Are You Ready For Nuclear War?
rh...@email.com
Paul Craig Roberts | August 19, 2008
Pervez Musharraf, the puppet installed by the US to rule Pakistan in
the interest of US hegemony, resigned August 18 to avoid impeachment.
Karl Rove and the Diebold electronic voting machines were unable to
control the result of the last election in Pakistan, the result of
which gave Pakistanis a bigger voice in their government than
America’s.
It was obvious to anyone with any sense—which excludes the entire Bush
Regime and almost all of the “foreign policy community”—that the
illegal and gratuitous US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and
Israel’s 2006 bombing of Lebanon civilians with US blessing, would
result in the overthrow of America’s Pakistani puppet.
The imbecilic Bush Regime ensured Musharraf’s overthrow by pressuring
their puppet to conduct military operations against tribesmen in
Pakistani border areas, whose loyalties were to fellow Muslims and not
to American hegemony. When Musharraf’s military operations didn’t
produce the desired result, the idiotic Americans began conducting
their own military operations within Pakistan with bombs and missiles.
This finished off Musharraf.
When the Bush Regime began its wars in the Middle East, I predicted,
correctly, that Musharraf would be one victim. The American puppets in
Egypt and Jordan may be the next to go.
Back during the Nixon years, my Ph.D. dissertation chairman, Warren
Nutter, was Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security
Affairs. One day in his Pentagon office I asked him how the US
government got foreign governments to do what the US wanted. “Money,”
he replied.
“You mean foreign aid?” I asked.
“No,” he replied, “we just buy the leaders with money.”
It wasn’t a policy he had implemented. He inherited it and, although
the policy rankled with him, he could do nothing about it. Nutter
believed in persuasion and that if you could not persuade people, you
did not have a policy.
Nutter did not mean merely third world potentates were bought. He
meant the leaders of England, France, Germany, Italy, all the allies
everywhere were bought and paid for.
They were allies because they were paid. Consider Tony Blair. Blair’s
own head of British intelligence told him that the Americans were
fabricating the evidence to justify their already planned attack on
Iraq. This was fine with Blair, and you can see why with his multi-
million dollar payoff once he was out of office.
The American-educated thug, Saakashkvili the War Criminal, who is
president of Georgia, was installed by the US taxpayer funded National
Endowment for Democracy, a neocon operation whose purpose is to ring
Russia with US military bases, so that America can exert hegemony over
Russia.
Every agreement that President Reagan made with Mikhail Gorbachev has
been broken by Reagan’s successors. Reagan’s was the last American
government whose foreign policy was not made by the Israeli-allied
neoconservatives. During the Reagan years, the neocons made several
runs at it, but each ended in disaster for Reagan, and he eventually
drove the modern day French Jacobins from his government.
Even the anti-Soviet Committee on the Present Danger regarded the
neocons as dangerous lunatics. I remember the meeting when a member
tried to bring the neocons into the committee, and old line American
establishment representatives, such as former Treasury Secretary
Douglas Dillon, hit the roof.
The Committee on the Present Danger regarded the neocons as crazy
people who would get America into a nuclear war with the Soviet Union.
The neocons hated President Reagan, because he ended the cold war with
diplomacy, when they desired a military victory over the Soviet Union.
Deprived of this, the neocons now want victory over Russia.
Today, Reagan is gone. The Republican Establishment is gone. There are
no conservative power centers, only neoconservative power centers
closely allied with Israel, which uses the billions of dollars
funneled into Israeli coffers by US taxpayers to influence US
elections and foreign policy.
The Republican candidate for president is a warmonger. There are no
checks remaining in the Republican Party on the neocons’ proclivity
for war. What Republican constituencies oppose war? Can anyone name
one?
The Democrats are not much better, but they have some constituencies
that are not enamored of war in order to establish US world hegemony.
The Rapture Evangelicals, who fervently desire Armageddon, are not
Democrats; nor are the brainwashed Brownshirts desperate to vent their
frustrations by striking at someone, somewhere, anywhere.
I get emails from these Brownshirts and attest that their hate-filled
ignorance is extraordinary. They are all Republicans, and yet they
think they are conservatives. They have no idea who I am, but since I
criticize the Bush Regime and America’s belligerent foreign policy,
they think I am a “liberal commie pinko.”
