quaist

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - Afghanistan's world-leading opium cultivation rose a ``staggering'' 59 percent this year, the U.N. anti-drugs chief announced Saturday in urging the government to crack down on big traffickers and remove corrupt officials and police.

The record crop yielded 6,100 tons of opium, or enough to make 610 tons of heroin - outstripping the demand of the world's heroin users by a third, according to U.N. figures.

Officials warned that the illicit trade is undermining the Afghan government, which is under attack by Islamic militants that a U.S.-led offensive helped drive from power in late 2001 for harboring Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida bases.

``The news is very bad. On the opium front today in some of the provinces of Afghanistan, we face a state of emergency,'' Antonio Maria Costa, chief of the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, said at a news conference. ``In the southern provinces, the situation is out of control.''

He talked with reporters after presenting results of the U.N. survey to Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who voiced ``disappointment'' over the figures. ``Our efforts to fight narcotics have proved inadequate,'' Karzai said in a statement.

With the economy struggling, there are not enough jobs and many Afghans say they have to grow opium poppies to feed their families. The trade already accounts for at least 35 percent of Afghanistan's economy, financing warlords and insurgents.

The top U.S. narcotics official here said the opium trade is a threat to the country's fledgling democracy.

``This country could be taken down by this whole drugs problem,'' Doug Wankel told reporters. ``We have seen what can come from Afghanistan, if you go back to 9/11. Obviously the U.S. does not want to see that again.''

Read More - Guardian Unlimited

Question to you: If there's no other option to feed your family - wouldn't you grow even opium?

sum1

Excuses. I have very little patience with people growing drugs, whether in Afghanistan, South/Central America or elsewhere.

Moderate Bill

Sigh...at this rate I'll have to forsake centrism. *Tosses the moderate cap away*

ok...

Does that mean that they should starve because what they need to do to survive is unsavory? Can you honestly tell me that you would look at your starving children and say "Oh, well, growing poppies is wrong, so let's stick to veggies and maybe we'll live for another season. Perk up, kiddies, we've got morals! We don't need food! Or medecine! Or education! Or any kind of modern agricultural technology! It's not like we're competing with the overly-subsidised western agriculturalists, after all!!" Not to make an assumption about the way you've lived your life, but I highly doubt you've been faced with extreme, third-world poverty in Ireland.

I think it's very easy to say something like that from a vantage point in the Western world, where the poverty is on a completely different scale. It's rather ethnocentric to dismiss other people's attempts at survival because they clash with your values.

That was a very arrogant and overly simplified thing to say, sum1, and I refuse to even acknowledge it as an argument. I'm embarassed on your behalf.

Lexis

Its a joke our and our resources to deal with it are not adequate. For crying out loud, NATO has been sent a peackeeping mission to Helmand which has quickly become an outright war against insurgents. The troops go into areas to try and talk about opium or the needs of the community and they get ambushed.

How can their be stability in the country if its still so lawless? On BBC News 24 right now, they are showing the pictures of the suicide bomb in Kabul that just killed a British soldier.

sum1

Oh nonsense. By the way, try minding your manners a little.

quaist

I'd find it very interesting to hear your arguments against Moderate Bill's post.

"Oh, nonsense" isn't very significant.

sum1

It's all his post deserves.

Moderate Bill

Don't get prissy when I get riled up, amigo. You've been pretty steamed at some of the anti-semitic comments that popped up a little while ago, were you not? I feel the same way about the way alot of people treat the developing world, dismissive and simplistic attitude included. You snipped, you snapped, and you certainly didn't mind your manners. I'll mind mine if you mind yours.

I'll be happy to apologize for my attitude if you'll give a proper argument about why you've taken your stance. Why bother to post on a poltics board if you're unwilling to back up what you say? Even if you have a point, you haven't added anything constructive to the discussion in the slightest.

elisheva

I think the way to approach this major problem is not to start with total condemnation of the poppy growers. Yes, it's a real issue; money from the poppy trade often gets funneled to terrorists. But Moderate Bill makes a very good point about the lack of choices open to these people (in part due to our incredibly over-subsidized agriculture industry here in the West). We're not going to end the opium industry by telling people it's wrong.
I really liked the Canadian initiative a while back that started funding farmers who switched crops. Most of these people aren't exactly drug lords as rich as Croesus; they're small farmers growing the crop that feeds their kids. We need an approach that works with them, not one that ignores their real problems.

quaist

Well: What would you do if you were Bush (WwydiywB)?

