Brendan Hughes

It was alleged on here that the only reason the Taleban enforced the ban (and remember they'd been in power for 5-6 years already) was that they signed a rather tasty deal regarding an oil pipeline - if not with the US, then with some sort of US involvement.

Remember the initial and IMHO justified reason for the invasion was OBL who had ordered the 9/11 attacks was sheltering in Afghanistan. (Unlike the fabrications about Iraq and WMDs). That simply couldn't be ignored. Added to this people like Madeleine Albright had been hammering the Taleban for their treatment of women; and finally Afghan opium is just Not A Big Problem for the US, their main problem is cocaine from the south and opium from there also. As usual, it was Europe that picked up the pieces.

BTW, the laws of supply and demand would probably show that all those who'd given up production in Burma would take one look at the massive increase in wholesale price due to the shortage, say "I'll 'ave me some of that" and start up again That's the way it's worked up to now.

JTaylor

Is this factual? How do you know that opium production wouldn't have simply declined. Less availability leads to higher cost = less users/more seeking to withdraw = less demand.

"After the steep decline recorded in 2001, world illicit opium and heroin production recovered in 2002, despite a reduction of cultivation by 23% in Myanmar and 18% in Laos. This increase was due to the resumption of large-scale opium poppy cultivation in Afghanistan. Global illicit opium poppy cultivation
climbed back to about 180,000 hectares in 2002 (against 144,000 ha in 2001 and 222,000 ha in 2000). The resulting opium production was estimated at about 4,500 metric tons (against 1,600 mt in 2001 and
4,700 mt in 2000).

In 2002, the relative distribution of illicit opium production among the main source countries was: Afghanistan (76%), Myanmar (18%), Laos (2%) and Colombia (1%). The remaining 3% came from other
countries (Mexico, Pakistan, Thailand, Vietnam, etc.) where marginal production is reported."

According to your rationale R5, the global production of drugs should go unchallenged and ignored as stopping one producer will see the gap filled by another.

As it happens I have a neutral stance on drugs - it's the neo-cons hardline on drugs and the decision to remove the Taliban that baffles me.

RedFive

Yeah, and that policy seems to be failing now. Apart from that, I'm sure we all would have thought Reza Pahlevi was a nice guy. Hum.


19th province. It's not because Brittain drew the lines in the sand that everyone should read that as a gospel. Besides, he was lead to believe he could get away with it.

Erm, was that before or during the 1st Gulf war ?

Yeah, imagine he would invade a secular state like SA

I take it you have more sympathy for SA who harboured people like Idi Amin ? And where's his sympathy for good old Bin in that list ?

I think that was proven to be a bit of a lie. I'm sure you read newspapers, HG.

Brendan Hughes

JTaylor, I think you'll find the Taleban's method of enforcement of the ban would make the neo-cons hardline on drugs look like hippy communism, so you might want to check your values.

RedFive

Not factual. But given that the demand is still there, and that it's not that hard to grow it, it seems logical. If not, other drugs would have found their way.

RedFive

They were a bit of a grumpy bunch, yes

JTaylor

I'll check my values when required thank you Brendan. I'm entirely aware of the hateful regime that was the Taliban - but let's not pretend that they were removed by the US et al for humantarian reasons. My point, in isolation, was the global impact (in human terms) of increased heroine production versus the benefits to humanity of the removal of the Taliban. Of course the fact remains that OBL and his crew are very much at large and so the objective failed. Having said all this - the American public were baying for blood and the administration needed to act.

DeltaBravo 9

they weren't removed for humanitarian reasons at all ! it was revenge for 9/11

Brendan Hughes

Your point in isolation is exactly that.

"In 2000-2001, UNODC estimated that about 15 million people abused opium and heroin in the world." That's abused, even once in a year; the number of addicts is thus maybe 10 million at most. Population of Afghanistan is about 25 million. So if you want to know the global impact in human terms, the above suggests that it was better to remove the Taliban. In isolation. Unless you subscribe to the view that Afghans are not as human as westerners, but I don't think you do.

As for the American public baying for blood, you'd better add most of the planet to that list. 9/11 caused world outrage. Stop confusing it with the Iraq debacle.

JTaylor

"In 2000-2001, UNODC estimated that about 15 million people abused opium and heroin in the world." That's abused, even once in a year; the number of addicts is thus maybe 10 million at most. Population of Afghanistan is about 25 million. So if you want to know the global impact in human terms, the above suggests that it was better to remove the Taliban. In isolation. Unless you subscribe to the view that Afghans are not as human as westerners, but I don't think you do"

That does answer my question and stacks up.

"As for the American public baying for blood, you'd better add most of the planet to that list. 9/11 caused world outrage"

Agreed

"Stop confusing it with the Iraq debacle".

At what point have I mentioned Iraq? That really is confusing.

My take on the entire subject is that each of the attacks thus far has been based on the need to bolster support domestically and gain economic and strategic advantage in the region.

I could perhaps stomach the actions if they were publicly shown to have an ideological premise and would indeed support the efforts entirely if they were designed to conquer despots and thus liberate their subjects from tyranny. Sadly this MO is only used as a smokescreen to hide real motives and such tyrants go unchallenged around the world as to do so presents no gain.

It's the lies and deceit that I often feel compelled to challenge and find the tools of power and politics to be dark.

I guess I'm unrealistic in my desire for our World Leaders to be driven by the furtherment of the human race, rather then their own agendas.

RedFive

He's not the first, and he isn't a president.

Afghanistan I understood. Iraq, erm, they lost me.

r32

Could be the start of something big and not very clever. The comments made were not very helpful and not what you would expect of any leader ........ but he's not very bright though.

DEEDEE

If and when it hits the fan there will be a horrible smell for sure.