The real reason we invaded Afghanistan.

[[R_H]]

Hot off the press from BBC

China wins major Afghan project

A Chinese mining company has won a tender to develop one of the world's largest copper mines in Afghanistan.

The state-owned China Metallurgical Group says it will invest nearly $3bn in the mine at Aynak in the province of Logar, south of Kabul.

Officials say it will be the largest foreign investment in Afghan history and will employ 10,000 people.

When construction is complete the company will pay the Afghan government $400m a year.

'World-class'

The Afghan government wants to attract foreign companies to make mining a key sector of an economy that is on a slow recovery after three decades of war.

The Aynak copper deposits in Logar province were first explored by Soviet geologists in the 1970s. But then the Soviet invasion of 1979 and years of warfare put an end to plans to develop them.

Officials say the area contains an estimated 13 million tonnes of copper, making it a world-class site.

It is also in a relatively safe area, not far from the capital.

The $3bn that the China Metallurgical Group is to invest in Aynak compares with a total of $4bn which the Afghan government says foreign companies have invested in the country since the overthrow of the Taleban six years ago.

Once it goes into operation in five years' time, the mine will provide hundreds of millions of dollars of much-needed revenue for the cash-starved Afghan government.

It will also provide thousands of jobs in a land where unemployment is one of the most pressing problems.

Kabul hopes to attract more foreign mining firms.

The Aynak tender was hotly contested by companies from Canada, Australia and Russia, as well as China.

Experts say Afghanistan's mountains are rich in minerals, which could become a significant base for the revival of the country's shattered economy.

Apart from copper, there is coal, iron, gas and oil.

There is also a sparkling assortment of gemstones - emeralds, tourmalines and garnets, and the lapis lazuli mines which provided jewelry for the Egyptian pharoahs three thousand years ago.

[brianeyci]

You think that if Afghanistan becomes a failed state, it won't become another hotbed for terrorism again? Sometimes the choice is between bad or worse, drugs or terrorism. I think it is in this case, because if as you say 75% are involved in drugs, if all of a sudden that is cut off, no money, no prosperity, turnover in government.

There's lots of poor in the world, lots of places which suffer extreme poverty. Not to mention that drug trafficking exists even in richer, First World countries since there's a segment of population which is poor and provides a basis for both drug consumption and drug trading - and rich people also come forth as drug customers, sometimes.

The Russian "middle class" for example is very much immersed into drugs. Heavy drugs. Telling from experience, people with 1K USD upwards take drugs regulary.

I guess massive spread of drugs, ease to get them and chemical addiction are also factors.

But people elsewhere around the world who earn 1k USD or more upwards do not necessarily take drugs. Massive spread of drugs is true, but in a free market people will find a way, so rather than crush suppliers you have to crush the demand.

This is not easy. And you seem to think it's about Karzai crushing his demand, when my point was everybody else has to crush their desire for this product.

You underestimate human greed. People will find a way to grow the shit if there's a high demand, and any crushing of supply will only be temporary unless you institute totalitarian controls. If the demand is great enough, officials can be bribed and guards can look the other way. The US military does and they drive by poppy every day. You're barking up the wrong tree with this crush supplier temporary solution.

To be frank, it's not Karzai's job to crush supply lines if it only hurts his country.

If his country gets rich from selling drugs, that's profiteering on suffering. I don't really think Afghanis have an excuse to profit from drugs instead of creating real industries and agriculture, which do not cause the death of people, you know.

He's not going to get rich. Income per capita of Afghanistan is still one of the worst in the world. Not to mention you're trying to argue for immediate destruction of the poppy, which would cause suffering and starvation.

Why don't your Russian police go after drug dealers and secure the border? It seems like it's what your people want, so why is it Karzai's job at all to make his people suffer when your people don't give a fuck? Tough love, maybe those drug users deserve what's coming to them.

Economies work best with gradual, mild changes

Drug production rose 90% from 2001. That's a "gradual change"? No? How did the economy exist back then?

Just because the front end is 90% up that doesn't mean they can automatically remove 90%. For example, economic growth in first world nations is generally single percentage points, but if there was stagflation or deflation of just a few percentage points there'd be great suffering.

Traders are human beings just like farmers and killing them for substance abuse is wrong, unless there's a cost-benefit analysis of drugs causing more harm than death.

