drugs lead to terrorism

adnans

during thw superbowl this sunday, white house office of national drug control policy paid for two ads which linked drugs to terrorism. they are directed by tony kay who also directed American History X and in his spare time likes to dress up as osama bin laden and crash new york comedy clubs.

adnans

Nagilum

It really was a fantastic Superbowl, don't you think? Pats in the last second (fortunately I was rooting for them). In any case, it was certainly the best one I've personally seen.

I liked the bud light "mini-fridge" ad myself.

WhiteWashMan

and i thought they were saying poverty lead to terrorism....

bonkey

Originally posted by adnans
during thw superbowl this sunday, white house office of national drug control policy paid for two ads which linked drugs to terrorism

Interesting.

I always thought the US gave the Taliban millions for having done so much to prevent drug-manufacture in Afghanistan - activities which the NA were allegedly heavily involved in.

Which would mean that the terrorist supporters (who now seem to be classed as terrorists whenever anyone refers to them) are, in fact, fighting terrorism if indeed drugs and terrorism are so tightly linked.

OK - I take the point being made, but I think the US is going media crazy - its heading towards pure propaganda, and having less and less to do with the real world.

jc

Clintons Cat

The Media seems to have lost intrest in the whole heroin trade within Afganistan.Hopefully this should put it back on the agenda.
I am curious as to the effect wholesale destruction of the trade would have upon street prices of heroin and the increment of crime that would be required to fund the habit.
As Bonkey noted The United front controlled most of the heroin trade prior to sept 11 though areas nominally under taliban control also participated in production and most of the smuggling routes into pakistan would have been through Taliban areas.
It would seem to be buisiness as usual.
What is intresting is the rivalry between the various Whitehouse departments for funding. The defence budget was tripled recently so cutbacks in other areas will be needed to fund this.
Advertising space at the superbowl doesnt come cheap for years it was the most exclusive and expensive slot on television.
By pitching this advert with the highest audience share of the year the national drug control policy was raising its profile.

Victor

Originally posted by Clintons Cat
What is intresting is the rivalry between the various Whitehouse departments for funding. The defence budget was tripled recently so cutbacks in other areas will be needed to fund this.

I'm not sure where you get this figure from. See:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/usbudget/states2002/tx.html
"Winning the War on Terrorism
[The budget] Increases defense spending by $38 billion (12 percent), with an additional $10 billion, if needed, for the war against terrorism. "

bonkey

Originally posted by Clintons Cat
Advertising space at the superbowl doesnt come cheap for years it was the most exclusive and expensive slot on television.

This year was the first year in history where the superbowl advertising costs lowered.

Even still - the amounts we're talking about are relatively paltry for a propaganda manouever.

jc

gandalf

Clintons Cat heres an interesting article from the Independent http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia_china/story.jsp?story=116264 about the drug enforcment agency in Kabul, who have just been turfed out by the new administration.

I remember reading an article last week in the IT or II about the fields full of poppy plants and the fact there will be a glut of herion hitting the market in the coming months. (I'll try and get a link to it once I find where I saw it)

Well I suppost this is the price of freedom and justice, eh George.

Gandalf.

bonkey

Originally posted by gandalf
I remember reading an article last week in the IT or II about the fields full of poppy plants and the fact there will be a glut of herion hitting the market in the coming months.

Why weren't these fields daisy-cuttered into scorched earth?

Its not like anyone could hide them from the spyplanes, and seeing as the drug-trade funds terrorism, surely this should have been a priority for the campaign against terror?

jc

Canaboid

Post Sept 11, I saw an interview with an Afghan poppy farmer. The US reporter was patronisingy enquiring if he understood the pain and misery his produce was causing in the first world. His reply was that he understood the problems of heroin addiction but needed to feed his family and if the Americans really wanted to stop heroin production he would gladly sell his crops directly to them (for the same price) so they could be destroyed. Cost would have been negligable when compared to US spending on the "war on drugs".

This is also interesting http://www.independent.org/tii/news/010111Kane.html

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
Why weren't these fields daisy-cuttered into scorched earth?

Spending $15,000 on fuel, $16,000 on a bomb, $2,000 on crew salaries, $5,000 on maintenance in a $25m aircraft is not the correct way to torch a field.

You use napalm.

bonkey

The only cost which will change is the bomb.....but fine. Why werent they *torched* somehow????

jc

Victor

Sorry, pardon the sarcasm. teh best way to do somethin like this is on the ground, by hand / agricultural machinery.