the lists.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Okay, I just found new data, they did divest KBR as of 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton.

looks like the other site needs to update their data.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/03/09 14:09:56

shasolenzabi wrote:You forgot this piece I added. I can admit a mistake and work to correct it. Look at my post above under the lists.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Okay, I just found new data, they did divest KBR as of 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton.

looks like the other site needs to update their data.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/03/09 14:09:56

Yes they divested KBR six years ago (half the age of your average GW gamer...).

Frazzled wrote:

shasolenzabi wrote:You forgot this piece I added. I can admit a mistake and work to correct it. Look at my post above under the lists.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Okay, I just found new data, they did divest KBR as of 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton.

looks like the other site needs to update their data.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/03/09 14:09:56

Yes they divested KBR six years ago (half the age of your average GW gamer...).

Ack! all the wacky 12yr olds flooding the game!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But yes, based on what I discovered, they are actually moving ahead with plans to invest in infrastrucure and mining as well as other support in Afghanistan as of 2/13/12, the embassy press release did not name the 12 companies.

shasolenzabi wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

shasolenzabi wrote:You forgot this piece I added. I can admit a mistake and work to correct it. Look at my post above under the lists.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Okay, I just found new data, they did divest KBR as of 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton.

looks like the other site needs to update their data.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/03/09 14:09:56

Yes they divested KBR six years ago (half the age of your average GW gamer...).

Ack! all the wacky 12yr olds flooding the game!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But yes, based on what I discovered, they are actually moving ahead with plans to invest in infrastrucure and mining as well as other support in Afghanistan as of 2/13/12, the embassy press release did not name the 12 companies.

You say it like its a bad thing. countries tend to like mining and people that build roads. It beats living in wilderness by a country mile.

How is this thread not locked already?

Your talking about mining and roads. They wouldn't even let you build a gas pipe.

poppies and marijuana are the reason


there are actually 2 times there is no fighting in Afghanistan each year, the poppy and the marijuana harvest times

I submit you don't know what you are talking about.

At all.

Jake

I submit that that's not a useful contribution to the thread. If you want to discuss the topic, feel free to enlighten the other person with your superior knowledge. If you don't want to do that, just posting "you're wrong" is not really helpful.

Frazzled wrote:
Again, KBR IS NOT OWNED BY HALLIBURTON.

When the Afghanistan contracts were awarded, yes it was.

Its not especially relevant to the current question, though.

CptJake wrote:I submit you don't know what you are talking about.

At all.

Jake

explain to me the sudden surge of poppy growing when the US got there then

Mannahnin wrote:I submit that that's not a useful contribution to the thread. If you want to discuss the topic, feel free to enlighten the other person with your superior knowledge. If you don't want to do that, just posting "you're wrong" is not really helpful.

And I submit he made a silly claim with no data to back it up, and my response suited it just fine.

Show me ANY credible source that points to the US/NATO mission being there to encourage/participate in/profit from the drug trade.

Or, admit it is a flawed concept based in tinfoil hat conspiracy and not really worth addressing except to point out it is wrong.

CptJake wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:I submit that that's not a useful contribution to the thread. If you want to discuss the topic, feel free to enlighten the other person with your superior knowledge. If you don't want to do that, just posting "you're wrong" is not really helpful.

And I submit he made a silly claim with no data to back it up, and my response suited it just fine.

Show me ANY credible source that points to the US/NATO mission being there to encourage/participate in/profit from the drug trade.

Or, admit it is a flawed concept based in tinfoil hat conspiracy and not really worth addressing except to point out it is wrong.

I thought DIDM's point was that everyone is high at those times, and that's why there's no fighting.

DIDM wrote:

CptJake wrote:I submit you don't know what you are talking about.

At all.

Jake

explain to me the sudden surge of poppy growing when the US got there then

It had been suppressed by the Taliban and the NATO forces kicked them into touch. Local leaders then started growing it again.

CptJake wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:I submit that that's not a useful contribution to the thread. If you want to discuss the topic, feel free to enlighten the other person with your superior knowledge. If you don't want to do that, just posting "you're wrong" is not really helpful.

And I submit he made a silly claim with no data to back it up, and my response suited it just fine.

Show me ANY credible source that points to the US/NATO mission being there to encourage/participate in/profit from the drug trade.

Or, admit it is a flawed concept based in tinfoil hat conspiracy and not really worth addressing except to point out it is wrong.

Is that what he was saying? I apparently missed that part. I thought he said there was no fighting during the drug harvests, which could certainly be true (or a hyperbolic statement grounded in truth) without requiring any US/NATO involvement in the drug trade there. If the locals are growing, and they leave off attacking our guys when they're busy harvesting, there's no conspiracy being referenced.

Or did I miss something else?

CptJake wrote:
And I submit he made a silly claim with no data to back it up, and my response suited it just fine.

Your response suited it "just fine" by making a silly claim absent supporting data?

CptJake wrote:
Show me ANY credible source that points to the US/NATO mission being there to encourage/participate in/profit from the drug trade.

Or, admit it is a flawed concept based in tinfoil hat conspiracy and not really worth addressing except to point out it is wrong.

Ah, the false dichotomy, how the internet has familiarized me with you.

The false dichotomy is almost as common as the strawman and the argument from ignorance.

CptJake wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:I submit that that's not a useful contribution to the thread. If you want to discuss the topic, feel free to enlighten the other person with your superior knowledge. If you don't want to do that, just posting "you're wrong" is not really helpful.

And I submit he made a silly claim with no data to back it up, and my response suited it just fine.

Show me ANY credible source that points to the US/NATO mission being there to encourage/participate in/profit from the drug trade.

Or, admit it is a flawed concept based in tinfoil hat conspiracy and not really worth addressing except to point out it is wrong.

do you think that the US/NATO openly admit to it?

if so I'm sorry for your parents

There are two distinct times when fighting stops in that region of the world, you are saying they just happen to be the exact same times that these materials are harvested, by coincidence?

DIDM, are you seriously claiming the US/NATO forces over there are significantly involved in the drug trade? That does seem kind of absurd. That many people involved would guarantee word getting out.

DIDM wrote:
There are two distinct times when fighting stops in that region of the world, you are saying they just happen to be the exact same times that these materials are harvested, by coincidence?

What sort of fighting?

Attacks by the "Taliban" (quotes to illustrate convenient terminology), or attacks by the coalition?

The coalition doesn't make a habit of strafing apparent noncoms harvesting poppies, and its difficult to determine who was an enemy combatant prior to the harvest.

Mannahnin wrote:DIDM, are you seriously claiming the US/NATO forces over there are significantly involved in the drug trade? That does seem kind of absurd. That many people involved would guarantee word getting out.

Which is why I made my reply the way I did. When someone believes this type of tinfoil hat conspiracy crap, nothing I could type, no sources I could provide, nothing is going to change their mind so it becomes not worth it in my opinion.

It is a ludicrous theory.