Switch Theme:

The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in gb
Assassin with Black Lotus Poison





Bristol

 whembly wrote:
 A Town Called Malus wrote:
 skyth wrote:
That the other group uses 'join or die' tactics doesn't legitize us killing innocents. Sinking down to using the same tactics just makes us as bad as them.


And provides more recruiting propaganda for the very people you're trying to defeat.

Nice...

So we behead or burn our captives? We're sinking to that level?


Possibly not ourselves, though both of our countries have shown no remorse in handing people over to countries who might do both of those things.

The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.

Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Jihadin wrote:
When did we start deliberately targeting civilians?

You're confused too?

Me too...

<cracks a beer>

Here, have a brewski dude.

<hands it to him>

Cheers.


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

 whembly wrote:
 Jihadin wrote:
When did we start deliberately targeting civilians?

You're confused too?

Me too...

<cracks a beer>

Here, have a brewski dude.

<hands it to him>

Cheers.



Two words: Justin Beiber

if thats not deliberately targetting civilians I don't know what is. Truly, Canada is history's greatest villain.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/09 19:41:56


-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in gb
Courageous Grand Master




-

 Jihadin wrote:
When did we start deliberately targeting civilians?


Vietnam war. Ho Chi Minh trail.

"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 Jihadin wrote:
When did we start deliberately targeting civilians?


Vietnam war. Ho Chi Minh trail.

Um... what does a 40ish year old war have to do with the discussion in hand?

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





CL VI Store in at the Cyber Center of Excellence

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 Jihadin wrote:
When did we start deliberately targeting civilians?


Vietnam war. Ho Chi Minh trail.


Damn, may as well go back to Dresden and Hiroshima, they are just as relevant as your example is to today's conflicts.

But of course, the civilians on the Ho Chi Minh trail were actually logistics assets for the NVA, which would kind of feth up your point.

Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings. 
   
Made in gb
Courageous Grand Master




-

 whembly wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 Jihadin wrote:
When did we start deliberately targeting civilians?


Vietnam war. Ho Chi Minh trail.

Um... what does a 40ish year old war have to do with the discussion in hand?


My apologies. I thought it was a general discussion on civilian casualties and ROE in armed conflicts involving the USA over the years. I see now that the subject is Iraq.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 CptJake wrote:
 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 Jihadin wrote:
When did we start deliberately targeting civilians?


Vietnam war. Ho Chi Minh trail.


Damn, may as well go back to Dresden and Hiroshima, they are just as relevant as your example is to today's conflicts.

But of course, the civilians on the Ho Chi Minh trail were actually logistics assets for the NVA, which would kind of feth up your point.


If you would like a Vietnam war discussion/debate, I'm always interested. Start a thread.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/09 21:14:21


"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Jihadin wrote:
When did we start deliberately targeting civilians?


And that has nothing to do with the discussion. The discussion was about relaxing the ROE and the oh well attitude if innocent civilians die...
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

I thought the discussion was the political junkie thread. The America is Evilz thread is two doors to the left.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





CL VI Store in at the Cyber Center of Excellence

 skyth wrote:
 Jihadin wrote:
When did we start deliberately targeting civilians?


And that has nothing to do with the discussion. The discussion was about relaxing the ROE and the oh well attitude if innocent civilians die...


I do not think you understand what folks like Jihadin and myself mean when we say adjust the ROE.

Right now, pilots are exposed to enemy fire, long hours in the air, dangerous carrier take offs and landings, and the vast majority return without dropping weapons on bad guys.

A large part of that is due to how the strikes are coordinated and controlled. Our ROE prohibits JTACS/TACP types from going forward and providing terminal guidance. It prevents our guys from certain ISR tasks which feed the targeting process and develop more timely hard intel. The ROE also puts a burden not required by the laws of warfare onto our forces. If DaIsh uses a school/mosque/hospital/office building etc as any type of facility it removes the legal protected status from that facility, and DaIsh are the sole responsible party, NOT anyone striking the facility. Any innocents killed are the legal responsibility of those using those innocents basically as human shields, NOT the guys striking the valid target shielded by those innocents.

Our targeting process currently matches ordnance to target, not based primarily on proper weaponeering, but on reducing risk of collateral damage. That leaves some targets which are engaged with a reduced but not destroyed capability, and ensures some targets just plain get away/are not engaged.

