A single nuke would be cheaper than either choice.

Tipping Sacred Cows

Nukes are cheaper than Napalm?  Not quite.  The ramifications and fallout from nukes makes them far costlier.  Hey, I'm not advocating the killing of anybody.  I'm talking about cooking some wild flowers so they can't be sold in the illicit drug trade to fund terrorists.  Napalm the poppy fields, it is the non-violent way to cut their funding so they can't get weapons.  

Without the money that illicit flower the farmer and his family starve to death.. until he decides to take the bounty being offered by the Taliban, give it to his wife for food, kiss his children goodbye, and walk off to kill coalition troops.

Tipping Sacred Cows

What a silly jump to make REV.  The farmer can make his money growing teh crops he needs.  Also, if he is a farmer he can survive just fine on subsistence farming.  I don't buy the "farmer needs the illicit money from selling poppies to drug deals so he can survive" argument.  It is asinine.  He grows poppies he's helping the Taliban and Al Qaeda.  If losing the poppy crop hurts his bottom line, who cares?  Screw him.  

The idea that the farmer can survive on subsistence farming in a war zone is equally asinine.  Burning down a farmer's crops isn't going win any Hearts and Minds, y'know. If you don't support the drug trade, then why not support the medicinal uses of the crop? It seems to be a much more efficient usage of resources (there is a world-wide morphine shortage, in case you've forgotten).

The World Bank is arguing that counter-narcotics operations are deepening corruption and hurt the farmers more than anyone else in the trade: link.

Tipping Sacred Cows

Who's tring to win their hearts and minds?  Fuck their hearts and minds.  They are funding Al Qaeda and the Taliban.  I have no sympathy for them.  If they can't survive on subsistence farming, then let em eat dirt.  I am an advocate of cutting off the funding for Al Qaeda and the Taliban, to take away their ability to commit to war.  Hearts and minds of farmers don't play into it.  Ooh the farmers are not going to like this!  But what are they going to do  ally themselves with Al Qaeda?  They already have, only now Al qaeda has lost its drug money.  Big Whoopa.    

They are only funding 'TERROR' so long as they keep selling them their crops. If we buy their crops.. Oooooo problem cease to exist. Please note. The farmers did not ally themselves with Al Qaeda, the Taliban did. The reason the people supported the Taliban is because the people that we are working with (The Northern Alliance) are a bunch of drug-dealers and warlords. But hey.. they're OUR drug-dealers and warlords.. so it's okay, right?

It's people like you, wishing the poorest people on earth to starve to death, that justifies 9/11.

Tipping Sacred Cows

Hell rEv, you eat your Hyperbole flakes this morning?

First off, I don't care WHOSe drug dealers they are.  If they are teh source of funding for Al Qaeda, that needs to stop.  

Second off, taking out the poppies hurts that cash flow.

Third off, these poppy growers are not the poorest people on Earth.  And even if they WERE the poorest people on Earth and their only way out of poverty is selling poppies for drug dealers, stopping their illicit poisoning and the profits to terror organizations is a good thing, and does NOT justify mass murder.  That's like saying "you took away my side-winder missiles, so that justifies me nuking you!"  

You are an apologist to drug traffickers and you say any action that prevents them from selling their poppies justifies 9/11.  You are one fucked up puppy.  Torch the poppy fields.  It will help you dismantle Al Qaeda.  

If your first point is true, and the second.. then what is wrong with buying the poppies ourselves? If the US could spend their way out of the cold war.. can't they out buy a bunch of people who live in caves?

As for the third statement. Poppy cultivation is the only thing that keeps them from being like their neighbor, the poorest people on earth (I don't mean a  neighboring country.. I mean the Afghanis who rely on food aid because they don't have anything).

Whoah.. whoah.. I am not an apologist for drug traffickers. I'm an apologist for drug producers, drug users, and some drug dealers. But in this case... buy the drugs, make morphine. kill two birds with one stone (AQ funding gets cut off and address the morphine shortage).

re: hyperbole.. now with extra fiber!

Tipping Sacred Cows

REv, this is not a case of "oh the poor Afghan farmers".  

Last year, 40 percent of land was used for poppy cultivation," said Fazel Ahmad Sherzad, head of the anti-narcotics department in Helmand. "This year it is up to 80 percent in places."

