It boggles one's mind how twisted the official American logic is. The New York Times writes about the reluctance of NATO to eradicate the deadly crops and heroin laboratories in Afghanistan, explaining it by the chicaneries behind the formulations in the new NATO mandate and the concern about poor Afghan farmers 'toiling' in poppy fields.
'The drug trade (Afghanistan produces from 93 up per cent of the world heroin - H. S.) is estimated to account for about half of Afghanistan's meager economy, and some of the nation's poorest people, including farmers who toil in the poppy fields, are dependent on incomes that flow directly or indirectly from narcotics... Mr. Karzai has also opposed the forceful eradication of poppy crops, something that did not appear to be sanctioned by the new NATO mandate... According to the recent United Nations survey, 98 percent of Afghanistan's opium comes from seven provinces in the southwest, with no opium at all produced in half of the country's 34 provinces. The bulk of the NATO troops operating in the southwest come from the United States, Britain, Canada and Denmark... Together with the United States, Britain and Canada have already taken the heaviest casualties among the NATO nations fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda, with NATO troops who have died in the seven-year war now approaching 1,000, including more than 600 Americans. (New York Times, October 11, 2008) End quote.
Amazing! Thus the troops, stationed in Afghanistan, and in many ways causing the grim situation there, are the main sufferers and potential victims... Not hundreds of thousands of the young Russian, Tajikistani, Kirgizstani, Uzbekistani, Kazakhstani, etc. who have fallen victims to the narcoagression (in Russia in some years up to 100,000 people a year).
During more than seven years of occupation the what meager economy Afghanistan had has been ruined, the infrastructure destroyed, industries hamstrung. While under Taliban the opium production was kept low, during the NATO occupation Afghanistan has become a legalized narcostate, a corporation of heroin production and genocidal traffic.
The logic cleared from the hypocrisy seems to be as follows. What is the annual loss of 100,000 young representatives of low-priority nations in comparison with the risks for NATO soldiers and the stability of Afghan narcoecomony?
'The drug trade (Afghanistan produces from 93 up per cent of the world heroin - H. S.) is estimated to account for about half of Afghanistan's meager economy, and some of the nation's poorest people, including farmers who toil in the poppy fields, are dependent on incomes that flow directly or indirectly from narcotics... Mr. Karzai has also opposed the forceful eradication of poppy crops, something that did not appear to be sanctioned by the new NATO mandate... According to the recent United Nations survey, 98 percent of Afghanistan's opium comes from seven provinces in the southwest, with no opium at all produced in half of the country's 34 provinces. The bulk of the NATO troops operating in the southwest come from the United States, Britain, Canada and Denmark... Together with the United States, Britain and Canada have already taken the heaviest casualties among the NATO nations fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda, with NATO troops who have died in the seven-year war now approaching 1,000, including more than 600 Americans. (New York Times, October 11, 2008) End quote.
Amazing! Thus the troops, stationed in Afghanistan, and in many ways causing the grim situation there, are the main sufferers and potential victims... Not hundreds of thousands of the young Russian, Tajikistani, Kirgizstani, Uzbekistani, Kazakhstani, etc. who have fallen victims to the narcoagression (in Russia in some years up to 100,000 people a year).
During more than seven years of occupation the what meager economy Afghanistan had has been ruined, the infrastructure destroyed, industries hamstrung. While under Taliban the opium production was kept low, during the NATO occupation Afghanistan has become a legalized narcostate, a corporation of heroin production and genocidal traffic.
The logic cleared from the hypocrisy seems to be as follows. What is the annual loss of 100,000 young representatives of low-priority nations in comparison with the risks for NATO soldiers and the stability of Afghan narcoecomony?
No comments:
Post a Comment