Destruction of poppy fields in Afghanistan

[matt66]

The Nato forces have been burning poppy fields in Afghanistan for the past 5 years justifying their actions by saying that these fields supply heroin to Western countries and cause untold harm. However these poppy fields are the bread and butter of the farmers. Now think about the weapons factories and research institutes developing weapons for modern warfare. They cause untold harm to people all around the world. They also provide jobs and livelihood to thousands of people. So why is it OK to burn the poppy fields and not OK to destroy the weapons factories of USA/UK/Russia/China. Please explain.

[Booldawg]

guess that a nations need to arm themselves however morally wrong is slightly more ethical than producing heroin? unless of course the poppies are used in proper medical pharmacuticals.

[jonnythebosh]

Because people don't break into my car/house to fund their collections of kalashnikovs, as oppose to dirty bag heads doing the same to get smack.

[keyvan]

Matt, the growing of poppy seeds has social implications as and when they find their way to Europe. Unfortunately the return on invetment an afghan farmer gets from growing poppy seeds in his farm is almost 10 times more than the next best crop they can grow on their land. Hence the officials have turned a blind eye and let the farmers grow poppy seeds.
The sales of weapons on the other hand has a lot more serious implications atleast as far as morality is concerned. Afterall, it's a huge lucrative business. Just take the 80's for example where US sold a great amount of chemicals to Iraq under the good old Rumsfeld to fight the Iranians in their eight year war. After the first gulf war, Saddam used these weapons to crush the kurds and kill thousands of civillians in the process. I will argue that the sale of these weapons is not much the issue of countries like US better arming themselves but more the issue of arming their own political objectives.

[jump79]

Considering both as equally terrible vices, it's because (IMO), it's much easier to control a poverty-stricken country, with a weak (hence, controllable) govt. than it is to tamper with the more powerful monopolies of arms-dealers in the world.

[admarlow]

Yea matt66 you are right, poor drug producers, they might go hungry as they can't sell smack anymore. Your post shows that you don't know the damage heroin does, and I am glad for you as I hope you never have to see somebody close to you get addicted, it will change your point of view.

[Siamsal]

Why don't we (NATO, or whoever) buy the poppy harvest? Then destroy it.

It wouldn't cost much (relatively speaking) and it'd kill 2 birds with one stone: we remove the opium source, and we ensure the farmers make a decent living.

[admarlow]

Yea while we are at it I know where Nato could get a couple of tonnes of Bolivias purest, they need a few quid to.

[newtron]

admarlow, you've abviously never been poor and desparate enough to where you would do almost anything to feed yourself and your family. You should feel lucky. I have had friends and relatives who have had serious problems with heroin and other drugs, and yes you are correct. The damage heroin does to a person can be devestating, but ultimately, it is their own fault. Drug users do not exist because there are drug producers. It is actually the other way around. If there is a demand, there will be a supply. It is simple economics. Decreasing the supply will only increase the price. It will not result in a decrease in demand.

[admarlow]

If its drug users fault for getting hooked, then its the afgans fault for getting their economy hooked (so to speak) on drug money and so both groups deserve the same sympathy - none.

[Dom Tuk]

admarlow.....have you seen what carpet bombing of a village does to its inhabitants (usually poor hardworking families)......the you are better off living in the Uk and not in Iraq or afghanistan. the question posed was why is it Ok to destry one and not the other. Are you suggesting that because western kids buy the stuff it is Ok to destroy the poppy crops and it is the fault of the grower. So if ultras/rebels etc around the world buy arms manufactured in your country it is somehow a different thing?. If you wish crops to be destroyed then what is your opinion about arms manufacturing companies in the uk.

FABULOUS QUESTION THAT EXPOSES THE DOUBLE STANDARDS OF PEOPLE ON THIS SITE.

[admarlow]

give me the name of 1 British arms company who sell wepons to terrorists. Plus where did anyone say anything about carpet bombing!

[Dom Tuk]

your response above demonstrates that you live in a land inhabited by clouds and cuckoos. Sorry i cannot even bring myself to debate this point if your starting premise is an expectation of idiocacy. Someone else may try to reason with you but i will give up.

[admarlow]

oh so you don't know one then? what a surprise.

[matt66]

british arms manufacturers dont sell to terrorist, but the arms end up in the hands of terrorists/freedom fighters/ultras call it what you will. They usually sell to an agent or a consortium and have very little say on where the arms end up. There was recently a case of bristish rifles/pistols and guns being sold for the Iraqi police that ended up with the insurgents in Iraq.

Now admarlow think of this...no really stop all else you are doing and think of this. The Afghnai farmer does not sell to your drug dealer/consumer on your street in Blairs land. He sells it to some agent and then it exchanges a few pairs of hands before your drug dealer in your street gets hold of it. Your laws are lax enough to release this dealer but you wont think twice about taking it out on the farmer.

So arms goes to a agent, opium goes to an agent. DOH.

[admarlow]

not if we burn all the poppies they won't get sold to anybody! so you agree with me.

[matt66]

admarlow...you really should stop multi tasking. Its plays havoc with your neurons

[newtron]

Recently, I was listening to a discussion on this subject on BBC. It was suggested that many of these farmers grew poppies not only because it is much more profitable than growing any other crops, but also because they were being forced to by Al Qaeda and other potential terrorist organizations. By just destroying the crops, we are not helping the individual farmers, many of whom probably don't want to grow poppies for these extremist groups. They are still just as desperate and will probably continue to grow poppies. Alternative methods of decreasing the the amount of heroin that gets released to the western world included buying the crops as suggested by Siamsal and/or helping the farmers to get started growing other crops such as corn that can be used to make alternative fuels such as ethanol so that they can make enough money to support their families without having to work for these terrorist organisations.

[Dom Tuk]

see matty what did i say. admarlow cannot think in more than one dimension. read the bloody question. if it is Ok to burn poppy fields then why not your arms factories?

[admarlow]

Insults, funny it only happens when people have a poor argument. One more question, do two wrongs make a right?

[Dom Tuk]

Good point newtron. Poppy growing is not only a socio-economic problem in the region, the money it earns the Al qaida cannot be diregarded. the farmer thus is forced to plough the land for this crop (they dont have to plough as the plant regenerates through its root systems). Not too different from how the IRA/loyalist militants had their claws in the drugs trade in Ireland and was a major source of its income.

for rich nations like USA/UK/China/Russia there is no one holding a gun over their heads asking them to manufacture weapons. It is purely out of greed and profit. So why the piousness?. Just come out and say...yeah we want to be rich so we make weapons. Might is right and **** off all the rest.

The real answer to the original question is Nato will destroy crops beacuse they can. Simple as that.