European Tribune

Legalization of drugs to win in Afghanistan

by Joerg in Berlin
Sat Sep 30th, 2006 at 02:26:18 AM EST

Yesterday I wrote a diary about Losing Afghanistan, incl. a poll for the question Are the EU countries contributing enough to Afghanistan?

However, so far many comments criticize US policies (that's appropriate) and only few discuss the policies of European countries and the role European countries play within NATO (that's a shame).

Jerome made two great suggestions to prevent losing in Afghanisan:

# Legalize drugs in the West. Half the problem instantly solved

# Increase fuel taxes by 1$/gal every quarter for 3 years. The Arab world, djihad and Afghanistan will fall into the same "who gives a shit" category as Africa as far as most of the "civilised" world cares.

I am in favor of legalization. However most European lawmakers are against it and I don't see any significant movement to pressure them to legalize drugs. Legalization does not seem to be a big issue on Eurotrib either or did I miss many diaries?  

Jerome also wrote "Afghanistan has never been Europe's to lose in the first place." I am not sure what that means. I do think Europe can make a difference (positively or negatively) and European NATO members have a responsibility due to the NATO treaty and the invocation of article 5 after 9/11. Besides, Europe has been the biggest consumer of opium from Afghanistan for many years. The Taleban have only tackled the opium growing in 1999 or 2000. Before that they made a lot of money with opium as well.

Now the opium problem has increased again:

Reuters AlertNet - AFGHANISTAN: Opium harvest set to increase by 60 percent - UN report
"Afghanistan's opium harvest is set to increase by nearly 60 percent this year due to a massive jump in cultivation in the insurgency-hit south, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) says.
UNODC's Annual Opium Survey found the area used for opium cultivation had reached a record 165,000 ha in 2006 compared with 104,000 in 2005. Afghanistan produces more than 90 percent of the world's opium, which mostly ends up in the heroin markets of western Europe and Russia."
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/d037e072e25983e66f5ef527b1fff7f3.htm

Since Afghanistan's opium is mostly consumed by Europeans, it is Europeans how finance the warlords and fuel the fighting. (America gets most of its drugs from South America, not from Afghanistan.) Does not this mean that Europe is responsible for the suffering of so many Afghans before 9/11 and today as well?

I think it does. There are two options:
a) Legalization.
b) Sending more troops and increasing efforts of reconciliation between warlords/tribes etc. and increasing reconstruction in Afghanistan, i.e. stabilizing the country, providing alternatives to growing opium.

I would prefer legalization, because it would rob the warlords of the money to buy arms and employ combatants. However most Europeans are against it. Thus the alternative is option b).

Of course, some people prefer option c): Blaming it all on the United States. That's so common in large parts of Europe.
And someone might argue that if only Europe legalizes drugs, then Afghanistan drugs will be sold in the US. Well, 1. I think it would take the Afghans a lot of time to get into the US market.
2.If Europe produces its own drugs (due legalization) and does not buy any drugs from Afghanistan anymore, then world market prices should fall...

Is there an option d)???
What should Europe do in regard to Afghanistan?

P.S.: Comments and ideas concerning yesterday's diary about Losing Afghanistan, incl. a poll for the question Are the EU countries contributing enough to Afghanistan? are appreciated. Please read the articles recommended in that diary first.


Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password

Display:
since you are invocate the article 5 after 9/11?let me remind you that Taliban NEVER attacked US neither were in any case responsible of 9/11 :

they didnt had any control on Ben laden team futhermore pretty much all members of these teams were Saoudi, pretty much all financial support came from Saoudi, pretty much all strategic support came form Pakistan Secret services.

WTF are you talking about killing Afghans ?? Why Saoudi arabia and Pakistan were not attacked and destroyed ?

you do not like their way of life under taliban regime ? you are willing go create war for that ? when are you asking to invade Saoudi arabia, since women dont have much rights there.