The only literate sentence this legion of imbeciles has ever managed
is: “If you hate America so much, why don’t you move to Cuba!”
Such is the current state of a Reagan political appointee in today’s
Republican Party. He is a “liberal commie pinko” who should move to
Cuba.
The Republicans will get us into more wars. Indeed, they live for war.
McCain is preaching war for 100 years. For these warmongers, it is
like cheering for your home team. Win at all costs. They get a
vicarious pleasure out of war. If the US has to tell lies in order to
attack countries, what’s wrong with that? “If we don’t kill them over
there, they will kill us over here.”
The mindlessness is total.
Nothing real issues from the American media. The media is about
demonizing Russia and Iran, about the vice presidential choices as if
it matters, about whether Obama being on vacation let McCain score too
many points.
The mindlessness of the news reflects the mindlessness of the
government, for which it is a spokesperson.
The American media does not serve American democracy or American
interests. It serves the few people who exercise power.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, the US and Israel made a run at
controlling Russia and the former constituent parts of its empire. For
awhile the US and Israel succeeded, but Putin put a stop to it.
Recognizing that the US had no intention of keeping any of the
agreements it had made with Gorbachev, Putin directed the Russian
military budget to upgrading the Russian nuclear deterrent.
Consequently, the Russian army and air force lack the smart weapons
and electronics of the US military.
When the Russian army went into Georgia to rescue the Russians in
South Ossetia from the destruction being inflicted upon them by the
American puppet Saakashvili, the Russians made it clear that if they
were opposed by American troops with smart weapons, they would deal
with the threat with tactical nuclear weapons.
The Americans were the first to announce preemptive nuclear attack as
their permissible war doctrine. Now the Russians have announced the
tactical use of nuclear weapons as their response to American smart
weapons.
It is obvious that American foreign policy, with is goal of ringing
Russia with US military bases, is leading directly to nuclear war.
Every American needs to realize this fact. The US government’s insane
hegemonic foreign policy is a direct threat to life on the planet.
Russia has made no threats against America. The post-Soviet Russian
government has sought to cooperate with the US and Europe. Russia has
made it clear over and over that it is prepared to obey international
law and treaties. It is the Americans who have thrown international
law and treaties into the trash can, not the Russians.
In order to keep the billions of dollars in profits flowing to its
contributors in the US military-security complex, the Bush Regime has
rekindled the cold war. As American living standards decline and the
prospects for university graduates deteriorate, “our” leaders in
Washington commit us to a hundred years of war.
If you desire to be poor, oppressed, and eventually vaporized in a
nuclear war, vote Republican.
Arny
> It was obvious to anyone with any sense—which excludes the entire Bush
> Regime and almost all of the “foreign policy community”—that the
> illegal and gratuitous US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and
> Israel’s 2006 bombing of Lebanon civilians with US blessing, would
> result in the overthrow of America’s Pakistani puppet.
Although I do indeed lack sense, like the good sense to come in out of
the rain (that's why we have wet weather gear) I beg to differ on your
assertion that the US invasion of Afghanistan was/is "illegal" and
"gratuitous".
Please use that self righteous, opinionated, big brain of yours and
PROVE to us what is/was "illegal" about going into Afghanistan after
9/11 and what or who in the US is "gratified" by world involvement in
Afghanistan to defeat the evil Taliban.
If you can do those simple tasks, I will be impressed.
If you cannot do those simple tasks, I and likely others reading will
consider you a dumb ass and your opinions asinine.
Please educate us dumb people with your insight & proof.
Bam Bam
rh...@email.com
Golden Crescent opium trade has soared.
According to the US media, this lucrative contraband is pro-tected by
Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, as well as, of course, the regional
warlords, in defiance of the "international commu-nity". The heroin
business is said to be "filling the coffers of the Taliban". In the
words of the US State Department:
Opium is a source of literally billions of dollars to extremist
and criminal groups .... [C]utting down the opium supply is central to
establishing a secure and stable democracy, as well as winning the
global war on terrorism.(1)
"Operation Containment"
In the wake of the 2001 invasion, the Bush administration boosted its
counter terrorism activities, in response to the post-Taliban surge in
opium production, which was described as being pro-tected by
"terrorists". It also allocated substantial amounts of public money to
the Drug Enforcement Administration's West Asia initiative, dubbed
"Operation Containment."
