International Next month USA will have a new longest war

Disagree the ship has never sailed. The US themselves are the ones who discovered the mining potential in the USGS report in 2007.

http://gppreview.com/2018/02/07/motivations-unearthed-re-contextualizing-war-afghanistan/

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/world/asia/afghanistan-trump-mineral-deposits.html

Also China is interested in copper and since the 2008 deal has not yet even started extracting
https://www.chinadialogue.net/artic...Afghanistan-s-giant-copper-deposit-languishes

hey MMA_enthusiast,

China signed an immense deal back in 2007, aye. mining hasn't begun because (as US companies have learned) its tough to do business with the Chinese unless you're willing to come out on the short end of the deal.

that doesn't mean one side gets destroyed...it means that China has to come out with more. the Chinese consortium that cut the deal (MCC-JCL Aynak Minerals) has sought to renegotiate the terms, and the Afghans are balking.

still, you can see where this is going. the Chinese have plans to build vast infrastructure....railroads, etc.

the US? we're busy trying to prop up a government, and that's about it, really. Centar inked a deal to begin extraction somewhere in the northern provinces, we'll see where that goes.

to me, the US is always going to be have issues competing with China in this area, because the Chinese don't seek to remake a country in their image - they just want to do business.

- IGIT
 
17 years isn't that long.

Britain was in N.Ireland for 37 years and actually won. In USA's case it's been failure though.
 
I don’t have those facts but do you know when the US heroin epidemic started again? My guess would be just after that invasion
My dad's pet theory is that Afghans got US soldiers addicted to opium over there and they brought that addiction back with them and contributed to the opioid crisis. I think he's overstating the impact of that though, I think painkillers for legitimate patients and those around them who abused their prescription are far more to blame than the invasion of Afghanistan. But its interesting to consider nonetheless.
 
I think it's time we stop pretending that cultures aren't inferior, and that barbaric radical fundamentalism is a "tiny minority", when a government itself admits that they would get destroyed in a conventional war against a terrorist organization.

It's time for Islam to end. If we in the West could all realize its poverty of values, peacefully, uniquely mutually exclusive to secular humanism where all the other major religions haven't failed this great litmus test of progression among our species, then I think we could all find a much more coherent and cohesive strategy to undertake these problems effectively.

I'm all for protecting minorities, but in 1/3 of the world they aren't minorities, and these places are all rife with problems; chief among them the treatment of minorities, ironically. Yet roughly half the West gets caught up in kowtowing to this culture because it is a minority among us, and many even parrot language suggesting that the best solution to this problem is equalizing them in pursuit of this multicultural Frankenstein built upon a foundational logic of checks & balances. That would be a disaster. The best thing we can do is shrink them there, as peacefully as possible, not grow them here.

The idea of a perfectly balanced culture of identities is a tremendous fallacy-- a mirage. Majorities are inherent to diversity. If they disappear you no longer have diversity-- you no longer have freedom. How does this basic philosophical truth elude people? Some imbalance-- including majorities-- are unavoidable. They are not evil. They are not morally stunted.

Islam is. Understanding all of this is the great test of our time as history will judge us; unless, of course, we fail it, and allow the barbarians to win.
So what's the final solution to the Islam problem then? Anti-Islam polemics in schools? Restricting building of mosques? Banning the hijab? Or none of the above?
 
My dad's pet theory is that Afghans got US soldiers addicted to opium over there and they brought that addiction back with them and contributed to the opioid crisis. I think he's overstating the impact of that though, I think painkillers for legitimate patients and those around them who abused their prescription are far more to blame than the invasion of Afghanistan. But its interesting to consider nonetheless.

In retrospect do you think it would been much better the USA did not attack the Taliban and Osama, its given that the Taliban and Osama are abominable entities but the cost in human lives of the whole war seems to outweigh whatever positive results in removing Osama there.

How many US servicemen died and how many got severely amputated lives destroyed permanently? I have a colleague at the US Embassy in Manila and he is with a charity group helping Afghan and Iraq veterans who lost their legs and arms seeing the pictures and there so many of them by the way kinda made me feel depressed its is just so tragic a lot of them are young some in their late teens.
 
In retrospect do you think it would been much better the USA did not attack the Taliban and Osama, its given that the Taliban and Osama are abominable entities but the cost in human lives of the whole war seems to outweigh whatever positive results in removing Osama there.

How many US servicemen died and how many got severely amputated lives destroyed permanently? I have a colleague at the US Embassy in Manila and he is with a charity group helping Afghan and Iraq veterans who lost their legs and arms seeing the pictures and there so many of them by the way kinda made me feel depressed its is just so tragic a lot of them are young some in their late teens.
Not sure, I do think the US had a good reason to attack given the presence of Al Qaeda. But the occupation quickly turned into a nation building exercise, something Bush said he would not do in his campaign(though to be fair to him 9/11 is a huge game changer). If you are going to engage in nation building you have to go big or go home and commit a fuck ton of troops to the country. More important than killing the bad guys is protecting the good guys and that's a lot harder and requires a larger force and different strategy. That was the secret behind the success of the surge in Iraq(also the bribing of Sunni tribes who were fatigued from the violence).
 
Both parties continue this nonesense while focusing on telling you who to hate.
 
My dad's pet theory is that Afghans got US soldiers addicted to opium over there and they brought that addiction back with them and contributed to the opioid crisis. I think he's overstating the impact of that though, I think painkillers for legitimate patients and those around them who abused their prescription are far more to blame than the invasion of Afghanistan. But its interesting to consider nonetheless.

I read that 80% of the heroïne junkies in the US started with painkillers. So I guess your dad is wrong. Crazy to think that those painkillers are so easily prescribed
 
I read that 80% of the heroïne junkies in the US started with painkillers. So I guess your dad is wrong. Crazy to think that those painkillers are so easily prescribed
Yeah if the invasion made any impact on the opioid crisis it would be dwarfed by the impact of painkillers.
 
Back
Top