I believe NATO went in war to appease US in hope that they will never be stupid enough to attack iraq. we lost.

these anglosaxons wars against islam will bring extrem terror at home in Europe, since it is likely that what happened in Algeria in 1990's will happen to us :

thousands of Algerians went in Afghanistan to fight Russian, they went back in Algeria, cruel,highly trained, totally brainwashed at started a extremely crual civil war (a friend of mine was killed, when she refused to be married to one of these guys). what do you think will happen in Europe when the thousands of british and french who are in training in Afghanistan/Iraq to help the patriots to kill the invaders, will go back home, with their training, their cruelty and their European passport, it will be gruesome.

BTW i am supporting 100% the idea to legalize any drugs, as long as education and support are provided at large scale. repression always makes things worse

by fredouil (fredouil@gmailgmailgmail.com) on Sat Sep 30th, 2006 at 03:34:08 AM EST
I agree with many of your points on Saudi Arabia.

Have a look at these posts of mine:
The US-Saudi relationship: Oil supply at the expense of US security and moral values

and

Chicago Tribune: "Germany says 9/11 hijackers called Syria, Saudi Arabia"

Or the last paragraph here:
Anti-Americanism and Anti-Semitism

I bring up Saudi Arabia and the disasterous US-Saudi relationship all the time.

You say Pakistan provided more support to the 9/11 terrorists than Afghanistan? Well, both were linked.

Who is criticizing invocation of article 5 and the NATO decision on Afghanistan besides you? Got a source? Why is it "BS :-("??

by Joerg in Berlin ((joerg.wolf [AT] atlanticreview.org)) on Sat Sep 30th, 2006 at 05:13:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
the article V, as you should know has been called by NATO after 9/11 not by US, but US have chosen to effectively killing the organization by refusing the article 5 and declaring "the war must determine the alliance, not the alliance the war"(Rumsfeld), thus only few countries went in this war, pretty much only the poddle.

NATO has no responsibility in this war and is irrelevant.

And at this time, the call of the article V has been high debated since no country attacked US and definitely not Afghanistan (a large part of the hijacker came from Germany, and thus was as responsible than Afghan), the call was more a polite offer of assistance than legit.

by fredouil (fredouil@gmailgmailgmail.com) on Sat Sep 30th, 2006 at 07:32:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I also support legalization with control, but it is not a solution in Afghanistan - as I understand the situation. Poppies are grown to provide livelihoods for farming families. These farmers have few choices in cash crops that will grow in the agricultural context of these remote regions with almost no infrastructure. Legalization will not help them, Crop destruction will not help them.

Opium production has been going on a long, long time in the region. It is part of the culture also in neighbouring countries like Iran. In Iran, opium is recreational. I have visited groups of young Iranians at their homes where they watch videos of European football games and pass around ceramic opium pipes - just like any group of young men who share a passion for football, except opium instead of beer.

The pipe looks like an ocharina (a musical whistle) but you suck instead of blow. You place a small wad of opium next to a hole on the body of the 'ocharina', and suck using a finger over another hole to control the air intake.

These football boys smoke enough to be relaxed and happy, and eventually sleepy. Because they only smoke opium in this particular circumstance, it does not get out of hand. Because the circumstance is infrequent.

I also visited the Shah's sister's 'little weekend cottage' on the shores of the Caspian. It was a testament to tasteless Western architecture and activity, with disco etc. There was also a large lounge with two Dali red leather 'Lip' sofas and lots of cushions around a huge open fireplace. The chimney was in the shape of an 'ocharina' - but I think this was not a whistling room.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Sep 30th, 2006 at 05:31:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Legalization will not help them

I've always supposed that a rational controlled liberalization policy would include purchasing the raw material stocks directly from the farmers in the producing countries. So if not helped, at least they wouldn't be harmed.

"Ideas or the lack of them can cause disease." - Kurt Vonnegut

by dvx (dvx.clt ät gmail dotcom) on Sat Sep 30th, 2006 at 06:36:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That is assuming some kind of fair deal purchase direct from farmers - but the infrastructure for getting the raw material out of these remote regions (donkeys etc, not trucks) belongs to the war/drug lords.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Sep 30th, 2006 at 06:54:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Is that insurmountable? If the premise of legalization - that it dries up the flow of money to bandit elements - proves out, trafficking would no longer be sufficiently remunerative for the warlords.

Also, how much transportation infrastructure would you need if the poppies were rendered into opium by village cooperatives?

"Ideas or the lack of them can cause disease." - Kurt Vonnegut

by dvx (dvx.clt ät gmail dotcom) on Sat Sep 30th, 2006 at 09:51:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The farmers do that already. When you cut the ripening pods you get a a kind of mil which dries into raw opium.

The more interesting proposal, as an alternative to legalization for recreation, is pharmaceutical. There is a chronic need for potent analgesics both in the developing world and in the cancerous Occident. The market is enormous - more than enough to utilize Afghanistan's potential crop, several times over.

Dangers there are, but not impossible. However without unhysterical research, solutions will not be found. Witness the crazed US attitude to medical cannabis.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Sep 30th, 2006 at 10:28:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
'milk' of course above

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Sep 30th, 2006 at 10:31:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Indeed. The NHS routinely prescribes morphine and diamorphine (heroin to you and me) to terminal cancer patients as part of a pain control plan. They need to source their opiates from somewhere and it can't be just me who thinks that the squaddies currently under siege in company/platton compounds across Helmand would be more profitably employed purchasing the opium crop from the farming districts that they are based in than acting as RPG targets.

As far as I can see the UK govt can have a war on drugs or a war on terror - they can't have both.

Regards
Luke

-- #include witty_sig.h

by silburnl on Mon Oct 2nd, 2006 at 07:11:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Poppy eradication in Afghanistan is like Coca eradication in Colombia and Bolivia.  Instead of addressing the demand side in our own societies, we cast the problem as one susceptible of being solved by the military-industrial complex. War is a racket.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Sep 30th, 2006 at 09:34:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And the demand side is at the very root of our western societies - if not all societies.

It's about how willing that society is to sanction the external stimulation of internal physiological systems which have been with us for rather a long time through evolution. Millions of years before Homo Sapiens, in fact.

All such external stimulation, as far as I know, alters, produces, or reduces the balance of naturally occurring 'transmitters' - mostly directly in the brain, but a few have indirect effects. These transmitters can be hormones, semi-homones, neuro-transmitters etc. Not all of them have an opioidergic effect, but all those described as 'addictive' appear to.

So whether we are talking about 'natural' substances such as beer, bourbon, cocoa leaves, kiff, dope, opium, cannabis, yage, or synthetic substances such as LSD, amphetamines, or exstacy, or behaviours such as thrill-seeking, sex, love, pain etc - they are all part of the same continuum of personal modulation.

And all of these are cultural modulations as well. Many of them going back thousands, if not tens of thousands of years. Witness the evidence for cocaine and nicotine in 5000 year old Egyptian mummies - neither plant being indegenous to North Africa and thus implying trade across the Atlantic at the time.

Thus I don't quite see how demand can be reduced for modulation - only shifted to another modulator. Modulation or 'mind-bending' or whatever you wish to call it, is as natural to humans as eating (which might also be considered as modulation, at least in part, because we get much more than simply energy out of food). I might even go to a typical trilo sweeping statement and say that it is the repression of such personal modulation that is abnormal.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Sep 30th, 2006 at 10:17:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"The pipe looks like an ocharina (a musical whistle) but you suck instead of blow. You place a small wad of opium next to a hole on the body of the 'ocharina', and suck using a finger over another hole to control the air intake."

funny description, unlike heroine, opium is very soft and nice, like a small joint with a feeling (open the windows of the spirit) that last 12h. modern cannabis (dutch) is much more dangerous.

by fredouil (fredouil@gmailgmailgmail.com) on Sat Sep 30th, 2006 at 12:27:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What about dependance?
by Laurent GUERBY on Sat Sep 30th, 2006 at 01:40:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It does not exist - in the usual way this word is understood. (though there are some unconnected physiological effects that result from withdawal)

Opium to a lesser extent and processed forms of it to a much greater extent, have a similar molecular shape to endorphins. Endorphins are semi-hormones released by some neurons and are very important to learning behaviour. Neurons have endorphin receptors. Only an exact shape can enter the receptor. It is like a lock that is opened by a shaped key.

Opium is like the hotel cleaner's pass key, opening a limited series of rooms. Morphine and heroin are master pass keys which open any neuron in the hotel.

What happens when these receptors are unlocked is that it promotes hardwiring  between the neuron to which it is attached, and any other local neurons connected to it which all were positively firing at the time of the unlocking. So every alcoholic drink you ever take makes it more likely that you will have another because the behaviour is gettting hardwired. Given the same stimulii, the network will promoted the same behaviour.

The locks can also be blocked by opioid blockers such as Naltrexone, Blockers are neutral - they simply prevent any other molecule enetering for a period of time. This is the basis for a new form of treatment whicb depends on the Rest Principle - the optimal strengthening of neural connections or their weakening. An opioid blocker works as a kind of delete button.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sun Oct 1st, 2006 at 05:02:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I know about the general scheme (from high school), but I still read that recreational opium is causing quick dependance. Way quicker than alcohol.

Do you have references?

BTW, funny thing from wikipedia:


The French company Francopia produces 20% to 25% of the world's total requirement for legal opiates, with total sales of approximately €60 million.

Eh eh :)

by Laurent GUERBY on Mon Oct 2nd, 2006 at 04:32:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I wrote a diary about drug politics in June.

In particular I see a clear link between the current stupid politics in France and what happened in the "Banlieues" in France (where people with commercial skills are forced underground, and the general population suffer of general suspicion from authorities).

by Laurent GUERBY on Sat Sep 30th, 2006 at 06:03:56 AM EST
Thank you! I will read it right away!
(It would be great to have tags at ETB like at Dailykos.)
by Joerg in Berlin ((joerg.wolf [AT] atlanticreview.org)) on Sat Sep 30th, 2006 at 08:28:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I've not written a diary, but I've made numerous comments on desireability of the legalisation of drugs.

However, I will agree with other commenters that the production of drugs are a side economic issue in Afghanistan right now. The West let the Afghanis down when the Bushies obsession with Iraq made them turn attention and economic aid away from the country.

By leaving its enemies in place and unwatched, they allowed them to return in such away that they cannot be easily beaten. The population no longer believe in foreign promises and see no sense in resisting the Taliban.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Sat Sep 30th, 2006 at 09:47:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"The West let the Afghanis down when the Bushies obsession with Iraq made them turn attention and economic aid away from the country."

Really?
Spending money on economic aid should be easier to justify and cheaper than sending more troops, which Europe has started to do in recent years. Slowly.

by Joerg in Berlin ((joerg.wolf [AT] atlanticreview.org)) on Mon Oct 2nd, 2006 at 12:27:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As far as I know, most of the opium production happens in areas controlled by warlords at least nominally allied with the Kabul government. You seem to be hinting that the current turmoil with the resurgent Taleban is a part of the "war on drugs". This is totally ridicilous. Beating the new Taleban in Afghanistan will do little to nothing to reduce opium exports to Europe.

The Europeans are in Afghanistan to relieve pressure on American troop levels, not to eradicate drug production.

If they were to seriously attempt to eradicate drug production, they would unleash the twin pandora boxes of having to fight warlords all over Afghanistan instead of just in regional hotspots, as well as the crime wave that would grip Europe as heroin addicts had to cope with skyrocketing heroin prices.

by Trond Ove on Sat Sep 30th, 2006 at 08:42:32 AM EST
Indeed. A real option b) would involve deposing the currently allied warlords, essentially opposing all domestic armed forces in Afghanistan (impossible without US cooperation and without a few hundred thousand or maybe even a million troops on the ground).

For now, realistic options are
d) continue to cover failure with woefully inadequate alibi troops, be then a few thousand in barracks or a few ten thousand bombing goat herders;
e) declare victory and leave, letting failure reveal itself.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Sat Sep 30th, 2006 at 12:38:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"A real option b) would involve deposing the currently allied warlords, essentially opposing all domestic armed forces in Afghanistan (impossible without US cooperation and without a few hundred thousand or maybe even a million troops on the ground)."

Europeans don't want to do that.