The various reports and official statements on the matter were
accompanied by the usual "balanced" self critique that "the inter-
national community is not doing enough" to contain the drug trade, and
that what is needed is "transparency".
The surge in opium production was also used as a pretext for the
ILLEGAL US-led military occupation of Afghanistan. The headlines were
"Drugs, warlords and insecurity overshadow Afghanistan's path to
democracy". In chorus, the US media accused the defunct "hard-line
Islamic regime" of protecting the drug trade, without acknowledg-ing
that the Taliban-in collaboration with the United Nations-had imposed
an impressive drug eradication program, leading to a complete ban on
poppy cultivation. By 2001, prior the ILLEGAL US led invasion, opium
production had collapsed by more than 90 per cent.
According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC),
opium production had increased from 185 tons in 2001 under the
Taliban, to 4,100 tons in 2004, an impressive twenty-twofold increase.
The renewed surge in opium cultivation coin-cided with the onslaught
of the US-led military operation and the downfall of the Taliban
regime. From October to December 2001, farmers started to replant
poppy on an extensive basis. The areas under cultivation soared from
7,600 in 2001 (prior to invasion) to 130,000 hectares in 2004.(2)
The Taliban Drug Eradication Program
The success of Afghanistan's 2000 drug eradication program under the
Taliban government was recognized by the United Nations. In the
history of the Vienna based United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
(UNODC), no other country was able to implement a comparable program.
This achievement was casually acknowledged,without a word of praise,by
the UNODC's Executive Director at the October 2001session ofthe UN
General Assembly which took place barely a fewdays after the beginning
ofthe US bombing raids on Kabul:
Turning first to drug control,I had expected to concentrate
myremarks on the implications ofthe Taliban's ban on
opiumpoppycultivation in areas under their control.... We now have the
resultsofour annual ground survey ofpoppycultivation in
Afghanistan.This year's production [2001] is around 185 tons.This is
down fromthe 3300 tons last year [2000],a decrease ofover 94 per
cent.Compared to the record harvest of4700 tons two years
ago,thedecrease is well over 97 per cent....
Any decrease in illicit cultivation is welcomed,especially in
cases like this when no displacement,locally or in other
countries,tookplace to weaken the achievement.(3)
United Nations Cover-up
In the wake of the 2001 ILLEGAL US led-invasion of Afghanistan, a
shift in rhetoric occurred. The United Nations body was acting as if
the 2000 opium ban implemented by the Taliban government, had never
happened:
The battle against narcotics cultivation has been fought and won
in other countries and it [is] possible to do so here [in
Afghanistan], with strong, democratic governance, international
assistance and improved security and integrity.(4)
Both Washington and the Vienna-based UN body, were now saying, in
chorus that the objective of the Taliban government in 2000, was not
really "drug eradication" but a devious scheme to trigger "an
artificial shortfall in supply", which would drive up World prices of
heroin.
Ironically, this twisted logic, which now forms part of a new "UN
consensus", is refuted by a 2003 report by the UNODC office in
Pakistan, which states that there was no evidence of stockpiling by
the Taliban.(5)
Washington's Hidden Agenda: Restore the Drug Trade
In the wake of the 2001 ILLEGAL invasion of Afghanistan, the British
government of Tony Blair was entrusted by the G-8 Group of leading
industrial nations to carry out a drug eradication program. In theory,
this program was to allow Afghan farmers to switch out of poppy
cultivation into alternative crops. The British were work-ing out of
Kabul in close liaison with the US Drug Enforcement Administration's
(DEA) "Operation Containment".
The UK-sponsored crop eradication program was an obvious smokescreen.
The presence of occupation forces in Afghanistan did not result in the
eradication of poppy cultivation: quite the opposite.
Global Trade in Narcotics
Based on recent figures, drug trafficking constitutes "the third
biggest global commodity in cash terms after oil and the arms trade".
(6)
Supported by powerful interests, heroin is a multibillion-dollar
business, which requires a steady and secure commodity flow. But, the
Taliban prohibition caused "the beginning of a heroin shortage in
Europe by the end of 2001″, as acknowledged by the United Nations
Office on Drugs ands Crime (UNODC).
One of the hidden objectives of the war was effectively to restore
the ILLEGAL CIA sponsored drug trade to its historical levels and
exert direct control over the drug routes. Immediately following the
October 2001 invasion, opium markets were restored. Opium prices
spiraled. By early 2002, the domestic price of opium in Afghanistan
(in dollars/kg) was almost 10 times higher than in 2000.
At the height of the opium trade during the Taliban regime, roughly 70
percent of the global supply of heroin originated from Afghanistan. In
the wake of the ILLEGAL US-led invasion, Afghanistan accounts for
more than 85 percent of the global heroin market. In turn, the latter
represents a sizeable fraction of the global narcotics market,
estimated by the UN to be of the order of $400-500 billion a year.(7)
What distinguishes narcotics from legal commodity trade is that
narcotics constitute a major source of wealth formation not only for
organized crime but also for the US intelligence apparatus, which also
represents a powerful actor in the spheres of finance and banking.
Intelligence agencies and powerful business syndicates, which are
allied with organized crime, are competing for the strategic control
over the heroin routes. The multi-billion dollar revenues of nar-
cotics are deposited in the Western banking system. Most of the large
international banks, together with their affiliates in the off-shore
banking havens, launder large amounts of narco-dollars.
This trade can only prosper if the main actors involved in nar-cotics
have "political friends in high places". Legal and illegal under-
takings are increasingly intertwined; the dividing line between
"business people" and criminals is blurred. In turn, the relationship
among criminals, politicians and members of the intelligence estab-
lishment has tainted the structures of the State and the role of its
institutions.
Behind the trade in narcotics, there are powerful business and
financial interests. The productive system underlying the Golden
Crescent heroin market is protected by a US-sponsored regime in Kabul.
US foreign policy serves these interests. Geopolitical and military
control over the multibillion dollar drug routes consti-tutes a
(hidden) strategic objective, comparable, in some regards, to the
militarization of oil pipeline routes out of Central Asia. (See
Chapter6.)
Multibillion Dollar Trade
Where does the money go? Who exactly benefits from the Afghan opium
trade?
A complex web of intermediaries characterizes this trade. There are
various stages of the drug trade, several interlocked markets, from
the impoverished poppy farmer in Afghanistan to the whole-sale and
retail heroin markets in Western countries. In other words, there is a
"hierarchy of prices" for opiates.
According to the US State Department,"Afghan heroin sells on the
international narcotics market for 100 times the price farmers get for
their opium right out of the field".[8]
The UNODC estimates that in 2003, opium production in Afghanistan
generated "an income of one billion US dollars for farmers and US $
1.3 billion for traffickers, equivalent to over half of its national
income." Consistent with these UNODC estimates, the average price for
fresh opium was $350 a kg. (2002); the production for that same year
was 3400 tons, rising to 4100 tons in
2004.(9)
Wholesale Prices of Heroin in Western Countries
The total revenues generated by the Afghan narcotics trade are sub-
stantially higher than those estimated by the UNODC. One kilo of opium
produces approximately 100 grams of (pure) heroin, which was selling
wholesale in New York in the late 10s for $85,000 to $190,000 a kilo,
in contrast to $3500 per ten kilos of fresh opium paid locally in
Afghanistan by traffickers.(10)
The Hierarchy of Prices
The narcotics trade is characterized by a hierarchy of prices, from
the farmgate price in Afghanistan, upwards to the final retail price
on the streets of London, Paris and New York. The street price is
80-100 times the price paid to the farmer.
Opiate products thus transit through several markets from the
highlands of Afghanistan, by land and sea to the so-called "trans-
shipment countries", where they are transported to their final des-
tination in the "consuming countries". Here there are wide margins
between "the landing price" demanded by the drug cartels at the point
of entry and the wholesale and retail street prices, protected by
Western organized crime.
The Global Proceeds of the Afghan Narcotics Trade
In Afghanistan, the reported 4100 tons of opium produced in 2004
allowed for the production of approximately 410,000 kg. of pure
heroin. The gross revenues accruing to Afghan farmers (according to
the UNODC) were roughly of the order of $1.13 billion, with $1.5
billion accruing to local traffickers (UNODC's had estimated $1
billion to farmers and $1.3 billion to traffickers for 2003,
corresponding to 3600 tons of raw opium. The corresponding figures for
2004 are based on an extrapolation of these figures, assuming no
changes in farmgate prices).
---
TEXT BOX 16.1
Heroin Retail Prices in Britain and the US
The New York Police Department (NYPD) notes that retail heroin prices
are down and purity is relatively high. Heroin previously sold for
about $90 per gram but now sells for $65 to $70 per gram or less.
Anecdotal information from the NYPD indicates that purity for a bag of
heroin commonly ranges from 50 to 80 percent but can be as low as 30
percent. Information as of June 2000 indicates that bundles (10 bags)
purchased by Dominican buyers from Dominican sellers in larger
quantities (about 150 bundles) sold for as little as $40 each, or $55
each in Central Park. DEA reports that an ounce of heroin usu-ally
sells for $2,500 to $5,000, a gram for $70 to $95, a bundle for $80 to
$90, and a bag for $10. The DMP reports that the average heroin purity
at the street level in 19 was about 62 percent.(11)
The NYPD and DEA retail price figures are consistent. The DEA price of
$70-$95, with a purity of 62 percent, translates into $112 to $153 per
gram of pure heroin. The NYPD figures are roughly similar with perhaps
lower estimates for purity.
It should be noted that when heroin is purchased in very small
quantities, the retail price tends to be much higher. In the US,
purchase is often by "the bag"; the typical bag according to Rocheleau
and Boyum contains 25 milligrams of pure heroin.(12)
A $10 dollar bag in NYC (according to the DEA figure quoted above)
would convert into a price of $400 per gram, each bag containing 0.025
gr. of pure heroin.13 For very small purchases marketed by street
pushers, the retail margin tends to be significantly higher. In the
case of the $10 bag purchase, it is roughly 3 to 4 times the
corresponding retail price per gram ( $112- $153).
United Kingdom Drug Prices
The retail street price per gram of heroin in the United Kingdom,
according to British police sources, "has fallen from ￡74 in 17 to ￡61
[in 2004]." [i.e., from approximately $133 to $110, based on the 2004
rate of exchange].14 In some cities it was as low as ￡30-40 per gram
with a low level of purity.15 According to Drugscope, the average
price for a gram of heroin in Britain was between ￡40 and ￡90 ( $72-
$162 per gram). The report does not mention purity. According to the
National Criminal Intelligence Service, the street price of heroin was
￡60 per gram in April 2002.
---
When sold in Western markets at a heroin wholesale price of the order
of $100,000 a kg (with a 70 percent purity ratio), the wholesale
proceeds (corresponding to 4100 tons of Afghan raw opium) would be of
the order of 58.6 billion dollars. The latter constitutes a
conservative estimate based on the various figures for wholesale
prices mentioned above.
But this amount of $58.6 billion does not include the highly lucrative
retail trade in Afghan heroin on the streets of major Western cities.
In other words, the final retail value is the ultimate yardstick for
measuring the contribution of the multibillion-heroin trade to the
formation of wealth in the Western countries.
A meaningful estimate of the retail value, however, is almost
impossible to ascertain. Retail street prices vary considerably within
urban areas, from one city to another and between consuming countries,
not to mention variations in purity and quality.
There is a significant markup between the wholesale and the retail
price of heroin. More generally, the lion's share of the proceeds of
this lucrative contraband accrues to criminal and business syndicates
in Western countries involved in the local wholesale and retail
narcotics markets. Moreover, "corporate" crime syndicates invariably
protect the various criminal gangs involved in retail trade.
More than 90 percent of heroin consumed in the UK is from Afghanistan.
Using the British retail price figure from UK police sources of $110 a
gram (with an assumed 50 percent purity level), the total retail value
of the Afghan narcotics trade in 2004 (4100 tons of opium) would be
the order of 90.2 billion dollars. The latter fig-ure should be
considered as a simulation rather than an estimate.
In other words, slightly more than a billion dollars gross rev-enue to
farmers in Afghanistan (2004) would generate global narcotics earnings-
accruing at various stages and in various markets-of the order of 90
billion dollars. This 1-90 ratio is consistent with the DEA's
assessment that one dollar of opium production in Afghanistan
generates $100 dollars in terms of retail value.
These global proceeds accrue to business syndicates, intelligence
agencies, organized crime, financial institutions, wholesalers, retail-
ers, etc., involved directly or indirectly in the drug trade. In turn,
the proceeds are deposited in Western banks, which constitute an
essential mechanism in the laundering of dirty money.
What these figures suggest is that the bulk of the revenues asso-
ciated with the global trade in heroin are not appropriated by
"terrorist groups" and "warlords". In fact, a very small percentage of
the total turnover of the drug trade accrues to farmers and traders in
the producing country. Bear in mind that the net income accru-ing to
Afghan farmers is but a fraction of the estimated $1.13 billion. The
latter amount are the gross proceeds accruing to the farmer, according
to UNODC, which do not take into account the payments of farm inputs,
interest on loans to money lenders, political protection, etc.(16)
The Laundering of Drug Money
A large share of global money laundering is directly linked to the
trade in narcotics. Money laundering, according to IMF estimates for
the 10s, was between 590 billion and 1.5 trillion dollars a year,
representing 2-5 percent of global GDP.(17)
The proceeds of the drug trade are deposited in the banking system.
Drug money is laundered in the numerous offshore banking havens in
Switzerland, Luxembourg, the British Channel Islands, the Cayman
Islands and some 50 other locations around the globe. It is here that
criminal syndicates involved in the drug trade and the representatives
of the world's largest commercial banks interact. Dirty money is
deposited in these offshore havens, which are con-rolled by major
Western banks and financial institutions. The latter, therefore, have
a vested interest in maintaining and sustaining the drug trade.[18]
Once the money has been laundered, it can be recycled into bona fide
investments not only in real estate, hotels, etc, but also in other
areas such as the services economy and manufacturing. Dirty and covert
money is also funneled into various financial instruments including
speculative stock exchange transactions (deriva-tives), primary
commodities, stocks and government bonds.
Narcotics and the "War on Terrorism"
US foreign policy and the ILLEGAL "war on terrorism" support the
workings of a thriving criminal economy in which the demarcation
between organized capital and organized crime has become increasingly
blurred.
The heroin business is not "filling the coffers of the Taliban" as
claimed by the US Government and the international community.
Rather, the proceeds of this illegal trade are the source of wealth
formation outside Afghanistan, largely reaped by powerful finan-cial
and business/criminal interests within Western countries. This process
of wealth accumulation resulting from the drug trade is sustained and
supported by the US ILLEGAL "War on Terrorism". Decision-making in
the US State Department, the CIA and the Pentagon is instrumental in
supporting this highly profitable multibillion dollar trade, third in
commodity value after oil and the arms trade.
Notes
1. Statement of Assistant Secretary of State Robert Charles. US
House of Representatives Congressional Hearing, 1 April 2004.
2. United Nations Office on Drugs ands Crime (UNODC) at
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/index.html.
3. Remarks on behalf of the United Nations Office on Drugs ands
Crime (UNODC) Executive Director at the UN General Assembly, Oct 2001,
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/speech_2001-10-12_1.htm.
4. Statement of the UNODC Representative in Afghanistan at the
February 2004 International Counter Narcotics Conference,
http://www.unodc.org/pdf/afg/afg_intl_counter_narcotics_conf_2004.pdf,
p. 5.
5. Deseret News, Salt Lake City, Utah, 5 October 2003.
6. The Independent, 29 February 2004. At the time these UN figures
were first brought out (14), the (estimated) global trade in drugs was
of the same order of magnitude as the global trade in oil.
7. Douglas Keh,"Drug Money in a Changing World", Technical Document
No. 4, Vienna UNDCP, 18, p. 4. See also United Nations Drug Control
Program, Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 19, E/
INCB/19/1 United Nations, Vienna, 19, p. 49-51, and Richard Lapper,
"UN Fears Growth of Heroin Trade, Financial Times, 24 February 2000.
There are no reliable esti-mates on the distribution of the global
narcotics trade between the main categories: Cocaine, Opium/Heroin,
Cannabis, Amphetamine Type Stimulants (ATS), Other Drugs.
8. US State Department, quoted by The Voice of America (VOA), 27
February 2004.
9. See http://www.poppies.org/news/104267739031389.shtml. The
Afghan farmer receives a very small percentage of the global turnover
of the trade in Afghan opi-ates, which the United Nations Office on
Drugs ands Crime (UNODC) estimates at US $ 30 billion.
10. The US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) confirms that SWA
[South West Asia meaning Afghanistan] heroin in New York City was
selling in the late 10s for $85,000 to $190,000 per kilogram wholesale
with a 75 percent purity ratio. See National Drug Intelligence Center,
http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs/648/ny_econ.htm. According to the US
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) "the price of SEA [South East
Asian] heroin ranges from $70,000 to $100,000 per unit (700 grams) and
the purity of SEA heroin ranges from 85 to 90 percent". The SEA unit
of 700 grams (gr.) (85-90% purity) translates into a wholesale price
per kg. for pure heroin ranging between $115,000 and $163,000. Whereas
there was competition between different sources of heroin supply, the
US heroin market, at the time these figures were collected, was
largely being supplied out of Colombia. In Britain, where more than 90
percent of the heroin originates from Afghanistan, the wholesale price
of (pure) heroin in London, was of the order of 50,000 pounds
sterling, approximately $80,000 a kilo (2002). See The Guardian, 11
August 2002.
11. National Drug Intelligence Center, http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs/648/
ny_econ.htm.
12. See Office of National; Drug Control Policy, The White House,
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/drugfact/american_users_spend/
appc.html.
13. National Drug Intelligence Center, op cit.
14. The Independent, 3 March 2004.
15. AAP News, 3 March 2004. See Drugscope (UK): http://www.drugscope.org.uk.
16. See also UNODC, "The Opium Economy in Afghanistan", Vienna,
2003, http://www.unodc.org/pdf/publications/afg_opium_economy_www.pdf,
p. 7-8.
17. Asian Banker, 15 August 2003.
18. For further details, see Michel Chossudovsky, "The Crimes of
Business and the Business of Crimes", Covert Action Quarterly, Fall
16.
On Aug 22, 10:52 pm, Arny <NoSpamTha...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> rh...@email.com wrote:
> > It was obvious to anyone with any sense--which excludes the entire Bush
> > Regime and almost all of the "foreign policy community"--that the
rh...@email.com
"Operation Containment"
United Nations Cover-up
Global Trade in Narcotics
Multibillion Dollar Trade
The Hierarchy of Prices
---
United Kingdom Drug Prices
---
Notes
> rh...@email.com wrote:
> > It was obvious to anyone with any sense--which excludes the entire Bush
> > Regime and almost all of the "foreign policy community"--that the
CNC
<rh...@email.com> wrote in message
news:684578f0-fe8e-4298...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> Since the ILLEGAL US-led invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, the
> Golden Crescent opium trade has soared.
>
He,He, He....
Kool....
:)
C.Martin
it being a singularly US operation. Dang. Now I feel bad for the forgotten
sacrifices and efforts of our allies...
C.
"CNC" <online...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:g9miid$vi9$1...@aioe.org...
Mark
>
> If you desire to be poor, oppressed, and eventually vaporized in a
> nuclear war, vote Republican.
"Boom goes London, boom Paree, more room for you and more room for
me..., let's drop the big one now."
MERK
wrote:
> "US-led?" Were there actually other countries involved? Geez, I remembered
> it being a singularly US operation. Dang. Now I feel bad for the forgotten
> sacrifices and efforts of our allies...
>
> C.
Huh? There`s been Canadians in Afghanistan since 2001...
wessd
It is the longest newsgroup posting I have ever seen.
It is incredible. I can't and won't comment on the post, I didn't read
read the whole thing, I lost intrest or didn't have the time or both.
I did start scrolling. And scrolling. And I scrolled some more.
Wow.
WessD Go NAVY!!!!! you can bet the Boomers are ready for Nuclear war.
Tanker
that the US led invasion was sanctioned by the UN and it wasn't even
US led...The invasion was run by the Northern Alliance Forces which
the US backed with fuel and ammo...remember? The US forces were off
loaded in Uzbehkistan but then we realized Task Force Hawk couldn't be
mobilized in time because of the terrain?
Some people.
brilton
And Australians.