CIA: DRUGS - DRUGS - DRUGS - DRUGS - DRUGS:

[Bruce Patrick Brychek]

Thursday
07.20.2017
10:04 a.m.,
Chicago, Illinois time::

Dear Forum Members and Readers:

WHAT IS AFGHANISTAN and PAKISTAN REALLY ALL ABOUT PEOPLE ?

STUDY and THINK IT THROUGH DEEPLY, HISTORICALLY TO THE PRESENT. AND CONSTANTLY BEAR
IN MIND HOW's THE DRUG WAR PROGRESSING IN THE U.S. ?

LIKE FALSE FLAGS, THE FEDERAL RESERVE, THE OKLAHOMA BOMBING, OPERATION NORTHWOODS, PEARL HARBOR, THE REMOVALS OF JFK, MX, MLK, and RFK, THE GOLDEN TRIANGLE, 09.11.2001,
VIETNAM, LAOS, CAMBODIA, etc., THEY ARE ALL HIDING THERE IN PLAIN SIGHT PEOPLE.

ALSO, AS AN ASIDE START PAYING ATTENTION TO PERU, ANOTHER BURGEONING GLOBAL DRUG PRODUCING ENTITY WITH CONNECTIONS TO THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.

CIA DRUGS - DRUGS - DRUGS - DRUGS - DRUGS - DRUGS.

COCAINE, COCOA, HEROIN, MORPHINE, OPIUM, POPPIES, etc.

DRUGS ARE BETTER THAN CASH, DIAMONDS, GOLD, OIL, SILVER, etc.

DRUGS ARE THE WORLD'S BEST CASH CROP GLOBALLY.

INTERNATIONAL ASSASSINS ALWAYS WANTED TO BE PAID IN DIAMONDS OR HEROIN. EVER WONDER WHY ?

DRUGS ARE EASIER, and MORE EXPEDIENT THAN PRINTING MONEY. DRUGS HAVE A NEVER ENDING SUPPLY OF CONSUMERS. DRUGS PROVIDE A NEVER ENDING SUPPLY OF MONEY. DRUGS PROVIDE VIRTUALLY UNTRACEABLE AMOUNTS OF MONEY. MISDIRECTION, MISDIRECTION, MISDIRECTION LIKE A MASTER MAGICIAN, THE HIGH CABAL, THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITIES, THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA, THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL CORPORATIONS, THE SECRET GOVERNMENT, THE SECRET STATE ALL HAVE "We the People..." LOOKING ELSEWHERE.

WHAT REALLY IS THE TRUTH PEOPLE ?

WE ARE TOLD THE "TRUTH" IS "WHAT THEY SAY IT IS."

As always, I strongly recommend that you first read, research, and study material
completely yourself about a Subject Matter, and then formulate your own Opinions
and Theories.

Any additional analyses, interviews, investigations, readings, research, studies,
thoughts, or writings on any aspect of this Subject Matter ?

Bear in mind that we are trying to attract and educate a Whole New Generation
of JFK Researchers who may not be as well versed as you.

Comments ?
Respectfully,
BB.


AMERICA’S PAKISTAN POLICY COULD MAKE OR BREAK TRUMP'S LEGACY:
Pakistan army soldiers with 67th Medical Battalion salute during a transfer of authority ceremony in Muzaffarabad, Pakistan, February 16, 2006. U.S. Air Force / Tech. Sgt. Joseph McLean

WASHINGTON MUST DECIDE WHETHER IT CAN CONTINUE TO PARTNER WITH PAKISTAN OR WHETHER IT SHOULD MORE OPENLY CONFRONT ISLAMABAD:

Robert Hathaway July 19, 2017 Trump administration is on the cusp of making three crucial decisions about the sixteen-year war in Afghanistan and the related matter of how to manage the tempestuous relationship with Pakistan, thought by many to hold the key to peace in Afghanistan. These decisions will go far in determining whether America can successfully conclude its military adventure in Afghanistan and lay the groundwork for a more stable and peaceful South Asia.The administration will unveil its new strategy for Afghanistan within days. In a separate but closely related matter, Washington must decide whether it can continue to partner with Pakistan, Afghanistan’s neighbor to the east, or whether it should more openly confront nuclear-armed Pakistan for its long-running support for the Taliban and other allied groups, such as the Haqqani network.Finally, the State Department must decide whether to keep the stand-alone Office of the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, which it inherited from the Obama administration, or fold it into the normal bureaucratic structure of the department. This is not simply a routine organizational shake-up. The outcome will heavily influence how the administration thinks about the related Afghanistan and Pakistan crises.By virtually any reckoning, Pakistan offers the key challenge. It will soon have the fifth-largest population in the world. It fields the world’s sixth-largest army. In a decade or less, it may surpass China and France and possess the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal. The country’s geographic location, its standing in the Muslim world, and its ties to major countries, such as China, Iran and Saudi Arabia, give it substantial diplomatic and strategic heft.As central as Afghanistan has been to the American experience since 9/11, the decisions on Pakistan will ultimately be of far greater importance in shaping the policies and legacy of the Trump administration.The United States and Pakistan have had a tumultuous relationship for more than fifty years. At the height of the Cold War, again during the Soviet war in Afghanistan in the 1980s, and more recently after 9/11, the two have been close strategic partners. But each of these periods of collaboration has degenerated into a cycle of unmet expectations, angry recriminations, and accusations of betrayal—and, from the U.S. side, sanctions.Washington is rife with opposing prescriptions for managing the Pakistan relationship. Many, including prominent lawmakers, call for a tougher U.S. approach toward Islamabad. In recent years, Congress has imposed counterterrorism conditions on U.S. military payments to Pakistan that Islamabad has been unable (or unwilling) to meet. U.S. economic assistance is less than a quarter of what it was a few years ago.Others argue that unless Pakistan can be induced to bring the Taliban to the bargaining table, there is no chance for peace in Afghanistan. Washington, so this line of reasoning goes, should work with Pakistan rather than harangue it. This means, among other things, giving greater weight to Pakistani strategic anxieties—especially about its large neighbor and long-time adversary India—as the United States fashions its policy.As it considers how to manage its Pakistan portfolio, the Trump team cannot afford to ignore the tortured history of U.S.-Pakistan relations. A careful review of that history would lead to the following conclusions:Washington should not overestimate the value of its favor or the attraction of its carrots.Over the years, Americans have marveled at how little their support—including what they viewed as generous financial aid—has gained them in Pakistan. U.S. administrations going back to the 1950s have assumed, without sufficient reflection or analysis, that Washington’s favor would give the United States considerable clout in and political leverage over Pakistan.Yet, relative to Pakistan’s need and its own commitment of resources, U.S. economic and development assistance has been modest. True, Islamabad has valued U.S. aid and other support, but only if the cost was not too high. When the price for American backing was deemed too steep, as when Washington demanded that Pakistan abandon the nuclear programit believed essential for protection from India, Islamabad did not hesitate to forego U.S. aid.Similarly, the recent congressional actions to condition U.S. military payments to Pakistan have not persuaded Islamabad to move against the Haqqanis, a step thought contrary to Pakistan’s need to retain influence in Afghanistan. As Gen. David Petraeus remarked a few years ago, “You get what you pay for. We have not paid much for much of anything in Pakistan.”U.S. leverage is inversely related to Pakistani commitment.U.S. power over the years has frequently failed to provide the leverage Washington expected because Pakistan cared more about an issue than Washington did. This, of course, was the case with Islamabad’s determination to develop nuclear weaponry. Similarly, Pakistani generals have placed a higher value on retaining political power—even under the threat of U.S. sanctions—than the United States gave to its insistence that Pakistan abide by democratic norms and practices.At key points in the partnership, the stakes were higher for Pakistan than for the United States. The bilateral relationship never raised life-or-death issues for Americans. For many Pakistanis, it did. As a senior Pakistani legislator recently told me,“You have the capacity to kill, we have the willingness to die.” Commitment of that magnitude can negate power and nullify leverage.Pakistan’s strategic geographic location in a volatile and much-contested part of the globe is a huge asset for Islamabad and, indeed, provides Pakistan with leverage against even the powerful United States.

[Slav]

Profit profit profit

Afghanistan produced about 90 percent of the world heroin trade.

Of course the CIA secret government wants that cash cow under control, that buys a lot of bombs.

Amazing all countries with drugs or oil have been invaded or taken over.

You can't fight a battleship with a handgun.

Best reality phrase of the Century....

[Bruce P. Brychek]

Tuesday
12.29.2020
10:27 p.m.,
Chicago, Illinois time:

Dear JFK RFK MLK Forum Members and Readers:

07.20.2017 - I originally Posted and Circulated this important Headline and
Supporting Material.

Slav buttressed this strongly w/ his silent reference to: THE BLACK BUDGET.

As always, I strongly recommend that you first read, research, and study material
completely yourself about a Subject Matter, and then formulate your own Opinions
and Theories.

Any additional analyses, interviews, investigations, readings, research, studies,
thoughts, or writings on any aspect of this Subject Matter ?

Bear in mind that we are trying to attract and educate a Whole New Generation
of JFK Researchers who may not be as well versed as you.

Comments ?
Respectfully,
BB.

[bspez]

You can find the answer to most things by following the money and asking "who profits". The world's supply of diamonds is tightly controlled by several syndicates, in order to maintain prices. If all the diamonds in the world were released at one time, the value of diamonds would drop sharply. The same is true for drugs. You could eliminate the illegal drug trade overnight by legalizing all drugs. They did that in Portugal and found that addiction rates dropped. And all the costs associated with enforcing drug laws, policing, prosecuting, incarcerating, mostly disappeared. In NJ, we have had medical marijuana for about 10 years. But it has remained a felony with a mandatory three year prison sentence to own a single marijuana plant. So instead of growing several pounds of marijuana in your house or back yard, as easily and cheaply as you can grow tomatoes, you can pay $300 an ounce for medical marijuana at a state licensed dispensary. If you control the production and distribution, you can inflate the value by hundreds, even thousands of times what it costs to produce.