Canadian troops fighting Taliban militants in Afghanistan have stumbled across an unexpected and potent enemy — almost impenetrable forests of 10-feet-high marijuana plants.

General Rick Hillier, chief of the Canadian defense staff, said on Thursday that Taliban fighters were using the forests as cover. In response, the crew of at least one armored car had camouflaged their vehicle with marijuana.

“The challenge is that marijuana plants absorb energy, heat very readily. It’s very difficult to penetrate with thermal devices … and as a result you really have to be careful that the Taliban don’t dodge in and out of those marijuana forests,” he said in a speech in Ottawa.

“We tried burning them with white phosphorous — it didn’t work. We tried burning them with diesel — it didn’t work. The plants are so full of water right now … that we simply couldn’t burn them,” he said.

Even successful incineration had its drawbacks.

“A couple of brown plants on the edges of some of those (forests) did catch on fire. But a section of soldiers that was downwind from that had some “ill effects” and decided that was probably not the right course of action…”.

At last, we’ve uncovered Bush’s “weapons of mass diversion”.



  1. Dallas says:

    A new Army recruitment ad is the making for sure.

  2. Jägermeister says:

    There are machines for that… http://tinyurl.com/yka7wq

  3. Smartalix says:

    “But a section of soldiers that was downwind from that had some “ill effects” …”

    I’ll bet they didn’t think so…

  4. WTL says:

    I suppose chainsaws are not standard issue equipment. Or maybe a big bushhog.

  5. ECA says:

    Does Up in smoke, say much??

  6. Ballenger says:

    I think this a “smoke screen” to save the plants. You can vaporize water balloons with phosphorus. It’s likely more of a case of “General, buy us two weeks and we can have half of this square grouper-ed and on a transport back to Montreal!”

  7. ECA says:

    Smoke it if ya got it….

  8. RTaylor says:

    Cheech and Chong goes to war.

  9. alp says:

    I dont think chainsaws and heavy equipment would be a safe idea, as the original article says you cant see whos in there and what they have,
    so if anyones hiding in there, and you start chopping it down your vehicals going to be blown or your man shot at close range. which is probably why they are trying to burn it.

  10. JT says:

    NATO tolerates the drug trade in Afghanistan because it’s their only viable cash crop. If we attempted to destroy these drugs, we would not only be fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, but the warlords and drug lords and they people they support as well. This is just about everyone in the country. You can’t win hearts and minds if you destroy their only means of making a living in this God forsaken place. Anyone who honestly thinks we’re destroying these crops is a fool. Just as in Vietnam, it’s assured NATO troops are using as well.

  11. JimS says:

    Isn’t this what Agent Orange is for?

  12. Sean 0dro says:

    Good for recruitment…now, I might sign up

  13. woodie says:

    Maybe this will finally get the dittoheads and chickenhawks to sign up?

  14. Jägermeister says:

    #13

    That would be natural selection.

  15. Jägermeister says:

    #9

    1) Drones covering the fields and its surroundings.
    2) Gas fields with toxic gas.
    3) Kill anything that’s moving away from the fields.
    4) Cut down the plants when the gas has dissipated.

    You could armor the harvesters, so that they could withstand a landmine.

  16. Jägermeister says:

    #10

    You can’t win hearts and minds if you destroy their only means of making a living in this God forsaken place. Anyone who honestly thinks we’re destroying these crops is a fool. Just as in Vietnam…

    Just like Colombia? Panama? Etc.

    I understand your point of view, but these drugs (I’m not talking pot, but the heroin) is wasting a lot of people’s lives. If the alliance is not dealing with this problem (not just destroying the crops, but offering better solutions to these farmers and others involved), then the Afghan invasion was just a half victory.

  17. AB CD says:

    They’re not trying to destroy the crop, just the cover for the enemy.

  18. Angel H. Wong says:

    I bet this “forest” brings fond memories to some of you 😉

  19. Smartalix says:

    “Gas fields with toxic gas.”

    Wouldn’t that make us even bigger hypocrites than we already are? Toxic gas is a WMD.

    Also, since this is not a heroin field, why bring it up? There is already too much propaganda trying to link soft and hard drugs.

  20. Doug Cullens says:

    As a veteran who served during the sixties I see this as an opportunity to volunteer for service again. What better use for an arthritic old man than to “slowly” clear the offending field. Myself and a few other old timers could probably get the job done in a couple’a weeks.

    God save our troups.

  21. Jägermeister says:

    #19

    Okay, add…

    1.5 Give ample warning about what’s going to happen. Leave the field or die.

    This might be seen as hypocritical, but it all blends in with the rest of the U.S. foreign policy.

  22. Mr. Fusion says:

    #21, you may be correct about this tying in with American policy, however, I do believe most chemical weapons are banned by the Geneva Conventions.

    Simply because it is a banned commercial crop, the pot should be eradicated. We shouldn’t stop there though, help the locals grow cash crops that would actually benefit them. Instead, after the Taliban fell, the War Lords told the peasants what crops to grow. If they want to grow hemp, then grow hemp, not pot.

  23. Jägermeister says:

    #22 (sorry for the double… the second link messed up the post=

    The Geneva conventions deals with treatment of POWs etc. But you’re right on that chemical weapons are banned (but it haven’t stopped nations from stockpiling them). Okay, so do not use gas to cleanse the fields. How about normal bombs?

    And you’re right on that the locals should receive help in making a livelihood from other crops.

  24. Mr. Fusion says:

    #23, Jägermeister ,

    Thank you for correcting that point. While it had originally been the Geneva Protocol, it has been the Chemical Weapons Convention for the past 12 years. Do I get any points for being close?

  25. Jägermeister says:

    #24

    Absolutely. 10 points to Mr. Fusion. I didn’t know that it was part of the Geneva conventions in the past (didn’t read the article from the beginning), so I guess… shame on me… 😉

    My bottom line is that if they see these fields as problems, then there’s always at least one way to deal with it.

  26. Finally, a way to PAY FOR THIS WAR!


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 11596 access attempts in the last 7 days.