Comments on: Laura Bush, Poppy Fields, and U.S. Marines

By: D. E.Rodriguez

D. E.Rodriguez — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:19:13 +0000

Thanks dr. e Trying to get to the “skivvy,” but very difficult . Something doesn't smell right…

By: D. E.Rodriguez

D. E.Rodriguez — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:17:46 +0000

Your points are also well taken, and appreciated.

By: roro80

roro80 — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 17:20:46 +0000

Your points are well taken, definitely. I realize that you were speaking of US women, but I do think that because we are at least presumptively there as liberators, we do need to think about the well being of the most vulnerable of that nation as well. I think for now they are doing the right thing in letting the opium fields stand. First, you've got to remove the power system (the terrorist organizations) that require others to pay for safe passage, the system in which it is acceptable to sell your daughter to pay off a debt, etc. Remove the system in which the only choice for income for normal people is to grow and sell poppies, and the subsequent removal of the poppy fields themselves won't cause thousands of innocent people to die of starvation. Of course, clearing a field of poppies is a lot easier than changing the harsh realities of a war-torn country, but it does essentially nothing to combat the problems there.

By: D. E.Rodriguez

D. E.Rodriguez — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:25:09 +0000

Thanks for your comment, roro80. My recurring reference to "mothers, wives, grandmothers," etc. was really to the ones in the U.S.--but, I am sure it applies universally--who see too many of their children and grandchildren wasted due to drugs, such as heroine, etc.

But you do bring up a good point, referring to the women in Afghanistan. In April, NEWSWEEK (http://www.newsweek.com/id/129577?from=rss) had a superb but depressing article titled "The Opium Brides of Afghanistan," describing how those "wives, mothers, grandmothers" and young girls--some as young as nine--are horrifically impacted by the opium trade.

The article reports on the wretched conditions--e.g. fathers selling their pre-teen daughters to settle opium-backed loans--in that country, and is a shameful indictment that even in a campaign fully supported by Americans, this administration has not been able to bring even a modicum of democracy, justice and just plain humanity to Afghanistan.

As to your comment on "taking their income away" and "huge portions of most needy starve to death,"

Perhaps that is what a good "liberator" and "installer of democracy" is supposed to do?

By: Laura Bush, Poppy Fields, and U.S. Marines at Addict

Laura Bush, Poppy Fields, and U.S. Marines at Addict — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:03:37 +0000

[...] Laura Bush, Poppy Fields, and U.S. Marines …same fields being ‘protected’ by our troops will eventually make its way to our streets and homes and addict and kill our children and… [...]

By: roro80

roro80 — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 20:50:13 +0000

On the one hand, I agree with your assessment. On the other hand, where would those wives, mothers, grandmothers be if their only source of income were taken away? How much good will liberating an oppressed people from terrorists do if huge portions of most needy starve to death?

By: buddha

buddha — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:11:17 +0000

[...] [...]

By: archangel

archangel — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 04:31:13 +0000

DDW, good strong article. Do you have the AP reporter's name? Google AP and reporter's name, see if contact avail. Call and ask him/her for the skivvy. No Sierra Hotel.
dr.e

By: runasim

runasim — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:09:15 +0000

I doubt Laura would have a better idea than her husband about dealing with poppy fields.
We've made it into a moral issue instead of a strategic one,, and it stymies progress.

Maybe mother nature will help, where mere mortals won't.
Global warming and rising food prices may make growing food crops more profitable. If we were smart, we would try to help in that area, instead of spending resources on a dead horse.
Why we are helping Saudis to build nukes instead of helping Afghans to combat rsing prices in transporting and tending crops, I'll never understand.
Actually, I think I do understand. Our idea of diplomacy is largely limited to military options and arms sales.

By: DaveA

DaveA — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:27:37 +0000

Well, I would say we are making locally optimal and expediant choices over global ones because we are fighting a war. Whether its ignoring poppy production, or helping some terrorists while fighting others. Needless to say I do not agree with these choices myself, but there is some rational for them none the less. Add that we are slowly losing in Afghanistan, and I highly doubt this will change.

Further, I find it hard to believe that the First Lady is not intimitely aware/accepting of whom she married by now. Just like Hillary probably had a fair idea of her husband's issues, I doubt she is not aware of her husbands issues: Iraq, Plame, wire tapping, Katrina, etc. No, expecting her to do anything not politcially expediant, even if others are harmed by it, seems odd to me at least. She has shown no sign of not living in a bubble, or of having a conscience, to my knowledge. So, why expect it of her now?