I know nothing about Afghanistan. I just had trouble finding it on the map. So to those who say I'm arrogant, I'm ignorant. But this article on the Yahoo news site caught my eye:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070805/ap_on_.../us_afghanistan
What do you think? First, is the news source absolutely unreliable because I saw it, or because it is linked to Yahoo? Is it anybody's fault that farmers grow profitable crops even if those crops turn into deadly drugs? Does it matter anyway, whose fault it is? What eradication method do you prefer? Note that 79% of the world's supply comes from a single province in southern Afghanistan.
The article says the drug trade relates to the Taliban and AlQuaeda, and that farmers are afraid to plant less lucrative crops. What's your opinion?
Full Version: Afghanistan grows 97% of all the poppies for opium
QUOTE
Opponents argue that the benefits of such aid, new roads and other infrastructure, schools and hospitals, will themselves be powerful tools to combat the narcotrade once constructed
IMO, this is stupid and will not erradicate the problem at all. There needs to be an alternative for these farmers to support themselves and their families. As the article correctly stated, it's a very lucrative business. Cutting off aid because they grow it will only make the situation worse.
Here in Thailand, there are many royal projects sponsored by the king's family, to get natives in the drug producing areas to plant alternate crops such as strawberries. It is only partly successful because the profits are far less lucrative.
As I recall in "Plan Colombia" paid for by US tax dollars, many large, aerial sprayings of cropland were done over areas of coca production, but the eradication program killed the land for any farm use, and the poor farmers had to move to the city without jobs.
As I recall in "Plan Colombia" paid for by US tax dollars, many large, aerial sprayings of cropland were done over areas of coca production, but the eradication program killed the land for any farm use, and the poor farmers had to move to the city without jobs.
QUOTE (Fit2BThaied @ Aug 6 2007, 08:00 AM) 
As I recall in "Plan Colombia" paid for by US tax dollars, many large, aerial sprayings of cropland were done over areas of coca production, but the eradication program killed the land for any farm use, and the poor farmers had to move to the city without jobs.
Another comical moment in U.S. history as one department is getting paid to help the drug cartels and another is trying to wipe them out. Actually, they may have just been wiping out the competition.
I remember reading somewhere that Ahmed Karzai's brother was deeply involved in the narcotics trade.
QUOTE (Fit2BThaied @ Aug 5 2007, 05:46 AM)
I know nothing about Afghanistan. I just had trouble finding it on the map. So to those who say I'm arrogant, I'm ignorant. But this article on the Yahoo news site caught my eye:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070805/ap_on_.../us_afghanistan
What do you think? First, is the news source absolutely unreliable because I saw it, or because it is linked to Yahoo? Is it anybody's fault that farmers grow profitable crops even if those crops turn into deadly drugs? Does it matter anyway, whose fault it is? What eradication method do you prefer? Note that 79% of the world's supply comes from a single province in southern Afghanistan.
The article says the drug trade relates to the Taliban and AlQuaeda, and that farmers are afraid to plant less lucrative crops. What's your opinion?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070805/ap_on_.../us_afghanistan
What do you think? First, is the news source absolutely unreliable because I saw it, or because it is linked to Yahoo? Is it anybody's fault that farmers grow profitable crops even if those crops turn into deadly drugs? Does it matter anyway, whose fault it is? What eradication method do you prefer? Note that 79% of the world's supply comes from a single province in southern Afghanistan.
The article says the drug trade relates to the Taliban and AlQuaeda, and that farmers are afraid to plant less lucrative crops. What's your opinion?
I would say that is probably close to correct. However the number of people with any great benefit from this is extremely small. Certainly the farmers themselves are not wealthy. To give them alternative sources and the same or better sustainable income would not be a huge problem. The problem is with the few, who have enormous gains and accompanying power that are hard to displace. The farmers are in no hurry to change anything because of an old farmers quote "You don't kill a working mule".
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.