English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Now now, don't get me wrong...
I was just reminded of the time
when, before the war,
the Taleban had declared that Opium production
was sinful
and halted it.

And, well, it kinda hit me.
By doing that, and for a brief
period of time at least,
stemming the flow of drugs to the U.S.,
didn't they save American lives?

2007-04-19 08:14:06 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities History

Dude, I said "Opium production",
not the plant itself.

Sheesh.

2007-04-19 08:19:51 · update #1

Ah.. but the Taleban were the ones
who actually DID it, right?

2007-04-19 15:01:45 · update #2

4 answers

not all junkies die... so no... what they did probably made junkies more desperate than usual and probably incresed both crime levels and patients in hospitals...

Imagine God declaring a plant sinful! He created it...

2007-04-19 08:18:48 · answer #1 · answered by aspicco 7 · 0 0

No, the Taliban didn't save any lives that way.

The Taliban issued multiple decrees banning opium from 1997-2000 and the ban was never enforced. Actually in 2000, Afghanistan supplied most, or 3/4ths of the world's Opium supply.

In early 2001, the United States "bribed" the Taliban with 50 million to finally enforce their ban. The US, knowing that the Taliban using war crime activities could "get things done" figured it was money well spent and a bargain.

So, to answer your question, it was the US that slowed the worldwide Opium production.

2007-04-19 08:55:06 · answer #2 · answered by Mark M 3 · 0 0

authentic pronounced! with any success the liberals will a minimum of be happy that, by skill of arising use of "waterboarding" to dodge an attack on l. a., we saved the lives of hundreds of innocuous unlawful aliens. whether or not they could't carry themselves to have exciting over AMERICAN lives being saved. it is going with out affirming that no sturdy individual is in want of torturing somebody in ordinary words for the sake of inflicting soreness or being sadistic. yet together as that's used as an extremely final inn to income advice that permits prevents significant terrorist assaults -- or possibly "minor" ones, if there is this form of element -- then to be fairly ordinary, i don't evaluate that to be "torture." I evaluate it to be "doing what could desire to be carried out." .

2016-11-25 22:33:48 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

nope, there terroist

2007-04-19 08:21:24 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers