Our Wars, Part 1.

Has anyone else noticed that the war on terror has become as successful as the war on drugs? Does anyone else see that the war on terror has created more terror just like the war on drugs has created more drugs? Let’s look at their history. The term, war on drugs, was used first by President Richard Nixon in 1971 which he based on the war on poverty announced by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964. I have read articles about the real reason why he started that war. At that time there were many anti-Vietnam protestors in America, and since Nixon was another pro-war president, he tried to suppress the protesters by declaring marijuana (and other drugs) as illegal substances. Anyone that carried and used such drugs was considered a criminal. That was an easy decision since many Americans at that time (and today) used marijuana.

The war on drugs was doomed at its start because it did nothing to stop people from protesting the war. It actually gave them another reason to speak against the Govt. In 1994, one million Americans were going to prison for drugs every year. In 2005, that number was about 2.5 million per year. To me, that means only on thing: drug use has increased dramatically which is contrary to the purpose of the war on drugs.

This war, like all other wars, has become a profitable business paid for by our taxes. Between the years 2000-2006, the US spent $4.7 Billion to destroy coca production in Colombia, which has actually increased. Even with the help of TV writers and producers creating propaganda against drug use, the war on drugs did little to combat illegal drug trafficking. Peru President Alberto Fujimori (1990-2000) said that the US foreign drug policy has failed because coca supply has grown 10-fold during his term. The Canadian Govt. had similar success. In 1994, 28% used illegal drugs. In 2004, 45% used illegal drugs. Most of the Canadian Govt. budget went to law enforcement with little to prevention and education with the same in America.

Using the term “war” allows the use of the military, which many has argued against.

In 1989, America sent 25,000 troops to Panama to arrest Gen. Manuel Noriega on charges of illegal drug trafficking. US troops weren’t enough so private companies were also used. DynCorp (who are in Iraq today) was one of many to sign contracts with the State Dept to carry out anti-narcotics activities in Colombia, despite a 1988 2-year study that was funded by the Defense Dept that found that the use of the armed forces to combat drug trafficking had little or no effect and actually increased the profits of drug cartels. Also, the military was not the only party involved here.

In the mid to late 1980s, there were allegations that the CIA was involved in financing arms purchases with money from coca sales. In 1988, a U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations report on Contra drugs stated that members of the State Dept “…provided support for Contras involved in drug trafficking…”, which included “…payments to drug traffickers by the U.S. State Department of funds authorized by the Congress for humanitarian assistance to the Contras…”. In 1998, CIA Inspector General Frederick Hitz published a report that described how the Reagan-Bush administration protected Contras involved in drug trafficking from law enforcement and that the National Security Council was aware of these activities.

So what do we have after 35 years of the war on drugs and hundreds of billions of dollars spent on it? We have more people in prison, more drug use throughout the country, and more violent crimes, and someone is making a huge profit from it.

Coming soon in part 2, the War on Terror.

For the people, by the people...

That is what the founding fathers of this country had envisioned for the govt of the United States of America. Why? Because they came over here from a country that was ruled by one king after another that ran the country their way or you were tossed in some dungeon. That was one of the reasons why the USA was born. People were tired of being told how to live according to some tyrant, and most kings were. So a govt comprised of representatives of the people was in order, to give the people a chance to voice their opinions. Finally, the people's voice would be heard, or was it? For almost 3 decades the people thought the govt worked for them, and i think it did for most of the time. Many rules and regulations were passed that proved essential to improving the people's lives. Not too long ago, the working class had to work many hours every day but weren't paid for all of them. If they complained about working conditions they were harassed or even fired on the spot. Even though that still happens today (some companies would love to go back to those days), we now have regulations and agencies that work to protect the workers. Unions started to form because groups of workers realized that the elite corporate owners could only intimidate the few or the one. Then the govt started social programs to help different classes or groups of people. The idea behind these programs was a novel one, but they can only accomplish so much with insufficient funding. And lately, some of these programs have been eliminated (some were a waste) and many have seen drastic budget cuts. So how does today's govt look like? If you ask, most will probably say that it doesn't seem to have the people's interest anymore, and some would say that it has stopped listening to the people. And if you ask them who do they think the govt is listening to, they would say it's listening to big corporations with huge donations and lobbyists with major influence who can get much closer to the people's reps than the people themselves. Others would say the govt seems to care more about what's going on outside of this country than inside. You can see much of this on TV right now with the next batch of president-wannabes running from state to state trying to convince (sadly with some success) the people that they'll make things right, after being aligned with the current administration for most of it's time in power. They say they have a plan to fix everything, and they all have to be seen carrying someone's baby from the crowd (a select crowd sometimes). It seems that there isn't much difference between Washington and Hollywood these days. They're both are in the business of make believe. When you do get a candidate that speaks what's on the people's minds, the main-dream-media tries its best to ignore this person, or even create lies about the candidate to draw the people's attention away from the real issues. What will the next (and probably the most important in history) presidential election bring to the people? Hopefully, not more of the same. Hopefully.