THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN: DRUG PROFITS MUST STILL BE GOOD

THE US MEDIA HAS PAID AS MUCH ATTENTION

TO THE AFGHAN DRUG CANCER 

AS THE WHITE HOUSE ~ 

THAT IS, BETWEEN ZILCH AND ZIP

June 13, 2011

NORTHERNTRUTHSEEKER

THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN: DRUG PROFITS MUST STILL BE GOOD BECAUSE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT WANTS ITS TROOPS TO STAY FOR DECADES TO COME!

It has been a long while since I did any articles on the failed war in Afghanistan, and I figure that this is as good a time as any to take a look at this war for the Rothschild drug empire in Europe to profit from the exploitation of Afghan Opium. 

I am still surprised to this day that people around the world have not seen the truth about this evil and illegal war that is having soldiers dying while protecting Opium Poppy fields, and ensuring that they stay in full production for some evil people to get their Billions of dollars in drug profits.

There has been a constant push over the last few years to have the soldiers begin a withdrawal from Afghanistan and bring them home.  However, according to this latest article, from the Guardian online news service out of the UK at www.guardian.co.uk, it seems that the US Government has just entered into secret talks with their puppets in the Afghan government that will see US troops stay in Afghanistan for decades to come!   This is absolutely sickening, and here is that article in its entirety for my own readers to view:

SECRET US AND AFGHANISTAN TALKS

COULD SEE TROOPS STAY FOR DECADES

Russia, China and India concerned

about 'strategic partnership'

in which Americans would remain after 2014

Jason Burke in Kabul

guardian.co.uk,

June 13, 2011 17.38 BST

Article history

US-Afghanistan security negotiations continue despite Hillary Clinton saying recently that Washington did not want any 'permanent bases in Afghanistan'.

(Noor: Let us not discuss Hillary’s track record for honesty and reliability! :

Secret US and Afghanistan Talks Could See Troops Stay for Decades)

American and Afghan officials are locked in increasingly acrimonious secret talks about a long-term security agreement which is likely to see US troops, spies and air power based in the troubled country for decades.

Though not publicized, negotiations have been under way for more than a month to secure a strategic partnership agreement which would include an American presence beyond the end of 2014 ~ the agreed date for all 130,000 combat troops to leave ~ despite continuing public debate in Washington and among other members of the 49-nation coalition fighting in Afghanistan about the speed of the withdrawal.

American officials admit that although Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, recently said Washington did not want any "permanent" bases in Afghanistan, her phrasing allows a variety of possible arrangements.

"There are US troops in various countries for some considerable lengths of time which are not there permanently," a US official told the Guardian.

British troops, NATO officials say, will also remain in Afghanistan long past the end of 2014, largely in training or mentoring roles.


Although they will not be "combat troops" that does not mean they will not take part in combat. Mentors could regularly fight alongside Afghan troops, for example.

Senior NATO officials also predict that the insurgency in Afghanistan will continue after 2014.

There are at least five bases in Afghanistan which are likely candidates to house large contingents of American special forces, intelligence operatives, surveillance equipment and military hardware post-2014. In the heart of one of the most unstable regions in the world and close to the borders of Pakistan, Iran and China, (Noor: AND RUSSIA!) as well as to central Asia and the Persian Gulf, the bases would be rare strategic assets.


News of the US-Afghan talks has sparked deep concern among powers in the region and beyond. Russia and India are understood to have made their concerns about a long-term US presence known to both Washington and Kabul. China, which has pursued a policy of strict non-intervention beyond economic affairs in Afghanistan, has also made its disquiet clear. During a recent visit, senior Pakistani officials were reported to have tried to convince their Afghan counterparts to look to China as a strategic partner, not the US.

American negotiators will arrive later this month in Kabul for a new round of talks. The Afghans rejected the Americans' first draft of a strategic partnership agreement in its entirety, preferring to draft their own proposal. This was submitted to Washington two weeks ago. The US draft was "vaguely formulated", one Afghan official told the Guardian.

Afghan negotiators are now preparing detailed annexes to their own proposal which lists specific demands.

 .

The Afghans are playing a delicate game, however. President Hamid Karzai and senior officials see an enduring American presence and broader strategic relationship as essential, in part to protect Afghanistan from its neighbours.

"We are facing a common threat in international terrorist networks. They are not only a threat to Afghanistan but to the west. We want a partnership that brings regional countries together, not divides them," said Rangin Spanta, the Afghan national security adviser and the lead Afghan negotiator on the partnership.

Dr Ashraf Ghani, a former presidential candidate and one of the negotiators, said that, although NATO and the US consider a stable Afghanistan to be essential to their main strategic aim of disrupting and defeating al-Qaida, a:

"prosperous Afghanistan" was a lesser priority. "It is our goal, not necessarily theirs," he said.

Though Ghani stressed "consensus on core issues", big disagreements remain.

Right: A USAF cargo plane takes off from the U.S. airbase in Incirlik in Turkey in March 2003. A Russian news channel reported that drugs from Afghanistan were hauled by American transport aircraft to the U.S. airbases in Kyrgyzstan and Turkey.

One is whether the Americans will equip an Afghan air force. Karzai is understood to have asked for fully capable modern combat jet aircraft. This has been ruled out by the Americans on grounds of cost and fear of destabilizing the region.

Noor: America is worried about DESTABILIZING the region?!! Oh my but that is just too rich in irony and pathos.

Another is the question of US troops launching operations outside Afghanistan from bases in the country. From Afghanistan, American military power could easily be deployed into Iran or Pakistan post-2014. Helicopters took off from Afghanistan for the recent raid which killed Osama bin Laden.

"We will never allow Afghan soil to be used [for operations] against a third party," said Spanta, Afghanistan's national security adviser.

A third contentious issue is the legal basis on which troops might remain. Afghan officials are keen that any foreign forces in their country are subject to their laws. The Afghans also want to have ultimate authority over foreign troops' use and deployment.

"There should be no parallel decision-making structures ... All has to be in accordance with our sovereignty and constitution," Spanta said.

Nor do the two sides agree over the pace of negotiations. The US want to have agreement by early summer, before President Barack Obama's expected announcement on troop withdrawals. This is "simply not possible," the Afghan official said.
.

There are concerns too that concluding a strategic partnership agreement could also clash with efforts to find an inclusive political settlement to end the conflict with the Taliban. A "series of conversations" with senior insurgent figures are under way, one Afghan minister has told the Guardian.

A European diplomat in Kabul said:

"It is difficult to imagine the Taliban being happy with US bases [in Afghanistan] for the foreseeable future."

Senior NATO officials argue that a permanent international military presence will demonstrate to insurgents that the west is not going to abandon Afghanistan and encourage them to talk rather than fight.

The Afghan-American negotiations come amid a scramble among regional powers to be positioned for what senior US officers are now describing as the "out years".

Mark Sedwill, the NATO senior civilian representative in Afghanistan, recently spoke of the threat of a "Great Game 3.0" in the region, referring to the bloody and destabilizing conflict between Russia, Britain and others in south west Asia in the 19th century.

Afghanistan has a history of being exploited by ~ or playing off ~ major powers. This, Dr Ghani insisted, was not "a vision for the 21st century". Instead, he said, Afghanistan could become the "economic roundabout" of Asia.
.

NTS Notes:  This is absolutely atrocious.  The Afghan people absolutely do not want these foreign invaders to stay in their country, and have still been joining the freedom fighting Taliban in droves.   

It has been said recently that the Taliban is winning this war, and I can understand why when the people see that these foreign troops are in their country, killing their fellow civilians with depleted uranium munitions, and protecting and making sure that the Opium poppy fields stay in full production.   I guess profits are good, because now these slave governments to the Rothschilds will have their troops stay in for decades to come....

And you really have to love the BS excuses about needing to fight their phoney "Al Qaeda", and so called "insurgents"...  But people everywhere are well aware that there is no "Al Qaeda" which was created by the CIA and Mossad for the phony war on terror. 

And calling the Taliban "insurgents" is obviously a total lie, because the Taliban are the Afghan people themselves, fighting to free their nation from these foreign invaders!

If anyone has any doubt about exactly WHY the US and NATO forces are in Afghanistan, I want to present the following photo expose that comes from www.whatreallyhappened.com, that shows explicit proof of troops protecting Opium fields:

.

The Taliban had all but eradicated the opium growers before the US invasion. So why is cheap Afghani heroin flooding into the United States?

In Afghan fields the poppies grow.
Between the crosses.

Row on row.

NTS Notes:  It does not take a rocket scientist to see that the US and NATO are definitely on the wrong and evil side in the war in Afghanistan.  This war shows how much the Rothschilds are in total control over world governments when they can call on their minion slaves to go to war and die to ensure their continuing drug profits.

Again it is up to the alternative media to get the real truth out about the evil war in Afghanistan and to push the citizens of this and other countries to demand the immediate withdrawal of our forces, and bring them home. That time is NOW!
.

 
Routes to Russia

EXTRA READING:

WAR, THE CIA AND NARCO-TRAFFICKING ~ AFGHANISTAN, AMERICAN DRUG COLONY

CIA FLY OPIUM OUT OF AFGHANISTAN ON USAF CARGO PLANES!

NARCO AGGRESSION: RUSSIA ACCUSES THE U.S. MILITARY OF INVOLVEMENT IN DRUG TRAFFICKING OUT OF AFGHANISTAN

OPIUM OF THE MASSES, ERIC WALBERG LOOKS AT THE REPERCUSSIONS OF THE SOVIET OCCUPATION OF AFGHANISTAN

NY TIMES: AFGHAN OPIUM KINGPIN ON CIA PAYROLL

THE SPOILS OF WAR: AFGHANISTAN'S MULTIBILLION DOLLAR HEROIN TRADE

Washington's hidden agenda: restore the drug trade

RUSSIA FINALLY ADMITS TO ITS HIDDEN HEROIN EPIDEMIC Surge in abuse blamed on west's failings in Afghanistan, but addicts go untreated

AFGHANISTAN: OPIUM, THE CIA AND THE KARZAI ADMINISTRATION

TALIBAN'S BAN ON POPPY A SUCCESS, U.S. AIDES SAY - THE NEW YORK TIMES

UN SAYS TALIBAN POPPY BAN HITS FARMERS HARD (PART 1) -- POPPIES.ORG  

NARCO AGGRESSION

Russia, facing a catastrophic rise in drug addiction, accuses the U.S. military of involvement in drug trafficking from Afghanistan.


PANIC IN GORKY PARK

Russia has been flooded with cheap opium from Afghanistan, smuggled in through Tajikistan and other countries along Russia’s “virtual borders” in Central Asia.