Afghanistan opium harvest at record high... again

[revelarts]

Afghanistan opium harvest at record high as Nato withdraws

again
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-30017898

12 November 2014 Last updated at 06:00 ET

Afghanistan opium harvest at record high as Nato withdraws
In this photograph taken on April 27, 2014 poppy seedheads stand amidst the blooming flowers in a field on the outskirts of Kandahar Years of opium poppy eradication efforts have failed
Continue reading the main story
Related Stories

US $7bn fails to stop opium growth
Why Afghanistan may never eradicate opium
Afghan opium harvest 'down sharply'

Cultivation of opium poppies in Afghanistan has hit new records this year as Nato pulls out combat troops.

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) said opium production was up by 17% since last year.

Its Afghan Opium Survey 2014 said the area under poppy cultivation had risen by 7% to cover 224,000 hectares.

UNODC head Yury Fedotov warned there was a serious risk Afghanistan could become a narco-state, following the withdrawal of foreign forces.

Most poppies are still grown in southern Helmand province, where British troops were stationed until October.
The annual survey says the eradication of poppies has decreased by 63%.

Most of the opium poppies are grown in the south and west of Afghanistan, including its most insecure provinces, such as Helmand.

One of the reasons British troops were sent to Helmand was to help cut opium production.

Billions of dollars have been spent trying to eradicate opium poppies in Afghanistan since US-led troops ousted the Taliban in 2001.

In October the US government watchdog for Afghan reconstruction said the US had spent $7.6bn (£4.72bn) over 13 years trying to eradicate the plant.

Despite those efforts the report predicted further increases in cultivation.

The UN valued the Afghan opium crop at nearly $3bn (£1.86bn) in 2013, up 50% from 2012.

Cultivation has been rising yearly since 2010. Afghanistan currently produces more than 80% of the world's opium.
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/78930000/gif/_78930323_afghan_opium_624_fudged.gif

everything going according to plan,
mo money mo money mo money.

So NATO and the US doesn't see all this going out of the country?
Some reports say it goes out in NATO planes.

[jimnyc]

So NATO and the US doesn't see all this going out of the country?
Some reports say it goes out in NATO planes.

I'm not saying one way or another, but a question....

When the discussion is about taking out Saddam Hussein, many think it was best to leave him in charge, even though he was guilty of countless deaths within his own country. Some said we made matters worse and destabilized the area.

What about Afghanistan and their opium? This is pretty much the majority of their income. And this is what often keeps peace between land owners and the taliban. What happens if the USA stopped that, what would happen? And while I disagree with NOT stopping it myself - is that what we are there for? What if, in Iraq perhaps, the soldiers came across a drug ring, that encompassed several towns and thousands of folks. They find tons of drugs in one location, literally tons... and there is massive paperwork at various locations about where the drugs are stored, a list of safe houses and hundreds of people that are involved. Does this become some sort of priority? Do the soldiers follow up on this, and if so, just how far? Should they allow this to take away from why they are there?

I have zero doubt that if the USA somehow intervened in Afghanistan, that the majority of folks against the wars would almost instantly start complaining about how that's not why we were there, none of our business, just making things worse...

[revelarts]

I'm not saying one way or another, but a question....

When the discussion is about taking out Saddam Hussein, many think it was best to leave him in charge, even though he was guilty of countless deaths within his own country. Some said we made matters worse and destabilized the area.

What about Afghanistan and their opium? This is pretty much the majority of their income. And this is what often keeps peace between land owners and the taliban. What happens if the USA stopped that, what would happen? And while I disagree with NOT stopping it myself - is that what we are there for? What if, in Iraq perhaps, the soldiers came across a drug ring, that encompassed several towns and thousands of folks. They find tons of drugs in one location, literally tons... and there is massive paperwork at various locations about where the drugs are stored, a list of safe houses and hundreds of people that are involved. Does this become some sort of priority? Do the soldiers follow up on this, and if so, just how far? Should they allow this to take away from why they are there?

I have zero doubt that if the USA somehow intervened in Afghanistan, that the majority of folks against the wars would almost instantly start complaining about how that's not why we were there, none of our business, just making things worse...

I'm not sure what your getting at.
the opium production has doubled plus some since 1999, before we sent troops in.
Troops there hasn't made it BETTER that's for sure.

So i'm not sure what your getting at.

[jimnyc]

I'm not sure what your getting at.
the opium production has doubled plus some since 1999, before we sent troops in.
Troops there hasn't made it BETTER that's for sure.

So i'm not sure what your getting at.

I'm getting at whether or not the USA should have anything to do with stopping drug issues, in any country. Whether or not we should be involved in anything that may destabilize a particular region - as many got real pissed at us making decisions in the past that harmed a region - 100% regardless of WHY we made that decision.

[revelarts]

I'm getting at whether or not the USA should have anything to do with stopping drug issues, in any country. Whether or not we should be involved in anything that may destabilize a particular region - as many got real pissed at us making decisions in the past that harmed a region - 100% regardless of WHY we made that decision.

