$1 Trillion worth of mineral deposits in Afghanistan

[Plaidman]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html?no_interstitial

So, USA found alot. Including Iron, Copper, Cobalt, GOLD, LITHIUM etc.
But it's in Afghanistan. I mean, this must mean that Afghan will get the money, but I highly doubt it. America will find ways to tax them, or /share/ it, or do something to get it all and leave it for less.

Doesn't look like we're going to be leaving any time soon.

[Fryk]

Kinda makes Evanescence's song "Lithium" seem sad, doesn't it?

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Because, as we all know, the US government is somehow magically greedy and corrupt compared to other governments, including the burgeoning and, come to think of it, corrupt-ridden government of Afghanistan.

Although it's basically certain that the minerals will be taxed by the Afghan government. The real question is who will do the mining and who will protect them while they do it. Whoever does either of those things is probably going to profit from it, as is to be expected from an exchange of goods and services.

[Plaidman]

Because, as we all know, the US government is somehow magically greedy and corrupt compared to other governments, including the burgeoning and, come to think of it, corrupt-ridden government of Afghanistan.


Never said US was corrupt and greedy compared to other countries, but I highly, HIGHLY doubt that US would go

"Oh hey Afghanistan, we found all these super expensive minerals that we can use, here ya go. All for you"

It be more on the lines of
"So yeah, your going to need guards, people to mine it, people to set up mining, to tax it, control it, deliver it, and we're going to do it for 40-50% of the profit. Ok? bye"

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Except many of the sites are going to need guards, people do need to mine it and that doesn't happen until extensive facilities are set up. It is going to be taxed and it will need to be controlled, transported and sold. Since it's unlikely that the current Afghan government can do it on their own, they can either let someone else do it and pocket a percentage or refuse and no one gets it.

Given that the place is already got US and UN troops crawling all over the place, chances are that either or both will do the guarding until the Afghans can take over. Realistically speaking anyone with the means could potentially end up taking care of the construction and running of the mines. Although, again it's most likely going to be the US (seeing as how it WAS the US that found all of it anyway) and if not, one or several European countries. Who, since they'll basically be doing all the work, have every right to make a profit.

When you portray the potential actions of a nation's government as sleazy and greedy despite the fact that those actions really only amount to good business, you're saying that the nation in question is greedier and less scrupulous than everyone else who could conceivably execute said business instead. The people who do the work make a profit, the government of the country in which this occurs regulates, controls and also profits through taxes. Other services, such as security, that may need rendering are compensated for those services. That's how it works!

[Plaidman]

Or they could, you know, just let them do it themselves and profit it themselves, rather then basically force them to ally with US for that, and you know that as another country that wants the resources, it isn't Afghanistan that's going to get the better deal at all. I would be shocked if they even get a quarter of any of it.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I am currently convinced that you didn't read my previous post.

Governments don't mine minerals. Mining companies do. Since Afghanistan doesn't have mining companies, it's going to be an international one. That company is going to be taxed and regulated by the Afghan government, and they're going to sell their minerals to whoever they damn well please. That's how it works everywhere else, how is this evil if it's happening in Afghanistan?

The only thing truly unique in this situation is only within the scope of it's occurrence in a warzone containing US troops. Since their already responsible for the safety of everywhere else in the country in support/leadership of local forces, how is it evil for them to be responsible for the security of the mines?

[BlaqueKatt]

It be more on the lines of
"So yeah, your going to need guards, people to mine it, people to set up mining, to tax it, control it, deliver it, and we're going to do it for 40-50% of the profit. Ok? bye"

actually this "new mineral deposit" was found 40 years ago (http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/0610/Afghanistans_mineral_find_and_the_Washington_clock .html?showall)-problem is the technology is not available yet to be able to extract/transport it profitably. It's a ploy to say "look we have to stay-the region will become unstable due to fighting for these minerals" That's all it is. Heck the "new reports" are based off the ones from the 70's for Pete's sake......

Although, again it's most likely going to be the US (seeing as how it WAS the US that found all of it anyway)

Um no-just no-try Russia and China found it back in the 70's

[Wingates_Hellsing]

According to that article, old Russian surveys were used as a starting point for new, far more extensive surveys of our own which revealed numerous entirely new deposits.

[BlaqueKatt]

According to that article, old Russian surveys were used as a starting point for new, far more extensive surveys of our own which revealed numerous entirely new deposits.

which means the US didn't "discover" anything-if you know it's there it's not a discovery-but then the history of the US-we "discover" stuff all the time that was already known about. It's just clarification of an old discovery, not a "new discovery"

Would adding to Newton's laws be "new discoveries" What about actually creating energy/or as some speculate-time travel via Einstein's theory of relativity-nope sorry not "new" nothing new about it.

[Hobbs]

If you're referring to a type of propulsion found via Einstein's theory, then yes, it is a new discovery. Einstein didn't discover the propulsion system, merely formulated the theory that led to it's discovery. That's like saying the Chinese invented the M-16 because they formulated the first gunpowder.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

What you're saying is akin to claiming that the discovery of quarks and gluants (sp?) was not a new discovery because we already knew about protons and neutrons.

That a discovery is based off of previous knowledge does not invalidate that discovery. We knew that there was something underneath some of Afghanistan but we didn't know the extent of those sites until now and no one had any idea that the newly discovered sites existed at all.

It's not news that there's minerals in Afghanistan, it's news that there's this much in this many places. How is this not a discovery?

[Plaidman]

I'm just curious how much, if any, Afghanistan will get out of this.

It just feels like a old school days, where the weak kid has a bunch of candy to sale for a school drive to win rewards. Bullies grab all the candy and tell him they'll sell it for them. Bullies do sell it, but take the credit and the rewards, and toss the weak kid the wrappers and say thanks.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I guess we'll just have to wait and see, as it's ultimately in the hands of the Afghan government by now. Fledgling as they may be, they do control the land and it's their decision as to who can do what where and what they'll be paying.

Granted, the Pentagon and by extension the US government does have the advantage in that they hold the information (assuming they haven't already released it to the Afghan government) about the sites, though to be fair, they did do all the work to get it in the first place. It might be a nice thing to do, but it's hardly fair to expect them to do all that work at their own expense and then just give it away.

[Plaidman]

So it's like the colonists with the Indians.

(Granted, the whole buying the land from Indians while true, isn't the whole story seeing as they paid Indians who didn't even own it themselves, who just claimed they did from rival Indians).

But it's still, "we found it. Pay us"

Or worst, they'll let the goverment know that yes, they found it, but won't tell them WHERE it is unless they get contracts to do the work for it all. At a big cut of profits.


Then that will be like a landowner on a land of carrots. He doesn't know there is diamonds under his land. Another guy learns this fact. He then tells person that he is very rich, but won't say why or how without contracts at bigger money.

If owner doesn't sign, the other guy is likely going to just sneak in and take it anyway, so the landowner has no choice but to do it or he won't get anything. It's forced.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

It's not 'we found it, pay us' at all. It's 'we found it, may we dig it up and sell it?' this would be true regardless of who found the deposits.

Moreover, if I put the work and/or money into discovering something like those diamonds, I sure as hell would want some sort of compensation at the very least. Information, like any other commodity, can be the subject of charity (given away at own expense). However, lack of charity does not evil make. Furthermore, in both instances the landowner is still profiting where they wouldn't have before. In neither, however, is the land owner robbed at gunpoint against their will. To profit from one's own work (in this case, discovering the goods to be harvested) is perfectly fair, and while the decision posed to the land owners in question might be one sided (choosing nothing over something is pretty stupid) they aren't forced to do anything.

[Fryk]

I'm just curious how much, if any, Afghanistan will get out of this.

I'm curious how much, if any the Afghani people will get out of this.

[Red Panda]

Even if all the construction, mining, and gaurding is done by Americans, which is unlikely, the Afgan people will still benefit from the fact that such a large operation is going on. The workers aren't going to end their shifts and hop on a plane back to America. They are going to be living their. They will want to buy things, they will want entertainment, they will require services. Anybody that lives near a military base can tell you how much it benefits the local community even if it isn't directly earning money for them. The fact that it is their and their are a large amount of poeple who go elsewhere for what they want or need is very beneficial.

Afganistan at the moment doesn't have the means to start a large scale mining operation, train all the workers, and guard the operation. They are best off letting a foreign country take on all the costs while they earn the tax money and the side benefits. Down the rode as the citizens are able to better educate themselves you better believe they will be getting hired in those mines because they will be working for less. In the long run Afganistan will benefit greatly from letting America mine their nation.

[jackfaire]

Anybody that lives near a military base can tell you how much it benefits the local community even if it isn't directly earning money for them.

This is very true in fact some of those cities that exist around a military base become ghost towns during mass deployments.

[infinitemonkies]

Scott Adams wrote an interesting short piece on this a couple days ago, heres the link (http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/charged_with_salt_and_batteries/)

Quick excerpt:

Strategy-wise, these valuable deposits in Afghanistan are a major problem for U.S. defense. It makes leaving impossible and staying even harder. Any sense of military legitimacy will soon be smothered by talk of economics. If there's one argument that you can be sure will never fly with the American voting public, it goes like this: "Those vast mineral deposits are a total coincidence."

[jackfaire]

Gibbs doesn't believe in coincidences

[jackfaire]

http://amultiverse.com/2010/06/29/the-price-of-glory/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ScenesFromAMultiverse+%28Scen es+From+A+Multiverse%29

Wow that isn't a thinly veiled social commentary at all.