# U.S. Identifies Vast Riches of Minerals in Afghanistan



## Modbert (Jun 13, 2010)

U.S. Identifies Vast Riches of Minerals in Afghanistan - NYTimes.com



> WASHINGTON  The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials.
> 
> The previously unknown deposits  including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium  are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe.
> 
> An internal Pentagon memo, for example, states that Afghanistan could become the Saudi Arabia of lithium, a key raw material in the manufacture of batteries for laptops and BlackBerrys.





> While it could take many years to develop a mining industry, the potential is so great that officials and executives in the industry believe it could attract heavy investment even before mines are profitable, providing the possibility of jobs that could distract from generations of war.
> 
> There is stunning potential here, Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the United States Central Command, said in an interview on Saturday. There are a lot of ifs, of course, but I think potentially it is hugely significant.
> 
> The value of the newly discovered mineral deposits dwarfs the size of Afghanistans existing war-bedraggled economy, which is based largely on opium production and narcotics trafficking as well as aid from the United States and other industrialized countries. Afghanistans gross domestic product is only about $12 billion.



This. Changes. Everything.


----------



## hortysir (Jun 13, 2010)

Bullshit.


The war is about OIL, not minerals


----------



## Woyzeck (Jun 13, 2010)

Well we just hit the jackpot. How so very lucky of us.


----------



## Modbert (Jun 13, 2010)

Woyzeck said:


> Well we just hit the jackpot. How so very lucky of us.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8iOmVd1W_g]YouTube - The Price is Right, Extended Theme[/ame]


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jun 13, 2010)

Why on earth are all these deposits and minerals and natural resources sit underneath places with such oppressive regimes or militants?


----------



## Modbert (Jun 13, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> Why on earth are all these deposits and minerals and natural resources sit underneath places with such oppressive regimes or militants?



Because they're too busy trying to cover their own ass instead of exploring the land?


----------



## ConHog (Jun 13, 2010)

Here's EXACTLY what Obama will do.

He will invest hundreds of millions of American dollars into building the infrastructure necessary to extract said minerals, then he will summarily turn it over to the Afghans without so much as a plan for us to be repaid what is owed us.


----------



## syrenn (Jun 13, 2010)

ConHog said:


> Here's EXACTLY what Obama will do.
> 
> He will invest hundreds of millions of American dollars into building the infrastructure necessary to extract said minerals, then he will summarily turn it over to the Afghans without so much as a plan for us to be repaid what is owed us.



 Your right.


----------



## xsited1 (Jun 13, 2010)

Modbert said:


> U.S. Identifies Vast Riches of Minerals in Afghanistan - NYTimes.com
> ...



So that's what Bush was after.  And I thought he was dumb.  Silly me.


----------



## random3434 (Jun 13, 2010)

> At the same time, American officials fear resource-hungry China will try to dominate the development of Afghanistans mineral wealth, which could upset the United States, given its heavy investment in the region. After winning the bid for its Aynak copper mine in Logar Province, China clearly wants more, American officials said.
> 
> Another complication is that because Afghanistan has never had much heavy industry before, it has little or no history of environmental protection either. The big question is, can this be developed in a responsible way, in a way that is environmentally and socially responsible? Mr. Brinkley said. No one knows how this will work.
> 
> ...



I'm no expert, but China and the US, among other countries, fighting for this land and their resources could lead to WW3. 

What do you all think? It's going to turn into a battle of who really does/will control this land and all it offers.


----------



## Modbert (Jun 13, 2010)

Echo Zulu said:


> I'm no expert, but China and the US, among other countries, fighting for this land and their resources could lead to WW3.
> 
> What do you all think? It's going to turn into a battle of who really does/will control this land and all it offers.



When it's put into that perspective, seems like a bunch of larger countries are standing around slicing up the pie that is Afghanistan.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 13, 2010)

Echo Zulu said:


> So are you indicating you think President Obama will be in the White House long enough (meaning until 2016) to do all of this? Because I don't know how something on such a grand scale could be done in 2 years, do you?
> 
> And if you want to debate someone, try acting like a grown up yourself, and stick to the facts.
> 
> ...



Gee, how is that possible?

Maybe because he is the one that will get them started, and all of his followers will give him credit for it no matter how long it takes, a bit like the Reagan defenders give him credit for things that didn't happen until Clinton was president, just like it has always happened throughout history. Grow up and take a look at the real world sometime.


----------



## xsited1 (Jun 13, 2010)

Echo Zulu said:


> > At the same time, American officials fear resource-hungry China will try to dominate the development of Afghanistans mineral wealth, which could upset the United States, given its heavy investment in the region. After winning the bid for its Aynak copper mine in Logar Province, China clearly wants more, American officials said.
> >
> > Another complication is that because Afghanistan has never had much heavy industry before, it has little or no history of environmental protection either. The big question is, can this be developed in a responsible way, in a way that is environmentally and socially responsible? Mr. Brinkley said. No one knows how this will work.
> >
> ...



It's nearly $1 trillion.  That's nothing.  It sounds like politicians are still trying to justify a useless war that get a lot of innocent people killed.


----------



## random3434 (Jun 14, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Echo Zulu said:
> 
> 
> > So are you indicating you think President Obama will be in the White House long enough (meaning until 2016) to do all of this? Because I don't know how something on such a grand scale could be done in 2 years, do you?
> ...



So you have a crystal ball now, and know not only what I have thought in the past, but what others are going to think in the future.

Do you have any thoughts on this topic, or are you just going to tell everyone who posts in this thread to "grow up"?


----------



## random3434 (Jun 14, 2010)

xsited1 said:


> Echo Zulu said:
> 
> 
> > > At the same time, American officials fear resource-hungry China will try to dominate the development of Afghanistans mineral wealth, which could upset the United States, given its heavy investment in the region. After winning the bid for its Aynak copper mine in Logar Province, China clearly wants more, American officials said.
> ...