"Three months ago I came and told these farmers not to grow poppy, but look, it's all poppy," he added, gesturing at the bright green crop now showing across the land between the mud-walled farmhouses.

These guys are greedy for the money the drug trade brings them, they won't even try alternative crops.  They would rather starve rich than give up the profitable poppy.  That and the fact that the Taliban would enact reprisals against them if they did not grow poppy.  

I say the US send drones equipped with napalm and torch the poppy fields.  Keep on torching them each night until they give it up and move to some other crop.  Peoples lives are more important than the greed of a few farmers.  

Peoples lives are more important than the greed of a few farmers.

Only about 15% of Afghanistan's area is suitable for farming. Afghanistan, before the civil-war, was known mainly for fruits and raisins which have all but vanished. Since then their primary food was provided by herding, but livestocks have plummeted by 60% since the US invasion in 2001. Opium is a traditional crop in Afghanistan, and is generally grown because farmers have little choice. In order to survive through farming, one needs to be able to purchase fertilizer and seeds. Most farmers do not have any capital. Buying on credit usually means 25-50% interest.

If you want to destroy the crops.. go right ahead. But offer them micro-credit at a reasonable interest rate, because otherwise you're just condemning them to die.. or join the Taliban for the steady pay.

Without a full solution in place, all you're doing is killing people who just want to live.

I hope drones come to your house and torch you kids (it'll just be written off as an 'accident').

Tipping Sacred Cows

Without a full solution in place

Okay, HERE you have a valid and good point.  The torching of the poppy fields accomplishes one thing to address a single problem, but causes other problems and shoudl be orchestrated as part fo a more comprehensive plan.  I am looking for non-violent ways to neuter the effectiveness of al Qaeda and teh Taliban.  I robust plan is a good idea.  Torching the poppies is a simplistic method taht should have some pretty instant results, but in my eyes, it would only be part of the solution.

I hope drones come to your house and torch you kids (it'll just be written off as an 'accident').

Geez rEv, I didn't know you cared...  Was that really necessary?  I am not advocating the torching of anyone's kids.  My kids are great, and don't deserve to be torched, nor do they deserve to grow up in a neighborhood where people are all strung out on heroin, paying for it to people who are planning to kill them.  It looks to me that beacuse I want to burn poppy crops, your reaction is so strong you would prefer violence against me for it.  Such is the influence of drugs and drug money.  People will kill for it.

I am looking for non-violent ways to neuter the effectiveness of al Qaeda and teh Taliban.

Buy the crops. How much less violent can you get than that?

Geez rEv, I didn't know you cared...  Was that really necessary?  I am not advocating the torching of anyone's kids.

You're advocating the torching of their parents' crops. Regardless of how you do it, they will probably starve to death. But.. you chose drones with napalm. That means an air attack, which would not be able to warn the kids to stay out of the fields, and its handlers may not even be able to see them if they were in the field at a time of an attack. When does your position become torching someone's kids? After the first kid gets scarred? Or will it take 3-4 dead children? I'm drawing the line now, because your idea was a call for wanton destruction.. the kind that gets innocent people killed (not just those greedy farmers you hate so much).

Tipping Sacred Cows

I am looking for non-violent ways to neuter the effectiveness of al Qaeda and teh Taliban.

Buy the crops. How much less violent can you get than that?

Geez rEv, I didn't know you cared...  Was that really necessary?  I am not advocating the torching of anyone's kids.

You're advocating the torching of their parents' crops. Regardless of how you do it, they will probably starve to death. But.. you chose drones with napalm. That means an air attack, which would not be able to warn the kids to stay out of the fields, and its handlers may not even be able to see them if they were in the field at a time of an attack. When does your position become torching someone's kids? After the first kid gets scarred? Or will it take 3-4 dead children? I'm drawing the line now, because your idea was a call for wanton destruction.. the kind that gets innocent people killed (not just those greedy farmers you hate so much).

So yes, this was necessary.

Tipping Sacred Cows

Sorry Gordo, Schoolhouse Rock wasn't going to rattle off lists of novel ethnic slurs for you to use later in life.  You have to do that research on your own.

Humorless. Cretinous. What'd you expect?