1 gram - 100 Dollars
610 tons - 610,000,000 Dollars

That's a huge amount of money, and I'm sure radical steps would destroy their whole economy.

Moderate Bill

I...wow! I've been out-moderated! I now have 2 heroes of the day! Biscuits for two!

Sorry I lost my cool before, everyone...one of my buttons was unfortunately pushed. I'll strive to keep a level head in the future. I still stick to what I said, however. I just wish I had been kinder about it.

Super-Cool-elisheva brings up a good point about the Canadian initiative. The American and British soldiers were simply destroying the poppy fields, which really doesn't help any kind of practical development. With a little funding, the farmers could afford to raise less-deadly crops, and perhaps lighten the workload if Canada supplied more tools (tractors, primarily).

The drug-trade does alot of terrible things, but towns of Afgani farmers who give what they grow to the Taliban -- who then distributes it -- are different from south american drug cartels. The farmers don't get paid the same amount that opium is sold for on the streets. It's been the Taliban that funds, processes and sells the opium once the farmers have raised the poppies.

Depending on how the situation in Afganistan works out, perhaps the farmers won't need to grow poppies to survive. That won't be for awhile, and it might be a little too optimistic, however.

Also, as far as peacekeeping is concerned, helpful deals like that can also breed trust and thankfulness. More than bulldozing the poppy fields, at least. I'm a little worried...haven't heard anything about the deal in awhile...

elisheva

Wow, I'm glad my post went over so well!

Both very good points that fit together - constructive initiatives help with both development and peacebuilding.

Canada has a lot of agricultural communities, especially in the Prairies, which is a big Conservative Party base of support. I wonder, could that be used as a jumping-off point to create more crop-switching initiatives? Maybe sending over used small farm equipment at low cost - not even necessarily as part of official aid...maybe through some NGO..

sum1

I didn't get rude with anybody the way you did.

That's YOUR interpretation of my post. I minded my manners fine. Considering the aggressiveness and rudeness you threw at me I was quite restrained.

I think I've added to this discussion fine. You think I haven't because you don't like the view I expressed. But the trouble you gave me doesn't put me in the mood to discuss the subject any further.

quaist

According to this topic, I've done some research.

For those who were wondering how Al Qaeda and co. gains its money.

Read More

Moderate Bill

Let's say you started a thread about the Israel/Hezbollah war and said that, while the loss of life on both sides was tragic, the willingness of Hezbollah to hide behind human shields was deplorable. Let's say you then claimed that Israel had no choice but to hit the tragets it did, regardless of the civilians resent. Pretend I chimed in and said:

"Excuses. I have very little patience with people who don't seem to care about the civilians that are being slaughtered, wether in Lebanon, Iraq/Afganistan or anywhere"

Wouldn't you be upset? I just dismissed an entire discussion without even giving a reason why. I didn't say why I disagreed with you, or why I had little patience for anything, or why I was lumping together some completely different situations. And I did it with very demeaning tone. If you're on the other side of the conflict, reverse the argument. I think it's still valid.

I attempted to apologize indirectly before, but I'll do it straight out. I'm sorry I was so rude, but I found what you said very unfair and dismissive. That doesn't excuse my tone, however. You hit a nerve and I reacted badly. I apologize for that. I'm only human.

HOWEVER...

You have had two posts in this thread, me hearty. The first one, which followed Super-Cool-quaist's original posting, dismissed any argument to the contrary without supplying a single reason. There was no argument, nothing was supplied. For all we know, your opposition comes from the fact that an opium user kicked your dog when you were 12.

Then, when you respond to my regretfully heated post, you dismiss it all as "nonsense", once again without saying why. You call this adding to the discussion? If that's the case, I shall dismiss your argument infallably:

"You're wrong because I say so."

Same thing, no?

Once again, I apologize for the way I said what I did, NOT what was said.

EDIT: sum1, if I wasn't clear enough, I am upset with HOW you said what you did, not that you disagreed with me. I come here to discuss with people who think differently with me so I can learn something. If you had given a reason for your disagreement, we wouldn't be having this conversation.