The real reason we invaded Afghanistan.

[MKSheppard]

No, it wasn't to secure freedom but...

[url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/ ... 70030/1003]NO BLOOD FOR COPPER![/size]

Mineral wealth seen as big plus
November 17, 2007

By Rachel Kaufman - A three-year study has found vast mineral resources in Afghanistan, boosting hopes for an early economic recovery in the insurgency-troubled country, a survey says.

The survey, conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Afghanistan Geological Survey, found enough copper to meet world needs for three years and enough cobalt to supply the world for a decade, Bill Werkheiser, the associate director for geology at the USGS said earlier this week.

"Afghanistan is blessed with a wealth of mineral resources," said Mr. Werkheiser.

He said the survey, conducted from 2004 to 2007, had turned up a total of 31 metal, industrial mineral and building material deposits including rubies, emeralds, sapphires and other gemstones.

"Afghanistan's natural resources have a quality comparable to the highest-class minerals of the entire region," said Said Jawad, Afghanistan's ambassador to the United States.

Members of the Afghan-American Chamber of Commerce and U.S. Agency for International Development are hoping foreign businesses will be influenced by this discovery and invest in Afghanistan.

"I can guarantee you there will be more ... investing in Afghanistan, and there will be a sustained commitment on behalf of the U.S. government to continue to create and support the conditions of private sector growth in Afghanistan," said James Kunder, the acting deputy administrator of AID.

AID is "deeply committed to sustain economic progress in Afghanistan," he said at conference Tuesday, arguing that investors should not be frightened off by press reports of violence and drug dealing in the country.

"The violence and the extreme cruelty of that extreme group of terrorists affecting Afghanistan is disproportionate to their actual impact on the business climate," he said.

He added that only 5 percent of agriculture workers in Afghanistan have anything to do with the production or sale of opium poppies.

"There are numerous opportunities, despite the occasional violent terrorist attack, to do business in Afghanistan," Mr. Kunder said.

[Androsphinx]

Am I missing something? The survey didn't start until 2004. That's quite a big gamble on finding something...

[Wanderer]

So you seen the light Shep?

Or are you about advocate cleansing flame so we have it all to ourselves?

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

I think he sees killing people because they have something we want as a Good Thing. But that's Right-Wing in a nutshell anyway.

[FedRebel]

I think he sees killing people because they have something we want as a Good Thing.

[cough]Mexican-American War[/cough]

[cough]US Army-Indian Wars[/cough]

[cough]inciting Panama to secede from Columbia[/cough]

...and the list goes on, point is this is just business as usual

But that's Right-Wing in a nutshell anyway.

...it's American history in a "nutshell"

[Battlehymn Republic]

I think the proper term is called 'sarcasm.'

[K. A. Pital]

How about curtailing Afghanistan's incredibly high drug production first, eh?

[MKSheppard]

Am I missing something? The survey didn't start until 2004. That's quite a big gamble on finding something...

But don't you see? Bushitler knew about it all in advance! He started the war so that his evil corporatocrat buddies would have a COPPER bonaza!

[K. A. Pital]

52% of GDP of Afghanistan now are generated through drug trade. If anything, copper mining is a positive and welcome change from that. So, good news.

[Sea Skimmer]

How about curtailing Afghanistan's incredibly high drug production first, eh?

The only way that will ever work is if the government has the money to offer farmers subsidies for growing wheat or other legal crops, money that could come from mineral resources. Poppies offer something like x50 the return of legal farming, and are a much hardier crop that’s unlikely to fail completely even under the worst growing conditions. Simply forcing people to stop growing is infeasible.

[Androsphinx]

But don't you see? Bushitler knew about it all in advance! He started the war so that his evil corporatocrat buddies would have a COPPER bonaza!

I'm not sure what's more irritating - the "technology will save us RAR" sarcastic comments in Peak Oil threads, or these. I'm going to go for this, because you started an entire thread.

[aerius]

Excerpt from The 300B Convergence by Dr. Harvey "Gizmo" Rosenberg.

If, and when I become President I create a special cabinet, "The Cabinet of Monkey Coffin Makers" which will consist of America’s most talented speaker designers, and I will convert Las Alamos Atomic Labs to speaker research including the development of a new generation of 32 ohm loudspeaker, just like my father had. While this project is under development a major tank manufacturing facility will be converted to manufacturing 16 ohm Alnico drivers. Of course this means that America will have to invade Zaire, where most of the cobalt comes from which we need to make Alnico drivers.

It appears GWB whacked the wrong country, if indeed he's going after cobalt.

[K. A. Pital]

The only way that will ever work is if the government has the money to offer farmers subsidies

The Taliban severely repressed the Pushtun mafia and the production was 90% lower than it is now. I don't see why the same harsh measures towards drug production and trade could not be enacted. That's probably because the control over the country's territory is rather miserable.

[brianeyci]

It's the same reason why the same hard measures under Saddam can't be enacted by the Iraqi government to bring stability. They're deplorable.

The Afghan government could go around killing farmers for growing poppy like Taliban but that's obviously out of the question.

Paying Afghan farmers to not grow poppy might not be such a great solution right now, since all the money is foreign aid. There's no independence at all in that. Choices seem to be bad and worse. It might get better later if Karzai can pay farmers with Afghan money, but the whole government is propped up by foreign interests right now.

I don't think control is an issue. Karzai could go to Bush and start a War on Poppy whenever he wanted, just like he did for a few short months to start with. He did try. But then he'd lose immense support and popularity and have to feed farmers on the puny government budget and turn the country into one gigantic welfare state. Unless you define "control" as "popularity" I think the Afghan government could pull the plug on poppy whenever they wanted. They're just smart enough to realize a prohibition wouldn't work and doesn't address the underlying causes. The underlying cause being not enough options for farmers to make a good living. It's not greedy farmers trying to make a fast buck, it's farmers who could starve if their crop fails so they choose something hardier they can exchange for food.

[brianeyci]

Ghetto Edit: Karzai said in an interview he first thought they could eliminate poppy growing in one month. A UN guy told him at least ten years, and Karzai laughed. Now he sees the light, and realizes unless he wants to be oppressive like the Taliban, and increase the suffering of his people a prohibition wouldn't work. I don't blame him: if dumb fuck foreigners want to buy drugs and benefit my country, I'd probably look after my own constituents first too. Real world is shades of gray, not black and white.

[Sephirius]

Even better- get the drug companies to shut the fuck up/patents be damned and legally buy the opium for morphine production.

[K. A. Pital]

Of course, Karzai's failure to combat drug production is IMHO also connected to the fact that his government is full of corrupt assholes who are drug bosses.

It's not greedy farmers trying to make a fast buck

I know. However, it's the drug traders who make enormous amounts of money on human suffering. The Taliban likewise didn't go and shoot farmers, it shot the traders. Without the traders, the link between suppliers and the clients is disrupted.

Of course, the question is does the drug production warrant crushing dictatorial measures - like murdering anyone considered allied with the Pushtun mafia that controls the drug trade in Afghanistan?

After all, the Afghan drug industry is causing severe suffering in various parts of the world. For example, Central Asia and Russia since that have enjoyed a massive inflow of heavy drugs, which are most assuredly leading to human deaths.

[Xisiqomelir]

How about curtailing Afghanistan's incredibly high drug production first, eh?

Is heroin really that big around the world right now? I was under the impression that cocaine and cannabis were doing much bigger numbers.

[Sea Skimmer]

The only way that will ever work is if the government has the money to offer farmers subsidies

The Taliban severely repressed the Pushtun mafia and the production was 90% lower than it is now. I don't see why the same harsh measures towards drug production and trade could not be enacted. That's probably because the control over the country's territory is rather miserable.

Yes with a campaign of terror and murder they managed to have that level of control, but they deliberately DID NOT eradicate all production because they made lots of money off exporting the stuff. This is not an example the new government needs to repeat. Note also that at the same time, production skyrocketed in Pakistan which became the worlds largest supplier. Since the fall of the Taliban Pakistani production in turn has fallen back down to a lower level.

[Kanastrous]

I wonder if it wouldn't be cheapest, to just spend US$ buying up the farmers' crops, and keeping it off the market/funneling it to pharma corps. Rather than spending what might be a lot more $US on interdiction, which has the side effect of killing a lot of people we don't need to kill.

Of course, that wouldn't satisfy the moral delusions, of people so desperate for war, that they can't stop looking for things upon which to declare it.

[brianeyci]

Without the traders, the link between suppliers and the clients is disrupted.

This gives me a chance to air a pet peeve of mine. Which is, people who want it both ways. I'm not saying you want it both ways, but a lot of anti-drug conservatives say go after the suppliers and sellers and not the buyers. Generally this is because it's more efficient to go after the "big dog" but what if production is decentralized and there is no "kingpin?" Why should the person buying and supporting the drug trade get off any easier than the person distributing the drugs? The distribution/consumer separation is a function of conservatives pretending/wanting to have it both ways: they don't want to seem like callous fucks in admitting safe injection sites and prohibition won't work for addicts, but they want to be "tough" on drugs.

The worst is when they pretend to have addict's interests in mind, and arbitrarily declare themselves above medical opinion and close safe injection sites for ideological reasons.

What I'm saying is they're logically inconsistent: arbitrarily declaring a person who uses a dangerous substance is somehow morally, ethically or legally superior to someone who sells a dangerous substance. And they're that way because they want to seem compassionate and tough on crime at the same time.

For example, Central Asia and Russia since that have enjoyed a massive inflow of heavy drugs, which are most assuredly leading to human deaths.

Well I can tell you one thing. If farmers cannot establish a viable industry in Afghanistan, it will become a failed state and another hotbed for terrorism.

Cutting off the supplier never works. Someone else will just grow the shit. The problem is a lot more complex than that, and would require generational investment in young people to offer them a choice besides joining gangs and school. Some people just are not academics, and unless there's another decent trade for them they'll turn to gangs. Even with zero upward mobility, a gang gives an illusion of safety and status. Working at a minimum wage job does not. This means after-school programs, clubs, extra-curricular activities, guidance counselors, music teachers... all the things that get the axe come budget time because they're soft power which takes a generation to manifest returns.

As for pharmaceutical needs, it sounds good on the surface but I'm betting the stuff joe blow Afghan farmer produces wouldn't meet the quality control and standards pharmaceutical companies need. Plus the tiny fact that it's not sustainable, unreliable and puts Afghanistan at the mercy of foreign companies. Karzai said himself he wants to work to elimination, but slowly, over many years. Let's hope he goes that way.

[Darth Wong]

I wonder if it wouldn't be cheapest, to just spend US$ buying up the farmers' crops, and keeping it off the market/funneling it to pharma corps. Rather than spending what might be a lot more $US on interdiction, which has the side effect of killing a lot of people we don't need to kill.

That's like asking whether we should pour money into urban social programs and infrastructure in order to give a sense of hope and constructive purpose to the people living there, rather than spending hundreds of billions of dollars fighting a futile interdiction war to stop the drugs from reaching those depressed urban centres. It's simply out of the question, because ... well it just is.

[K. A. Pital]

If farmers cannot establish a viable industry in Afghanistan, it will become a failed state and another hotbed for terrorism.

According to UN, 56% of GDP is generated by drug production and trade, and 75% of population is employed in that. Afghanistan's share in world drug production rose sharply.

I'm also thinking that it led to a higher overall drug production rate and an increase in overall world drug trade volumes, but I might be wrong and corrctions are welcome.

Cutting off the supplier never works. Someone else will just grow the shit.

Closing the borders at traffick places does work though. When the Russian border was still guarded by not-yet fallen apart Soviet border guard units, drug dissemination in the country was low. Another factor, of course, is the inner will to crack down on heavy drugs.

Drugs have a long way to go until they get to the customer. Crushing the supply lines will lead to an increase in business risk for drugs. Which will lead to higher drug prices. Which will have at least some positive result- the contraction of drug volumes and drug junkies, for once.

The consumers should also get a rough deal though, I agree. Involuntary medical treatment is one such measure.

The problem is a lot more complex than that, and would require generational investment in young people to offer them a choice besides joining gangs and school.

How is that even remotely possible in a country where 75% are in drug trade, and several higher Karzai government officials are deeply involved in controlling, lobbying and covering drug trade?

[brianeyci]

If farmers cannot establish a viable industry in Afghanistan, it will become a failed state and another hotbed for terrorism.

According to UN, 56% of GDP is generated by drug production and trade, and 75% of population is employed in that. Afghanistan's share in world drug production rose sharply.

I'm also thinking that it led to a higher overall drug production rate and an increase in overall world drug trade volumes, but I might be wrong and corrctions are welcome.

With organized crime it's easy to draw a direct link between crime and drugs. With terrorism, it's not so easy. It's more about family fortunes, and terrorists respect no suspect profiles and come from all walks of life. Terrorists use their personal savings to purchase weapons, and if you want to hit terrorism directly it's a rather simpler to hit arms suppliers.

Closing the borders at traffick places does work though. When the Russian border was still guarded by not-yet fallen apart Soviet border guard units, drug dissemination in the country was low. Another factor, of course, is the inner will to crack down on heavy drugs.

Drugs have a long way to go until they get to the customer. Crushing the supply lines will lead to an increase in business risk for drugs. Which will lead to higher drug prices. Which will have at least some positive result- the contraction of drug volumes and drug junkies, for once.

When people are not suffering extreme poverty, there are no homeless and there are guaranteed jobs, there is less chance to take drugs.

To be frank, it's not Karzai's job to crush supply lines if it only hurts his country. Economies work best with gradual, mild changes. If all of a sudden drugs were crushed by say, the American forces, besides the political consequences, Karzai's people would suffer immensely. He serves his constituents, not some global moral high horse, so if other people want to stiffen up their borders to prevent drug trade they're welcome to do so. The anti-drug movement must happen gradually.

The consumers should also get a rough deal though, I agree. Involuntary medical treatment is one such measure.

I don't think that consumers should get a "rough deal." I was pointing out the illogic of separating distributors and consumers arbitrarily. Involuntary medical treatment opens up a whole can of nasty worms and could be a thread in itself.

How is that even remotely possible in a country where 75% are in drug trade, and several higher Karzai government officials are deeply involved in controlling, lobbying and covering drug trade?

So what is the alternative? Taliban style elimination?

You miss the point if you say execute the traders rather than the farmers. There's no arbitrary cut off between farmers just like traders. Traders are human beings just like farmers and killing them for substance abuse is wrong, unless there's a cost-benefit analysis of drugs causing more harm than death. Deterrence doesn't work in a liberal democracy. They are not there yet, but given that is the end goal it doesn't make sense to take three steps back and two steps forward by instituting controls which wouldn't work in free market environments.

That 75% figure is not an indication of some patriotic love of the poppy, or an unassailable lead. If another commodity was as developed which gave greater returns, farmers and the rest would ditch faster than a bad whore. For example, many former Soviet republics rely on deep underground mines, and those same farmers could become miners. Karzai asked locals around Kabul to stop growing poppy for months, and they listened, until they figured out they couldn't live without them. As soon as this changes, people will give up, because they don't like dealing with drug runners or organized crime.

[K. A. Pital]

With organized crime it's easy to draw a direct link between crime and drugs. With terrorism, it's not so easy.

Did I miss something? The point was about drugs, not terrorism.

When people are not suffering extreme poverty, there are no homeless and there are guaranteed jobs, there is less chance to take drugs.

There's lots of poor in the world, lots of places which suffer extreme poverty. Not to mention that drug trafficking exists even in richer, First World countries since there's a segment of population which is poor and provides a basis for both drug consumption and drug trading - and rich people also come forth as drug customers, sometimes.

The Russian "middle class" for example is very much immersed into drugs. Heavy drugs. Telling from experience, people with 1K USD upwards take drugs regulary.

I guess massive spread of drugs, ease to get them and chemical addiction are also factors.

To be frank, it's not Karzai's job to crush supply lines if it only hurts his country.

If his country gets rich from selling drugs, that's profiteering on suffering. I don't really think Afghanis have an excuse to profit from drugs instead of creating real industries and agriculture, which do not cause the death of people, you know.

Economies work best with gradual, mild changes

Drug production rose 90% from 2001. That's a "gradual change"? No? How did the economy exist back then?

The anti-drug movement must happen gradually.

The "drug movement" rose rapidly.

Traders are human beings just like farmers and killing them for substance abuse is wrong, unless there's a cost-benefit analysis of drugs causing more harm than death.

Death? At the very least, start throwing them in jail for lifetime.

As soon as this changes, people will give up, because they don't like dealing with drug runners or organized crime.

So what if it doesn't change? I mean, the country somehow existed without drugs. Oh, it was dirt-poor? Well sorry, I'm not really supporting the position that some foreign country should get rich through supplying a deadly poison.

In fact, were drug producing and trading risks high enough, economy tells us there will be less investment. The risks have gone down from the Taliban times, therefore, it become very profitable and easy to make and trade drugs.

I'm not saying you should execute drug dealers on-sight - although if the country is badly coping with it's territory, it might have a positive effect by creating death risks for drug dealers, therefore forcing the people to invest in something else.

Not as profitable? Okay, so? You HAVE TO create a normal economy, not choose the most profitable asset if that asset leads to death and suffering of millions of people in other coutnries.