But they haven't stopped any in Afghanistan. so the question is kinda moot there.
and they have been destabilized by our other military actions.

was the taliban bad, yes, is the new puppet gov't better? the drone strikes and war torn areas and bust infastructre better?

[jimnyc]

But they haven't stopped any in Afghanistan. so the question is kinda moot there.
and they have been destabilized by our other military actions.

was the taliban bad, yes, is the new puppet gov't better? the drone strikes and war torn areas and bust infastructre better?

You believe the Taliban are bad, the government sucks, disagree with drone strikes and disagree with harming any infrastructure. So, are you saying we should then bail from any of those efforts, as the outcomes aren't desirable, and perhaps we should help fight a drug war instead?

[gabosaurus]

I'm not saying one way or another, but a question....

When the discussion is about taking out Saddam Hussein, many think it was best to leave him in charge, even though he was guilty of countless deaths within his own country. Some said we made matters worse and destabilized the area.


Instead of Saddam, Iraq and its neighbors now have ISIS, which is guilty of countless deaths and has destabilized the area.

Afghanistan has always had a feudal government system where most of the profits go to the rich warlords. The profits mostly come from illegal drugs.
It's nearly the same way in Mexico and Colombia, where the warlords are replaced by drug cartels. Only we don't care about the drug cartels because they are secular, as opposed to being Muslims.

The point is, we need to stop being the world's police force. We are picking and choosing our based on political sensationalism. We will intervene in countries threatened by Islamic extremists, but we won't intervene in equally corrupt and dangerous areas in Africa, Central America and Southeast Asia because there are no votes to be gained there.

[revelarts]

You believe the Taliban are bad, the government sucks, disagree with drone strikes and disagree with harming any infrastructure. So, are you saying we should then bail from any of those efforts, as the outcomes aren't desirable, and perhaps we should help fight a drug war instead?

I think we are wasting our troops lives and health and not doing anything to help our "safety". and i don't believe the U.S. gov't is fighting "the drug war" seriously.
so yes i think we should come home. I think it's a fair amount of arrogance and fear that believes that if we don't have troops on the ground all over the world that we'll be in grave danger. Or the world will fall off it's axis in a matter of years if we leave Afghanistan militarily completely.
But since we've discovered several other fantastic mineral resources there as well and Drugs i doubt we'll leave anytime soon.

IMO NATO and the U.S. military is only there to protect U.S. access to certain financial assets, drugs, oil pipelines, and now precious minerals.
$1 Trillion Motherlode of Lithium and Gold Discovered in Afghanistan (http://www.mining.com/1-trillion-motherlode-of-lithium-and-gold-discovered-in-afghanistan/)


Years ago we knew via conservative and independent military review that to keep the nation we'd need a crazy number of troops and a 50 year occupation. but the reason we supposedly went in was to "get bin laden" and remove the terrorist "safe havens". neither of those goals was fulfilled. but we are still there, WHY?

Many on this board seem to think that terrorist are in every country already and are about to kill us all anyway. So why are we pouring money equipment and men into Afghanistan still when those guys can be put on our boarders, or be at home training for a real war, with people who've actually attacked us?


You seem to think our military needs to police the world like the Roman legion.
Frankly i don't believe that's our job.
And i don't believe we CAN DO IT and don't think that we can afford it.

[jimnyc]

Instead of Saddam, Iraq and its neighbors now have ISIS, which is guilty of countless deaths and has destabilized the area.

Afghanistan has always had a feudal government system where most of the profits go to the rich warlords. The profits mostly come from illegal drugs.
It's nearly the same way in Mexico and Colombia, where the warlords are replaced by drug cartels. Only we don't care about the drug cartels because they are secular, as opposed to being Muslims.

The point is, we need to stop being the world's police force. We are picking and choosing our based on political sensationalism. We will intervene in countries threatened by Islamic extremists, but we won't intervene in equally corrupt and dangerous areas in Africa, Central America and Southeast Asia because there are no votes to be gained there.

SHOULD we do things that destabilize the area? You say NO based on Iraq. Should we, under any circumstances, have moved away from objectives in Afghanistan in order to assist in fighting some sort of war on drugs?

[jimnyc]

Rev - do you think the troops should come home, or fight against drugs since they are there already?

[revelarts]

Rev - do you think the troops should come home, or fight against drugs since they are there already?

I think if we didn't assist with the drugs protecting the crops and our banks wouldn't money launder for the drugs that would start to hurt or slow the trade.
Mao stopped the opium trade/problem in China and wide spread addiction too. He used a huge police effort. We can't even hold part of the country and get our supplies back and forth to some areas without permission of our enemies.
No we should not fight the drug war "over there".
Our troops should come home and they should check the troops bag for poppies on the way in.

And since when has our military been trained to be Drug police or DEA agents.
The military is meant to fight wars. 'kill people and break things'.

bring them home.