Do you support the decision by donor nations to give $16 billion to Afghanistan to prevent the country from sliding back into turmoil when foreign combat troops depart?

Poll Jul. 09, 2012 - 04:38AM JST ( 34 )

Order by Time Order by Popularity

34 Comments

1

SimondBJul. 09, 2012 - 08:32AM JST

I say give them the money once they have proven that they are developed enough as a species that they no longer execute women for (alleged) adultry. Until then, naff off.
1

namabiru4meJul. 09, 2012 - 08:49AM JST

We have seen in the past that giving a country money has only a slight trickle down in to helping the people. Money will only entrench the government and supply them with weapons in which to "control" its people.

Give them the money, but on a performance or goal basis. Until they meet them, the next chunk of funds is not released.
1

tkoind2Jul. 09, 2012 - 09:14AM JST

SimondB - that is the kind of thinking that led to the rise of the Taliban in the first place.

namabiru4me - I think the details of the agreement are pretty clear in that regard already.

It is really simple people.

Choice 1: Abandon Afghanistan in the same way we did post Soviet war and watch the Taliban rise back to power.

Choice 2: Support the current government with funding and tie that to performance to improve the nation, as proposed.

Choice 1 will sooner or later lead to Afghan War Vol. 2 Choice 2, could well develop another Uzbekistan or other relatively stable and improving central asian state.
4

gogogoJul. 09, 2012 - 09:31AM JST

Japan does not have this sort of money to give away, please use this money to REBUILD JAPAN!

Japan just wants to gain access to oil and buy a whale supported vote.
0

mikemcfly87Jul. 09, 2012 - 10:01AM JST

Amen to that tkoind2! Very well said.
0

edojinJul. 09, 2012 - 06:16PM JST

Did you see any Taliban at the just-concluded Tokyo conference on Afghanistan? They aren't even being considered for a role in the future government. But within a short time after the withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan the Taliban will be back the same as before. Can't see throwing money down the drain for such a scenario.

Gotta go with "gogogo" (above) on this one. Keep the money here in Japan and use it locally ...
-1

JohhnyGlitterballJul. 09, 2012 - 06:31PM JST

Another mess by the Yank elite in the name of energy resources.
0

Janos PepperJul. 09, 2012 - 06:48PM JST

I realize that the money is supposed to prevent stuff like this, but stuff like this will never end no mather how much money they'll get....
0

mrmaliceJul. 09, 2012 - 06:57PM JST

yea, several years ago, the big shot from pakistan toured europe asking for aid to fight against terrorism, went home with a lot of tax euros, two years later turns out they were harbouring bin laden. Nice there, and now no money for the unemployed? what a move
2

techallJul. 09, 2012 - 07:09PM JST

What, is the opium business in a slump?
1

KariHarukaJul. 10, 2012 - 01:45AM JST

To be frank, no.
0

MumboJul. 10, 2012 - 07:13AM JST

Money is going to prevent sliding back into turmoil?

Who says the country is not already in turmoil?

Throwing money at the sandbox is not going to fix it, sorry. So my answer is no.
0

ProbieJul. 10, 2012 - 08:17AM JST

Having money won't stop them from sliding back into turmoil. Having savages in power is one of their main problems.
-2

nisegaijinJul. 10, 2012 - 10:33AM JST

This is not even the question of whether Afganistan or any other developing country deserves or needs the money, nor it is the question how the population of such country would benefit.

The real question is how and and on what constitutional grounds can Japanese government take the hard earned tax payers money and just give it away to other countries?
Under what moral grounds can Japan have 200% debt to GDP ratio, which is potentioally geopardizing pension and health insurance benefits and still cash out to all these 3rd world countries?
0

Thunderbird2Jul. 10, 2012 - 09:25PM JST

Khazi doesn't have the spine to stand up to the Taliban without NATO and other military support. Give him the dosh and he'll pay them to stop fighting... like paying gangsters protection money.
-1

FarmboyJul. 11, 2012 - 08:04AM JST

The money isn't a gift, and the extent to which it will help the country is debatable.

The China Daily (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2012-07/09/content_15559721.htm) has an article that says:

The deal calls for the setting up of a mechanism to monitor the use of the money and for ministerial meetings to occur every two years. Those measures are meant to ensure Afghanistan is doing what it should to hold democratic elections, fight corruption and promote human rights.

I read this as payments to thugs, and bribes to Afghani and foreign officials, but maybe others would see a kinder, gentler interpretation.
1

ju123Jul. 11, 2012 - 12:17PM JST

I think you could see it as security also for helping out the victims from the war. If you dont help, Taleban will just come back into power and plot the next attack on America. At least with helping Afghanistan now, you could help them provide security for themselves and let them deal with the Taliban... I would love to visit Afghanistan one day as a tourist..
0

mikemcfly87Jul. 12, 2012 - 04:09PM JST

The statement said the participants in the aid offer have "renewed their firm determination to combat terrorism and extremism in all their forms and never to allow Afghanistan to become a sanctuary for international terrorism again".

Farmboy - It seems you forgot to quote the above paragraph as well, from the same article, in your thug money rant.

Or maybe this paragraph:

The deal is meant to make up the difference between what Kabul gets from its barely functioning economy and what it needs to become a stable country.

But go ahead and keep thinking all Arab states are the same... It seems that most people are misled in that regard. Some countries actually want to make a better State for themselves and the world.

The China Daily http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2012-07/09/content_15559721.htm
0

lucabrasiJul. 12, 2012 - 04:52PM JST

@mike

But go ahead and keep thinking all Arab states are the same

Afghanistan is mostly a Pashtun and Tajik state. Very few Arabs. Agree with the gist of your comment, though.
-1

DisillusionedJul. 12, 2012 - 06:41PM JST

I see no reason why the money would make any difference. The allied troops have not made such an impact on what is going on there and as soon as they pull out it will escalate once again.
1

King GaddafiJul. 12, 2012 - 11:24PM JST

America broke it, let them fix it.
0

jessebaybayJul. 13, 2012 - 07:49AM JST

I dont know what to vote. But i want to see the poll :/
1

Ben JackJul. 13, 2012 - 07:55AM JST

America broke it, let them fix it.

Yes, there were no troubles in Afghanistan before the Americans went in? Please. The country was broken way before the US ever set foot in there.
1

King GaddafiJul. 13, 2012 - 09:15AM JST

Yes, the opium production was broken before the US went in. The US quickly (immediately!) fixed that "problem".
0

Laotian in SapporoJul. 13, 2012 - 11:05AM JST

it would be like pouring the water into the sand, it would just disappear and dryout
1

Ben JackJul. 13, 2012 - 01:07PM JST

Yes, the opium production was broken before the US went in.

Do you think this is the only problem in Afghanistan? Seriously? While I agree 100% that the US could have done more to control the warlords and their illegal operations, it is completely unrealistic to attempt to claim that the only problem in Afghanistan is or was the drug trade. As I said, the country (all of it) has been broken for a very long time and it was broken for a very long time before the US was involved.
0

mikemcfly87Jul. 13, 2012 - 03:49PM JST

@lucabrasi

Thanks! Eff'ed that part up. My bad.
0

Alex EinzJul. 13, 2012 - 04:56PM JST

Why they need donation ? They are quite happy living in villages and have been doing that for thousands of years. It is not like it will go towards education....more like flow to the warlords...

They have enough cashflow from the poppy anyway
0

FarmboyJul. 13, 2012 - 10:03PM JST

But go ahead and keep thinking all Arab states are the same...

Mikemcfly87,

I said absolutely nothing about Arab states. My main problem, if I have a problem, is that I have become very cynical, I suppose. You seem to trust the purity of the stated purpose of the donor nations, and I tend to be much more suspicious. I don't doubt that Afghanis want a better future, but I do doubt that this money is going to do that.
0

Goldman SucksJul. 14, 2012 - 11:52PM JST

I don't doubt that Afghanis want a better future, but I do doubt that this money is going to do that.

Agreed! Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people in rich nations and giving it to rich people in poor nations.
-1

VirtuosoJul. 15, 2012 - 02:10PM JST

The money should be put to use to erect a 30-meter wall around the entire border, with the stipulation that no one or nothing enters or leaves for the next hundred years. That should buy the rest of the world some peace and quiet.
0

Zen studentAug. 09, 2012 - 10:24AM JST

Choice 2: Support the current government with funding and tie that to performance to improve the nation, as proposed.

@tkoind2: While in theory I agree with you, what has the US been doing since the 2001 invasion (i.e. the past 11 years)? It HAS been providing funding and all other forms of support to Karzai and co. And where has it got them? Almost nowhere. The Americans can't even tell whether they have weakened the Taliban or not. Al-Qaeda has definitely been weakened - that's true - but the Taliban will be a hard group to destroy as they are seasoned guerrilla fighters. That's why the Soviets had enough sense to give up in the end and go home. I feel sorry for the average Afghani citizen I really do but enough is enough. Time to withdraw and let them sort out their own problems I say.