U.S. Identifies Vast Riches of Minerals in Afghanistan

[xsited1]

We were justified in attacking Afghanistan? There are a lot of people who will disagree with you. The Taliban promised that if the United States could bring evidence that bin Laden was guilty, they would hand him over, stating that they had no evidence linking him to the September 11 attacks. That sounds like a reasonable request, right? The US did not provide evidence, but the bombs fell anyway. Nation building is always a bad idea. And we're right in the middle of it.

This is America. People are allowed to disagree.

The Taliban never had any intention on acting in good faith. They also had no intentions of handing Bin Laden over.

Once we enter a country, we inherit the task of "nation building". It's a reality that needs to be weighed by the American people in the run up to the war.

I thought it was worth it in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq. However, the task is much easier in Iraq due to oil.

And therein lies the problem: once we enter a country, we inherit the task of nation building. Screw that. The fact is that Congress never authorized this war. When Bush was President, everyone was accusing him of attacking Afghanistan to control the Afghanistan Oil Pipeline. Now that Obama has decided to escalate the war, nobody mentions that anymore. And all of a sudden there are 'vast riches of minerals' in Afghanistan. Anything to justify a war. It stinks, especially for all the soldiers and innocent civilians who have been killed or maimed by this silly war.

 

[CurveLight]

Drugs, energy resources, and apparently these minerals have been known for quite some time.

"Drugs" aren't a resource. Furthermore, there is nothing magical about Afghanistan that makes it integral to the poppy trade. The only reason it thrives there is the lawlessness. The demand for heroin will drive the Opium supply to simply move on to the next accommodating narco state.

What energy resources? We've been looking for those for a while with no leads. The last I heard the amount of natural gas in Afghanistan wasn't enough to bother with.

As for minerals, we've known about them (by virtue of your link) since 2007. That's five years after we were in Afghanistan.

So what resources?

For the last time: I did not say we invaded due to the minerals. It does look like they have been known since Russia went into afghanistan. My position on the minerals is they are being touted because the US needs to increase Troop levels and the 9E card has been overplayed. This new talking point will get idiots to support more troops being sent.

Your claim that drugs aren't resources is just too bizarre but it shows you've not really studied the issue nor the global impact when the Taliban reduced drug production by over 90%. When we invaded we made it so that could get back on track. With the hundreds of billions in sales on drugs do you really think the only dealers are people like Pacino in Scarface?

Energy resources. This is about control of the resources. This doesn't mean idiot average americans will pay less for energy. It means the US controlling resources. Why do you think OPEC, being only 12 nations, has been able to exert so much global influence on to the other 150+ nations in the world?

 

[rdean]

We didn't see any of the Iraqi oil and we're not going to see any of these Afghani minerals.

Shows how much you know...THAT SHIT'S IN YOUR GAS TANK AS WE SPEAK!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
TABLE-Iraq's 2008 crude oil customer volumes | Reuters

Wow, look at all those American Sounding names.

Indian Oil Corp
Chevron
Royal Dutch/Shell
ExxonMobil
Valero
BP
Sinochem
ENI
ConocoPhillips
Hindustan Petroleum Corp
Repsol
Koch
North Atlantic Refining
Mitsubishi
Petrobras
Cepsa
Taurus
ERG
Petrovietnam
Petrogal
China Oil

 

[PatekPhilippe]

We didn't see any of the Iraqi oil and we're not going to see any of these Afghani minerals.

Shows how much you know...THAT SHIT'S IN YOUR GAS TANK AS WE SPEAK!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
TABLE-Iraq's 2008 crude oil customer volumes | Reuters

Wow, look at all those American Sounding names.

Indian Oil Corp
Chevron
Royal Dutch/Shell
ExxonMobil
Valero
BP
Sinochem
ENI
ConocoPhillips
Hindustan Petroleum Corp
Repsol
Koch
North Atlantic Refining
Mitsubishi
Petrobras
Cepsa
Taurus
ERG
Petrovietnam
Petrogal
China Oil

Yeah...who the fuck ever heard of Shell, ExxonMobil,ConocoPhillips, Valero and Chevron...who are those tricky foreign sounding companies selling GAS IN THE USA!!!!!???

 

[geauxtohell]

And therein lies the problem: once we enter a country, we inherit the task of nation building. Screw that. The fact is that Congress never authorized this war. When Bush was President, everyone was accusing him of attacking Afghanistan to control the Afghanistan Oil Pipeline. Now that Obama has decided to escalate the war, nobody mentions that anymore. And all of a sudden there are 'vast riches of minerals' in Afghanistan. Anything to justify a war. It stinks, especially for all the soldiers and innocent civilians who have been killed or maimed by this silly war.

First: No one with more then two neurons to rub together accused Bush of invading Afghanistan for the Unicol pipeline deal. Yes, I saw Ferenheit 9-11 and Moore's wild eyed theories on the matter. A good book I read prior to going to Afghanistan is "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll. I've often recommended it here. Coll touches on the pipeline a bit in his book, but I like his take on the matter here:

Culver City, Calif.: Because of the U.S. economic interests described in the book 'The Taliban' (such as the oil pipeline cutting through Afghanistan) isn't it surprising that the CIA wouldn't have developed better intelligence assets in that country? Also do you think those interests influenced how much support the U.S. government gave the Afghan rebels against the Taliban?

Steve Coll: Good question. Despite the pipeline project, the United States simply did not see any compelling interests in Afghanistan in these years -- neither the massive humanitarian crisis in the country, nor the threats of terrorism and drug-trafficking, attracted muich attention.

Books: Ghost Wars (washingtonpost.com)

We never saw the pipeline as a lucrative enough to even devote sufficient time and energy to Afghanistan, let alone invade it. Part of the stupidity about the whole "liberals are weak on defense bit" is that most of us saw the necessity of Afghanistan and supported it. A small fringe of people claimed this was about oil (in Afghansitan at least).

Secondly: We inherit nation building as a consequence of war and have done so since World War II. An aversion to nation building doesn't mean we can simply take war off the table. We just have to recognize it, assess the possibilities and risks, and factor in if the juice is worth the squeeze. In Afghanistan, where a nation was harboring an organization that had killed 3000 innocent Americans. I'd argue it was.

Finally: It's silly to suggest we "made up" this mineral find to drum up support for a war eight years after the fact. The truth is, and I witnessed this with my own two eyes, we've been desperate for any sort of economic boom in Afghanistan that might allow the nation to grow and for us to leave. This study started in '07 and has just now come to fruition. It's good news. Not a white wash.

 

[LeatherneckPM]

with that said, this is going to turn out bad and lead to decades of corruption. the taliban and other militant groups will control actual access to the resources, enslave locals to gather it, and then sell it to multinational companies who will turn a blind eye to whats happening as long as they get their profit. it will be the next blood diamonds

Unless we kill and or capture them all first.

Define "we". You serve or you riding the uniforms of those who do?

 

[geauxtohell]

For the last time: I did not say we invaded due to the minerals. It does look like they have been known since Russia went into afghanistan. My position on the minerals is they are being touted because the US needs to increase Troop levels and the 9E card has been overplayed. This new talking point will get idiots to support more troops being sent.

So we are so powerful that we can plant 1 Trillion dollars worth of minerals in the ground to justify more troops?

More troops for what? What is the benefit in staying in Afghansitan for the next four decades? We aren't trying to trump up reasons to stay in that place, we are trying to find a way out.

Your claim that drugs aren't resources is just too bizarre but it shows you've not really studied the issue nor the global impact when the Taliban reduced drug production by over 90%. When we invaded we made it so that could get back on track. With the hundreds of billions in sales on drugs do you really think the only dealers are people like Pacino in Scarface?

Again, there is nothing magical about the soil in Afghansitan that makes it the only place in the world to grow poppies. The Narco trade flourished there simply due to the lawlessness. Why would we invade a country to ensure a steady flow of heroin to the streets? What benefit to us is that? Heroin costs us money, not the reverse.

Energy resources. This is about control of the resources. This doesn't mean idiot average americans will pay less for energy. It means the US controlling resources. Why do you think OPEC, being only 12 nations, has been able to exert so much global influence on to the other 150+ nations in the world?

What energy resources? Afghanistan has no energy resources.

 

[CurveLight]

Either way, our action in Afghanistan was justified and (if we would have stopped there) sent a powerful message about our foreign policy to nations that harbor terrorists which is this:

If you support terrorists that attack us, we are gong to come into your country and kick you out of power.

The problem with that message in Afghanistan, is that when you do that, you need a way out. This could be our way out.

Normally I would go ballistic but you are a bright guy and I think still a bit caught up in Nationalism. Your premise for afghanistan is proven wrong by the fact it is well known saudi arabia has been the world's largest supporters of terrorism in the world, including attacks on israel. Do you think it is a mere coincidence 15 9E hijackers came from SA?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

with that said, this is going to turn out bad and lead to decades of corruption. the taliban and other militant groups will control actual access to the resources, enslave locals to gather it, and then sell it to multinational companies who will turn a blind eye to whats happening as long as they get their profit. it will be the next blood diamonds

Unless we kill and or capture them all first.

Define "we". You serve or you riding the uniforms of those who do?

WHOA>>>>calm down ......Modbert has been here a while and he's no poser.

 

[xsited1]

And therein lies the problem: once we enter a country, we inherit the task of nation building. Screw that. The fact is that Congress never authorized this war. When Bush was President, everyone was accusing him of attacking Afghanistan to control the Afghanistan Oil Pipeline. Now that Obama has decided to escalate the war, nobody mentions that anymore. And all of a sudden there are 'vast riches of minerals' in Afghanistan. Anything to justify a war. It stinks, especially for all the soldiers and innocent civilians who have been killed or maimed by this silly war.

First: No one with more then two neurons to rub together accused Bush of invading Afghanistan for the Unicol pipeline deal. Yes, I saw Ferenheit 9-11 and Moore's wild eyed theories on the matter. A good book I read prior to going to Afghanistan is "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll. I've often recommended it here. Coll touches on the pipeline a bit in his book, but I like his take on the matter here:

Culver City, Calif.: Because of the U.S. economic interests described in the book 'The Taliban' (such as the oil pipeline cutting through Afghanistan) isn't it surprising that the CIA wouldn't have developed better intelligence assets in that country? Also do you think those interests influenced how much support the U.S. government gave the Afghan rebels against the Taliban?

Steve Coll: Good question. Despite the pipeline project, the United States simply did not see any compelling interests in Afghanistan in these years -- neither the massive humanitarian crisis in the country, nor the threats of terrorism and drug-trafficking, attracted muich attention.

Books: Ghost Wars (washingtonpost.com)

We never saw the pipeline as a lucrative enough to even devote sufficient time and energy to Afghanistan, let alone invade it. Part of the stupidity about the whole "liberals are weak on defense bit" is that most of us saw the necessity of Afghanistan and supported it. A small fringe of people claimed this was about oil (in Afghansitan at least).

Secondly: We inherit nation building as a consequence of war and have done so since World War II. An aversion to nation building doesn't mean we can simply take war off the table. We just have to recognize it, assess the possibilities and risks, and factor in if the juice is worth the squeeze. In Afghanistan, where a nation was harboring an organization that had killed 3000 innocent Americans. I'd argue it was.

Finally: It's silly to suggest we "made up" this mineral find to drum up support for a war eight years after the fact. The truth is, and I witnessed this with my own two eyes, we've been desperate for any sort of economic boom in Afghanistan that might allow the nation to grow and for us to leave. This study started in '07 and has just now come to fruition. It's good news. Not a white wash.

I wish I had your optimism. I doubt we'll ever leave Afghanistan. And maybe if the US would stop butting into other Nation's businesses, we wouldn't have a 9/11. Just a thought.

 

[CurveLight]

Either way, our action in Afghanistan was justified and (if we would have stopped there) sent a powerful message about our foreign policy to nations that harbor terrorists which is this:

If you support terrorists that attack us, we are gong to come into your country and kick you out of power.

The problem with that message in Afghanistan, is that when you do that, you need a way out. This could be our way out.

For the last time: I did not say we invaded due to the minerals. It does look like they have been known since Russia went into afghanistan. My position on the minerals is they are being touted because the US needs to increase Troop levels and the 9E card has been overplayed. This new talking point will get idiots to support more troops being sent.

So we are so powerful that we can plant 1 Trillion dollars worth of minerals in the ground to justify more troops?

More troops for what? What is the benefit in staying in Afghansitan for the next four decades? We aren't trying to trump up reasons to stay in that place, we are trying to find a way out.

Where in the fuck did I say anything about "planting" 1 trillion dollars of minerals? I didn't. That is why I truncated your post. In order to discuss you need to be clear about what I've actually stated. Once again:

It is my position the amount of minerals have been known but are only now being pushed into the headlines because we need to send more Troops to afghanistan and the american public needs some type of bowlshit to be spoon fed so they will support it.

When it is clear you actually understand my position on the minerals we can discuss the other items.

 

[geauxtohell]

Normally I would go ballistic but you are a bright guy and I think still a bit caught up in Nationalism. Your premise for afghanistan is proven wrong by the fact it is well known saudi arabia has been the world's largest supporters of terrorism in the world, including attacks on israel. Do you think it is a mere coincidence 15 9E hijackers came from SA?

It's not nationalistic, IMO. It's trying to find a rational way to exert military force in a post-conventional war era.

I think it's an entirely rational and appropriate response to state sponsors of terror that we will remove them from power (we are very good at destroying governmental infrastructure and not very good at dealing with the inevitable insurgency) if they support a group that attacks us. That's a powerful deterrent on it's own right. It also requires us to be attacked first. I think the notion of "pre-exemption" is insane.

I am no fan of Saudi Arabia and I am fully aware that Wahibbism is a large player in AQ's emergence. That being said, Saudi Arabia wasn't shielding AQ. The Taliban was. If AQ was in Saudi Arabia, I doubt we'd have any difficulty getting them to hand them over. I certainly don't think the Royal Family is behind any attacks on us. We've made those fuckers filthy rich.

So, we have to find a rational way to defend ourselves and project deterrence in the day and age of terrorism. Afghanistan was a golden opportunity to do that, and Bush could have been great if he stopped there. Unfortunately, he muddled the message with Iraq and we lost all moral high ground on the issue.

That was his greatest failure, and perhaps the greatest failure of any modern president, and is why his administration will always be viewed as sub par.

 

[geauxtohell]

I wish I had your optimism. I doubt we'll ever leave Afghanistan. And maybe if the US would stop butting into other Nation's businesses, we wouldn't have a 9/11. Just a thought.

I wasn't optimistic until I read this. My opinion is that our shelf life in Afghanistan expired in '05 and there was little left, militarily, that we could do over there and that the problem was, at heart, economic in nature.

I also can't buy into extreme isolationism on the pretext that it might prevent sociopaths from attacking us. Not a good gamble. We need to stay plugged into the world and learn how to project appropriate force in response to terrorism.

We won't be in Afghanistan forever. There is no good reason to stay. Yeah, we make Iran sweat by being there, but Iran is not that big of a threat.

Also, eventually Iran is going to get the bomb and will be invasion proof. That's the whole reason they want the bomb (and not to wipe Israel off the map as the goofy "military action as a first resort crowd" would have you believe).

 

[geauxtohell]

Where in the fuck did I say anything about "planting" 1 trillion dollars of minerals? I didn't. That is why I truncated your post. In order to discuss you need to be clear about what I've actually stated. Once again:

It is my position the amount of minerals have been known but are only now being pushed into the headlines because we need to send more Troops to afghanistan and the american public needs some type of bowlshit to be spoon fed so they will support it.

When it is clear you actually understand my position on the minerals we can discuss the other items.

I was being sarcastic about "planting minerals". However, I am not being sarcastic that I think it's absurd to claim we are just now using this to justify sending more troops.

Why can't good news simply be good news without an ulterior and insidious agenda?

 

[LeatherneckPM]

Unless we kill and or capture them all first.

Define "we". You serve or you riding the uniforms of those who do?

WHOA>>>>calm down ......Modbert has been here a while and he's no poser.

I am always calm.

 

[CurveLight]

Where in the fuck did I say anything about "planting" 1 trillion dollars of minerals? I didn't. That is why I truncated your post. In order to discuss you need to be clear about what I've actually stated. Once again:

It is my position the amount of minerals have been known but are only now being pushed into the headlines because we need to send more Troops to afghanistan and the american public needs some type of bowlshit to be spoon fed so they will support it.

When it is clear you actually understand my position on the minerals we can discuss the other items.

I was being sarcastic about "planting minerals". However, I am not being sarcastic that I think it's absurd to claim we are just now using this to justify sending more troops.

Why can't good news simply be good news without an ulterior and insidious agenda?

How is this good news? And for whom? If you think there were problems with tribal warfare in afghanistan before this announcement....well....just wait.

I'm highly confident in my prediction this will be used to justify sending in more US troops.

