Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28
  1. #1
    Thailand Expat
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    18,692

    America will dominate afghanistan for over twenty years.

    WASHINGTON — Secretary of State John Kerry announced on Wednesday that the United States and Afghanistan had finalized the wording of a bilateral security agreement that would allow for a lasting American troop presence through 2024 and set the stage for billions of dollars of international assistance to keep flowing to the government in Kabul.

    The deal, which will now be presented for approval by an Afghan grand council of elders starting on Thursday, came after days of brinkmanship by Afghan officials and two direct calls from Mr. Kerry to President Hamid Karzai, including one on Wednesday before the announcement.

    Just the day before, a senior aide to Mr. Karzai had said the Afghan leader would not approve an agreement unless President Obama sent a letter acknowledging American military mistakes during the 12-year war. But on Wednesday, Mr. Kerry emphatically insisted that a deal was reached with no American apology forthcoming.

    “President Karzai didn’t ask for an apology. There was no discussion of an apology,” Mr. Kerry said. “I mean, it’s just not even on the table.”

    After a war that stands as the longest in American history, the security agreement defines a training and counterterrorism mission in Afghanistan lasting at least 10 more years and involving 8,000 to 12,000 troops, mostly American.

    Despite the sometimes harsh criticism from Afghan officials during the negotiations, the agreement includes concessions that the Obama administration could not win from Iraq during a similar process in 2011, leading to the final withdrawal of American troops there.

    Now, the United States has at least an initial agreement from Afghan officials that American soldiers will not face Afghan prosecution in the course of their duties. And United States Special Operations forces will retain leeway to conduct antiterrorism raids on private Afghan homes — a central American demand that Afghan officials had resisted and described as the last sticking point in negotiations.

    In the end, the Obama administration and the Karzai government had more reason to agree than disagree, according to officials on both sides. American officials do not want to see Afghanistan again become a haven for terrorists after it spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives in the war. And the Afghan leadership knows that more than $4 billion in annual international security assistance would simply not flow absent an American military presence to account for it.

    Still, domestic political risks remain for both presidents today, as well. Some in Afghanistan already criticize Mr. Karzai as the political agent of a long-term foreign military presence. And Mr. Obama must explain to a nation weary of war why he is pressing for a continued military deployment, albeit a smaller one than advocated by American military commanders.

    Further, there is an immediate risk to the deal itself: The bilateral security agreement must now be approved by the Afghan council, known as a loya jirga. About 3,000 elders and leaders, all vetted by the Karzai government, will meet in Kabul for the next three days to weigh the agreement’s language, and it is sure to face at least some criticism.

    “We have agreed on the language that would be submitted to a loya jirga, but they have to pass it,” Mr. Kerry said.

    Draft language of the security agreement that was posted on the Afghan Foreign Ministry website on Wednesday night differed substantially from earlier working documents made available to journalists, seeming to ease off several Afghan demands that officials had publicly described as untouchable. Still, it was unclear whether the posted draft reflected the wording that will be handed out to loya jirga delegates on Thursday morning.

    On the issue of American searches of Afghan homes, the draft proposal avoids the blunt prohibition previously offered by the Afghans, which had stated: “No detention or arrest shall be carried out by the United States forces. The United States forces shall not search any homes or other real estate properties.”

    Instead, the draft states that American counterterrorism operations will be intended to “complement and support” Afghan missions. It underscores that Afghan forces will be in the lead and that any American military operations will be carried out “with full respect for Afghan sovereignty and full regard for the safety and security of the Afghan people, including in their homes.” Even then, though, the wording does not say that American raids of Afghan homes would be conducted only to protect American soldiers’ lives — phrasing that Afghan officials had publicized on Tuesday.

    The agreement itself would not establish a final troop number after the official NATO combat mission ends in December 2014. That detail is still to come from the Obama administration, and the force is expected to comprise 8,000 to 12,000 personnel to train, advise and assist Afghan forces. About two-thirds of that force would be American, and the rest from NATO and other allies.

    “While we are open to keeping a residual force in Afghanistan to carry out the narrow missions of counterterrorism and training, there is no scenario in which those forces would stay in Afghanistan until anywhere near 2024,” a senior administration official said late Wednesday.

    There would be no direct combat role for most of those troops, who would be assigned to major headquarters and not out in the field with Afghan units. There would be a much smaller counterterrorism force envisioned by American and NATO planners.

    The current draft agreement accedes to the central American demand that ended up scuttling the Iraq negotiations: United States military personnel would be subject only to American military law and Afghanistan pledges not to turn them over to any international tribunals.

    The proposed treaty does, however, grant Afghans legal jurisdiction over contractors.

    The document also has a clause committing the United States to consulting with the Afghan government in the event of external threats — stopping well short of the sort of NATO-style mutual defense pact the Afghans originally wanted.

    “The United States shall regard with grave concern any external aggression or threat of external aggression against the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of Afghanistan,” the proposed agreement states. There is a later clause saying they would “consult urgently” in the event of such aggression.

    The draft concludes, as earlier versions have, that it takes effect Jan. 1, 2015, provided internal approval procedures in both countries are satisfied — in the case of Afghanistan, ratification by the loya jirga and then by Parliament — and then “it shall remain in force until the end of 2024 and beyond“ unless terminated with two years’ advance notice.

    A State Department official said that Mr. Kerry had spoken by telephone with Mr. Karzai on Wednesday morning, for the second time in two days, to nail down details of the agreement.

    While Mr. Kerry was adamant that there would be no presidential apology for actions in Afghanistan, he left open the possibility that there would be some form of White House communication in the coming days.

    “It’s very important for President Karzai to know that the issues that he’s raised with us for many years have been properly addressed,” Mr. Kerry said, “and it’s very important for us to know that issues we have raised with him for a number of years are properly addressed.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/21/wo...ogy-.html?_r=0

  2. #2
    Philippine Expat Davis Knowlton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    17,876
    I would hardly say 'dominate'. We've never had a dominant moment in that country - any more than the Russians or the British did.

    Perhaps 'America will continue to dump tax dollars into Afghanistan for no good reason' might be more accurate.

  3. #3
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Online
    05-01-2016 @ 03:54 PM
    Location
    In a Madhouse
    Posts
    5,750
    wonder if the agreement has anything to do with mining and minerals oil gas etc

    “The War is Worth Waging”: Afghanistan’s Vast Reserves of Minerals and Natural Gas | Global Research


    The War is Worth Waging”: Afghanistan’s Vast Reserves of Minerals and Natural Gas

    The War on Afghanistan is a Profit driven "Resource War".

    By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
    Global Research, October 21, 2013
    Global Research 16 June 2010
    Region: Asia
    Theme: Global Economy, US NATO War Agenda
    In-depth Report: AFGHANISTAN


    "The War is Worth Waging": Afghanistan's Vast Reserves of Minerals and Natural Gas
    US and NATO forces invaded Afghanistan twelve years ago in October 2001.

    Afghanistan is defined as a state sponsor of terrorism.

    The war on Afghanistan continues to be heralded as a war of retribution in response to the 9/11 attacks.

    This article, first published in June 2010, points to the “real economic reasons” why US-NATO forces invaded Afghanistan twelve years ago.

    The legal argument used by Washington and NATO to invade and occupy Afghanistan under “the doctrine of collective security” was that the September 11 2001 attacks constituted an undeclared “armed attack” “from abroad” by an unnamed foreign power.

    Michel Chossudovsky, October 2013

    * * *

    The 2001 bombing and invasion of Afghanistan has been presented to World public opinion as a “Just War”, a war directed against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, a war to eliminate “Islamic terrorism” and instate Western style democracy.

    The economic dimensions of the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT) are rarely mentioned. The post 9/11 “counter-terrorism campaign” has served to obfuscate the real objectives of the US-NATO war.

    The war on Afghanistan is part of a profit driven agenda: a war of economic conquest and plunder, ”a resource war”.

    While Afghanistan is acknowledged as a strategic hub in Central Asia, bordering on the former Soviet Union, China and Iran, at the crossroads of pipeline routes and major oil and gas reserves, its huge mineral wealth as well as its untapped natural gas reserves have remained, until June 2010, totally unknown to the American public.

    According to a joint report by the Pentagon, the US Geological Survey (USGS) and USAID, Afghanistan is now said to possess “previously unknown” and untapped mineral reserves, estimated authoritatively to be of the order of one trillion dollars (New York Times, U.S. Identifies Vast Mineral Riches in Afghanistan – NYTimes.com, June 14, 2010, See also BBC, 14 June 2010).

    “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… “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. (New York Times, op. cit.)

    Afghanistan could become, according to The New York Times “the Saudi Arabia of lithium”. “Lithium is an increasingly vital resource, used in batteries for everything from mobile phones to laptops and key to the future of the electric car.” At present Chile, Australia, China and Argentina are the main suppliers of lithium to the world market. Bolivia and Chile are the countries with the largest known reserves of lithium. “The Pentagon has been conducting ground surveys in western Afghanistan. “Pentagon officials said that their initial analysis at one location in Ghazni province showed the potential for lithium deposits as large as those of Bolivia” (U.S. Identifies Vast Mineral Riches in Afghanistan – NYTimes.com, June 14, 2010, see also Lithium – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

    “Previously Unknown Deposits” of Minerals in Afghanistan

    The Pentagon’s near one trillion dollar “estimate” of previously “unknown deposits” is a useful smokescreen. The Pentagon one trillion dollar figure is more a trumped up number rather than an estimate: “We took a look at what we knew to be there, and asked what would it be worth now in terms of today’s dollars. The trillion dollar figure seemed to be newsworthy.” (The Sunday Times, London, June 15 2010, emphasis added)

    Moreover, the results of a US Geological Survey study (quoted in the Pentagon memo) on Afghanistan’s mineral wealth were revealed three years back, at a 2007 Conference organized by the Afghan-American Chamber of Commerce. The matter of Afghanistan’s mineral riches, however, was not considered newsworthy at the time.

    The US Administration’s acknowledgment that it first took cognizance of Afghanistan’s vast mineral wealth following the release of the USGS 2007 report is an obvious red herring. Afghanistan’s mineral wealth and energy resources (including natural gas) were known to both America’s business elites and the US government prior to the Soviet-Afghan war (1979-1988).

    Geological surveys conducted by the Soviet Union in the 1970s and early 1980s confirm the existence of vast reserves of copper (among the largest in Eurasia), iron, high grade chrome ore, uranium, beryl, barite, lead, zinc, fluorspar, bauxite, lithium, tantalum, emeralds, gold and silver.(Afghanistan, Mining Annual Review, The Mining Journal, June, 1984). These surveys suggest that the actual value of these reserves could indeed be substantially larger than the one trillion dollars “estimate” intimated by the Pentagon-USCG-USAID study.

    More recently, in a 2002 report, the Kremlin confirmed what was already known: “It’s no secret that Afghanistan possesses rich reserves, in particular of copper at the Aynak deposit, iron ore in Khojagek, uranium, polymetalic ore, oil and gas,” (RIA Novosti, January 6, 2002):

    “Afghanistan has never been anyone’s colony – no foreigner had ever “dug” here before the 1950s. The Hindu Kush mountains, stretching, together with their foothills, over a vast area in Afghanistan, are where the minerals lie. Over the past 40 years, several dozen deposits have been discovered in Afghanistan, and most of these discoveries were sensational. They were kept secret, however, but even so certain facts have recently become known.

    It turns out that Afghanistan possesses reserves of nonferrous and ferrous metals and precious stones, and, if exploited, they would possibly be able to cover even the earnings from the drug industry. The copper deposit in Aynak in the southern Afghan Helmand Province is said to be the largest in the Eurasian continent, and its location (40 km from Kabul) makes it cheap to develop. The iron ore deposit at Hajigak in the central Bamian Province yields ore of an extraordinarily high quality, the reserves of which are estimated to be 500m tonnes. A coal deposit has also been discovered not far from there.