Europeans are against legalization and they are against sending more troops to Afghanistan.

That's the problem.

My thesis is: You can't have it both ways!

Unless we legalize drugs, we are responsible for the misery in Afghanistan because we finance the warlords. Likeweise with oil: Due to our high consumption of oil, we finance the repressive regimes in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.

We don't want (and can't and shouldn't) start regime change in Saudi Arabia and other places. Thus we should reduce our consumption of oil.

by Joerg in Berlin ((joerg.wolf [AT] atlanticreview.org)) on Mon Oct 2nd, 2006 at 12:15:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"The Europeans are in Afghanistan to relieve pressure on American troop levels, not to eradicate drug production."

I never said that was the goal.

The point is: Jerome said that legalizing opium would solve half of the problems.
And I said that European opium consumption fuels the conflicts in Afghanistan.

Then mentioned several policy options.

by Joerg in Berlin ((joerg.wolf [AT] atlanticreview.org)) on Mon Oct 2nd, 2006 at 12:11:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
However, so far many comments criticize US policies (that's appropriate) and only few discuss the policies of European countries and the role European countries play within NATO (that's a shame).

European countries play the role of vassal states within nato. We should get out. Back in the 1980's I though the people who demonstrated on the slogan "no to NATO, bases out" [OTAN no, bases fuera] were a bit loopy. I don't know whether they were prescient, but certainly they were ultimately right. We should get out of NATO. Spain has been taking it up the ass from the US since 2001, even (and especially) under the poodle Aznar.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Sep 30th, 2006 at 09:38:40 AM EST
"European countries play the role of vassal states within nato."

Voluntarily, if at all.

Many Americans complain that European countries contribute very little militarily to NATO, but have a lot of power over decision making. European countries used vetos several times. If (!) I remember correctly, the US wanted NATO to help in Iraq and to defend Turkish airspace etc. That was all rejected by Europeans.

"We should get out"

That's what the left in Europe and right in America demand. One of the view things they agree on.

by Joerg in Berlin ((joerg.wolf [AT] atlanticreview.org)) on Mon Oct 2nd, 2006 at 12:19:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Seriously, Spain and the countries of the former Eastern bloc joined NATO out of a feeling of inadequacy from coming out of repressive regimes. It was seen as one of the trappings of "finally being fully European". Do you see Ireland, Austria, Sweden or Finland desperately longing to join? It's much harder to break an existing alliance than to not join in the first place.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Oct 2nd, 2006 at 02:09:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What should Europe do to "win" in Afghanistan? Hm.

What do the people of Afghanistan want from Europe? Is there a people of Afghanistan? Who speaks for it? What legitimacy does Karzai have and does he speak for all Afghans, or even a majority of them?

As for "winning", I suppose that would mean achieving some set of strategic objectives at a reasonable cost. What are, and what should be, Europe's strategic objectives in Afghanistan. What business does Europe have having strategic objectives in Afghanistan in the first place?

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Sep 30th, 2006 at 09:42:24 AM EST
I think we have an obligation to help reduce poverty wherever it is found, but that does not mean the preaching of Western democracy or values or the blackmail of other cultures to adopt them.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Sep 30th, 2006 at 10:38:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I would like to see Jörg's detailed answers to these questions.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Sat Sep 30th, 2006 at 12:38:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I already answered these questions in the diary!!!

I wrote that Europe has been the biggest consumer of opium from Afghanistan for many years. Thus Europe financed the Taleban (before they prohibited opium) and the warlords -- still today.

Does not this create an obligation?

by Joerg in Berlin ((joerg.wolf [AT] atlanticreview.org)) on Mon Oct 2nd, 2006 at 12:21:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You have not answered any of my questions. You have argued that we have a moral obligation to fix the existing mess because of our heroin consumption.

If we legalised drugs, would our heroin consumption go down? Would the warlords be less in control of what would then become a legal cash crop?

Who speaks for Afghans? What do Afghans want? If I were an Afghan farmer maybe I would want to be able to grow the quite profitable poppy crop legally without being blamed for Europe's drug abuse problems. But I don't know, I am not an Afghan, I don't play one on TV, and I don't know any either.

Is there a single Afghan people? Does it speak with a united voice? Is there an alternative group within the Pashtun people that could be empowered instead of the Taliban? What do Afghanistan's neighbours, who all have Afghan ethnic allies, want or intend? How legitimate is Karzai? What is he saying he wants?

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Oct 2nd, 2006 at 02:19:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"I wrote that Europe has been the biggest consumer of opium from Afghanistan for many years. Thus Europe financed the Taleban (before they prohibited opium) and the warlords -- still today"

Are you certain that Europe really is the largest consumer of Afghani opiates?


Heroin Use
Of the estimated 9.2 million heroin users in the world, 61% lived in Asia, 15% in Europe, 13% in the Americas, 6% in Oceania and 5% in Africa. These represent between 0.12 % and 0.22% of the population of these continents.

Back in 2004, when it was still believed possible to achieve a major cutback in Afghani opium production:

Preliminary analysis suggests that the consumption effects will be greatest in Iran, Pakistan and other nations near Afghanistan, moderate in Western Europe and small in the United States.

Which means that most of Afghanistan's opium crop ends up in neighbouring countries (Iran, Pakistan, India, Central Asia..) a smaller part goes to fuel European addiction-rates including Russia's, and a still-smaller percentage makes its way to the US market.  

And oppiate addiction seems to be poverty-linked,for instance it's risen to epidemic-level amongst Afghani refugees in Pakistan. Russia, the CIS and Eastern Europe are also major heroin destinations - thanks to those "post-privatisation blues"?

In Russia, heroin consumption literally sky-rocketed in the course of 1999, increasing four and a half fold between June-July 1998 and the same period in 1999, while the number of HIV infections recorded doubled in 1999, mainly due t intravenous drug use. However, it has been estimated that the sudden massive increase in heroin addiction and in the incidence o HIV/AIDS in the oblast of Irkutsk, which has by now been deeply penetrated by the Tadjik trafficking networks, is probably one of the most serious examples of this process in the whole of Russia.
The rapid spread of heroin consumption i the countries crossed by the expanding narcotrafficking routes is a new and damaging process. At first, the traffickers begin transporting opiates along the main lines of communication, which quickly become new narcotrafficking routes. As they go, they lead to the consumption of opium and heroin, which become widely adopted by the population in these regions, and addictive practices soon take root. The traffic then tends to increase in volume and propagates all the more readily since the countries along the drug route have growing numbers of consumers, who are also potential small-time smugglers.



"Ignoring moralities is always undesirable, but doing so systematically is really worrisome." Mohammed Khatami
by eternalcityblues (parvati_roma aaaat libero.it) on Mon Oct 2nd, 2006 at 11:04:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What should Europe do to "win" in Afghanistan? Hm.
What do the people of Afghanistan want from Europe?

Illustration to the point of whether occupiers are wanted as saviours, from the other monumental fuckup of recent years:

Almost four in five Iraqis say the U.S. military force in Iraq provokes more violence than it prevents.

_About 61 percent approved of the attacks -- up from 47 percent in January. A solid majority of Shiite and Sunni Arabs approved of the attacks, according to the poll. The increase came mostly among Shiite Iraqis.

_An overwhelmingly negative opinion of terror chief bin Laden and more than half, 57 percent, disapproving of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

_Three-fourths say they think the U.S. plans to keep military bases in Iraq permanently.

(Another report details what this one doesn't: 71% want the government to request the US to leave within a year, but 77% think it would refuse to.)

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Sat Sep 30th, 2006 at 01:22:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Don't get me wrong. I am not defending US policy in Iraq, but polls are not so reliable. Besides, I can imagine the polls after the US leaves Iraq and their will be a civil war. Polls will show that most Iraqis blame the US for breaking Iraq and then handing it over to warlords and fanatics. The US is to be blamed always.

That's the Mess-o-potamia.

Back to Afghanistan.

by Joerg in Berlin ((joerg.wolf [AT] atlanticreview.org)) on Mon Oct 2nd, 2006 at 12:24:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]