Can we at least do this how can we expect to achieve results when we are burning away their economy.
In Afghanistan, finding viable alternative crops for farmers now growing opium poppies would seem to be a first order of business.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/opinion/18sorley.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&sq=vietnam&st=cse&scp=2
Three quarters of the world's opium comes from Afghanistan's poppy fields. Burning those fields may help in slowing down the flow of opium to the world.
While burning those fields may piss off the Afghans but it prevents the flow of drugs. I do not especially like the idea of taking the away the livelihood of Afghan citizens; however, if doing so stems the flow of opium to the world while preventing the taliban from reaping profits with which to purchase arms ... well ... maybe it has more positives than negatives.
Other.
We have no business in Iraq or Afghanistan other than searching for bin Laden and this thugs.
We have absolutely no business with their poppy fields.
What is the matter with us ?
Three quarters of the world's opium comes from Afghanistan's poppy fields. Burning those fields may help in slowing down the flow of opium to the world.
While burning those fields may piss off the Afghans but it prevents the flow of drugs. I do not especially like the idea of taking the away the livelihood of Afghan citizens; however, if doing so stems the flow of opium to the world while preventing the taliban from reaping profits with which to purchase arms ... well ... maybe it has more positives than negatives.
Three quarters of the world's opium comes from Afghanistan's poppy fields. Burning those fields may help in slowing down the flow of opium to the world.
Three quarters of the world's opium comes from Afghanistan's poppy fields. Burning those fields may help in slowing down the flow of opium to the world.
While burning those fields may piss off the Afghans but it prevents the flow of drugs.
I do not especially like the idea of taking the away the livelihood of Afghan citizens; however, if doing so stems the flow of opium to the world while preventing the taliban from reaping profits with which to purchase arms ... well ... maybe it has more positives than negatives.
Nope! Instead, it will force the price of illegal oppiates to increase, of which the end result is more criminal disputes over the increased profit potential. Drug fiends will have a greater incentive to increase the amount of money they spend on dope, via criminal activity, prostitution, etc....
No it doesn't. Production will shift to Cambodia, Burma, Vietnam, etc.... Until that happens, expect it to create waves of violence in the US and abroad.
So should we invade oil countries to prevent the profits to be used to support the global terrorist threat? Iraq does not count, i am talking about Saudi Arabia and Iran. This option seems quite consistent with your logic.[/QUOTE]
When you put it that way, YES!......
But isn't their economy then based on the illegal drug trade? I mean we can argue whether or not we should do it. Burning their crops definitely makes things harder on us and makes things well more unfriendly. But at the same accord....what they're doing is engaging in illegal drug trade. So it's not like we're burning corn or wheat.
Governments have no business whatsoever dictating what people can and cannot put in their own bodies.
Those are the exact same words a junkie would use to defend his habit. Hmm...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?