Death? At the very least, start throwing them in jail for lifetime.

For what? So up to 75% of the people in Afghanistan get thrown in prison?

Why do you want lengthy prison sentences? Revenge? For drugs, when all parties are consensual? Rehabilitation? Deterrence?

So what if it doesn't change? I mean, the country somehow existed without drugs. Oh, it was dirt-poor? Well sorry, I'm not really supporting the position that some foreign country should get rich through supplying a deadly poison.

In fact, were drug producing and trading risks high enough, economy tells us there will be less investment. The risks have gone down from the Taliban times, therefore, it become very profitable and easy to make and trade drugs.

I'm not saying you should execute drug dealers on-sight - although if the country is badly coping with it's territory, it might have a positive effect by creating death risks for drug dealers, therefore forcing the people to invest in something else.

Not as profitable? Okay, so? You HAVE TO create a normal economy, not choose the most profitable asset if that asset leads to death and suffering of millions of people in other coutnries.

It's obviously the degree of harm since fat and sodium content kills too and I'm sure McDonalds has killed more people than drugs and will kill more people. If you can't then it all falls on Karzai can do what the fuck he wants in his country and the Russians or wherever can do what the fuck they want in theirs.

[K. A. Pital]

You think that if Afghanistan becomes a failed state, it won't become another hotbed for terrorism again?

The key is to create new sectors of industrial economy, while at the same time pressing down on drug production to (a) redistribute investment funds from drugs to industry/common agriculture (b) redistribute labour to new industral sectors. Of course, this measure will face opposition from both (a) drug barons (b) radical islamists. So cracking down on both is needed.

Massive spread of drugs is true, but in a free market people will find a way, so rather than crush suppliers you have to crush the demand.

Aren't demand and supply elastic to price and risk? A higher risk of production means less drugs produced, a higher price of drugs and thus less demand - especially, what is most important, less new demand, which is drived by curiousity, etc. not a pre-existing unbreakable chemical addiction.

Not to mention you're trying to argue for immediate destruction of the poppy, which would cause suffering and starvation.

Not "immediate". I can give them 5 years - that's the number of years it took tem to raise drug production to current levels, the same number of years should be enough to ensure re-distribution of funds and labour force to new sectors of economy.

Why don't your Russian police go after drug dealers and secure the border?

Because due to certain circumstances, Russian police, army, inner forces and border guards have become highly corrupt in the last 17 years. I dont' say Russia shouldn't do anything, or that it's purely Karzai's job to deal with the problem. In fact, I do call on the government to ensure better discipline in police and border guards. Gee, perhaps the fact that some of our regional leaders are now heavily tied, if not outright related by blood to drug barons? It's a huge problem in our region, and I agree we should deal with it. However, cracking down on drug barons is necessary if we are to succeed.

Tough love, maybe those drug users deserve what's coming to them.

If we have the potential to keep the people more healthy and prevent them from falling to deadly chemical addiction, why not use it? This line of thought that people "deserve it" is all good and well, until you come up to "so what next?". What are we going to do? Who is at fault in the market? Consumers? Traders? Producers? All are, in fact, and a complex program tackling all three is needed.

For example, economic growth in first world nations is generally single percentage points, but if there was stagflation or deflation of just a few percentage points there'd be great suffering.

Really? Cutting down on excessive luxuries and 40-times the average Third-Worlder consumption is "great suffering"? I can grant that for a Third World shithole like Afghanistan that an immediate destruction of the entire drug industry would cause great suffering. But the First World, the most rich and well-equipped countries to handle a crisis? Why the hell bring it up at all?

So up to 75% of the people in Afghanistan get thrown in prison?

Most of those 75% are low-level goons - farmers, collectors, processors. The trade channels are concentrated in the hands of several mafia barons who are tied with the Karzai government. Those need to go down. Meanwhile, investing into industrialization must be done simultaneously with a crackdown on drugs. You say "free market"? Why doesn't the US throw some 100 billion extra USD for public works in Afghanistan a-la a new Marshall plan project? I know it does have the money for war, now, doesn't it? And if we give a 5-6 year term, that's not unimaginable to restore Afghanistan and create an industrialized state there.

The gist is - neither the US, nor Karzai really want to improve the situation. After all, this is not post-war Europe where you need to spend money to ensure a rising life level, to outcompete the dastardly commies. That's just a fucked up Central Asian country, right?

I'm sure McDonalds has killed more people than drugs and will kill more people.

So because there's a junk foods problem, we should ignore the drug problem? Good strawman there, thanks for knocking that down. That's like saying we should not do anything about Christianity because Islam is a more violent and dangerous religion right now.

But the idea that drugs are less deadly than other products, like, say alcohol... look at death rates by drug-related causes in the United States, 2003:
Male:
All races, 12.9. White, 13.5, Black 12.7, Hispanic 8.7.
Female:
All races, 7.0. White, 7.4, Black 6.1, Hispanic 2.9.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934048.html

Now what did you tell me about higher income people less susceptible to drugs? There's more poverty among the blacks and hispanics and higher incomes for the whites, but the whites take the lead with drug death rates.

Also, let us now compare that to another clearly quite deadly good, well far more dangerous than junk foods: alcohol - US, 2003:
Male:
All races, 10.9. White, 11.3, Black 10.0, Hispanic 9.9.
Female:
All races, 3.4. White, 3.5, Black 2.9, Hispanic 1.9.

Your whole theory about drugs deaths more widespread among the poor is also full of shit, isn't it? Or are you suggesting that whites on the average are more poor than all others in the U.S.?

[brianeyci]

That statistic is bullshit Stas Bush. I didn't mention McDonalds to say, don't do anything about drugs because McDonalds is worse. I did it to point out you need to show relative risk, and show that drug use causes more harm than suffering farmers. Over here, drug infested poor neighborhoods use drugs more than the middle class, at least the hard drugs. I couldn't give a fuck about rich people who choose to dope up, but I care about the poor who feel they have no choice to escape their miserable lives.

So cracking down on both is needed.

You don't need to seriously crack down on anything, as you're suggesting some kind of equal effort to crack down and development. The drug barons and warlords, they're loyal to money, not to some overriding ideal. Simply put the possibility of more money in a different sector and they will choose it. If the farmers make a better living being miners, they will choose it. If they're given more money for food, they will choose that. If they're given more money to give the poppy to the government to use legitimately, they will do that. It's how capitalism works, and the free market. The ones who resist will be put out of business. Execution or imprisonment can only occur as a last option, not just because I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but because a civil war in Afghanistan is the least desirable option.

And if we give a 5-6 year term, that's not unimaginable to restore Afghanistan and create an industrialized state there.

Five to six years is coming around the ten years of that UN official I mentioned. And what happens then, if they fail to do so? Another invasion? Please.

Who is at fault in the market?

Maybe you should stop trying to find people at fault like conservotards and try and see changing the root cause: keeping gangs out of school, keeping kids from starting on drugs in the first place, and giving them an alternative choice in growing up to joining a gang. Oh, and killing the glamorization of drugs with anti-drug propaganda.

A higher risk of production means less drugs produced, a higher price of drugs and thus less demand - especially, what is most important, less new demand, which is drived by curiousity, etc. not a pre-existing unbreakable chemical addiction.

No. Merely making something rare does not make the demand go away, unless you're an economist. New consumers of drugs driven by curiousity will not be deterred by higher prices, because the root cause is social unrest and peer pressure.

Unless you are literally talking about putting drugs outside the total purchasing power of an average citizen, I don't see the point in lowering the price. Drug addicts will sell everything they have to fuel their addiction, so a price war is a do everything or nothing scenario. If they can afford it, at all, even if it's expensive, they will get it. It's like selling junk food for 2 bucks over 1 buck, a 100% increase in price but nobody who actually eats junk food or wants it will be seriously stopped from getting any. You can argue that once they can't buy anymore it's a win, but they will either... die... or go through extreme suffering with withdrawal symptoms. And maybe die later.

In short a lack of drug supply won't make a drug user go into rehab as you seem to be suggesting.

By the way this is SDN so I feel safe to say that anybody who uses hard drugs may be deserving of a Darwin Award depending on the circumstances. You can't protect people who don't want to be protected and even if you could it's futile protecting the suicidally dumb.

[K. A. Pital]

That statistic is bullshit Stas Bush.

Says who?

...show that drug use causes more harm than suffering farmers.

Show that the level of suffering of the farmers before the rise of drug production was so unbearable as to excuse drug production. It's the increase in drug production that has to be validated first - did it really improve the lives of farmers from the beforehand times? Or did it just allow several narcobarons to get filthy rich, while the farmers remained almost as dirt-poor as they were, but now re-oriented to producing a deadly substance.

The drug barons and warlords, they're loyal to money, not to some overriding ideal. Simply put the possibility of more money in a different sector and they will choose it.

Really? Their labour is very cheap and the price overhead is very high. In a real industry, they'd need to pay people more, and pay taxes since they conduct a legal business. Tell me please, if other sectors are more profitable than drugs, why haven't they already extinguished the drug production?

If the farmers make a better living being miners, they will choose it.

They sure will, if the drug traders will allow a draining of their labour force. Given that drug traders are high in the government and wield control over it's policy, do you really think that's realistic?

And what happens then, if they fail to do so?

And the level of failure is either 0 or 100 percent, and the only options are to depose the government? Please...

Maybe you should stop trying to find people at fault like conservotards and try and see changing the root cause

Well, the cheapening and extending production of drugs does allow for additional demand growth, doesn't it? And yeah, I mean, why not apply the same standard to junk foods and alcohol! Let's abandon any pretense at regulating those harmful industries and instead let the "educated consumer" decide. I'll see how that works. In fact, I already see it. Daily.

Unless you are literally talking about putting drugs outside the total purchasing power of an average citizen, I don't see the point in lowering the price.

Why not?

Drug addicts will sell everything they have to fuel their addiction

Yes. Newcomers and early-stage addicts, however, might break off. And potential buyers will be still scared off by higher prices. Are you suggesting that demand for drugs is totally inelastic? BULLCRAP. Cheapening drugs lead to massive increases in consumption.

You can't protect people who don't want to be protected

Really? The goverment does it all the time. Left to themselves, people will get very rough deals everywhere. The government imposes regulations on people, which they despise and were it their will,most of them wouldn't give a damn - like seatbelts during driving, speeding fines, etc.

There's a rationale for protecting them. If they don't become junkies due to external circumstances, they have a possibility to be normal, hard-labouring members of society. If everyone is just so smart to be left to themselves without persuasion, punishment, law enforcement and at the very least heavy advising, you'd have a very fucked up society in a short order.

[K. A. Pital]

Yearly death rates for Russian drug market are 70,000 per year. By contrast, the Afghan war had 15,000 dead soldiers for 10 years, and the Chechnya war 1 and 2 had 7,000 dead in entirety. From 2,4 to 4 million Russians are drug addicts.

I guess if we count the entire CIS, we could very well have reached a sizeable chunk of Afghanistan's population being drug addicts.

[brianeyci]

Show that the level of suffering of the farmers before the rise of drug production was so unbearable as to excuse drug production.

Why should I? You're the one saying they could use the same tactics as the Taliban to crush drug producers. Said tactics involve summary execution, torture and arbitrary arrest. Fear is the keyword here.

I guess if we count the entire CIS, we could very well have reached a sizeable chunk of Afghanistan's population being drug addicts.

Well all I have to say is, Russia's corrupt police and corrupt border guards and corrupt governors are not Karzai's problem. Russia's drug problem isn't Karzai's problem. Maybe Putin should send over a few hundred billion dollars of foreign aid for Karzai (who is taking money and help from anybody) to bribe poppy growers not to sell to drug dealers, and deploy a few hundred Spetsnaz to boot to help NATO, in the Kandahar region, which last time I checked nobody in NATO wanted to be in. No?

They sure will, if the drug traders will allow a draining of their labour force

By the way, I already mentioned that Karzai asked local producers not to grow poppy, and they listened for several months. Seems your "warlordism" hypothesis that they will never give up poppy doesn't always hold true. Karzai gets made fun of as the mayor of Kabul, but when you ride with the American military and have all the most powerful militias allied under you, you have the guns and warlord better listen, especially when Karzai's offered positions in government and a general amnesty to anyone who will work for the government. But he can't force their hand since it'll cause civil war, so he's taking it slow. What's wrong with that?

What does hold true is money. It isn't true now because the resources aren't developed yet, but the return for gold, copper, etc., is far higher than for poppy considering the risks for smuggling. By the way, you can view bribes as a form of government tax.

[K. A. Pital]

Why should I? You're the one saying they could use the same tactics as the Taliban to crush drug producers.

Traders. Your argument is that farmers will be pauperized. So what I want to see is that farmer income rose at least somewhat proportionately with the rise of drug production following 2001. If not, the farmers are not the ones who will suffer. And the drug dealers and narcobarons? I could deal with them being crushed, sorry.

Maybe Putin should send over a few hundred billion dollars

We gave out a dozen million dollars in aid, but do you really expect a poorer country to pour money which it doesn't have into Afghanistan? The only country who can do it is the US, and it also occupies Afghanistan at the moment. Also, we're writing off it's 11+ billion dollar debt.

By the way, I already mentioned that Karzai asked local producers not to grow poppy, and they listened for several months.

That sounds as a ruse. You know "we have this drug thing under control". In fact, Afghani commanders have already built luxury houses in Kabul off the drug money.

It isn't true now because the resources aren't developed yet, but the return for gold, copper, etc., is far higher than for poppy considering the risks for smuggling.

We'll get back to that in a few years, around 5-10 I think. I'm sure that resource extraction will not offset drug production which is right now rising yearly some 15-17%, merely slow down it's growth tempos. We'll see how good those economic laws work on the Afghan drug bosses and the country's population.

[brianeyci]

A couple points I'd like to make before it's game over.

I am well aware that at the very lowest level, drug trade has zero mobility and almost zero profit. I am pretty sure that besides the fact the crop is hardy, the farmers themselves probably don't make much more than they would with conventional crops.

But let's look at this at another angle: personal responsibility. Where does it kick in? You say that personal responsibility doesn't work very well in a free market. That is true: if the consumer is not skilled enough or educated enough to realize the poor quality of the product. But every man and his dog knows drugs are bad for you. I assume the orthodox church is anti-drug in Russia. I assume the Communist vanguard is anti-drug. I assume almost everybody and anybody with half a pint of brain is anti-drug. If I am wrong, feel free to correct me. But unless Russians are a lot more stupid than Americans, I feel safe to say they know the risks of drugs.

I make exceptions for: youths and children, mentally ill people, or people who are so poor and destitute that drugs may be their only escape from their miserable lives. Your middle class Russians sniffing it up in parties for social status doesn't make me drop a single tear, at all. In fact, if I saw it, I would probably be inclined to laugh. They are making a deliberate choice to sacrifice what they know is years of their life for a short term bliss. Unless they fit into one of those vulnerable categories, why should I deny them their free choice? You say it's suffering, but you ask them and they say it's what they want. Maybe you or I wouldn't make the choice, but it's not our life. And why the fuck waste effort keeping that shit alive anyway, unless they want help? There's too many retards in the world anyway.

You say that price and demand are elastic. True enough. This is not really in debate: you can see with my 1 dollar to 2 dollar analogy that I don't dispute that. The question is whether raising the price will have an appreciable deterrent on drug use. Resources and money put into shutting down drug barons can be spent on say, reeducation and anti-drug propaganda. If killing drug barons results in civil war, it may be the lesser of two evils to just say fuck it to the current drug infested generation and pin hopes on the new one who won't start drugs in the first place if there's enough change in cultural attitude. None of this involves prisons or anything even approaching War on Drugs.

[K. A. Pital]

I would agree in general, and offer just a small comment on this point:

I make exceptions for: youths and children, mentally ill people, or people who are so poor and destitute that drugs may be their only escape from their miserable lives

People who are poor in Russia, rarely can even think of wasting shitloads of money on cocaine/heroin/etc. However, the Russian students and youths are particulary vulnerable to drug addiction. There are several issues which seriously affect the problem:
1) a student youth, even in a poorer family, is generally well-supplied, often even moreso than his parents
2) a middle class child, however few of them there may be, are also well-supplied
3) youth informal groups in Russia are massively drug-infested - from deejays to the lowest cheap disco club visitor, youths circle around the drug market, which is growing.

According to the Ministry of Education, there are currently 4 million drug users among the age group 11-24 years, while ~1 100 000 of them are drug addicts. The whole of Russian population in all ages, by comparison, has 6,5 million drug users and 2 million drug addicts.

As you see, a rather large percentage of both addicts and users pool is comprised of youth.

I have nothing against letting old idiots who use drugs die like Freddy fucking Mercury, allright, it's their stupid choice. However, the situation with the younger generation is not good.