1. #1
    PAULYPOKER
    Six Hundred and Sixty Six.....
    PAULYPOKER's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 12-06-08
    Posts: 30,925
    Betpoints: 164

    US aims to stay in Afghanistan for heroin business: Gordon Duff

    US aims to stay in Afghanistan for heroin business: Gordon Duff


    The United States wants to stay in Afghanistan in order to keep its profitable heroin business in the country, a political analyst says.



    “The only reason the United States would stay there frankly is to keep its multi-hundred-billion-dollar heroin business going. The business of Afghanistan has always been heroin. There’s no other reason the US was involved,” senior editor at Veterans Today Gordon Duff told Press TV on Thursday.

    “The people of Afghanistan have made it very clear they don’t want the United States there,” he added.

    Washington and Kabul have not yet reached an agreement over a security deal under which the United States can keep as many as 10,000 troops in the country.

    Without an agreement, all American troops should leave the country by the end of 2014.

    “When the United States went into Afghanistan in 2001, Afghanistan had ended almost every aspect of narcotics production,” Duff said. “As of last week, Afghanistan was producing 98 percent of the world’s… heroin.”

    The United Nations reported last month that Afghanistan produced record levels of opium in 2013.

    Cultivation of opium poppies, which are processed into heroin, rose 36 percent, amounting to 209,000 hectares.

    Afghanistan remains the world's largest opium producer - last year accounting for 75 percent of the world's heroin supply.

    AGB/AGBUS aims to stay in Afghanistan for heroin

  2. #2
    Ron_Paul_2012
    Ron_Paul_2012's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 01-31-13
    Posts: 3,953
    Betpoints: 13

    Sad but true Pauly. It was first reported about 2 years ago. It is just a repeat of what took place in the "Golden Triangle" during the Vietnam War.


  3. #3
    PAULYPOKER
    Six Hundred and Sixty Six.....
    PAULYPOKER's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 12-06-08
    Posts: 30,925
    Betpoints: 164

    I knew it in 2001..........

    If the country don't got nuttin worth takin,well then you can sure as bet your ass for the takin that the US military won't be invading.......

    Why ya think kim suk fuk ill is still around?

  4. #4
    rkelly110
    rkelly110's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 10-05-09
    Posts: 23,144
    Betpoints: 3382

    Afghanistan is rich in untapped resources. Opium is only one resource. Taliban are only drug lords. Getting rich
    off the backs of the poor. Just like any other free enterprise.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...h-2000507.html

  5. #5
    Dr.Gonzo
    Dr.Gonzo's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 12-05-09
    Posts: 4,628
    Betpoints: 3168

    Quote Originally Posted by rkelly110 View Post
    Afghanistan is rich in untapped resources. Opium is only one resource. Taliban are only drug lords. Getting rich
    off the backs of the poor. Just like any other free enterprise.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...h-2000507.html
    Don't you get tired of being wrong all the time.

    The Taliban had eliminated the poppy trade almost entirely before the US invasion.

  6. #6
    PAULYPOKER
    Six Hundred and Sixty Six.....
    PAULYPOKER's Avatar Become A Pro!
    Join Date: 12-06-08
    Posts: 30,925
    Betpoints: 164

    Report: US propaganda fails in Afghanistan

    A British expert says US commanders are routinely conned by propaganda contractors.


    US propaganda efforts in Afghanistan have failed because of poorly designed programs by contractors who often propose expensive marketing solutions to US commanders incapable of making informed choices, according to a study published by the Army's War College.


    Examples of failed efforts, according to the paper, include a proposal to pay $6,000 dowries to Afghan men to keep them off the battlefield - a scheme that could have cost $4 billion. That project, ultimately rejected, fits into what the US military calls Information Operations programs.

    The dowry program and ineffective television ad campaigns "represent merely the tip of the iceberg: over the years, huge amounts of money have been spent on IO programs that are largely anchored in advertising and marketing style communication with little concurrent investment, it would appear, in detailed understanding of audiences and environments," the report concludes.

    USA TODAY, in a series of reports since 2012, has found the Pentagon has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on poorly tracked propaganda programs. A government report obtained by the newspaper this spring showed the impact of the programs is unclear, and the military doesn't know whether it is targeting the right foreign audiences.

    These propaganda efforts include websites, leaflets and broadcasts intended to change foreigners' "attitudes and behaviors in support of US Government" objectives, according to the report by the Government Accountability Office.

    The author of the War College study, Steve Tatham, is the longest continuously serving officer in the British military's information activities. Tatham says contractors' attempt to influence attitudes "may work in convincing US citizens to buy consumer products; it does not easily translate to the conflict- and crisis-riven societies to which it has been applied." It makes more sense, he says, to attempt to change problem behavior, for instance understanding why Afghan soldiers desert and addressing their concerns.

    The military had no immediate comment on the report.

    The dowry program dates to 2011 when a contractor persuaded a general inexperienced in IO campaigns that it "would take huge swaths of fighters off the battlefield by facilitating their marriages to eligible young Afghan women."

    Tatham evaluated the plan for commanders and found it would "quickly exceed" $4 billion per year. He found a number of other problems, including the false assumption that many fighters were unmarried and the effect on Afghan men who didn't receive the payment.

    "There is no empirical research to suggest that this is a sensible solution to deterring young men of fighting age from joining the insurgency," Tatham wrote. "Even if there were, it would be cost prohibitive and open to such widespread and pernicious abuse as to render it unworkable." The program was canceled because of cost, he wrote.

    Tatham notes that USA TODAY has been a "long-standing critic" of IO efforts. Because of the "persistently critical coverage," its reporting is often dismissed by the Pentagon's IO community. However, Tatham says, some officially sponsored studies echo at least some of the criticism.

    He points to a 2012 study by Rand, a Pentagon-affiliated think-tank, and what he called its most important conclusion:

    "… if the overall Information Operation mission in Afghanistan is defined as convincing most residents of contested areas to side decisively with the Afghan government and its foreign allies against the Taliban insurgency, this has not been achieved."USA Today

    AHT/HJ

Top