Tell me about it, like I said, this is my biggest fear, that not only our troops will never leave now, but we (and our allies) will send even MORE over there for the $$$$$$$$$$$


----------



## Modbert (Jun 14, 2010)

Echo Zulu said:


> Tell me about it, like I said, this is my biggest fear, that not only our troops will never leave now, but we (and our allies) will send even MORE over there for the $$$$$$$$$$$



I didn't think we were going to leave Afghanistan for what would essentially add up to forever, but this just seals it. I mean, we're still in Japan and it's 65 years later.


----------



## blu (Jun 14, 2010)

echo & mod, why don't you just delete all of conhog and fellow trolls posts in this thread and leave the on topic ones?

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


----------



## Modbert (Jun 14, 2010)

blu said:


> *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.


----------



## blu (Jun 14, 2010)

Modbert said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > *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
> ...



we can't, it sucks such stuff is found is such shitty places. all this will do is enrich drug dealers and already billionarie companies, while the local people will see an influx of drugs, slavery, and brutal living conditions.


----------



## Modbert (Jun 14, 2010)

blu said:


> we can't, it sucks such stuff is found is such shitty places. all this will do is enrich drug dealers and already billionarie companies, while the local people will see an influx of drugs, slavery, and brutal living conditions.



Which is why we're going to be there for a very long time. This pretty much seals it I'd say.


----------



## random3434 (Jun 14, 2010)

Posts moved for debate on thread topic.


----------



## Modbert (Jun 14, 2010)

I'm hoping they release more details soon. Though it is a good question of whether anyone had any clue of this of any country that is.


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Jun 14, 2010)

A huge discovery!!!!!
NYT: Vast mineral deposits found in Afghanistan - The New York Times- msnbc.com

Threads Merged - Modbert


----------



## random3434 (Jun 14, 2010)

PatekPhilippe said:


> A huge discovery!!!!!
> NYT: Vast mineral deposits found in Afghanistan - The New York Times- msnbc.com
> 
> Threads Merged - Modbert



What is your take on all of this Patek? I would love to hear your thoughts, since you are 'military'


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Jun 14, 2010)

This discovery, in my humble opinion could significantly alter the entire economy in the region.  The west must be careful NOT to exploit the Afghan people and screw them out of their wealth.  If it's developed properly by a competent group of government officials this will eliminate the opium based economy.  This could bring Afghanistan into the 21st century....the only drawback I can see is the lack of a port facility.  This will require international agreements with the Aghan's neighbors, Iran and Pakistan to develope routes to get these resources to the industries that use them.  It will require a significant change in the politics of those 2 nations to a more capitalist type of society instead of a theocratic bureaucracy hampered by squabbling imams and rogue elements within the countries.


----------



## HUGGY (Jun 14, 2010)

ConHog said:


> Here's EXACTLY what Obama will do.
> 
> He will invest hundreds of millions of American dollars into building the infrastructure necessary to extract said minerals, then he will summarily turn it over to the Afghans without so much as a plan for us to be repaid what is owed us.



What is owed us?  By who? We invaded Afgahnistan to capture or kill Ossama and failed.

Afgahnistan did not make any act of war against us.  A few rag tag terrorists were holed up out in the Afgahni wilderness.  Afgahnistans army, if you can say they even had an army, was in no position to do anything about Ossama.


You are certifiably insane.


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Jun 14, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > Here's EXACTLY what Obama will do.
> ...



Actually the leader of the Afghan government, Mullah Omar, was allied with Osama bin Laden.  That fact makes the attacks on 9/11 an attack facilitated by the Afghan government regardless if they knew the plan was afoot.


----------



## HUGGY (Jun 14, 2010)

PatekPhilippe said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > ConHog said:
> ...



That statement requires proof.  I don't recall any resistance invading Afgahnistan by the government there.  If Omar was an "Ally" of Ossama why was there no official government fighting to protect him?  I believe you just made that up.


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Jun 14, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



Christ...sometimes you just got to spell it out for the mentally challenged jackasses.......


> Regarding Bin Laden&#8217;s sworn fealty to Mullah Omar. He made this pledge when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan. When Bin Ladin accepted Mullah Omar as his Amir, Mullah Omar became the spiritual leader of Al Qaeda. Bin Laden is still the political leader of the organization but as the spiritual leader Mullah Omar has authority over Bin Laden





> You could see this was so when, before 9/11, Mullah Omar told Bin Laden he had to stop speaking to the media. Because Bin Laden had sworn to obey Omar, that&#8217;s exactly what he had to do.


Former Taliban official, Waheed Mujda talks about Al Qaeda | Kabul Center for Strategic Studies

Now start spinning jackass!!!


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Jun 14, 2010)

> If Omar was an "Ally" of Ossama why was there no official government fighting to protect him?



ROFLMAO!!!!!

What a fucking dumb ass!!!!!!!
WE KICKED OMAR'S GOVERNMENT OUT IN 2002...DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!  Remember that?    

You want Karzai's government to protect Bin Laden now!!!???

Huggy...light is on but...alas...no one's home.


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Jun 14, 2010)

Funny how everyone want's to rewrite history and act like we DID NOT overthrow a terrorist supporting government headed by Mullah Omar who was allied with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda...

Gee...I guess all that stuff in 2002 was just another Rambo movie....


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Jun 14, 2010)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg]YouTube - Cricket Sound[/ame]


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Jun 14, 2010)

Now...getting back on topic....

I don't think this discovery will require our troops to remain there any longer than Obama has planned for.  Why?  First of all...the press about the war is all negative right now thus turning Americans against it.  Soon the deaths of American troops will begin to rise and the anti-war Code Pinkos will go on the war path and make the withdrawal of troops a Presidential campaign issue.  As the country spirals further into massive debt there will be calls to cut defense spending thus forcing whoever is President to bring our troops home whether or not the goals set out have been met.  A small contingent of forces will remain in Afghanistan no matter what...they have to train the Afghan Army and police.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jun 14, 2010)

blu said:


> 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



And they shall call them... *BLOODBERRYS*.

Speaking seriously, as blu said, this is pretty terrible for Afghans. I mean, it _could_ be good considering what a horrible state they're in right now, but you know what's the other place with huge lithium and mineral deposits?

That's right... THE CONGO, one of the bottom 10 shittiest places on Earth. Enormous mineral riches have been anathema in the Congo and much of central Africa, and this might turn out to be very similar in a place that's already as fucked up as Afghanistan.


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Jun 14, 2010)

Epsilon Delta said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > 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
> ...



Oh yes....it's absolutely horrible that another 3rd world country could, with the right leadership in place, become a productive member of the world community in 20 or so years...terrible I say...terrible!!!!  You equating Afghanistan's new found wealth to the Congo situation is COMPLETELY without merit and baseless.


----------



## editec (Jun 14, 2010)

ConHog said:


> Here's EXACTLY what Obama will do.
> 
> He will invest hundreds of millions of American dollars into building the infrastructure necessary to extract said minerals, then he will summarily turn it over to the Afghans without so much as a plan for us to be repaid what is owed us.


 
Well SOMEBODY will reap the profits.

But the Afghanistani people?

That's even less likely that the possibility that the USA people will harvest the bounty.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jun 14, 2010)

xsited1 said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > U.S. Identifies Vast Riches of Minerals in Afghanistan - NYTimes.com
> ...



This is priceless...ha ha ha.

How do you suppose Bush knew those deposits were there since they were only just recently discovered?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 14, 2010)

Does Modbert sound a lot like Terral?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 14, 2010)

Yes, Obama has planned to spend $4 trillion extracting that $1 Trillion worth of minerals


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Jun 14, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> > Modbert said:
> ...



Actually some Ruskie girls found it back when the Soviet was in Afghanistan.  The U.S. and Afghan government have been aware of the discovery for quite some time.  It was only recently that WE sent in some geologists to confirm the Russian findings.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 14, 2010)

PatekPhilippe said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > xsited1 said:
> ...



She has a hat on.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 14, 2010)

I find it hard to believe we didn't know about this ten years ago. The fact this info comes out of the Pentagon suggests it was an ace in the hole strategy.  We've had nearly a decade to build up our permanent (cough cough) sorry...I mean our long term military bases in Afghanistan. Thus is going to boost the US economy more than Afghanistan's. 

As for control over the resources......this is not like the Cally gold rush. We have a strong foothold so we will be controlling who gets which contracts.  That is where the real geopolitical power is sitting because countries will be vying over who can woo us into integrating them into the infrastructure. 

If there is enough wealth in the resources we may even see the US flipping on Saudi Arabia.


----------



## Barb (Jun 14, 2010)

Our new bestest friends. Until they aren't.


----------



## Barb (Jun 14, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> Why on earth are all these deposits and minerals and natural resources sit underneath places with such oppressive regimes or militants?



Ease your mind. The old "repressive regimes" you heard of will now be "rich in cultural tradition," and the "militants" are soon to be transformed and rehabilitated to become  "freedom fighters." That is, until the workers attempt to unionize, and it will be flipped to an older script.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 14, 2010)

What did Kurt Cobain know and when did he know it?

ZOMG!  That's why they kill him!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USZzH1L6nKU]YouTube - Nirvana - Lithium [Live][/ame]


----------



## Barb (Jun 14, 2010)

Modbert said:


> Echo Zulu said:
> 
> 
> > I'm no expert, but China and the US, among other countries, fighting for this land and their resources could lead to WW3.
> ...



This will be left up to the businessmen and especially the bankers.Think WB and WTO. It will all be handled under the heading of development, including the ecological degradation, the suppression of human rights, and labor exploitation.


----------



## Barb (Jun 14, 2010)

blu said:


> echo & mod, why don't you just delete all of conhog and fellow trolls posts in this thread and leave the on topic ones?
> 
> 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



exactly! and we will, once again, become apologists for the Taliban.


----------



## Barb (Jun 14, 2010)

editec said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > Here's EXACTLY what Obama will do.
> ...




Sad, but SO.


----------



## JimH52 (Jun 14, 2010)

ConHog said:


> Here's EXACTLY what Obama will do.
> 
> He will invest hundreds of millions of American dollars into building the infrastructure necessary to extract said minerals, then he will summarily turn it over to the Afghans without so much as a plan for us to be repaid what is owed us.



No, I think you mean that is what W did in Iraq.  Remember how the oil was supposed to pay for his war?


----------



## Middleman (Jun 14, 2010)

Modbert said:


> U.S. Identifies Vast Riches of Minerals in Afghanistan - NYTimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hot Damn, this expedition might be worth it after all!


----------



## Mr Natural (Jun 14, 2010)

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


----------



## JimH52 (Jun 14, 2010)

Mr Clean said:


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



Right!  Maybe they can give up the drug business for legitimate mineral extraction.  But now the Taliban has another reason to force their hand.  They will be looking to cash in on the mineral deposits.

Make peace with the Taliban?  Any organization that hangs a 7 year old for spying needs to be eliminated from the face of the earth.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 14, 2010)

Has anyone ever tallied how much the Germans and Japanese owe us for WWII? With Interest it has to be in the millions!


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jun 14, 2010)

PatekPhilippe said:


> Oh yes....it's absolutely horrible that another 3rd world country could, with the right leadership in place, become a productive member of the world community in 20 or so years...terrible I say...terrible!!!!  You equating Afghanistan's new found wealth to the Congo situation is COMPLETELY without merit and baseless.



Whoa dude... Easy there. "With the right leadership in place," you mean YOUR leadership? I mean, we are talking about the same country right? "With the right leadership in place" is a PRETTY BIG IF, don't you think? All I'm saying is that before you people wet your panties at the though of giant strip mines all over Afghanistan you could take a look at the countless of cases in which the "resource curse" has been terrible for countries without the capacity to take advantage of it for themselves and incapable of defending these resources internally or externally.


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Jun 14, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Has anyone ever tallied how much the Germans and Japanese owe us for WWII? With Interest it has to be in the millions!



I believe the German debt was paid off a few years back...I don't know about the Japanese.


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Jun 14, 2010)

Epsilon Delta said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> > Oh yes....it's absolutely horrible that another 3rd world country could, with the right leadership in place, become a productive member of the world community in 20 or so years...terrible I say...terrible!!!!  You equating Afghanistan's new found wealth to the Congo situation is COMPLETELY without merit and baseless.
> ...



What did I say...."the right leadership"...I didn't assign any nationality to it...wake the fuck up!  It's their country....let them decide what to do with their wealth.


----------



## rdean (Jun 14, 2010)

xsited1 said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > U.S. Identifies Vast Riches of Minerals in Afghanistan - NYTimes.com
> ...



He is and was dumb. 

He left and went into Iraq where the Republican Administration signed contracts and treaties making US responsible for rebuilding Iraq.

That's right, while up to 100 BILLION dollars of Iraqi oil money currently sit in US banks, we have to "foot the bill" to rebuild a country that Republicans tricked America into leveling.

WORSE, after we rebuild, when Iraq asks for their money, we have to give it to them.

America got screwed, long, hard and balls deep.


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Jun 14, 2010)

Mr Clean said:


> 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


----------



## jillian (Jun 14, 2010)

Modbert said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Why on earth are all these deposits and minerals and natural resources sit underneath places with such oppressive regimes or militants?
> ...



or perhaps they've spent too many years following extreme fundamentalist policies like tossing acid in the faces of girls who go to school?


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 14, 2010)

PatekPhilippe said:


> Epsilon Delta said:
> 
> 
> > PatekPhilippe said:
> ...



That's kinda like saying you can have whatever you want for breakfast.....as you pass armed men occupying the kitchen door and the kitchen itself.  Pay no attention to the muzzles of automatic weapons up your ass held by foreigners.


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Jun 14, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> > Epsilon Delta said:
> ...



Ummmmm...right....OK....how about those Celtics?


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jun 14, 2010)

PatekPhilippe said:


> What did I say...."the right leadership"...I didn't assign any nationality to it...wake the fuck up!  It's their country....let them decide what to do with their wealth.



Yeah, well, FINE. I hope so, you know. I HOPE this breaks the brutal cycle of violence Afghanistan's lived in for centuries. Just saying I'm not very optimistic.


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Jun 14, 2010)

Epsilon Delta said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> > What did I say...."the right leadership"...I didn't assign any nationality to it...wake the fuck up!  It's their country....let them decide what to do with their wealth.
> ...



Neither am I at this point...but that's no excuse to trash the discovery, bitch and complain about our policies and say they are fucked now...


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jun 14, 2010)

PatekPhilippe said:


> Epsilon Delta said:
> 
> 
> > PatekPhilippe said:
> ...



Fair enough and good point... They were already fucked.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 14, 2010)

Modbert said:


> U.S. Identifies Vast Riches of Minerals in Afghanistan - NYTimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It certainly could.  As I've often said, the problem in Afghanistan is economic (and not military) in nature.  We can't leave until the government has some sort of economic infrastructure in place to support it.

Of course, now will enter the conspiracy theorists that claim we went into Astan for the "lithium".


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 14, 2010)

PatekPhilippe said:


> Epsilon Delta said:
> 
> 
> > PatekPhilippe said:
> ...





Epsilon Delta said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> > What did I say...."the right leadership"...I didn't assign any nationality to it...wake the fuck up!  It's their country....let them decide what to do with their wealth.
> ...



This is going to increase the violence and I suspect this info was put out now because the obama admin will need a new talking point to increase Troop levels.  Don't be surprised if there is an announcement of 5K to 8K more Troops being sent to Afghanistan.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 14, 2010)

Echo Zulu said:


> > At the same time, American officials fear resource-hungry China will try to dominate the development of Afghanistans mineral wealth, which could upset the United States, given its heavy investment in the region. After winning the bid for its Aynak copper mine in Logar Province, China clearly wants more, American officials said.
> >
> > Another complication is that because Afghanistan has never had much heavy industry before, it has little or no history of environmental protection either. The big question is, can this be developed in a responsible way, in a way that is environmentally and socially responsible? Mr. Brinkley said. No one knows how this will work.
> >
> ...



This is already going on.  China has a copper mine in Afghanistan.

I doubt this will lead to WW3.  Conventional war between nuclear powers is a zero sum game.  Which is why the cold war remained cold.

However, the coming war with China will be economic in nature as we try and resist then shift of the global economic axis from New York and London to Beijing and New Delhi.  

Yet another reason it was so asinine for Bush to finance Iraq through China.  We just helped out our biggest rival.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 14, 2010)

xsited1 said:


> Echo Zulu said:
> 
> 
> > > At the same time, American officials fear resource-hungry China will try to dominate the development of Afghanistan&#8217;s mineral wealth, which could upset the United States, given its heavy investment in the region. After winning the bid for its Aynak copper mine in Logar Province, China clearly wants more, American officials said.
> ...



It's nothing on the global scale.  It's hugely significant in Afghanistan where (when I left) 46 afghanis were exchanging for 1 dollar.

Now if Pakistan wants to be helpful (doubtful), they will open up a duty free route to the port in Lahore for Afghani goods to be shipped.  If that doesn't work, we can try and negotiate passage to the Caspian Sea.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 14, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > U.S. Identifies Vast Riches of Minerals in Afghanistan - NYTimes.com
> ...



Those CTers are more respectable than the CTers who claim we went because of 9E.  Anyone who thinks we went there for anything other than strategic military placement and control of resources has never really studied the issue.


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Jun 14, 2010)

Epsilon Delta said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> > Epsilon Delta said:
> ...



Thanks...I'll give you that...


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 14, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Those CTers are more respectable than the CTers who claim we went because of 9E.  Anyone who thinks we went there for anything other than strategic military placement and control of resources has never really studied the issue.



Well, it obviously wasn't the minerals since we just found them.

So let me guess:  the oil pipeline?

We won't see a cent out of that deal.  Lame.

Chalk me up to one of those people that "has never really studied the issue" though I've read more books and spent a year of my life in Afghanistan.

We went in when the Taliban refused to give up Al Queda.  After three thousands Americans were killed by Al Queda, we were entirely justified to go in and, in fact, if Bush wouldn't have gone in, I suspect the American people would have demanded it.

I'll never dispute that going into Iraq was a diversion and I might even buy that there was a conspiracy afoot to get us there.  

However, Afghanistan?  No way.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 14, 2010)

I really fail to see how anyone can construe this to be a bad development.


----------



## JimH52 (Jun 14, 2010)

So with the new found wealth, we show the Government how to cash in, sign contracts, and make money off the minerals.  Once they are propped up and self sufficient, bring our troops back home!


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Jun 14, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Modbert said:
> ...



Wow...a thousands posts of crap.....and then this!!!!


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 14, 2010)

JimH52 said:


> So with the new found wealth, we show the Government how to cash in, sign contracts, and make money off the minerals.  Once they are propped up and self sufficient, bring our troops back home!



That's been the basic plan since '04.  However, the country had no resources to make money off of.  

So we are still there.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 14, 2010)

PatekPhilippe said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



I might buy "strategic military placement" but "control of resources"?  

Until this article:   what fucking resources?


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Jun 14, 2010)

JimH52 said:


> So with the new found wealth, we show the Government how to cash in, sign contracts, and make money off the minerals.  Once they are propped up and self sufficient, bring our troops back home!



We need to bring our troops home long before we invest that much blood.  Let them sort out their own future after we achieve our stated goals by Obama.  It's his show now.


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Jun 14, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



The Russians found this stuff years ago, records in Afghanistan were not destroyed during the Taliban government being deposed....the size and scope of the find was just verified by our own geologists


----------



## Mr Natural (Jun 14, 2010)

> WASHINGTON  The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and *enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy *and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials.




How about we use that $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits to fundamentally alter the US economy by paying down our national debt.

And if the Afghanis don't like it, fuck 'em.  We rid them of the Taliban what more do they want?


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 14, 2010)

PatekPhilippe said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > PatekPhilippe said:
> ...



It's no secret that Afghanistan has minerals. Like I said, China has had a contract to mine copper there for at least a year.

Chinese firm wins Afghan copper mining deal with $3bn bid - Times Online

Since we are talking about minerals, the size and scope of the minerals in the country is basically the most important factor.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 14, 2010)

Mr Clean said:


> > WASHINGTON  The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and *enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy *and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The money would be better spent letting the government build up the Army and police force so we don't have to keep losing money by having troops there.


----------



## Mr Natural (Jun 14, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > > WASHINGTON &#8212; The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and *enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy *and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials.
> ...




Whose government, the Afghanis?  They're about as crooked as they come.  They'll be lining their pockets and securing their personal fortunes before the citizenry sees any benefit.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 14, 2010)

Mr Clean said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...



Of course they will.  They can't steal it all though.  Especially when other countries (like China) get involved.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 14, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Those CTers are more respectable than the CTers who claim we went because of 9E.  Anyone who thinks we went there for anything other than strategic military placement and control of resources has never really studied the issue.
> ...



We "just found out" about them?

USGS Release: Significant Potential for Undiscovered Resources in Afghanistan (11/13/2007 10:00:00 AM)


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 14, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Yes.  We just found them.  The USGS had an inkling they might be there (hence the term "potential") and we just now have figured out where they are and have a rough estimate about how much minerals might be available.  

BTW, if you are going to argue causation for the invasion, then it would help your case if the evidence you are presenting was a known fact *prior* to our invasion.

You know, simple logic like that.


----------



## xsited1 (Jun 14, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> > Modbert said:
> ...



Bush knew.  You know he did.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 14, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Those CTers are more respectable than the CTers who claim we went because of 9E.  Anyone who thinks we went there for anything other than strategic military placement and control of resources has never really studied the issue.
> ...





geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



I never said we invaded for the minerals.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 14, 2010)

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.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 14, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> I never said we invaded for the minerals.



So the pipeline, huh?


----------



## random3434 (Jun 14, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> 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.



So, and I'm asking you, since you have been to Afghanistan, and know how things work better than most on here, you don't think this "find" will result in more troops going over there, and longer time for the US to be there? You think this is a way 'out' to bring them home?


----------



## xsited1 (Jun 14, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> 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.



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.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 14, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



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


----------



## xotoxi (Jun 14, 2010)

Modbert said:


> U.S. Identifies Vast Riches of Minerals in Afghanistan - NYTimes.com



Now we just need to invade a country with a large supply of vitamins, and we would be all set.


----------



## Dr.House (Jun 14, 2010)

xsited1 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > xsited1 said:
> ...



Of course - it's in the President's Book of Secrets...


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 14, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> 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?


----------



## HUGGY (Jun 14, 2010)

Our track record in "exploiting" the natural resources of other countries is to carve up the rights..land leases...give international multinational the rights to mine for nothing..offer our chosen government protection...offer the indigent population next to nothing...bring in foreigners to do the work...  provide no safety regulations...  create an environment even more hostile  ...  make it even harder to leave.  We were better off just having the Taliban protecting the poppy feilds..  Something like this will make us leaving Afgahnistan impossible and offer us nothing foe the trouble.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 14, 2010)

xsited1 said:


> 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.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 14, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Our track record in "exploiting" the natural resources of other countries is to carve up the rights..land leases...give international multinational the rights to mine for nothing..offer our chosen government protection...offer the indigent population next to nothing...bring in foreigners to do the work...  provide no safety regulations...  create an environment even more hostile  ...  make it even harder to leave.  We were better off just having the Taliban protecting the poppy feilds..  Something like this will make us leaving Afgahnistan impossible and offer us nothing foe the trouble.



The Afghani government gets no money from poppy.  

It's in desperate need of a GNP/GDP that isn't black market based.  

As for all the other ills, they are very low on the problem list when compared with the alternative.


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Jun 14, 2010)

xotoxi said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > U.S. Identifies Vast Riches of Minerals in Afghanistan - NYTimes.com
> ...



Invade AUSTRALIA FOR VITAMIN B


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 14, 2010)

Echo Zulu said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > 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:
> ...



No.  I think this find will result in a bridge that will allow us to leave the nation.  Before I thought we should simply leave them in a lurch.  Now at least their is the possibility for the government to derive revenue and build up the Army and police and protect itself against the Taliban.

It get's more nuanced than that.  If there is an economy, there is stability.  If there is stability, people are less inclined to run off and join the Taliban.  If there is opportunity, then the 12th century mentality of the Taliban seems less promising to progress and education.  

We won't need more troops to protect the mines or whatnot.  The local warlords will ensure the Taliban leaves the mines alone as they will be taking a sufficient cut of the revenue and the local people will be bringing paychecks home from the ordeal.

I don't think it will make us stay longer either.  I mean, basically, we have no exit strategy right now due to the dismal economics of the situation.  Now things are looking a little better.

I don't know if this is a silver bullet, but it's promising.


----------



## xsited1 (Jun 14, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Jun 14, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


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



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 (Jun 14, 2010)

PatekPhilippe said:


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



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 (Jun 14, 2010)

rdean said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...



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 (Jun 14, 2010)

xsited1 said:


> 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 (Jun 14, 2010)

Modbert said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > *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
> ...



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


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 14, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> 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 (Jun 14, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> 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 (Jun 14, 2010)

LeatherneckPM said:


> Modbert said:
> 
> 
> > blu said:
> ...



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


----------



## xsited1 (Jun 14, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Jun 14, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> 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.





geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Jun 14, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> 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 (Jun 14, 2010)

xsited1 said:


> 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 (Jun 14, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> 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 (Jun 14, 2010)

PatekPhilippe said:


> LeatherneckPM said:
> 
> 
> > Modbert said:
> ...



I am always calm.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 14, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > 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:
> ...



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 (Jun 14, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



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 (Jun 14, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > 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 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 (Jun 14, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> 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 (Jun 14, 2010)

Samson said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



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


----------



## Samson (Jun 14, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Thank you.

Mining would produce thousands of well-paying jobs in Afghanistan and lead to a stable econmomy.

It would be like West Virginia.


----------



## Samson (Jun 14, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Here I try to give your idiocy a positive spin, and you begin to go into convulsions of frothy rudeness.

Well I tried.....

Now we'll need to resort to medication and a nice bowl of lime jello.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 14, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Holy shit.  You actually believe ~ I mean truly believe ~ we want to get out of afghanistan?


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 14, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> 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?



Call it what you will.

Under the code of _pashtunwali_ the Taliban would have never given up Bin Laden and no amount of evidence we presented would have been sufficient.  Nor was the Taliban's offier:

CNN.com - U.S. rejects Taliban offer to try bin Laden - October 7, 2001

sufficient.  

Bin Laden and AQ were guests of the Taliban before, during, and after 9-11.  The Taliban wouldn't surrender them.  We were entirely justified to go into Afghanistan.

I know we'll never agree, but the underlying notion that we trumped up charges to go into Afghanistan for whatever reason is absurd IMO.  They have nothing that we need.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 14, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Holy shit.  You actually believe ~ I mean truly believe ~ we want to get out of afghanistan?



Yes.  

You obviously believe otherwise, so we are at an impasse.  

I have things to do today, so rather then spending 200 posts name calling, I am just going to leave it at that.


----------



## Samson (Jun 14, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



No Curvey, we want it to become the 51st state.

Eat your jello, and then you can take a nice nap.


----------



## Samson (Jun 14, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Holy shit.  You actually believe ~ I mean truly believe ~ we want to get out of afghanistan?
> ...



Damn, you've just spoiled the entertainment factor of this thread.

Nothing like pulling Curvey's Chain and Watching him Dance.


----------



## Modbert (Jun 14, 2010)

PatekPhilippe said:


> LeatherneckPM said:
> 
> 
> > Modbert said:
> ...



Thank you Patek. I obviously the U.S military when I said we. Since I'm not a member, that doesn't include me.


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Jun 14, 2010)

Samson said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Oh great.....just dandy....


----------



## LeatherneckPM (Jun 14, 2010)

Modbert said:


> PatekPhilippe said:
> 
> 
> > LeatherneckPM said:
> ...



No offense was meant. I have a habit of growling at 'we'. 

As far as I am concerned, 'we' can not have too many troops there. It is a shit hole of a place. For the sake of the Afghanis, I would like to see the US help them access their natural resources. Like others, I see the distinct possibility of the 'discovery' attracting attention from other nations. If countries are going to fight over the resources, it is in our, and the Afghanis, best interests for the US and the Brits to be there.


----------



## blu (Jun 14, 2010)

Samson said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



why on earth do you think they would be paid? it would be slave labor just like in the congo and Dubai


----------



## Samson (Jun 14, 2010)

blu said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Actually, I was thinking of the Diamond Mines in South Africa.

Why? 

Do you think it would matter?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 14, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> > Modbert said:
> ...



2007 is recent, but Bush was in charge then.

Say what? Afghanistan has $1 trillion in untapped mineral resources? | FP Passport


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 15, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > 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:
> ...



Okay. All I can suggest is you do some serious studying on why we invaded and will continue occupying Afghanistan.  It appears you believe you have sufficiently researched the issue and the worst part is you've decided to close your eyes.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 15, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> xsited1 said:
> 
> 
> > Modbert said:
> ...



What's priceless is your predictable stoopidity.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 15, 2010)

Don't know if this link was posted but it has some pertinent info and I think this is a great example of how media-stoopid Americans have become.  Think about it.  Our media puts out a claim these resources are "newly discovered" and people swallow it without question.

Afghanistan - None of our business? - Auburn Journal


----------



## Middleman (Jun 15, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Don't know if this link was posted but it has some pertinent info and I think this is a great example of how media-stoopid Americans have become.  Think about it.  Our media puts out a claim these resources are "newly discovered" and people swallow it without question.
> 
> Afghanistan - None of our business? - Auburn Journal



Of course our government and the multinational corporations knew about this long before the news was released to the public. It's naive for you to think you are part of some elite (non-stoopid) group, having done a groundbreaking Google search in a quest for the truth...


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 15, 2010)

Middleman said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Don't know if this link was posted but it has some pertinent info and I think this is a great example of how media-stoopid Americans have become.  Think about it.  Our media puts out a claim these resources are "newly discovered" and people swallow it without question.
> ...



It's arrogantly assumptive for you to jump a ship that's already sailed.  Look how many idiots on this thread alone believe they are "newly discovered."


----------



## Middleman (Jun 15, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Middleman said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Why do you call people idiots? Are you unable to discuss ideas and opinions without resorting to insults?


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 15, 2010)

Middleman said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Don't know if this link was posted but it has some pertinent info and I think this is a great example of how media-stoopid Americans have become.  Think about it.  Our media puts out a claim these resources are "newly discovered" and people swallow it without question.
> ...





Middleman said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Middleman said:
> ...



What the fuck is this?  An Oprah Sensitivty Round Circle class?  Stop whining and get some thicker skin.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 15, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



I've heard all the conspiracy theories out there.  I've also read extensively on Afghanistan.  I'd venture to say that I've read more about that country than any other person on this board.  

I don't buy the pipeline conspiracy or any other conspiracy about Afghanistan.  Afghanistan's only utility is that it sits in between be central Asia and the Arabian Sea.  It is hugely important to the region (which is why the Soviets invaded in '78.  They wanted to get to Lahore.  Not support the Afghani Communist Party).

However, it has literally nothing to offer us.  

Even if we stole all the resources we know about in Afghanistan, it would be a fraction of what we've spent there.  

I don't know if you've ever been there, but that country basically consists of tough terrain and tough people.


----------



## Samson (Jun 15, 2010)

Middleman said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Middleman said:
> ...



You should have seen him BEFORE the shock treatments and the lobotomy.

He's much better now.


----------



## Samson (Jun 15, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> .
> 
> Even if we stole all the resources we know about in Afghanistan, it would be a fraction of what we've spent there.
> 
> I don't know if you've ever been there, but that country basically consists of tough terrain and tough people.






Like West Virginia.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 15, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> I've heard all the conspiracy theories out there.  I've also read extensively on Afghanistan.  I'd venture to say that I've read more about that country than any other person on this board.
> 
> I don't buy the pipeline conspiracy or any other conspiracy about Afghanistan.  Afghanistan's only utility is that it sits in between be central Asia and the Arabian Sea.  It is hugely important to the region (which is why the Soviets invaded in '78.  They wanted to get to Lahore.  Not support the Afghani Communist Party).
> 
> ...



I don't know what you've read but quantity is not quality.   You're also assuming any explanation besides your own is invalid on the "Conspiracy Theory" charge.  Your position is a conspiracy theory.  How can you not see that?  Is it because it's the "official" government explanation?  

Our economy is the main reason we are in Afghanistan and using it as a military tactic is the most important tool.  Everything else, such as the 1.5 billion barrels of oil, huge amounts of natural gas, and minerals are simply perks to compliment our military goals.  They provide some leverage but the most important foundation is Afghanistan's location in relation to our allies and enemies.  

To say Afghanistan has "literally nothing to offer us" is to say you do not understand the geopolitical dynamics of the neocon's plans.  If our military gets defeated our economy will completely crash.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 15, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > I've heard all the conspiracy theories out there.  I've also read extensively on Afghanistan.  I'd venture to say that I've read more about that country than any other person on this board.
> ...



For starters:  "Ghost Wars" which won the pulitzer prize.  It might not be the quality you are looking for, but it's a quality read. 

You've only made vague hints as to why we are in Afghanistan.  You are going to have to spell it out a little better than that.


----------



## Middleman (Jun 15, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



He probably joined the Army to pay for college, eh?


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 16, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



GW is pretty narrow in relation to the broader international economic struggles.  

What do you think keeps US currency on the world stage?


----------



## editec (Jun 16, 2010)

> Even if we stole all the resources we know about in Afghanistan, it would be a fraction of what we've spent there.


 
But WE won't steal them.

If anything, we'll just PAY for them to be stolen so that the Masters can benefit.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 16, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



Then, since my pulitzer prize winning book isn't sufficient, why don't you recommend one of yours?   Please something legitimate and not some crackpot thing.

Also, feel free to spell out your logic on this matter.  I don't have time to play guessing games.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 16, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...





geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Lol.......you could present a "pulitzer prize" book on cooking.  The fact it is a PP winning book is irrelevent.  What matters is the focus and GW does a great job of revealing a little known history of our actions in Afghanistan but it doesn't do much for explaining our current occupation.

When I asked if you knew what keeps US currency on the world stage it wasn't to play any guessing game.  I was trying to find out what you knew to avoid redundancy in pointing out the petrodollar is the only thing keeping America's economy from joining some mud adobes in the poorest sections of Mexico.

Afghanistan is no less of an illegal war than Iraq.  The problem is too many people have been suckered by 9E heartstrings and the claim we went on "self-defense" is bullshit on several levels, including violating international laws and our own.  Why do it?  This is a decent link for starters: 

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/documents/7552683/download?commit=Download+Now&secret_password=


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 16, 2010)

Here's a more detailed link on who knew what and when about afghanistan's resources.  The info was known at least 15 years before we invaded in 2001.  
Mining


I guess "newly discovered" is American for "We own it whereever it is so fuck off."


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 16, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Lol.......you could present a "pulitzer prize" book on cooking.  The fact it is a PP winning book is irrelevent.



Except it wasn't on cooking, it was on Afghanistan.  And a PP is not irrelevant.  It means it wasn't some crack-pot diatribe some guy punched out in his basement on a 40 year old type writer.  It means the book was researched and reviewed.  



> What matters is the focus and GW does a great job of revealing a little known history of our actions in Afghanistan but it doesn't do much for explaining our current occupation.
> 
> When I asked if you knew what keeps US currency on the world stage it wasn't to play any guessing game.  I was trying to find out what you knew to avoid redundancy in pointing out the petrodollar is the only thing keeping America's economy from joining some mud adobes in the poorest sections of Mexico.
> 
> ...



That link would tend to fall under the "guy in the basement with the typewriter" heading, IMO.  In fairness, I don't have a ton of time right now so I just skimmed it.  It appears to be more of a 20 page pamphlet.  I did a search on "Afghansitan" and found it in one paragraph on page 12.  As I predicted, it was about the unocal pipeline deal and basically just asserted (with scant proof) that we went in to secure the pipeline deal.

That still doesn't outline how the Afghani invasion was all about Oil.  At best, Chevron would benefit from the oil deal and it's doubtful that the money they got out of the deal would even begin to cover our costs.  

I mean, I've been hearing about the pipeline deal since we went into A-stan, but it never has seemed to be an impressive argument to me.  I am not trying to just dismiss your claims, but you aren't giving me a lot.  

After Monday, if the thread is still alive, I'll read through the entire document.  I certainly didn't see anything in there that was a "slam dunk" for oil as the cause of our invasion.

Furthermore, no matter how you slice it, you can't get around 9-11.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 16, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Here's a more detailed link on who knew what and when about afghanistan's resources.  The info was known at least 15 years before we invaded in 2001.
> Mining
> 
> 
> I guess "newly discovered" is American for "We own it whereever it is so fuck off."



Again, one trillion dollars in minerals is a fraction of our costs there.  Bush might have sucked at business, but I think he could subtract 4 and 1 and even work with negative integers.


----------



## Samson (Jun 16, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Here's a more detailed link on who knew what and when about afghanistan's resources.  The info was known at least 15 years before we invaded in 2001.
> Mining
> 
> 
> I guess "newly discovered" is American for "We own it whereever it is so fuck off."





Yep, Curvey, our Brilliant Government started 15 years ago plotting so the Taliban would support Al Queda, and Al Queda would terrorise the nation into justifying an invasion so that we could mine in a country without a railroad.

Moron.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 17, 2010)

Samson said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a more detailed link on who knew what and when about afghanistan's resources.  The info was known at least 15 years before we invaded in 2001.
> ...



You suck at even strawmen.  Give it up dumbass.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 17, 2010)

Samson said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a more detailed link on who knew what and when about afghanistan's resources.  The info was known at least 15 years before we invaded in 2001.
> ...





geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a more detailed link on who knew what and when about afghanistan's resources.  The info was known at least 15 years before we invaded in 2001.
> ...



I'm not pointing out the monetary value.  I'm pointing out the claim it is "newly discovered" is pure bullshit.  With such obvious evidence all of these minerals were discovered long ago why would our government claim they are "newly discovered?"


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 17, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Lol.......you could present a "pulitzer prize" book on cooking.  The fact it is a PP winning book is irrelevent.
> ...



Holy shit man.  I'm getting worn out really fast on re-stating my position because you keep throwing up strawmen.  I didn't say we went for the oil, the gas, the minerals, or the drugs.  How many times do I have to re-state such basics?

The fact GW won a PP does nothing to address the fact it does not even attempt to explain the reasons why we are occupying Afghanistan.  I've already stated that.  Hell, I'm spending more time re-writing what I've already posted because you keep ignoring it.

I posted the scrib link because it helps explain the impact of the petrodollar.....I stated that but you ignored it and did a word search for "afghanistan."

It's quite fucking simple:  the US economy survives solely on the petrodollar.  Occupying iraq and afghanistan gives us logistical advantages to using our military to make sure the petrodollar stays in place because if the petroeuro takes over the US will collapse.  Are you not aware we changed iraq's oil trading right after we invaded?  Do you think that is a coincidence?

As for 9E.....I'm not "trying to get around it."  I'm pointing out it did not justify invading afghanistan which is why the UN never approved the invasion and why it is illegal.  The tally never protected bin laden nor provided material assistance.  If you've really researched afghanistan you know we have done far far far more to finance and support bin laden than the tally ever dreamed of.  Like it or not, you got pimped out like the rest of us who joined and served in the last 30 years because we haven't been defending America.  We've been getting used to engage in Imperialism.  The sooner you admit it the quicker you'll be able to analyze the issues without constantly trying to tell yourself it was all legit.  

(On a side note....Bush himself is a fucking idiot.  He was never the acting President.  He did whatever cheney + crew told him to do)


----------



## Samson (Jun 17, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> I'm not pointing out the monetary value.  I'm pointing out the claim it is "newly discovered" is pure bullshit.  With such obvious evidence all of these minerals were discovered long ago why would our government claim they are "newly discovered?"




The source in the OP is the NY Times.

And you're surprised they'd get something wrong....or, half wrong?



> The United States has _discovered_ nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, _*far beyond any previously known reserves *_and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials.
> 
> The previously unknown deposits  including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium  are so big....



The poorly constructed sentence says;

1. Mineral Deposites had ALREADY been discovered
BUT
2. The Deposites have been "Discovered" to be much larger than previously believed.

Finally, there is no justification for your idiotic leap in "logic:" 

"I guess "newly discovered" is American for "We own it whereever it is so fuck off."


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 17, 2010)

Samson said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not pointing out the monetary value.  I'm pointing out the claim it is "newly discovered" is pure bullshit.  With such obvious evidence all of these minerals were discovered long ago why would our government claim they are "newly discovered?"
> ...




What part of "give it up dumbass" was confusing for you?  The NYT is quoting the pentagon you fucking moron.  Hence, it is our government claiming it is a new discovery.  Even the amounts are not a new discovery but don't let facts stumble your hurling idiocy.


----------



## Samson (Jun 17, 2010)

CurveLight said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > CurveLight said:
> ...



You've at least proven something:

Since you had no Cerebrum to begin with, your Lobotomy has been useless.

You're linky doesn't mention amounts, so you've no fucking clue that your weak backtrack, "Even the amounts are not a new discovery," is only another of your own frothy hallucinations.


----------



## CurveLight (Jun 17, 2010)

Samson said:


> CurveLight said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



Okay.....you keep on living in your fantasies dumbass.

In other news.......it's now up to $3 trillion......

AFP: Afghan minerals may reach 3 trillion dollars: minister

I'm guessing the fucking Fox idiots are nearly orgasmic over sinking their teeth into a new bullshit sandwich to munch on.


----------

