Lifestyle > Train of Thought

Afghanistan Now Supplies 87% of the World's Opium According to New Report

<< < (2/6) > >>

acbaylove:
Another example of you all manipulating the news.

1- President Hamid Karzai's banned opium too. Karzai has little power outside Kabul, and any massive crackdown could erode his power further unless there is international support and massive subsidies to farmers to grow alternate crops. So THEY NEED AN INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT, not Bush's support.

2- Antonio Maria Costa didnt blame USA. He said: "It could be brought under control with a good dose of law enforcement, which at the moment is lacking," so he's focusing on the lacking of a law enforcement, not on the US "invasion".

3- It's wrong that USA takes his heroin from Afghanistan. Actually 90% of British heroin comes from Afghanistan, while just 8% of this heroin is coming into the United States. Most U.S. heroin is sourced from Colombia.

4- Under the Taliban government, Afghanistan became the world's largest source of illicit opium, as Kabul taxed the illicit crop to pay for an infrastructure and used it to help protect Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, sowing the seeds for more drugs and terror. When the Taliban banned production in 2001, street prices -- and stockpiling -- skyrocketed, as production dropped to a record low 185 tonnes. That caused a huge price increase, from an average of $30 a kilo in 2000 to $700 in 2001, prompting massive resumption of cultivation in 2002.

5- Costa praised Karzai's ban on opium cultivation and trafficking; the establishment of the national Counter-Narcotic Directorate; the adoption of the 10-year National Drug Control Strategy; and the new drug control law. Other than that, remember Afghanistan is not a USA invaded territory, so they have their rules. Costa is talking to them, not to USA.

If you dont believe me, just read it from the CNN.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/central/10/29/afghan.opium/

Now stop bullshiting please.

Ant:
Explain to me how I am bullshitting when I posted an article from the NY Times?  Just because you read one little article on CNN now your the expert? 

Please tell me why your sources are always more credible than mine?  You have no arguments, thats why you whine that I keep posting articles that attack Bush.  (see your other thread).  Now that you join the whiners, that would rather character attack than counter argue, there is no reason for me to take you seriously.  Before you had my respect and I would have given you a reasonable argument.  Now your bein as childish as everyone else.  Oh no more information that makes bush look bad, lets just character attack.

The fact is, you quoted one article from CNN, big deal.  I've quoted articles from a range of credible sources.  You quote CNN as if its gospel, which is a little better than your fellow Bush supporters who frequenly quote conservative blogs, conservative newspapers, and even Rush Limbaugh. 

If my posts offend you, don't read them.  If you disagree with them, please counter argue.  But don't quote one source as the definitive anwser.  The reason I disagree with Bush is because a range of people disagree with him, and you have nothing better to say than to call me a sore loser.  Asshole I'm not a democrat, I'm a regular citizen that is disturbed by the actions of this administration and their consquences for America. 

You want to say I'm manipulating the news?  All you did was copy and paste from CNN?  Look at your arguements:

1. Hamid Karzi banned opium too, but Karzai has little power outside of Kabul.  Ok, so if I say I ban killing in the US, but i have no power to actually enforce it, what the hell does it matter?  Then they say in the article "unless there is international support" and you take it as objective evidence that THEY NEED INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT, when really you were quoting the opinion of a CNN journalist.  Wow someone writes  "here is what they should do" in a newspaper, and all of a sudden that should be our policy?

2.  Then you say, Antonio Costa didn't blame the USA, but so what?  He didn't say it wasn't our fault either.  So what does that argument prove.  And again, Antonio Costa is one individual.  OTher people may blame the US.  If I quoted someone who blamed the US would his opinion matter to you?  No probably not.

3.  I never said the US takes heroin from Afghan.  I said Afghan supplies 87% of the world's opium according to a UN report.  So pt. three doesn't even matter.

4.  In the same bullet point you say Afghanistan supplied a ton of opium and the taliban banned opium production causing the supply to dwindle and prices to increase.  Then you say cultivation began again in 2002, which was after the US invasion.  Again, i don't see how this proves me wrong at all.

5.  Your just quoting opinions again, and I never said Costa blamed the USA for any of this.  I said the fact of the matter is Afghanistan was not producing much opium before the US invasion because the taliban banned it.  Then you said, the taliban banned opium and opium production decreaed, then you said that opium increased again in 2002.   

Your not even from my country, so stop gettin so worked up over criticism of the US President. 

acbaylove:
So what's your reply to my post? "Your not even from my country, so stop gettin so worked up over criticism of the US President"? Ok, diss him and believe in your world of cartoons where, let me quote you, "Prior to the US invasion there was almost no opium production coming out of Afghanistan. In just 2 years, Afghanistan produces 87% of the world's opium". Yeah, right.. ::)

Do yourself a favor and read the full relationship from the UNODC (if you dont know, it's the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) done by mister Costas himself. I've done it. You should. I quoted CNN cause it's "quicker" than quoting a 59-pages-document. But hey, you really should read the whole thing! And you should stop bullshiting.

Here.
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/search.html?scope=afghanistan+opium&x=0&y=0

Ant:
you really should read the rest of my thread instead of quoting the last line as if it was my only argument.  I didn't say don't argue with me, I saiid you take it way to serious for someone that doesn't even live in this country.  Its not live GWB has your back, you don't have to blindly defend him like everyone else on here does.  And either way, you put yourself in a catch 22.  By saying the analysis you read is credible puts you in a situation where you either have to say:

1) then the overwhelming wealth of analysis criticizing bush is also credible

or

2) i only listen to information that tends to agree with my side.

now... i haven't read that whole document yet, but the argument you placed earlier was poor at best.  I countered it, and you choose to pretend as if my whole argument depended on one line.   

acbaylove:
Man in that line you are blaming Bush for something doesnt depend from him.
And you are "using" a document by UNODC to "justify" it.
First, it's wrong with the Talibans Afghanistan didnt produce opium. Hella wrong.
Second, that document doesnt blame Bush or USA, but praise Afghanistan leader.
They just say there should be a better system of law to "control" opium.
Other than that, Afghanistan now is a free nation.
Not in the hands of USA. USA can't control it no more.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page