We are blessed with technology that allows us the luxury to minimize collateral damage, and that is truly a great thing. Having said that, to not engage targets we legally can is morally wrong as it prolongs the conflict and in the end increases civilian deaths and infrastructure destruction (not at our hands).

Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings. 
   
Made in gb
Courageous Grand Master




-

 Frazzled wrote:
I thought the discussion was the political junkie thread. The America is Evilz thread is two doors to the left.


Frazz, warfare, as Clausewitz once said, IS the continuation of politics, so it is relevant

America is EVIL.

Any nation that inflicts root beer, Coors light, Joe Biden, and Anne Coulter on the world is EVIL I tell ya!

Nearly forgot. That Ben and Jerry cookie ice cream. Evil Evil stuff.

Frazz, somedays I wish I were the Ayatollah, so I could declare a holy war on the USA for that outrage


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 CptJake wrote:
 skyth wrote:
 Jihadin wrote:
When did we start deliberately targeting civilians?


And that has nothing to do with the discussion. The discussion was about relaxing the ROE and the oh well attitude if innocent civilians die...


I do not think you understand what folks like Jihadin and myself mean when we say adjust the ROE.

Right now, pilots are exposed to enemy fire, long hours in the air, dangerous carrier take offs and landings, and the vast majority return without dropping weapons on bad guys.

A large part of that is due to how the strikes are coordinated and controlled. Our ROE prohibits JTACS/TACP types from going forward and providing terminal guidance. It prevents our guys from certain ISR tasks which feed the targeting process and develop more timely hard intel. The ROE also puts a burden not required by the laws of warfare onto our forces. If DaIsh uses a school/mosque/hospital/office building etc as any type of facility it removes the legal protected status from that facility, and DaIsh are the sole responsible party, NOT anyone striking the facility. Any innocents killed are the legal responsibility of those using those innocents basically as human shields, NOT the guys striking the valid target shielded by those innocents.

Our targeting process currently matches ordnance to target, not based primarily on proper weaponeering, but on reducing risk of collateral damage. That leaves some targets which are engaged with a reduced but not destroyed capability, and ensures some targets just plain get away/are not engaged.

We are blessed with technology that allows us the luxury to minimize collateral damage, and that is truly a great thing. Having said that, to not engage targets we legally can is morally wrong as it prolongs the conflict and in the end increases civilian deaths and infrastructure destruction (not at our hands).


CptJake, I hate to bring up past conflicts, but I'm reading about the Vietnam war right now, and your points are exactly what Pilots flying over North Vietnam were complaining about.

You know better than me this is not a new experience for the American military.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/09 21:49:54


"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






You reading an overview?
The target selections being made by WH?
WH placing Hanoi off limits to bomb?

Rolling Thunder I ?
Rolling Thunder II ?

Its reverse compare to Vietnam Conflict/War.
Strike aircraft's now have to wait to receive clearance from the WH to nail a target in Iraq.

Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog
Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.

Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha


 
   
Made in gb
Courageous Grand Master




-

 Jihadin wrote:
You reading an overview?
The target selections being made by WH?
WH placing Hanoi off limits to bomb?

Rolling Thunder I ?
Rolling Thunder II ?

Its reverse compare to Vietnam Conflict/War.
Strike aircraft's now have to wait to receive clearance from the WH to nail a target in Iraq.


Lyndon Johnson told the military that they couldn't bomb so much as an outhouse without his permission. Little has changed in that regard.

"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
 Jihadin wrote:
You reading an overview?
The target selections being made by WH?
WH placing Hanoi off limits to bomb?

Rolling Thunder I ?
Rolling Thunder II ?

Its reverse compare to Vietnam Conflict/War.
Strike aircraft's now have to wait to receive clearance from the WH to nail a target in Iraq.


Lyndon Johnson told the military that they couldn't bomb so much as an outhouse without his permission. Little has changed in that regard.


Read up Rolling Thunder I and II

Also

Throughout the fall and into the winter of 1964, the Johnson administration debated the correct strategy in Vietnam. The Joint Chiefs of Staff wanted to expand the air war over the DRV quickly to help stabilize the new Saigon regime. The civilians in the Pentagon wanted to apply gradual pressure to the Communist Party with limited and selective bombings. Only Undersecretary of State George Ball dissented, claiming that Johnson's Vietnam policy was too provocative for its limited expected results. In early 1965, the NLF attacked two U.S. army installations in South Vietnam, and as a result, Johnson ordered the sustained bombing missions over the DRV that the Joint Chiefs of Staff had long advocated.

The bombing missions, known as OPERATION ROLLING THUNDER, caused the Communist Party to reassess its own war strategy. From 1960 through late 1964, the Party believed it could win a military victory in the south "in a relatively short period of time." With the new American military commitment, confirmed in March 1965 when Johnson sent the first combat troops to Vietnam, the Party moved to a protracted war strategy. The idea was to get the United States bogged down in a war that it could not win militarily and create unfavorable conditions for political victory. The Communist Party believed that it would prevail in a protracted war because the United States had no clearly defined objectives, and therefore, the country would eventually tire of the war and demand a negotiated settlement. While some naive and simple-minded critics have claimed that the Communist Party, and Vietnamese in general, did not have the same regard for life and therefore were willing to sustain more losses in a protracted war, the Party understood that it had an ideological commitment to victory from large segments of the Vietnamese population.


Just enlightening you there


Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog
Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.

Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha


 
   
Made in gb
Courageous Grand Master




-

I wish we could go back to the days of Whembley versus the Clintons

Hell, right now, I'd take Whembley versus Benghazi gate

"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





That something is 'legal' doesn't make it right. Besides the fact that I missed a declaration of war...hmmm...

One 'terrorist' runs into a building full of civilians and we blow up the building...Who do you think the families of those killed will blame?

This conflict is about hearts and minds. Annonymous air strikes that kill civilians will have the opposite effect.

To put it in context of this site.. Rules Lawyering to get away with stuff will rack up a good battle score, but will make your sportsmanship score tank and cause you to lose the tournament
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





Did everyone see this extraordinary piece of insanity?



Whatever you think of the ACA, I think everyone has to recognise and just be in awe of the moxie involved in that claim. I mean, he’s basically claiming Obamacare is bad because Republicans might have figured out a way to take Obamacare away from people.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Rogue Inquisitor with Xenos Bodyguards





Eastern edge

 Jihadin wrote:
 shasolenzabi wrote:
I have a simpler solution: Stop making these bogeyman groups to justify Military Industrial Complex spending and existence! Eisenhower warned of this beast as he left office, how the costs for bombers, and destroyers could have back then provided schools, hospitals, miles of roads. He warned that it would grow out of control(It has), and that it would need to justify it's existence (Creation of "Al Queda" and ISIS come to mind), and as we no longer have the old Cold War, and that Terrorist groups are losing their edge, we see Russia and China being worked into the next excuse to out spend the world in war-machinery, which we then sell our older toys off to lower tech countries all too happy to get the stuff for their own wars, or gets captured and used in civil wars.

I am ex-military myself, but I was in with Nuclear weapons, so the perspective for me and the guys and gals I served with was different than the warmongers we have now.

Stop making bad guys who did not exist before just to make it easier to spend way over what is needed to defend ourselves, and stop the Military Adventurism. Iraq was more for Oil access than spreading Freedom, and Afghanistan was for the Mining companies who wanted to get access to the mineral treasure trove that nation sits over.

All I truly see this thread as is more a circling around the mud flinging that people think is politics.


You are lost in the sauce. First off.
What year did we go in Afghanistan? What year was all the mineral resource that was valued in Afghanistan?



My link mentions a very detailed and concise geo-report by the Soviets who were there up until 1989. That is one of the surveys they had to work on, our guys went in to make sure the soviets were accurate, turns out they were. We dove into Afghanistan late 2001/early 2002
we stormed Iraq in 2003. So pre-9/11 was at least the soviet report showing how rich the country was in mineral wealth as they were trying to actually help Afghanistan become a modern state. Thanks to us, they slid backwards under the Taliban.

Had Bin Laden not been hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan, would we still have gone after him via that nation? We had to have justification to get in there. Wars are about resource grabs and corporate interest, "Freedom and Liberty" is a cover for the empire of the Corporate States of Oligarchia


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 sebster wrote:
Did everyone see this extraordinary piece of insanity?



Whatever you think of the ACA, I think everyone has to recognise and just be in awe of the moxie involved in that claim. I mean, he’s basically claiming Obamacare is bad because Republicans might have figured out a way to take Obamacare away from people.