    Afghanistan is spoken of as a transit country for oil and gas. However, only a very few people know that Soviet specialists discovered huge gas reserves there in the 1960s and built the first gas pipeline in the country to supply gas to Uzbekistan. At that time, the Soviet Union used to receive 2.5 bn cubic metres of Afghan gas annually. During the same period, large deposits of gold, fluorite, barytes and marble onyxes that have a very rare pattern were found.

    However, the pegmatite fields discovered to the east of Kabul are a real sensation. Rubies, beryllium, emeralds and kunzites and hiddenites that cannot be found anywhere else – the deposits of these precious stones stretch for hundreds of kilometres. Also, the rocks containing the rare metals beryllium, thorium, lithium and tantalum are of strategic importance (they are used in air and spacecraft construction).

    The war is worth waging. … (Olga Borisova, “Afghanistan – the Emerald Country”, Karavan, Almaty, original Russian, translated by BBC News Services, Apr 26, 2002. p. 10, emphasis added.)

    While public opinion was fed images of a war torn resourceless developing country, the realities are otherwise: Afghanstan is a rich country as confirmed by Soviet era geological surveys.

    The issue of “previously unknown deposits” sustains a falsehood. It excludes Afghanstan’s vast mineral wealth as a justifiable casus belli. It says that the Pentagon only recently became aware that Afghanistan was among the World’s most wealthy mineral economies, comparable to The Democratic Republic of the Congo or former Zaire of the Mobutu era. The Soviet geopolitical reports were known. During the Cold War, all this information was known in minute detail:

    … Extensive Soviet exploration produced superb geological maps and reports that listed more than 1,400 mineral outcroppings, along with about 70 commercially viable deposits … The Soviet Union subsequently committed more than $650 million for resource exploration and development in Afghanistan, with proposed projects including an oil refinery capable of producing a half-million tons per annum, as well as a smelting complex for the Ainak deposit that was to have produced 1.5 million tons of copper per year. In the wake of the Soviet withdrawal a subsequent World Bank analysis projected that the Ainak copper production alone could eventually capture as much as 2 percent of the annual world market. The country is also blessed with massive coal deposits, one of which, the Hajigak iron deposit, in the Hindu Kush mountain range west of Kabul, is assessed as one of the largest high-grade deposits in the world. (John C. K. Daly, Analysis: Afghanistan’s untapped energy, UPI Energy, October 24, 2008, emphasis added)

    Afghanistan’s Natural Gas

    Afghanistan is a land bridge. The 2001 U.S. led invasion and occupation of Afghanistan has been analysed by critics of US foreign policy as a means to securing control over the strategic trans-Afghan transport corridor which links the Caspian sea basin to the Arabian sea.

    Several trans-Afghan oil and gas pipeline projects have been contemplated including the planned $8.0 billion TAPI pipeline project (Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India) of 1900 km., which would transport Turkmen natural gas across Afghanistan in what is described as a “crucial transit corridor”. (See Gary Olson, Afghanistan has never been the ‘good and necessary’ war; it’s about control of oil, The Morning Call, October 1, 2009). Military escalation under the extended Af-Pak war bears a relationship to TAPI. Turkmenistan possesses third largest natural gas reserves after Russia and Iran. Strategic control over the transport routes out of Turkmenistan have been part of Washington’s agenda since the collapse of the Soviet union in 1991.

    What was rarely contemplated in pipeline geopolitics, however, is that Afghanistan is not only adjacent to countries which are rich in oil and natural gas (e.g Turkmenistan), it also possesses within its territory sizeable untapped reserves of natural gas, coal and oil. Soviet estimates of the 1970s placed “Afghanistan’s ‘explored’ (proved plus probable) gas reserves at about 5 trillion cubic feet. The Hodja-Gugerdag’s initial reserves were placed at slightly more than 2 tcf.” (See, The Soviet Union to retain influence in Afghanistan, Oil & Gas Journal, May 2, 1988).

    The US.Energy Information Administration (EIA) acknowledged in 2008 that Afghanistan’s natural gas reserves are “substantial”:

    “As northern Afghanistan is a ‘southward extension of Central Asia’s highly prolific, natural gas-prone Amu Darya Basin,’ Afghanistan ‘has proven, probable and possible natural gas reserves of about 5 trillion cubic feet.’ (UPI, John C.K. Daly, Analysis: Afghanistan’s untapped energy, October 24, 2008)

    From the outset of the Soviet-Afghan war in 1979, Washington’s objective has been to sustain a geopolitical foothold in Central Asia.

    The Golden Crescent Drug Trade

    America’s covert war, namely its support to the Mujahideen “Freedom fighters” (aka Al Qaeda) was also geared towards the development of the Golden Crescent trade in opiates, which was used by US intelligence to fund the insurgency directed against the Soviets.1

    Instated at the outset of the Soviet-Afghan war and protected by the CIA, the drug trade developed over the years into a highly lucrative multibillion undertaking. It was the cornerstone of America’s covert war in the 1980s. Today, under US-NATO military occupation, the drug trade generates cash earnings in Western markets in excess of $200 billion dollars a year. (See Michel Chossudovsky, America’s War on Terrorism, Global Research, Montreal, 2005, see also Michel Chossudovsky, Heroin is “Good for Your Health”: Occupation Forces support Afghan Narcotics Trade, Global Research, April 29, 2007)

    Towards an Economy of Plunder

    The US media, in chorus, has upheld the “recent discovery” of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth as “a solution” to the development of the country’s war torn economy as well as a means to eliminating poverty. The 2001 US-NATO invasion and occupation has set the stage for their appropriation by Western mining and energy conglomerates.

    The war on Afghanistan is a profit driven “resource war”.

    Under US and allied occupation, this mineral wealth is slated to be plundered, once the country has been pacified, by a handful of multinational mining conglomerates. According to Olga Borisova, writing in the months following the October 2001 invasion, the US-led “war on terrorism [will be transformed] into a colonial policy of influencing a fabulously wealthy country.” (Borisova, op cit).

    Part of the US-NATO agenda is also to eventually take possession of Afghanistan’s reserves of natural gas, as well as prevent the development of competing Russian, Iranian and Chinese energy interests in Afghanistan.

    Note

    1. The Golden Crescent trade in opiates constitutes, at present, the centerpiece of Afghanistan’s export economy. The heroin trade, instated at the outset of the Soviet-Afghan war in 1979 and protected by the CIA, generates cash earnings in Western markets in excess of $200 billion dollars a year.

    Since the 2001 invasion, narcotics production in Afghanistan has increased more than 35 times. In 2009, opium production stood at 6900 tons, compared to less than 200 tons in 2001. In this regard, the multibillion dollar earnings resulting from the Afghan opium production largely occur outside Afghanistan. According to United Nations data, the revenues of the drug trade accruing to the local economy are of the order of 2-3 billion annually.

    In contrast with the Worldwide sales of heroin resulting from the trade in Afghan opiates, in excess of $200 billion. (See Michel Chossudovsky, America’s War on Terrorism”, Global Research, Montreal, 2005)

  4. #4
    Thailand Expat
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    18,692
    Quote Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton
    I would hardly say 'dominate'.
    Maybe so but a far better grip then our failed british friends.

    Quote Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton
    Perhaps 'America will continue to dump tax dollars into Afghanistan for no good reason' might be more accurate.
    Yes war is always better Davis. God knows we should cut domestic programs. Fuck the working poor they are subhumans.

  5. #5
    Philippine Expat Davis Knowlton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    17,876
    Quote Originally Posted by bsnub View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton
    I would hardly say 'dominate'.
    Maybe so but a far better grip then our failed british friends.

    Quote Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton
    Perhaps 'America will continue to dump tax dollars into Afghanistan for no good reason' might be more accurate.
    Yes war is always better Davis. God knows we should cut domestic programs. Fuck the working poor they are subhumans.
    Regarding your first response: The British lost; we lost. how did we 'get a better grip'?

    Regarding your second response: I have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

    Regarding the overall premise: Get in a war with the US. "Lose". Allow the US to rebuild your mud hut country for the next two decades. Plan. Worked a treat for the Japanese.

  6. #6
    Member
    harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    Today @ 10:39 PM
    Posts
    60,460
    Quote Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton View Post
    I would hardly say 'dominate'. We've never had a dominant moment in that country - any more than the Russians or the British did.

    Perhaps 'America will continue to dump tax dollars into Afghanistan for no good reason' might be more accurate.
    I think "Dump tax dollars into the Dubai accounts and property portfolios of the Karzai family and their cronies" might be more accurate....

  7. #7
    Philippine Expat Davis Knowlton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    17,876
    ^Same thing.

  8. #8
    Thailand Expat Pragmatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Last but who gives a shit.
    Posts
    11,675
    Quote Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton
    Get in a war with the US. "Lose". Allow the US to rebuild your mud hut country for the next two decades. Plan. Worked a treat for the Japanese.
    I believe Japan was only rebuilt thanks to the Korean War. The US needed a storeage area/transit point close to the war. Japan suited that purpose. May be I'm wrong?

  9. #9
    Philippine Expat Davis Knowlton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    17,876
    Quote Originally Posted by Pragmatic View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton
    Get in a war with the US. "Lose". Allow the US to rebuild your mud hut country for the next two decades. Plan. Worked a treat for the Japanese.
    I believe Japan was only rebuilt thanks to the Korean War. The US needed a storeage area/transit point close to the war. Japan suited that purpose. May be I'm wrong?
    Yes and No. The occupation and reconstruction of Japan, spearheaded by the US, began in 1945 and went full speed until 1952.

    However, with the beginning of the Korean War in 1950, Japan became the principal supply depot for UN troops fighting in Korea, adding tremendous impetus to the reconstruction effort.

  10. #10
    Thailand Expat
    aging one's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    Today @ 08:33 PM
    Posts
    17,107
    Douglas McArthur ran Japan for a number of years after the second world war. Not much to do with the Korean war.

  11. #11
    Philippine Expat Davis Knowlton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    17,876
    Quote Originally Posted by aging one View Post
    Douglas McArthur ran Japan for a number of years after the second world war. Not much to do with the Korean war.

    Not exactly correct. MacArthur indeed ran the reconstruction of Japan starting in 1945, however the need for a staging area for UN troops during the Korean War, starting in 1950, played a key role in bringing those efforts to fruition.

  12. #12
    Thailand Expat Pragmatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Last but who gives a shit.
    Posts
    11,675
    Quote Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton
    However, with the beginning of the Korean War in 1950, Japan became the principal supply depot for UN troops fighting in Korea, adding tremendous impetus to the reconstruction effort.
    That is correct. The Korean war was Japans saviour .
    U.S. efforts to save South Korea from Communist invasion accelerated Department of State attempts to restore Japan to a respected international position, and make that country a prosperous ally of the United States.
    Korean War and Japan

  13. #13
    Thailand Expat
    Rainfall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Online
    03-08-2015 @ 10:32 PM
    Posts
    2,492
    Quote Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton View Post
    Regarding the overall premise: Get in a war with the US. "Lose". Allow the US to rebuild your mud hut country for the next two decades. Plan. Worked a treat for the Japanese.
    Mud hut country Japan? You must be confusing them with someone else. They have been and continue to be more advanced than America since ironically you forced them to start and westernize in the 1850s. You stole tens of thousands of patents from them after WW2. Didn't do you much good for long, they took out new ones. So they told you that you rebuild Japan.

  14. #14
    Philippine Expat Davis Knowlton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Philippines
    Posts
    17,876
    ^The 'mud hut' reference was clearly to Afghanistan. If you don't believe that the US chaired the effort to rebuild Japan after WW2, you probably also believe that your Nazi countrymen 'were only following orders'. Fucking idiot.

  15. #15
    Thailand Expat
    wasabi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Last Online
    01-09-2019 @ 06:11 AM
    Location
    England
    Posts
    10,950
    Between the Russians leaving and us arriving next,the Afghans where on their own,they got by,so let them get by on their own once again, I dont Fkcn care if they live in the stone age with a nutty religion to get by.

  16. #16
    I am in Jail
    leemo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    07-10-2015 @ 02:27 PM
    Location
    pty
    Posts
    2,608
    Clue: Kerry believes he has a done deal with Afghanistan, and he holds a high position in the world's most powerful nation.

    Fact: America has no deal with Afghanistan.

    She does, however, pretend to have a deal with Karzai, though only fools and it seems American politicians believe the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan under Taliban rule might honour such items.

    I blame Bush!

  17. #17
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 10:39 PM
    Posts
    757
    Quote Originally Posted by bsnub View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton
    I would hardly say 'dominate'.



    Quote Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton
    Perhaps 'America will continue to dump tax dollars into Afghanistan for no good reason' might be more accurate.
    Yes war is always better Davis. God knows we should cut domestic programs. Fuck the working poor they are subhumans.
    Charming!

  18. #18
    Thailand Expat
    sabang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    04-09-2019 @ 05:06 AM
    Location
    BackinOz
    Posts
    30,807
    Quote Originally Posted by bsnub
    America will dominate afghanistan for over twenty years.
    I rather doubt it.

  19. #19
    Banned

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Online
    03-06-2014 @ 09:01 PM
    Posts
    27,545
    Quote Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton View Post
    I would hardly say 'dominate'. We've never had a dominant moment in that country - any more than the Russians or the British did.

    Perhaps 'America will continue to dump tax dollars into Afghanistan for no good reason' might be more accurate.
    The fashionable term might be: Neo-Imperialism.

  20. #20
    Member
    harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    Today @ 10:39 PM
    Posts
    60,460
    Quote Originally Posted by Rainfall View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton View Post
    Regarding the overall premise: Get in a war with the US. "Lose". Allow the US to rebuild your mud hut country for the next two decades. Plan. Worked a treat for the Japanese.
    Mud hut country Japan? You must be confusing them with someone else. They have been and continue to be more advanced than America since ironically you forced them to start and westernize in the 1850s. You stole tens of thousands of patents from them after WW2. Didn't do you much good for long, they took out new ones. So they told you that you rebuild Japan.
    As I was growing up, there was a phrase called "Jap Copy". The Nips used to do what the Chinese do now, nick every idea and market it as their own.

    Their cars used to be short-lived rust buckets. Over the years they've perfected it and wiped out many countries' auto industries.

    This is what China will do in coming years.

  21. #21
    I am in Jail
    Butterfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Last Online
    01-02-2019 @ 03:12 PM
    Posts
    39,832
    America has done an escape Saigon style from Iraq and Afghanistan but without the Embassy drama, at least for now

  22. #22
    Thailand Expat
    kmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Online
    Today @ 09:54 PM
    Location
    Rayong.
    Posts
    10,694
    Afghanistan's opium production spiralled ever upwards again this year apparently.

    KABUL – Afghanistan produced record levels of opium in 2013 – despite nearly $7 billion spent by the U.S. to combat the problem, according to a sobering United Nations report out Wednesday.
    Propelled by strong demand and an insurgency that has become more hands-on in the trade, cultivation of opium poppies, which are processed into heroin, rose 36 percent, amounting to 209,000 hectares.


    Afghanistan opium production hits record despite billions spent to combat trade - World News

  23. #23
    Thailand Expat
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    18,692
    Quote Originally Posted by pompeysbroke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bsnub View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton
    I would hardly say 'dominate'.



    Quote Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton
    Perhaps 'America will continue to dump tax dollars into Afghanistan for no good reason' might be more accurate.
    Yes war is always better Davis. God knows we should cut domestic programs. Fuck the working poor they are subhumans.
    Charming!
    I was on the piss when I made that post and created this thread. It was a poor attempt at sarcasm and I think that post was meant for another thread.

  24. #24
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 10:39 PM
    Posts
    757
    ^ No worries!

  25. #25
    Thailand Expat
    rickschoppers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Thailand
    Posts
    7,174
    WTF, we were all told the only reason we were in Afghanistan was to find Osama. Whatever happened to that argument?

    Osama is dead, dead, dead, so we should not even be in Afghanistan.

    When will the US every get it?

    I know, stupid question.

    Don't even get me started on Vietnam.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •