4 ms·

I remember reading a while back that at some point at the beginning of our time in Afghanistan, at some point we shipped multiple pallets of bundled $100 dollar

by anm89 5y ago

I remember reading a while back that at some point at the beginning of our time in Afghanistan, at some point we shipped multiple pallets of bundled $100 dollar bills and we had no idea where any of it went https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/feb/08/usa.iraq1

hunterb123 5y ago
We have a habit of doing that: https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/03/politics/us-sends-plane-iran-400-million-cash/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/03/politics/us-sends-plane-iran-...
- knownjorbist 5y ago
  This isn't the same at all, other than it's a lot of money going somewhere in the middle east. It was their own money being returned to them and not pallets earmarked for development disappearing into the night.
  - hunterb123 5y ago
    Well that's the official story. The ulterior is it was basically a ransom payment for hostages released at the same time. But really I was just noting how we love sending pallets of cash to our adversaries. We have no way of knowing how they spent those pallets of bank notes in either exchange. The whole point was our government loves to use cash in deals yet label civilians with too much cash as criminals!
    - knownjorbist 5y ago
      The former was not sending pallets of cash to our adversaries. Agreed that asset forfeiture should be illegal.
      - hunterb123 5y ago
        > then distributed the cash with no proper control over who was receiving it and how it was being spent. > Some of the funds could have enriched both criminals and insurgents fighting the United States. Literally in the article GP linked. You could argue that we don't know for sure, but the point is the US sends cash around willy nilly that can easily fall in the hands of terrorists while treating Americans like criminals if they have anything above pocket change.
yholio 5y ago
Why, as kickbacks to the future taliban government, a.k.a the former democratic leadership of Afghanistan, of course.

by anm89 5y ago

hunterb123 5y ago

We have a habit of doing that: https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/03/politics/us-sends-plane-iran-400-million-cash/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/03/politics/us-sends-plane-iran-...

knownjorbist 5y ago
This isn't the same at all, other than it's a lot of money going somewhere in the middle east. It was their own money being returned to them and not pallets earmarked for development disappearing into the night.
- hunterb123 5y ago
  Well that's the official story. The ulterior is it was basically a ransom payment for hostages released at the same time. But really I was just noting how we love sending pallets of cash to our adversaries. We have no way of knowing how they spent those pallets of bank notes in either exchange. The whole point was our government loves to use cash in deals yet label civilians with too much cash as criminals!
  - knownjorbist 5y ago
    The former was not sending pallets of cash to our adversaries. Agreed that asset forfeiture should be illegal.
    - hunterb123 5y ago
      > then distributed the cash with no proper control over who was receiving it and how it was being spent. > Some of the funds could have enriched both criminals and insurgents fighting the United States. Literally in the article GP linked. You could argue that we don't know for sure, but the point is the US sends cash around willy nilly that can easily fall in the hands of terrorists while treating Americans like criminals if they have anything above pocket change.

yholio 5y ago

Why, as kickbacks to the future taliban government, a.k.a the former democratic leadership of Afghanistan, of course.