Thune is an Idjit based on that tweet alone. Seriously politicians playing on twitter like teenagers is showing immaturity

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/10 00:54:24


"Your mumblings are awakening the sleeping Dragon, be wary when meddling the affairs of Dragons, for thou art tasty and go good with either ketchup or chocolate. "
Dragons fear nothing, if it acts up, we breath magic fire that turns them into marshmallow peeps. We leaguers only cry rivets!



 
   
Made in us
Fate-Controlling Farseer





Fort Campbell

 CptJake wrote:
 skyth wrote:
 Jihadin wrote:
When did we start deliberately targeting civilians?


And that has nothing to do with the discussion. The discussion was about relaxing the ROE and the oh well attitude if innocent civilians die...


I do not think you understand what folks like Jihadin and myself mean when we say adjust the ROE.

Right now, pilots are exposed to enemy fire, long hours in the air, dangerous carrier take offs and landings, and the vast majority return without dropping weapons on bad guys.

A large part of that is due to how the strikes are coordinated and controlled. Our ROE prohibits JTACS/TACP types from going forward and providing terminal guidance. It prevents our guys from certain ISR tasks which feed the targeting process and develop more timely hard intel. The ROE also puts a burden not required by the laws of warfare onto our forces. If DaIsh uses a school/mosque/hospital/office building etc as any type of facility it removes the legal protected status from that facility, and DaIsh are the sole responsible party, NOT anyone striking the facility. Any innocents killed are the legal responsibility of those using those innocents basically as human shields, NOT the guys striking the valid target shielded by those innocents.

Our targeting process currently matches ordnance to target, not based primarily on proper weaponeering, but on reducing risk of collateral damage. That leaves some targets which are engaged with a reduced but not destroyed capability, and ensures some targets just plain get away/are not engaged.

We are blessed with technology that allows us the luxury to minimize collateral damage, and that is truly a great thing. Having said that, to not engage targets we legally can is morally wrong as it prolongs the conflict and in the end increases civilian deaths and infrastructure destruction (not at our hands).


To an extent I agree, and I also disagree. Would we have the morale right to bomb the gak out of a mosque holding 2k lbs of HME and a few DSHK's? Yes. That doesn't win war's though, at least not this one.

The Afghan's, to put it bluntly, are an incredibly ignorant people. They don't know why we are here, and they don't know what LOAC is. They don't know that it's the Taliban/ISIS fault that their Mosque just got blown up. All they know is they saw that fancy American get fly buy, and drop a couple bombs on it. And it's sure as hell a lot easier to blame us for their increased hardships from these things, then it is to blame the people who will come by in the middle of the night and murder them.

These ROE's are put in place for the reality of the situation. Do they suck? Hell yes they do. But the situation is going to suck a whole lot more if we go and nuke half the Mosque's in this country because their being used to store weapons.

Full Frontal Nerdity 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I wish we could go back to the days of Whembley versus the Clintons

Hell, right now, I'd take Whembley versus Benghazi gate

You rang?

Did you know that it's proven that Obama and HRC knew within hours that it was a terrorist attack, and not the stupid youtube video?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 sebster wrote:
Did everyone see this extraordinary piece of insanity?



Whatever you think of the ACA, I think everyone has to recognise and just be in awe of the moxie involved in that claim. I mean, he’s basically claiming Obamacare is bad because Republicans might have figured out a way to take Obamacare away from people.

It's twitter.

Again, it's not the Republicans taking it away. It's in danger of going from really bad, to a fething gak storm because the Democrats in Congress AND Obama didn't read the fething act.

Sebster... we all got Gruber'ed.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/10 04:08:14


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Spoiler:
 shasolenzabi wrote:
 Jihadin wrote:
 shasolenzabi wrote:
I have a simpler solution: Stop making these bogeyman groups to justify Military Industrial Complex spending and existence! Eisenhower warned of this beast as he left office, how the costs for bombers, and destroyers could have back then provided schools, hospitals, miles of roads. He warned that it would grow out of control(It has), and that it would need to justify it's existence (Creation of "Al Queda" and ISIS come to mind), and as we no longer have the old Cold War, and that Terrorist groups are losing their edge, we see Russia and China being worked into the next excuse to out spend the world in war-machinery, which we then sell our older toys off to lower tech countries all too happy to get the stuff for their own wars, or gets captured and used in civil wars.

I am ex-military myself, but I was in with Nuclear weapons, so the perspective for me and the guys and gals I served with was different than the warmongers we have now.

Stop making bad guys who did not exist before just to make it easier to spend way over what is needed to defend ourselves, and stop the Military Adventurism. Iraq was more for Oil access than spreading Freedom, and Afghanistan was for the Mining companies who wanted to get access to the mineral treasure trove that nation sits over.

All I truly see this thread as is more a circling around the mud flinging that people think is politics.


You are lost in the sauce. First off.
What year did we go in Afghanistan? What year was all the mineral resource that was valued in Afghanistan?



My link mentions a very detailed and concise geo-report by the Soviets who were there up until 1989. That is one of the surveys they had to work on, our guys went in to make sure the soviets were accurate, turns out they were. We dove into Afghanistan late 2001/early 2002
we stormed Iraq in 2003. So pre-9/11 was at least the soviet report showing how rich the country was in mineral wealth as they were trying to actually help Afghanistan become a modern state. Thanks to us, they slid backwards under the Taliban.

Had Bin Laden not been hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan, would we still have gone after him via that nation? We had to have justification to get in there. Wars are about resource grabs and corporate interest, "Freedom and Liberty" is a cover for the empire of the Corporate States of Oligarchia


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 sebster wrote:
Did everyone see this extraordinary piece of insanity?



Whatever you think of the ACA, I think everyone has to recognise and just be in awe of the moxie involved in that claim. I mean, he’s basically claiming Obamacare is bad because Republicans might have figured out a way to take Obamacare away from people.



Thune is an Idjit based on that tweet alone. Seriously politicians playing on twitter like teenagers is showing immaturity


Since I was there in 2010 so have a good idea how this went down

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.

The vast scale of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth was discovered by a small team of Pentagon officials and American geologists. The Afghan government and President Hamid Karzai were recently briefed, American officials said.

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 will become the backbone of the Afghan economy,” said Jalil Jumriany, an adviser to the Afghan minister of mines.

American and Afghan officials agreed to discuss the mineral discoveries at a difficult moment in the war in Afghanistan. The American-led offensive in Marja in southern Afghanistan has achieved only limited gains. Meanwhile, charges of corruption and favoritism continue to plague the Karzai government, and Mr. Karzai seems increasingly embittered toward the White House.

So the Obama administration is hungry for some positive news to come out of Afghanistan. Yet the American officials also recognize that the mineral discoveries will almost certainly have a double-edged impact.

Instead of bringing peace, the newfound mineral wealth could lead the Taliban to battle even more fiercely to regain control of the country.

The corruption that is already rampant in the Karzai government could also be amplified by the new wealth, particularly if a handful of well-connected oligarchs, some with personal ties to the president, gain control of the resources. Just last year, Afghanistan’s minister of mines was accused by American officials of accepting a $30 million bribe to award China the rights to develop its copper mine. The minister has since been replaced.

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

Endless fights could erupt between the central government in Kabul and provincial and tribal leaders in mineral-rich districts. Afghanistan has a national mining law, written with the help of advisers from the World Bank, but it has never faced a serious challenge.

“No one has tested that law; no one knows how it will stand up in a fight between the central government and the provinces,” observed Paul A. Brinkley, deputy undersecretary of defense for business and leader of the Pentagon team that discovered the deposits.

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.”

With virtually no mining industry or infrastructure in place today, it will take decades for Afghanistan to exploit its mineral wealth fully. “This is a country that has no mining culture,” said Jack Medlin, a geologist in the United States Geological Survey’s international affairs program. “They’ve had some small artisanal mines, but now there could be some very, very large mines that will require more than just a gold pan.”

The mineral deposits are scattered throughout the country, including in the southern and eastern regions along the border with Pakistan that have had some of the most intense combat in the American-led war against the Taliban insurgency.

The Pentagon task force has already started trying to help the Afghans set up a system to deal with mineral development. International accounting firms that have expertise in mining contracts have been hired to consult with the Afghan Ministry of Mines, and technical data is being prepared to turn over to multinational mining companies and other potential foreign investors. The Pentagon is helping Afghan officials arrange to start seeking bids on mineral rights by next fall, officials said.

“The Ministry of Mines is not ready to handle this,” Mr. Brinkley said. “We are trying to help them get ready.”

Like much of the recent history of the country, the story of the discovery of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth is one of missed opportunities and the distractions of war.

