afghanistan

[billy]

translated that means,
the company that bribes the right people gets to mine,
remember the last afghan elections,i didn't hear too many complaints coming out of nato

true. but afghanistan still gets financial independence.
once they get a bit of cash under their belts they can always do a russia and kick out who ever has the contract if they don't like whats happening.

or are you saying don't give out any contracts and don't make any money ?

they certainly won't be able to mine as such on a big scale. they have neither the tech nor the ability nor the finances.

[srijantje]

maybe the way to go for a change is,train their people,set them up technically and finance it on a honest basis so everybody profits,this would take time and i'm ofcourse dreaming

[billy]

i saw it on cnn today SJ

they were talking about only allowing the companies to work there if the contracts were open, if the money exchanges were open and if contracts were guaranteed. they were also talking about it not being an easy process to make sure the afghani people get there fair share due to corruption.

i really believe if the contracts are given by afghanistan the country will make really really big bucks. i also believe it will be those in power in afghanistan who will milk afghanistan for all it's got and that little of the money will go to the people in general

[srijantje]

here is another angle ,and an important one,on the subject,i might ad that a lot of military in the pak army are pashtun

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...extremists

[billy]

here is another angle ,and an important one,on the subject,i might ad that a lot of military in the pak army are pashtun

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...extremists

i read it SJ and this line sums it up

US leaders must underscore to their Pakistani counterparts that unless they radically alter their policies, their country will continue to be slammed by a heavy dose of cosmic blowback as the militants they support turn against the state.

it's basically saying when it comes to an invasion pakistan is next on the list. not only by usa forces but by their own countrymen.

i have to say i agree with a lot of what was said

[srijantje]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun...l-deposits

[billy]

what are your views on it Sj, will it make a difference with the waring factions?

[srijantje]

no,it makes no difference on the warring factions as such but at least it becomes clearer to me why nato and in particular the us is there in the first place.

one can't in all seriousness assume that they're fighting over there to prevent a few arabs that ride around on horses and living in caves to blow up things in new york?in the process losing more of their own soldiers and killing innocent people that ever got killed by terrorist attacks?

[billy]

maybe but i thought they're planning a withdrawal?

also, with an unstable afghanistan, i can't see much foreign investment pouring in.

[srijantje]

they have to come up with something because militairely they're not going to win

[billy]

win what? i thought they were over there not to win against the afghans.
but to get rid of those terrorists . and at the same time lend some stability to the place. which will disappear as soon as they've left.

in truth i can't see the 3trillion in mineral deposits being the reason. no one would back such expensive ventures while the country is as it is.
as soon as the troops pull out half of pakistan will return and the government as we know will collapse and woman will become pieces of shit again and kids will be indoctrinated into believing that education for their sisters is bad. and life will go in afghanistan has it has for centuries.