 

[Samson]

Where in the fuck did I say anything about "planting" 1 trillion dollars of minerals? I didn't. That is why I truncated your post. In order to discuss you need to be clear about what I've actually stated. Once again:

It is my position the amount of minerals have been known but are only now being pushed into the headlines because we need to send more Troops to afghanistan and the american public needs some type of bowlshit to be spoon fed so they will support it.

When it is clear you actually understand my position on the minerals we can discuss the other items.

I was being sarcastic about "planting minerals". However, I am not being sarcastic that I think it's absurd to claim we are just now using this to justify sending more troops.

Why can't good news simply be good news without an ulterior and insidious agenda?

How is this good news? And for whom? If you think there were problems with tribal warfare in afghanistan before this announcement....well....just wait.

I'm highly confident in my prediction this will be used to justify sending in more US troops.

Yes, as we all know, tribal warfare in Afghanistan is a function of the value of Afghani Rocks.

Curvey, you don't work up much sweat thinking before you post, do you:

***I'm trying to give your stupidity a positive spin.***

 

[CurveLight]

Normally I would go ballistic but you are a bright guy and I think still a bit caught up in Nationalism. Your premise for afghanistan is proven wrong by the fact it is well known saudi arabia has been the world's largest supporters of terrorism in the world, including attacks on israel. Do you think it is a mere coincidence 15 9E hijackers came from SA?

It's not nationalistic, IMO. It's trying to find a rational way to exert military force in a post-conventional war era.

I think it's an entirely rational and appropriate response to state sponsors of terror that we will remove them from power (we are very good at destroying governmental infrastructure and not very good at dealing with the inevitable insurgency) if they support a group that attacks us. That's a powerful deterrent on it's own right. It also requires us to be attacked first. I think the notion of "pre-exemption" is insane.

I am no fan of Saudi Arabia and I am fully aware that Wahibbism is a large player in AQ's emergence. That being said, Saudi Arabia wasn't shielding AQ. The Taliban was. If AQ was in Saudi Arabia, I doubt we'd have any difficulty getting them to hand them over. I certainly don't think the Royal Family is behind any attacks on us. We've made those fuckers filthy rich.

So, we have to find a rational way to defend ourselves and project deterrence in the day and age of terrorism. Afghanistan was a golden opportunity to do that, and Bush could have been great if he stopped there. Unfortunately, he muddled the message with Iraq and we lost all moral high ground on the issue.

That was his greatest failure, and perhaps the greatest failure of any modern president, and is why his administration will always be viewed as sub par.

It's Nationalism because you still believe invading afghanistan had anything to do with defending the US. It's well known SA has protected and funded alkida:

Kagan helped shield Saudis from 9/11 lawsuits | Raw Story

That's just one minor blip. Moreover, the Taliban were not exactly best buddies with bin laden.....which is why they offered to help turn bin laden over to a third party if the US provided evidence bin laden had a role in 9E. They weren't asking for a first born child or even a court conviction. They simply asked for evidence and we had none to offer. Doesn't that send a red flag?

 

[geauxtohell]

How is this good news? And for whom? If you think there were problems with tribal warfare in afghanistan before this announcement....well....just wait.

I'm highly confident in my prediction this will be used to justify sending in more US troops.

It's good news for us. If we act accordingly, this could help us get out of there. As for tribal warfare, that's going to be a problem no matter what happens. I mean, we really can't change thousands of years of Afghans being Afghans. That being said, as was my experience, the tribes will jockey for position on this and we can use it as a carrot and stick to keep them in line.

I suppose we'll see if this results in more troops or not. I think the biggest find was in Ghazni, and we've already got plenty of troops there.

 

[CurveLight]

I was being sarcastic about "planting minerals". However, I am not being sarcastic that I think it's absurd to claim we are just now using this to justify sending more troops.

Why can't good news simply be good news without an ulterior and insidious agenda?

How is this good news? And for whom? If you think there were problems with tribal warfare in afghanistan before this announcement....well....just wait.

I'm highly confident in my prediction this will be used to justify sending in more US troops.

Yes, as we all know, tribal warfare in afganistan is a function of the value of Afgani Rocks.

Curvey, you don't work up much sweat thinking before you post, do you:

***I'm trying to give your stupidity a positive spin.***

I'm not a gynecologist so why do the most toxic useless ***** seek my attention?