In 2004, American geologists, sent to Afghanistan as part of a broader reconstruction effort, stumbled across an intriguing series of old charts and data at the library of the Afghan Geological Survey in Kabul that hinted at major mineral deposits in the country. They soon learned that the data had been collected by Soviet mining experts during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, but cast aside when the Soviets withdrew in 1989.

During the chaos of the 1990s, when Afghanistan was mired in civil war and later ruled by the Taliban, a small group of Afghan geologists protected the charts by taking them home, and returned them to the Geological Survey’s library only after the American invasion and the ouster of the Taliban in 2001.

“There were maps, but the development did not take place, because you had 30 to 35 years of war,” said Ahmad Hujabre, an Afghan engineer who worked for the Ministry of Mines in the 1970s.

Armed with the old Russian charts, the United States Geological Survey began a series of aerial surveys of Afghanistan’s mineral resources in 2006, using advanced gravity and magnetic measuring equipment attached to an old Navy Orion P-3 aircraft that flew over about 70 percent of the country.

The data from those flights was so promising that in 2007, the geologists returned for an even more sophisticated study, using an old British bomber equipped with instruments that offered a three-dimensional profile of mineral deposits below the earth’s surface. It was the most comprehensive geologic survey of Afghanistan ever conducted.

The handful of American geologists who pored over the new data said the results were astonishing.

But the results gathered dust for two more years, ignored by officials in both the American and Afghan governments. In 2009, a Pentagon task force that had created business development programs in Iraq was transferred to Afghanistan, and came upon the geological data. Until then, no one besides the geologists had bothered to look at the information — and no one had sought to translate the technical data to measure the potential economic value of the mineral deposits.

Soon, the Pentagon business development task force brought in teams of American mining experts to validate the survey’s findings, and then briefed Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Mr. Karzai.

So far, the biggest mineral deposits discovered are of iron and copper, and the quantities are large enough to make Afghanistan a major world producer of both, United States officials said. Other finds include large deposits of niobium, a soft metal used in producing superconducting steel, rare earth elements and large gold deposits in Pashtun areas of southern Afghanistan.

Just this month, American geologists working with the Pentagon team have been conducting ground surveys on dry salt lakes in western Afghanistan where they believe there are large deposits of lithium. Pentagon officials said that their initial analysis at one location in Ghazni Province showed the potential for lithium deposits as large of those of Bolivia, which now has the world’s largest known lithium reserves.

For the geologists who are now scouring some of the most remote stretches of Afghanistan to complete the technical studies necessary before the international bidding process is begun, there is a growing sense that they are in the midst of one of the great discoveries of their careers.

“On the ground, it’s very, very, promising,” Mr. Medlin said. “Actually, it’s pretty amazing.”


When that hit the news RC North plus up big time. Another 401st Battalion was formed up there and "Surge" units incoming to Afghanistan were re-routed to the North.

Edit

The US team was from Provisional Reconstruction Team in Northern Afghanistan. They attached themselves to a Combat Engineer unit that was well drilling for FoB's up there.



This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/10 04:28:20


Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog
Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.

Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha


 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 whembly wrote:
It's twitter.

Again, it's not the Republicans taking it away.


Yeah, that's the defense isn't it? That there's nothing political in the legal attempt to dismantle ACA through a single bit of poor wording. Which is just silly, basically.

Thing is, fighting ACA, well that's just politics. But if you're going to do it, actually be honest about what you're doing. Pretending that the legal challenge is somehow outside of politics is ridiculous, and leads to the complete nonsense tweet I linked above.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/10 04:37:01


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

 whembly wrote:

Hypocracy is thick here...

NTY fething hates the Citizens United ruling, but will gladly accept this.


I fail to see how the NYT accepting a donation from the Clinton Family Foundation has anything to do with the Citizens United decision. Citizens United is about corporations and the like using their general treasury to fund political advertisements within a particular period of a given election, this is not something the NYT did by endorsing Clinton.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/10 04:39:38


Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






 dogma wrote:
 whembly wrote:

Hypocracy is thick here...

NTY fething hates the Citizens United ruling, but will gladly accept this.


I fail to see how the NYT accepting a donation from the Clinton Family Foundation has anything to do with the Citizens United decision. Citizens United is about corporations and the like using their general treasury to fund political advertisements within a particular period of a given election, this is not something the NYT did by endorsing Clinton. Even if you wish to construe it that way, the endorsement came on January 25th, 2008; well outside the 30 day limitation imposed by McCain-Feingold.


