Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Now, a question: When asked about sending troops to Iraq, Colombia
negotiated more aid so they could drop more herbicides to kill coca
plants
and make farmers' children ill. I have no idea what WE got in return,
unless
they agreed to vote our way in the U.N. Do you consider Colombia part of
the
coalition?

I am not aware of any contribution made by Columbia. I doubt that
"making farmer's children ill" was the intent behind what they did. That
sounds like more typical liberal spin. It sounds more like increased
efforts to stem drug production and traffic. A good thing IMHO.

1) They were asked to participate with soldiers. They did not. No big deal.
Lots of countries said "no, thanks".

2) In the same way congressman will write a piece of legislation regarding
highway funds, and tag on some totally unrelated nonsense declaring a
National Tampon Day, the Colombians negotiated more aid for their anti-drug
exercises. A number of African countries also negotiated more aid, in return
for....what? Probably an agreement to vote a certain way if we ever consult
the U.N. again on terrorism issues. None of this is surprising, but it
shouldn't be called a "coalition".

File this under the heading "splitting hairs".



3) News you're not aware of: Drug lords in Colombia force small farmers to
plant coca mixed in with food crops.

Sounds like a problem that the Columbian government should stop. If of
course, they're really not a silent party to it.


The government spots the coca plants
from the air and drops herbicides on them. People are reporting lots of
health problems which are known to the companies which make these
herbicides. The companies are not claiming the stuff is safe on food crops.
It's the type of stuff highway crews sometimes use to control weeds. It's
not meant to be used anywhere near food crops.

So the problem becomes one of if you want good food, don't plant illegal
drug crops. Stop doing that and the problem goes away.


4) The farmers aren't like you and I. They don't have a Safeway or Giant
supermarket 3 blocks away. If you contaminate their crops, they may still
have no choice but to eat it. This issue, the health issue, has nothing to
do with anyone's opinion of drug laws.

Sure it does. As long as these drug lords are allowed to run roughshot
over the farmers, then they are ultimately to blame for the decline of
the health of their fellow countrymen. I would organize a revolt against
these drug lords, and put the blame for the conmtamination where it
belongs, on their shoulders. They need to be run out of Dodge on rails.
At some point, when the choice becomes one of living healthy or growing
drugs crops, the choice will become easier.

Dave