World War III, anyone?

[KIWIKARLOS]

Afghanistan is strategically located and is essential is exerting influence over asia and Russia.

It is a well known that Central Asia is seen as the key to controlling the whole of Eurasia. Along with countries such as kazakistan etc.

You can't maintain effective control over the resource rich caspian basin from bases in Iraq, Germany, Saudi Arabia etc. And the US can't basically take control of Russia's vast resouce richees so the next best thing it to control the transport routes which basically counteracts their power.

Resource rich countries are only successful and quite "rich" because they have a market to sell to if you take control of the market you are basically controlling the resource. Russia, Iran etc would never completely cut off their supply to EU otherwise they would be digging their own grave and have no income.

You can also make alot of money from the transport of resources such as gas pipelines etc. I wouldn't be surprised to see big US firms getting more into the trransport side. After all it takes huge capital to build these projects.

 

[KIWIKARLOS]

i have heard a few possible reasons why. one of which is the opium trade. by 2001 the taliban had effectively shut down the opium growing trade of afgahnistan. http://opioids.com/afghanistan/opiumban.html

today, the opium trade is thriving again.. http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/200...ved-in-drug-trafficking-from-afghanistan.html

iraq is also becomming a new player in the opium trade.. http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/487/opium_poppies_cultivated_iraq

the cia has been accused of being involved in the south american drug trade..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_drug_trafficking

also, afgahnistan is a strategic military/energy position.
http://www.newhumanist.com/oil.html

but...DYOR

I doubt the US would be trying to expand the drug trade the biggest effect drug trade has is taking tax dollars and revenue out of the US economy. They actually spray alot of nasty long lasting herbicides in Columbia They will end up turning it into another vietnam in terms of environmental pollution

 

[metric]

I doubt the US would be trying to expand the drug trade the biggest effect drug trade has is taking tax dollars and revenue out of the US economy. They actually spray alot of nasty long lasting herbicides in Columbia They will end up turning it into another vietnam in terms of environmental pollution

did you read the wikipedia link kiwi? im no fan of wikipedia but you must admit they are mainstream media. for them to suggest what they have on that link gives credibility to the posibility. i dont know if control of the drug trade is a significant reason to invade afgahnistan, but it is billions of $ per year. and opium growing has flourished since the invasion. you should look at the links i posted.

 

[Tysonboss1]

i have heard a few possible reasons why. one of which is the opium trade. by 2001 the taliban had effectively shut down the opium growing trade of afgahnistan. http://opioids.com/afghanistan/opiumban.html

today, the opium trade is thriving again.. http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/200...ved-in-drug-trafficking-from-afghanistan.html

iraq is also becomming a new player in the opium trade.. http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/487/opium_poppies_cultivated_iraq

the cia has been accused of being involved in the south american drug trade..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_drug_trafficking

also, afgahnistan is a strategic military/energy position.
http://www.newhumanist.com/oil.html

but...DYOR

The usa spends billions of dollars on the war against drugs,... why would they then spend billions on a war to support drugs,.... it doesn't make sense

 

[Tysonboss1]

Afghanistan is strategically located and is essential is exerting influence over asia and Russia.

It is a well known that Central Asia is seen as the key to controlling the whole of Eurasia. Along with countries such as kazakistan etc.

You can't maintain effective control over the resource rich caspian basin from bases in Iraq, Germany, Saudi Arabia etc. And the US can't basically take control of Russia's vast resouce richees so the next best thing it to control the transport routes which basically counteracts their power.

Resource rich countries are only successful and quite "rich" because they have a market to sell to if you take control of the market you are basically controlling the resource. Russia, Iran etc would never completely cut off their supply to EU otherwise they would be digging their own grave and have no income.

You can also make alot of money from the transport of resources such as gas pipelines etc. I wouldn't be surprised to see big US firms getting more into the trransport side. After all it takes huge capital to build these projects.

The usa doesn't not control russias resources by occuping afganistan,...

and amaericas power over europe or asia has not been enhanced by fighting in afganistan. it any thing it has een eroded becuse of the huge war debt they have taken out with asian countries.

 

[KIWIKARLOS]

when you say the US is spending billions on war that is not technically correct.

They are spending billions on paying US soldiers and buying US made arms that destroy Afghan made assets.

They are spinning their own money machine, over 10% of jobs in the US are Defence jobs and its prob more like 20%+ when you take into account all the service work that is indirectly involved. War is profitable.

The money recycles around the US economy and the net effect is Afghanistan is leveled back to the 15th century.

Ever wonder why the rebuilfing in Oraq is so dodgy. Iraqi oil revenue pays US contractors to do a dodgy job building new Iraqi infrastructure.

In essence Iraqi is paying through the teeth for dodgy laboour and materials from the US. There are over 100 000 US defence contractors in Iraq not to mention the thousands of companies that get contracts for millions then sub contract it out for nothing to iraqi workers etc.

Rebuilding a country is a farce and is not in the US interest unless the country is been rebuilt by US companies etc.

 

[KIWIKARLOS]

The usa doesn't not control russias resources by occuping afganistan,...

and amaericas power over europe or asia has not been enhanced by fighting in afganistan. it any thing it has een eroded becuse of the huge war debt they have taken out with asian countries.

No the US just builds bases very close to the border of the east and west so it doesn't have to fly mssions from the persian gulf or quam to bomb the cr@p out of central asia. So instead of a ten hour round trip its a two hour round trip and now you can do 5 times the missions.

Do you really think that China will ever see a equitable return of teh money it has lent the US? By US inflation running high Value of US dollar dropping and the Yuan appreciating the real worth of US dollar holding s by China is decreasing rapidly. last quarter alone the USD dropped over 10% against most major currencies so now the 750 Bill USD china holds is worth 675 Bill and what if this trend continues ? Another whammy is that resouces are going up Rice the staple of China has risen 45% in last quarter So not only is their buying power decreasing the cost of goods is increasing.

I personally believe that it would not be unreasonable to think that the current USD weakness and commodity ralley hasn't been helped along by the US. Think about how much they gain compared to the losses from developing nations and the fed doesn't seem to care at all about inflation. The only reason why this works for the US is because you really can only buy oil in USD. Which brings me back to Iran and Iraq, Iraq waas going to start selling oil in non USD now they are occupied Iran is about to start a non USD bourse and 5 internet cables are cut and US forces build up in the Gulf comparible to the months before Iraq invasion.

Have a look on internet at how many strike groups are actually in persian gulf at the moment.

The biggest threat to US hegemony is the developing nations and the best way to restrain them is to keep them poor and starve them of resources.

 

[metric]

The usa spends billions of dollars on the war against drugs,... why would they then spend billions on a war to support drugs,.... it doesn't make sense

i agree, it doesnt make sense to spend all those billions just to profit all those billions. i doubt they will show us the books to see if they are in the black. but the drug trade is political. it may be that they would rather control the drug trade, than have someone else control it. pure politics?

 

[Tysonboss1]

when you say the US is spending billions on war that is not technically correct.

They are spending billions on paying US soldiers and buying US made arms that destroy Afghan made assets.

They are spinning their own money machine, over 10% of jobs in the US are Defence jobs and its prob more like 20%+ when you take into account all the service work that is indirectly involved. War is profitable.

The money recycles around the US economy and the net effect is Afghanistan is leveled back to the 15th century.

.

not true, if the only reason was to recycle more money to stimulate and keep the economy going why fight a war,... you might think that it is recycling money but the resources being used are real,...

why not conduct infrastructure projects,... give tax cuts to the public instead of blowing the money on a war and build consumer goods instead of weapons....

War does not make a profit,... it would generated dimishing returns a best,

this arguement reminds me of the episode of the simpsons where homer is frying bacon to collect and sell the grease,.... when Bart points out that he only got $0.45c for the grease but the bacon cost $17.50 homer replied saying "but your mum pays for the bacon",... bart said " doesn't mum get her money from you,.... and homer said "yes,... and I get my money from grease"

 

[metric]

not true, if the only reason was to recycle more money to stimulate and keep the economy going why fight a war,... you might think that it is recycling money but the resources being used are real,...

why not conduct infrastructure projects,... give tax cuts to the public instead of blowing the money on a war and build consumer goods instead of weapons....

War does not make a profit,... it would generated dimishing returns a best,

this arguement reminds me of the episode of the simpsons where homer is frying bacon to collect and sell the grease,.... when Bart points out that he only got $0.45c for the grease but the bacon cost $17.50 homer replied saying "but your mum pays for the bacon",... bart said " doesn't mum get her money from you,.... and homer said "yes,... and I get my money from grease"

dont you love homer!!



perhaps an insight into your questions is in this article, and on video at the link. ron paul is lecturing bernanke over america moving towards a fascism, and the relationship of business and government.

The Federal Reserve's insistence on rewarding its own failures by granting itself new powers was harshly rebuked by Congressman Ron Paul during yesterday's Joint Economic Committee meeting, as Paul all but accused Ben Bernanke of contributing economicallly to a broader move towards fascism in America.

"There's a political philosophy that advocates merging together the interests of business and government at the same time with a loss of civil liberties of the people and I'm afraid we're moving in that direction," said the Congressman, citing warrantless searches, lack of medical, Internet and financial privacy as well as the loss of habeas corpus since 9/11.

"I see....the proposal by the Treasury as a massive move to a lot closer association of business and government," said Paul, adding that a military-industrial complex, a medical-industrial complex and a media-industrial complex were already in place.

(Article continues below)


Paul was refering to the Treasury Department's recent proposal to give the Fed, "Broad new authority to oversee financial market stability, in effect allowing it to send SWAT teams into any corner of the industry or any institution that might pose a risk to the overall system," as the New York Times reported.

"We should be regulating the government - when you think of the authority you as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve can do, it really goes unaudited and very little oversight," said Paul, adding that the creation of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets meant that "we had really given up on the Republic, freedom, the marketplace and sound money".

"It looks like this is a massive increase in the combination of government and big business," said the Congressman.

Watch the video.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2008/040308_towards_fascism.htm

 

[KIWIKARLOS]

not true, if the only reason was to recycle more money to stimulate and keep the economy going why fight a war,... you might think that it is recycling money but the resources being used are real,...

why not conduct infrastructure projects,... give tax cuts to the public instead of blowing the money on a war and build consumer goods instead of weapons....

War does not make a profit,... it would generated dimishing returns a best,

this arguement reminds me of the episode of the simpsons where homer is frying bacon to collect and sell the grease,.... when Bart points out that he only got $0.45c for the grease but the bacon cost $17.50 homer replied saying "but your mum pays for the bacon",... bart said " doesn't mum get her money from you,.... and homer said "yes,... and I get my money from grease"

The US has been a net importer of Oil since 1970's They don't really have any huge amounts of any resource in particluar except for coal and arible land. You must understand the military industrial complex of america has been built up over the last 6 decades and can't simply be dismantled that easily to produce a new economy plus there are so many vested interests.

Think about what powered the industrial revoultion cheap abundant energy. When you country runs out of the stuff you are at the mercy of countries that do have it. The US fights wars to develop strategic energy reserves and for its own energy security. Sure war isn profitable its just not profitable to an entire country its profitable for the elite few that control the country but it is much cheaper to go and take resources than it is to buy them on the open market and have no real conrtol over the long term fture of your country.

Cheap oil is goooone and oil reserves are going to go into dcline very soon if not now. China has cheap labour the US has cheap abundant oil to offset this. Think about what the US economy is really based on.... nothing they have the largest current account deficiet in the world both public and government debt and they really don't produce anything in great amounts. There main industry is the service industry and the economy has been growing for 10 years on consumer spending, consumer spending is 70% of their economic output ! not production consumption. they are in an economic tailspin.

Lets say they did cut the military budget in half and build huge infrastructure new road, new schools, dams renewable energy. What exactly is going to improve their productivity building better ports to import oil cheaper because they sure don't export much from these ports. Make laptops faster and more efficiently ? Perhapes they can build millions more homes which will add to the couple million surplus they have now. Spending on infrastructure to boost your economy only works if you have an export maket to improve otherwise your just ramping up consumption. In australia if we expand a port we very quickly ramp up our income from the additional exports.

The auto industry is gone its R & D is 20 years behind the Japs and ten behind korean. The military is holding the US together as soon as they cut back their military they will be the next england. The european nations in the 19th century eg. spanish , dutch, french and english got rich off controlling resources.

 

[arminius]

gday all, not sure if im repeating someone else here, but a central factor in the determination of the US to smash the iranian nuclear enrichment plant, which has been backed by france, is to keep future profits of enriching u308 in the hands of westinghouse, ge, and areva. the money this will bring in to the US and French economies in the near future is simply staggering. its not about potential bombs but potential riches. you wont find the japanese opposing all this either, as toshiba and hitatshi are v heavily involved as well.

i dont foresee any action though, considering the absolute farce that bush has become in the eyes of the us public and the us army/navy/marines. if he gave the order i reckon they'd tell him to go jump. somehow, sanity must prevail.

israel may launch an 'unsanctioned raid', and knock it out. who knows what will happen then...

 

[KIWIKARLOS]

Exactly right U is the next oil IMHO the russians are running around the globe trying to build reactors everywhere.

And as for wars not been profitable US has been the country spending the most on war and conducting the most wars in the last 50 years but in the last 50 years they have had the highest GDP per person and high living standards. Although this seems to be getting worse in last 10 years eg. Medicade etc.

The Dutch got rich off the east indies, England got rich off India, Spain got rich off South America and the US will get rich off Iraq, Iran and others.

Think about China they have set up a massive export based economy producing gadgets and gizmo's crappy plastic toys, stuffed bears, cheap cups etc just about everything that is intrinsically useless and doesn't actually build anything for the future. without consumption they are screwed and their own people can't really even afford to buy their own cr@p not to mention that in the process they have killed their rivers, turned their land to desert and given there future generations the gift of infant disformaties, high cancer rates etc.

The smartest thing the West did was to offshore this stuff to China.

 

[Tysonboss1]

The US has been a net importer of Oil since 1970's They don't really have any huge amounts of any resource in particluar except for coal and arible land. You must understand the military industrial complex of america has been built up over the last 6 decades and can't simply be dismantled that easily to produce a new economy plus there are so many vested interests.

Think about what powered the industrial revoultion cheap abundant energy. When you country runs out of the stuff you are at the mercy of countries that do have it. The US fights wars to develop strategic energy reserves and for its own energy security. Sure war isn profitable its just not profitable to an entire country its profitable for the elite few that control the country but it is much cheaper to go and take resources than it is to buy them on the open market and have no real conrtol over the long term fture of your country.

Cheap oil is goooone and oil reserves are going to go into dcline very soon if not now. China has cheap labour the US has cheap abundant oil to offset this. Think about what the US economy is really based on.... nothing they have the largest current account deficiet in the world both public and government debt and they really don't produce anything in great amounts. There main industry is the service industry and the economy has been growing for 10 years on consumer spending, consumer spending is 70% of their economic output ! not production consumption. they are in an economic tailspin.

Lets say they did cut the military budget in half and build huge infrastructure new road, new schools, dams renewable energy. What exactly is going to improve their productivity building better ports to import oil cheaper because they sure don't export much from these ports. Make laptops faster and more efficiently ? Perhapes they can build millions more homes which will add to the couple million surplus they have now. Spending on infrastructure to boost your economy only works if you have an export maket to improve otherwise your just ramping up consumption. In australia if we expand a port we very quickly ramp up our income from the additional exports.

The auto industry is gone its R & D is 20 years behind the Japs and ten behind korean. The military is holding the US together as soon as they cut back their military they will be the next england. The european nations in the 19th century eg. spanish , dutch, french and english got rich off controlling resources.

how much oil are they importing from afganistan,...

 

[KIWIKARLOS]

hahahahahaha
Iraq is for the oil afghanistan is for the stategic locality. There whole plan isn't just based on marching into oil rich nations do you think they could have ever spread democracy to Afghanistan as they did Kosivo, Ukraine, belarus etc. This is a mostly muslin nation and they have a habbit of not towing the line so to speak.

 

[Tysonboss1]

hahahahahaha
Iraq is for the oil afghanistan is for the stategic locality. There whole plan isn't just based on marching into oil rich nations do you think they could have ever spread democracy to Afghanistan as they did Kosivo, Ukraine, belarus etc. This is a mostly muslin nation and they have a habbit of not towing the line so to speak.

Even if all these conspiracy theories about US domination are true,

They still won't have attacked there own people, and taken out there own buildings, there are easier ways to start a war,

and I don't believe the US needs afganistan to influence the rest of asia,

 

[KIWIKARLOS]

Encirclement ?

 

[disarray]

i think the american elites are perfectly capable of screwing their own peons to further their own ambitions. the problem with the US is that they can't be trusted. "they" have a history of lies, cover up and misinformation with regards to many issues, like pearl harbour, JFK, central american interventions, iraq mwd's, iranian nuclear capacity, the CIA and its role in international drug smuggling, area 51, cold war political destabilisations, stolen elections, and so on. like when china goes on about human rights and we all call bullsh1t, i have the same attitude towards US policy because they have a long and consistent history of being dodgy and underhanded in everything they do.

i'm not suggesting its some overarching illuminati conspiracy or something, but the US has a lot of well funded, loosely monitored government departments which seem to be given a lot of free reign to be involved in a lot of shady activity. for a country claiming to be the worlds premier democracy and defenders of truth, liberty and the american way, their actions do not mirror their words.

 

[KIWIKARLOS]

Even if all these conspiracy theories about US domination are true,

They still won't have attacked there own people, and taken out there own buildings, there are easier ways to start a war,

and I don't believe the US needs afganistan to influence the rest of asia,

There are easier ways to start a war but do you really think there is any other way to start a war that doesn't make the one who throws the first punch look like the agressor. There is no other way to build public support and its not like they haven't killed their own citizens before eg. University shootings during vietnam war protests. etc.

Suicide bombings are only used by desperate people who have no way of fighting back and nothing to loose. eg Japanese at end of war, Palestinians who have been occupied for 50 years. If 911 was terrorist attacks how does leveling a country stop terror attacks if anything it would create more. If they were serious about catching terrorist why occupy a country why destroy its infrastructure. Why not just sit back and rain cruise missiles anytime they show their face ? After all wars aren't profitable :

 

[KIWIKARLOS]

i think the american elites are perfectly capable of screwing their own peons to further their own ambitions. the problem with the US is that they can't be trusted. "they" have a history of lies, cover up and misinformation with regards to many issues, like pearl harbour, JFK, central american interventions, iraq mwd's, iranian nuclear capacity, the CIA and its role in international drug smuggling, area 51, cold war political destabilisations, stolen elections, and so on. like when china goes on about human rights and we all call bullsh1t, i have the same attitude towards US policy because they have a long and consistent history of being dodgy and underhanded in everything they do.

i'm not suggesting its some overarching illuminati conspiracy or something, but the US has a lot of well funded, loosely monitored government departments which seem to be given a lot of free reign to be involved in a lot of shady activity. for a country claiming to be the worlds premier democracy and defenders of truth, liberty and the american way, their actions do not mirror their words.

Agreed but that said every large country in the world does exactly the same. China , Russia and US are all as bad as each other. The human rights are all equally horrific they are all sneaky, capitalist (even china elite wealth is skyrocketing) and would have no problems in using their citizens. After all what really is a government other than a group of INDIVIDUALS. I mean what world changing feats can one hope to get done in a four year term, often to make the long term future good you need short term pain but show me one polli which will say I am going to put this country in a mild recession for 1yearso we can have 5 years of good growth. Recessions are inevitable and neccesary but your screwed if your the poor schmuk in charge when it happens (often because of your predessor)