Whembly make a leap of faith? Something like Indiana Jones in last Crusade?

Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog
Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.

Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha


 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 sebster wrote:
 whembly wrote:
It's twitter.

Again, it's not the Republicans taking it away.


Yeah, that's the defense isn't it? We aren't mounting this legal challenge, it's a force of nature.

Well... it is utter and complete rubbish ya know.

The legal doctrine for the PPACA is that only the STATE that created the exchange is eligible for subsidies. There's no ambiguity there... and it took the Obama IRS administration to :wave hands: come up with an interpretation that basically says "when we say state, we mean federal too".

The Supreme Court will make it's ruling at the end of the month. If they rule in favor of the government, nothing changes.

If, however, they rule in favor of the plantiff... that basically means that subsidies are illegal for those who purchased insurance on the Federal exchange (about 29 states I believe).

I've given up on predicting what the SC will do...

The ironic part here is that its the Republican members in congress feel pressure to "do something about it" if the SC rules in favor of the plantiff. They're a bunch of worry wort pansies.

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine






I live in South Dakota, and I can assure you, Thune is a moron.

Help me, Rhonda. HA! 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 dogma wrote:
 whembly wrote:

Hypocracy is thick here...

NTY fething hates the Citizens United ruling, but will gladly accept this.


I fail to see how the NYT accepting a donation from the Clinton Family Foundation has anything to do with the Citizens United decision. Citizens United is about corporations and the like using their general treasury to fund political advertisements within a particular period of a given election, this is not something the NYT did by endorsing Clinton.

O.o

Dude... CFF donated $100,000 to NYT charity foundation, then NYT endorsed Clinton for President in '08.

How do you not see this?

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

 Jihadin wrote:

Whembly make a leap of faith? Something like Indiana Jones in last Crusade?


Actually, it turns out I was wrong. I was thinking of the dates for Democratic National Convention of that year. Still, it is difficult to argue that the endorsement of the editorial board of a newspaper with national circulation can be construed as equivalent to funding advertisements targeted at specific primaries.

 whembly wrote:

Dude... CFF donated $100,000 to NYT charity foundation, then NYT endorsed Clinton for President in '08.

How do you not see this?


It isn't specified that the Clinton Family Foundation made their donation prior to the NYT editorial board granting its endorsement. Even if that were the case, I see no issue. At worst a private foundation dedicated to improving the world made a donation to another organization dedicated to doing the same.

Perhaps if you could articulate a clear argument, I would be more able to understand your position. As it is now all I hear is "I hate Clinton!".

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/06/10 04:58:04


Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Dude... CFF donated $100,000 to NYT charity foundation, then NYT endorsed Clinton for President in '08.

How do you not see this?


It isn't specified that the Clinton Family Foundation made their donation prior to the NYT editorial board granting its endorsement. Even if that were the case, I see no issue. At worst a private foundation dedicated to improving the world made a donation to another organization dedicated to doing the same.

Perhaps if you could articulate a clear argument, I would be more able to understand your position. As it is now all I hear is "I hate Clinton!".

It's influence-seeking by Hillary Clinton by using funds from her own charity organization. Furthermore, they have not given to the Times’ charity since the initial 2008 donation.

It shows how likely that the NYT's were 'persuaded' to endorse Clinton by this :air quotes: donation. There were rumors that the editorial board had two contentious meetings before Sulzberger “tipped the scales in Clinton’s favor.

quid. (100,000)

pro. (for)

quo. (endorsement)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/10 05:11:05


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

 whembly wrote:

It's influence-seeking by Hillary Clinton by using funds from her own charity organization. Furthermore, they have not given to the Times’ charity since the initial 2008 donation.


Perhaps the Clinton Family Foundation merely felt the Times' charity was in dire need of support at the time, but hasn't been since. See the funny thing is for all the noise being made about how The Clintons use their charities as slush funds, very few people have actually claimed that their tax exempt statuses should be revoked.

You know why? Because there is no solid evidence to support that they are overtly political in nature.

 whembly wrote:

It shows how likely that the NYT's were 'persuaded' to endorse Clinton by this :air quotes: donation.


If the donation had been made 3 months earlier, would your argument be the same?

Oh, by the way, quid pro quo underpins pretty much everything in politics. From horsetrading in Congress, to voter expectations regarding candidate behavior.

Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: