Hidden Battles And Secret Victories

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

sjdoc ...et Carthago delenda est 8/22/2008 7:03:00 AM

As usual, wherever and whenever the mention of terrorist groups' access to financial resources comes up, we hear inevitably about their lucrative participation in the narcotics trade. Here we read yet again about the "heroin funded" Taliban.

And also as usual there is no mention made in the article's analysis of the role played by the "War on Drugs" criminalization of these sought-after (and therefore highly profitable) prohibited substances in the economies of First World nations like that of these United States.

It is understood that marginal disposable income among both pathological addicts and "recreational" drug users (the latter always the overwhelming majority of the criminal drug trade's clientele) is sufficient to provide massive profits only in those societies where there is wealth to be diverted to such purposes, and chief among these societies is our own, here in America.

Through the simple and obvious measure of decriminalizing the production, sale and use of these chemicals (not "legalizing," taxing, regulating, or otherwise associating government with even the most tenuous ghost of approval or profit), the marginal profitability of the drug trade will drop to levels at which the terrorists cannot earn enough from activities in this market to justify the risk of their exposure.

In effect, the criminalization of drugs like Heroin functions as a U.S. government price support program, and can be revoked literally overnight.

Every time there is any discussion on Strategypage about terrorist funding, the malignant effect of the "War on Drugs" cannot be evaded. By uselessly raising the cost of access to drug addicts and "casual" drug abusers here in these United States (for these "supported" prices do nothing to quench or even reduce real demand), the irresponsible officers of the federal and state governments in this nation blatantly guarantee the Taliban's material ability to slaughter and maim American soldiers and our allies in the Middle East.

This has gone past the realm of stupidity, and now stands squarely in the midst of treasonable aid and comfort to the enemy.

Quote Reply

ker 8/22/2008 3:49:57 PM

"Through the simple and obvious measure of decriminalizing the production, sale and use of these chemicals (not "legalizing," taxing, regulating, or otherwise associating government with even the most tenuous ghost of approval or profit), the marginal profitability of the drug trade will drop to levels at which the terrorists cannot earn enough from activities in this market to justify the risk of their exposure. "

Ker: How much hash will the chewing tobacco companys need to put in chew to get the tax exemption and freedom to sell to kids in TV ads? Alcohol, cigarettes and (Cuban) cigars would all use the same type of loopholes. All nature of poorly tested snake oils mixed with "medical marijuana" would start competing for shelf space in stores. And because of the tax brake they would win. Coca cola would put the cocaine back in it's soda or face huge losses in market share for tax reasons alone. You seam to argue that (some) drugs are so bad that government must give them free rain. Why have you placed this poisonous pill in your own argument?

"This has gone past the realm of stupidity, and now stands squarely in the midst of treasonable aid and comfort to the enemy."

Pet Rocks They are so dumb that amazed bystanders complaints provide much of their advertising for free. So empty that the fashion fades quickly and leaves the buyer ready for your next scam. Perfect.

Quote Reply

maruben NATO forces 8/22/2008 5:06:25 PM

The Taliban are taking advantage of the unwillingness of many NATO contingents to fight.

Are NATO forces surrendering without fighting or just looking into other way to avoid the Taliban?

If it is so (but I hope it is not) Russians will have an easy walk in the park next time... unless they meet and fight those NATO troops in their home countries.

On the other hand, it is very sad that SP is relating the french casualties with to be or not to be less warlike without giving more details about how they were killed specially since the public information indicates that they were attacked and killed in an ambush during a reconnaissance mission.

I wonder what SP will write if in this ambush and fight were involved the US soldiers.

h*tp://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/world/asia/20france.html

10 French Soldiers Killed Near Kabul

By CAROLINE BROTHERS and TOM RACHMAN

Published: August 19, 2008

PARIS — Ten French soldiers were killed and 21 were wounded in an ambush in Afghanistan, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France said on Tuesday.

The ambush, the deadliest episode for the international forces in Afghanistan in more than three years, came at a time of worsening violence in Afghanistan, and mounting concerns that radical Islamic terrorists may have shifted their focus to Afghanistan from Iraq.

?In its fight against terrorism, France has been dealt a harsh blow,? Mr. Sarkozy said in a statement. He said he would travel to Kabul later in the day.

The ambush took place on Monday, when French parachutists were on a joint reconnaissance mission with the Afghan Army, the president said. They were quickly pinned down, and eventually fought off the attackers when allied air support arrived.

?I acknowledge with respect and emotion the courage of these men, who fulfilled their duty to the point of the supreme sacrifice,? Mr. Sarkozy said. ?My determination is intact. France is determined to pursue the struggle against terrorism, for democracy, and freedom.?

Afghan officials told The Associated Press that the ambush took place in the Surobi district of Kabul Province, about 30 miles east of Kabul, the Afghan capital. One official said that four of the French soldiers who died were first captured by the attackers, and then were killed.

France has about 3,000 military personnel in Afghanistan, operating as part of a NATO-led coalition. The A.P. said the ambush on Monday was the deadliest attack against international troops in the country since June 2005, when 16 American troops were killed in Kunar Province.

From Yahoo News

h*tp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080819/ap_on_re_as/afghanistan

The French soldiers were on a reconnaissance mission when they were ambushed Monday afternoon by a force of about 100 militants in the mountains of Surobi, an insurgent redoubt 30 miles east of the Afghan capital of Kabul.

France's top military official, Gen. Jean-Louis Georgelin, said most of the French casualties came in the minutes after the soldiers ascended a mountain pass. Battles ensued and 21 French soldiers were wounded.

French Defense Minister Herve Morin said about 30 militants were killed and 30 wounded, while Afghan officials said at least 13 militants were killed. Taliban fighters and militants allied to renegade warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar operate in Surobi.

An Afghan official said earlier Tuesday that four French soldiers had been captured and killed. But Georgelin, the French general, denied that during a news conference in Paris.

Quote Reply

sjdoc Ker - On tax loopholes and who gives a goddam? 8/22/2008 7:15:19 PM

Says Ker:

"How much hash will the chewing tobacco companys need to put in chew to get the tax exemption and freedom to sell to kids in TV ads? Alcohol, cigarettes and (Cuban) cigars would all use the same type of loopholes. All nature of poorly tested snake oils mixed with 'medical marijuana' would start competing for shelf space in stores. And because of the tax brake they would win. Coca cola would put the cocaine back in it's soda or face huge losses in market share for tax reasons alone. You seam to argue that (some) drugs are so bad that government must give them free rain. Why have you placed this poisonous pill in your own argument?"

The "recreational" use of Schedule I substances (including both marijuana and Heroin, which are arbitrarily and contrary to factual reality judged by statute to have "no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States" and "a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision") was all that I'd discussed, and all that is pertinent to the subject of drug decriminalization as a means to defund international terrorists.

Regardless, there need be no more "tax exemption" imparted by the addition of hemp to any tobacco product than there is "tax exemption" afforded by flavoring that same tobacco with menthol (which is a chemical substance not itself subjected to the sorts of federal and state excises imposed upon tobacco and potable ethanol products).

As for "poorly tested snake oils" and materials of similar nature being sold off the shelves by American retailers, what FTC or FDA regulatory strictures can compare with the pure viciousness of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (to hell with their camoflage as "The American Association for Justice") in a tort law system gone completely berserk? Does anyone actually seek to assert that in this day and age, any American manufacturer, distributor, or vendor would dare put so much as a bottle of Aspirin out for sale without taking thorough precautions to ensure the purity and other advertised qualities of the product?

And "Coca Cola" reformulating to re-incorporate cocaine "or face huge losses in market share" for any reason, much less the already-dismissed idiocy of any putative "tax exemption" to be gained through such a stupidity? Just where the hell was Ker when "New Coke" happened?

When top corporate officers want to commit suicide, they jump out of the boardroom window on the 44th floor ("45, counting the mezzanine"). Not by adding psychoactive alkaloids to best-selling soft drinks.

The argument is not that "that (some) drugs are so bad that government must give them free [rein]" but that the "War on Drugs" is so bad that American government officers' actions in pursuing it are not only criminally violative of the U.S. Constitution but also treasonably malfeasant in all purposes and effects.

The life of one American airman, soldier, sailor, or Marine lost in an attack funded by Islamist drug trafficking is worth more than the lives of all the drug-seeking "recreational" users who might come afoul of any "poisonous pill" the incontinent wastoids might (and the word is most emphatically "might," and a goddam unlikely "might" in a market where the vendors are not criminals, and risk getting sued) possibly encounter as the result of decriminalization.

More likely he'll choke on a branded Tylenol caplet. McNeil Laboratories has pockets a helluva lot deeper than might any ethical pharma manufacturer cranking out a generic chemical compound less troublesome to formulate than penicillin.

Quote Reply

EricTheRed 8/23/2008 4:08:41 AM

sjdoc.....

Hear Hear- the issue has become not so much whether to decriminalize, but why. I feel some people are sticking to their guns because they can't see that it has gone beyond the fact that drug use causes problems and into the fact that decriminalizing the vast majority of non violent offenders is better than funding your enemies war chest. When do you (we) stop throwing good money after bad in the name of "doing the right thing" when in fact you are doing the WRONG thing?

Quote Reply

ker 8/28/2008 1:17:32 AM

Too sjdoc,

I miss understood you. In your last post you added the idea that the dealers you want to legalize will be subject to civil. That is a very different story. I don't know if you want the Food and Drug Administration involved or if want some trial judge to set up a panel of experts to do for your new class of "decriminalized" drugs what the FDA dose for legal drugs now. It doesn't matter. You envision a civil court approved set of standers for production and marketing of pot and horse. So in your opinion dose smoking weed cause lung cancer? How much will those trials cost? Will the drug manufactures you vision be required to ladle their product so a harmed user knows who to sue? Who will the civil judges call for help when the defendants just don't show up for trial? What happens when judges start writing rules they expect providers to follow?

And, the tax exemption, how long will that last? Congress can smell money.

I don't think the dealers will come and play in your new system. I think that the users will continue to mix and match and use the high cost gangster stuff when they can afford it. Anti-social behavior isn't fun any more when you make it legal or safe.

Now if you want the FDA to approve a legal, regulated and none prohibitively taxed version of street drugs marketed by the harm mitigation folks who trade needles you could cut into criminal drug profits marginally. It would be like a methadone clinic. I wouldn't make fun of that idea.

Quote Reply

indianmoose 8/30/2008 6:23:08 AM

In this insurgent conflict we have two different perspectives. Those that "hunt" and those that whole heartedly endear themselves to the "Malaysian" style of insurgent warfare. No armor, no helmets, no problem.

The americans hunt, the rest of the pack seeks to endear themselves to the population base. Let's think about it. Who is more successful at this point? Americans attempt to do both, others scramble to just do the latter.

In just making a point here, both sides have valuable insight on how to approach dealing with both the insurgents and the people in which we know ultimately will decide it.

What is the happy medium? Theirn lies the....

Quote Reply

	News As History - December 1, 2008
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us