US goes to war for......CHINA!!!

news.yahoo.com...

At a former al-Qaida stronghold southeast of the Afghan capital, a state-owned Chinese company is at work on a $3 billion mine project to tap one of the world's largest unexploited copper reserves, a potential financial boon for an impoverished country mired in war. The promise of a bright future at Aynak, however, cannot conceal the troubling reality of how business is often done in Afghanistan, according to critics of the Kabul government's decision to reject bids from competitors in the U.S., Canada and other countries. The bidding process unfairly favored China, they allege, and epitomized the back-room deals and abuse of power that has turned Afghans against their government and undercut the U.S. military effort there

Same stuff happened in Iraq.....our boys get blown up...China gets the oil contracts.

Now we know what a couple of trillion in national debt gets you....a government owned lock, stock and barrel by the Chinese.

reply to post by PenandSword


Could it not just be that the Chinese have more money to throw around now? So they win the contracts......

The Chinese already have large oil contracts in Iran, so how exactly is the US going to benefit the Chinese there?

[edit on 31-10-2009 by john124]

Your boys get blown up in Iraq because they invaded the country and are killing Iraqis.

If any other nation invaded and occupied American soil, would not you blow them up ?

The Iraqis can sell their oil to China or anyone else they please. It is their oil.

I can almost hear the apologist gearing up,

as for me, all I can say is "Yikes."

This particular spin on the market activities of Afghanistan are troubling from the perspective of the perennial "What are our troops dying for, exactly?" I would have expected that U.S. interests would have played a role in this economic opportunity and at the very least, the transaction should have benefited our standing with the debt mentioned above - in a measurable manner and to an appropriately fair degree.

Or is that too capitalistic?

reply to post by Maxmars


And if the US commercial interests had prevailed the usual ill thought out responses about such things being the only reason for the war would flood this thread . If the security situation ever permits it will be India and China who fund nation building in Afghanistan. The Chinese will work with anybody just look how they are buying up Africa left right and centre .

Cheers xpert11 .

reply to post by xpert11

And if the US commercial interests had prevailed the usual ill thought out responses about such things being the only reason for the war would flood this thread . If the security situation ever permits it will be India and China who fund nation building in Afghanistan. The Chinese will work with anybody just look how they are buying up Africa left right and center . Cheers xpert11

The key word is INTERESTS. Here’s my not so short answer. Keep in mind the world was already deep into WW2 before the US entered the foray. Civilization teetered in the balance. Then and now Americans were and remain essentially isolationists. That is, Americans do not want to become deeply enmeshed in the endless quarrels that afflict the remainder of the world. “Why,” you ask “would that be so because even today 67% of Americans are descendants of Europeans?”

To that good question, the current historical explanation is that most of people who came here from Europe including 30 million immigrants between 1880 and 1920, were the lower classes. They came here to escape from a society dominated by hereditary wealth, position and power augmented by a self-serving all too intrusive clergy that supported the status quo if not the status quo ante.

Globalization started for the Spanish in the 1500s with the export of gold and the far more consequential corn and potato plants from New Spain to Europe. From the very beginning African slaves were imported into the New World. The first slaves arrived at the English colony of Virginia in 1619, a year BEFORE the chest thumping Pilgrim Fathers stepped ashore at Plymouth Rock in what is now Massachusetts. 1620. The overly religious Puritans did not come over until 1630.

By the 1820s many Americans had bought into the notion of “Manifest Destiny.” Filled with religion but not with the zealot's religiosity, America saw itself as a Biblical Israel re-run! A new Jerusalem. The city on the hill! Aside: The GOD of the Enlightenment did not become your own “personal” GOD until the post War 1 era. The “take Jesus into your heart” movement. I date that to begin with California’s Aimee Semple McPherson (1870-1944). End.

Reflect that while the Israelite GOD is said to have granted the Land of Canaan to the Israelites that self-same GOD ordered the Israelites to KILL all the non-Israelite inhabitants. Hmm? Is this the FIRST recorded example of religious extremism at work in its deadliest manifestation?

Many Americans welcomed the “from sea to shining sea” concept early on. Our earliest leaders saw the 13 colonies expanding from the Atlantic coast to the great Pacific shore! By the mid-1600s Virginia and the Carolinas had become the primary suppliers of hardwood, naval stores, tobacco and rice to Europe. In 1803 as president, the weak central government proponent Jefferson bought the Louisiana Territory from France. Aside: Showing pragmatism usually dominates American politics. End. With the 1850 admission of California as a state, the map of the Lower 48 had been filled in!

Before the Electronic Age presaged by Marconni, America was isolated - we prefer to say insulated - from Europe by the 3,000 miles wide Atlantic - a month to traverse by sail - and the 10,000 miles wide Pacific. For a variety of reasons Central and South America have never posed a threat to the United States (today’s coc aine excepted). By the 20th century American commercial adventurers had reduced much of the New World south of the Rio Grande to American colonial status.

For Americans, modern European history begins at the Battle of Waterloo. From our perspective, the result has been nearly endless war. Starting at the end and looking back, World War Two was the (unavoidable?) product of the misconceived Peace of Versailles following World War One. That war in turn was made inevitable by the outcome of the 1869-1871 Franco-Prussian War. A newly unified Germany under Prussia’s von Bismark took from France two valuable (and symbolic) provinces, Alsace and Lorraine. And the historic city of Strasbourg. I said all of that to reiterate that Americans think no one can solve the issues in Europe or Asia. Especially an inconsistent observer from outside. Only the Europeans and Asians can do that.

Aside: Just as the 1880s Durand Line drawn in Whitehall is now the demarcation line entwined in the insoluable troubles of Afghan-Pakistan including the ever so closely connected India and Kashmir issue. The world is still trying to sort out the problems both created and left over from that arbitrary and ill uninformed experiment in geography. Likewise the similarly thoughtless dissolution of the Ottoman Empire - in the early 1920s - with boundary lines drawn in Paris are still being fought over. The Law of Unintended Consequences is proving to be the MOST difficult and deadly of all the inexorable Laws of Civilization to avoid. Ignore it at your peril! End.

Just as the “awakening of America” to the seriousness of the threat posed by (foreign) extremists did not happen until the Nine Eleven Event (September 11, 2001) so also America had not become involved in the European War (1939) or the Asian War (1937) until we were bombed at Pearl Harbor in 1941.

Don’t forget that by December, 1941, the German Armies were already 600-800 miles into Russia (actually in Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus, USSR). The Japanese were deep into Southeast Asia. Singapore fell on Feb. 15, 1942, barely 70 days after our December 7. Indonesia fell to the Japanese in March, 1942.

SUMMARY. NO. America is not fighting FOR China. For various reasons Afghan has picked its NEAR hegemony over its FAR hegemony. Let’s face it. You know and I know the US will not stay around in the region for much longer. We have other fish to fry. We are at the beginning of the end, not at the Bush/Cheney nightmare end of the beginning. China OTOH will be there forever.

Many Americans still WANT to keep out of foreign affairs. We are inhabited by a large number of people who see any involvement abroad as entering a quagmire. I have likened Br’er Rabbit and Tar Baby in the J. C. Harris’ Uncle Remus series, as a metaphor for our “on again, off again” but sometimes a successful foray into foreign affairs. I give you the UN as one foray that worked.

Of special note is our oh so easy public acceptance of the glib and purposely undefined rubric “American interests” to justify or provide cover for our “need” to work the mission! For example, the 22 Chinese Muslims imprisoned (and probably wrongfully) at Guantanamo Bay called the Uyghur (We-urs?) refused repatriation to China claiming asylum here for religious persecution. See Note 1. America’s MSM, once alerted to the problem, has begun to keep closer tabs on the 10-20 million strong Uyghur who live in the FAR WEST of the China People’s Republic. Several months ago several 100 were killed as the PLA put down riots in that region.

The American general public KNOWS enough to know we are ill equipped to engage on any rational basis into the politicks of far off peoples on ill defined missions and for non-specific reasons.

Note 1. The vast majority of China's Muslims are Sunni Muslims. A notable feature of the some of the Muslim communities in China is the presence of female imams.

.
PS. Q. Whence cometh the name YUAN, for China’s currency? A. The Yuan Dynasty endured officially from 1271 to 1368 CE. The Yuan period is sometimes referred to as the Empire of the Great Khan. The Mongol Emperors of the Yuan held the title of Great Khan of all Mongol Khanates. en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 11/1/2009 by donwhite]

reply to post by Maxmars

This particular spin on the market activities of Afghanistan are troubling from the perspective of the perennial "What are our troops dying for, exactly?" I would have expected that U.S. interests would have played a role in this economic opportunity and at the very least, the transaction should have benefitted our standing with the debt mentioned above - in a measurable manner and to an appropriately fair degree. Or is that too capitalistic?

Spin? I have not seen any list of the bids. What's there to spin? Nor have I seen a list or the attendant obligations the winning bidders would to assume. Operating any giant earth moving project that has proved to be an ecological disaster as in Bolivia and Chile require commitments and agreements enforceable 50 years out. I mean you are going to take 10 square miles of the planet and destroy it forever.

For centuries after the copper is gone and the winning bidder is ensconced in villas on the Riviera or at Cancun, the locals will be contending with high acidic contaminated ground water and a constant source of wind-blown spoils (overburden).

The Bhopal methyl isocyanate disaster occurred in 1984. Some 25 years after the gas leak, 390 ton of toxic chemicals abandoned at the Union Carbide plant continue to pollute the ground water in the region and affects thousands residents of Bhopal who depend on it.

Too capitalistic? Who in his or her right mind wants an American company MUCKING UP your country? From Brit speak: “Where there’s Muck there’s brass!” Translated into American: Dirty activities are also lucrative.

Whether due to incompetence or corruption or a sad mix of both, the Indian government proved incapable of preventing this highly preventable disaster and equally incapable or unwilling to treat the harm after the fact. The Indian government’s official death toll is 3,787 but other NGOs have estimated the real death toll was 10,000 in 72 hours and 25,000 since the event. As in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, per Yogi Berra “It ain’t over till it’s over.”

American corporations have a very bad reputation anywhere but especially outside the US. Here at home they are constantly running propaganda ads playing like they are good guys. Wherever Josef Goebbels is now he is no doubt looking down and TexacoChevron and BP in pure unabashed AWE! How to gyp the public and make them so happy they actually ask for more!

PS. Exxon still has not paid the claims at Prince William Sound.

[edit on 11/1/2009 by donwhite]

Well, the US can expect what is happening to them. They backed themselves into a corner by allowing the Chinese to finance their staggering debt. But, that discussion is for another time and another thread. However, whatever the Afghans do, it is there country, and the US has no say. If a backroom deal was manufactured between the Afghan government and the Chinese, it is their business! If it undercuts the US's financial interests, boo hoo! I thought this war was to root out Al- Qaeda elements in Afghanistan? It is not an occupation like what took place in Iraq over five years ago.

The mission in Afghanistan is a military operation, not to commandeer financial affairs or government policy of an independent power. The Afghans are free to do what they wish, and if the they request support from the US, for other things, non-military related, so be it. However, Americans should tone down the bickering about this contract going to China, because the US/Nato operation is, one, of military necessity, or so they say? If the US and other western powers where, in fact, unfairly rejected in the bidding process, it is poor business practice on the part of the Afghans, and about the only thing they can do, is lodge a complaint with the Afghan government. Remember, this is a "War on Terror," not a "War for Treasure."





[edit on 1-11-2009 by Jakes51]

reply to post by donwhite


Poor choice of word on my part... replace "spin" with "perspective."

The reason I say it that way is that I recognize that this perspective will not, as it is stated, be what we hear (or may not hear) on mainstream produced news.

I understand all of your objections regarding the issue. I can't say I disagree with you on any specific issue. Only that regardless of the negative aspects of this trade arrangement, it seems we are too late to change it in any way. Such appears to be the nature of the culture of global leadership... telling no? Considering the level of intrigue involved between all players in the show, it seems we were meant not to hear about it until it was a done deal - a sure sign it was not the kind of 'international' dealing we would call transparent.

I do lament for the state of affairs regarding the commercial exploitation of natural resources. It is almost as if they don't belong to the nation, but the nations 'bosses.' Go figure.

My capitalism comment was tip to the ironic disparity between who pays for a thing, and who benefits. Take a deep breath Donwhite; this is being controlled by the supranational banking cartel and being executed by an international 'elite' that does not recognize the importance of anything other than the permanence of their control and 'political' (read celebrity) relevance of their spokespersons.

If you want another touch of irony.., note that anyone who actually tries to interfere with this is subject to criminal law. That's what we get for allowing 'clubs' of self-promoted "cultured" "literati" to run the world.

[edit on 1-11-2009 by Maxmars]

reply to post by Jakes51

Well, the US can expect what is happening to them. They backed themselves into a corner by allowing the Chinese to finance their staggering debt. But, whatever the Afghans do, it is their country, and the US has no say. If a backroom deal was manufactured between the Afghan government and the Chinese, it is their business!

The mission in Afghanistan is a military operation, not to commandeer financial affairs or government policy of an independent power. The Afghans are free to do what they wish, and if the they request support from the US for other things non-military related, so be it. Remember, this is a "War on Terror," not a "War for Treasure."

The fact something we do also is of value to the PRC- People’s Republic of China - and then to assign to the US conscious collaboration with China, violates one of the first rules of logic: correlation is not (necessarily) causation.

As we once outlawed in commerce with the Clayton Anti-Trust Act (1914), so now corporate America and government America have INTER-LOCKING DIRECTORATES. They reap the money, we sow the blood.

Ok I've managed to stop laughing now.

Listen anybody who thinks USA does not intend, wish, like to get involved in other countries and wars really needs to have a word with their health care provider and see about getting their medication reviewed.

The fact is USA is incapable of keeping their noses out of other peoples business and are despised around the globe for their interference and the division and hatred they create everywhere.

If USA had its way there would be a McDonalds and Walmart on every street corner on the planet. Its all down to money with America nothing else.

reply to post by bigyin



Really? Just the US likes that, huh? No other country ever has done something like that?

Crack a book. The Soviets were big into that, too. Chinese seem to be doing the same.

reply to post by donwhite


Yes, you are correct. The military has sacrificed in blood for corporate interests abroad. There is no denying that, but still, the official story, regarding, US/Nato involvement in the country of Afghanistan is to root out terrorist elements, first and foremost? Now, that last sentence is ended with a question mark because the conflict in Afghanistan is a murky one, like its brother Iraq. It is naive to think that the official statement is the "Modus Operandi," for the West being in central Asia. Of course, there are spoils to be had, and I am in agreement with you on that.

I think much more is going on behind the scenes than what meets the eye. Yet, we will never know what those things really are? I still have no idea what is going on in Afghanistan? All I have is questions, and little to no answers, just speculation on the topic. However, I think that particular region of the world is the grand chess board for this century, like it was in the century proceeding the last. All the major players are clamoring for a foot-hold, whether it be economic means or militarily. Very good points, and thanks for the reply to my post.

[edit on 1-11-2009 by Jakes51]

Originally posted by jerico65
reply to post by bigyin

 

Really? Just the US likes that, huh? No other country ever has done something like that?

Crack a book. The Soviets were big into that, too. Chinese seem to be doing the same.

I agree with you, there have plenty of cases of attempted world domination in the past ... and you know what... they all failed.

America has learned nothing from history.

reply to post by Maxmars

I understand all of your objections regarding the issue. I can't say I disagree with you on any specific issue. Only that regardless of the negative aspects of this trade arrangement, it seems we are too late to change it in any way. Such appears to be the nature of the culture of global leadership... telling no?

Considering the level of intrigue involved between all players in the show, it seems we were meant not to hear about it until it was a done deal - a sure sign it was not the kind of 'international' dealing we would call transparent.

I do lament for the state of affairs regarding the commercial exploitation of natural resources. It is almost as if they don't belong to the nation, but the nations 'bosses.' Go figure.

Take a deep breath Donwhite; this is being controlled by the supranational banking cartel and being executed by an international 'elite' that does not recognize the importance of anything other than the permanence of their control and 'political' (read celebrity) relevance of their spokespersons.

If you want another touch of irony.., note that anyone who actually tries to interfere with this is subject to criminal law. That's what we get for allowing 'clubs' of self-promoted "cultured" "literati" to run the world.

We are on the same wavelength, just coming from different direction. Your clarification with my review of my commentary shows that.

China has violated one of the prime rules of banking: Never lend so much to one customer you cannot afford to let him go into default. In effect, China and America are siamese twins. Oops! That is no longer PC. Let me say, China and America are joined a the hip! Co-joined, so to speak.

reply to post by Maxmars


If you control the Poppy fields then you control the opium trade. Billions and

Billions of dollars are on the line in Afghanistan's drug trade and you will

never hear the real story on who gets paid what and what politician gets their

share of the money. Is it possibly that our troops could be used as pawns to

protect the poppy fields? Yes I know we are told different but what is the real

story. ^Y^



[edit on 1-11-2009 by amari]

In reality the United States of America was designed to tap the disaffected elements from other nations and regimes around the world to relieve their internal pressures and to put them into uniform as a mercenary fighting force for the use of other regimes around the world.

We don’t even attempt to hide this anymore; we have transferred all of our industrial output to other nations and simply focus on defense and aerospace industry and training a technologically advanced highly disciplined fighting force to the umpteenth degree while running the slickest and most effective propaganda in the world to convince the citizens of the virtues in this.

We do this on Rome’s behalf; the 13 colonies were designed from the onset to function as Caesar’s 13th legion.

Hail Caesar!

reply to post by Jakes51

Yes. The military has sacrificed in blood for corporate interests abroad. There is no denying that but the official story in Afghan is to root out terrorist elements? Now, that last sentence is ended with a question mark because the conflict in Afghan is a murky one, like its brother Iraq. Of course, there are spoils to be had, and I am in agreement with you on that.

I think more is going on behind the scenes than what meets the eye. Yet, we will never know what those things really are?

I have no idea what is going on in Afghanistan? All I have is questions, and little to no answers, just speculation on the topic. However, I think that particular region of the world is the grand chess board for this century; the major players are clamoring for a foot-hold, whether it be economic means or militarily. thanks for the reply to my post.

Although “transparency” in government sounds at first to be exactly what we need and perhaps even want, when you think about a minute, you can see that transparency in some areas just will not work. In foreign affairs it is entirely counter-productive. The public’s input is important bur unless you really want government by polls, you must give your elected or appointed officials the time and space to do the best they can under less than ideal circumstances. We have to TRUST someone. Who better than our own elected or appointed public officials?

Now I’m NOT going to repeat what you have heard 1000s of times, the famous quote about business from Calvin Coolidge, 30th president of the US by accident of the untimely death of Warren Harding. To call him taciturn is to be generous. After all, he was called “Silent Cal” by the press of his day. What did Pres. Coolidge really say? See this following:

“The real statement comes from a speech by Calvin Coolidge called "The Press Under a Free Government" which was given before the American Society of Newspaper Editors in Washington, D.C. on January 17, 1925. The quote is really: "After all, the chief business of the American people is business." However, Coolidge goes on to say that, "Of course the accumulation of wealth cannot be justified as the chief end of existence."

We make no concealment of the fact that we want wealth, but there are many other things that we want very much more. We want peace and honor, and that charity which is so strong an element of all civilization. The chief ideal of the American people is idealism. I cannot repeat too often that America is a nation of idealists. That is the only motive to which they ever give any strong and lasting reaction.” www.calvin-coolidge.org...

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

We do this on Rome’s behalf; the 13 colonies were designed from the onset to function as Caesar’s 13th legion.

Hail Caesar!

I've read this one as well.

Any sources to the masses?

For those who haven't read it already.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Yes Slayer, start with the Treaty of Ghent, move on to the Treaty of Paris, keep researching Treaties backwards focusing on titles of the participants, their meanings and definitions and the Treaties that established those powers and the meaning and definitions.

You will need some old dictionaries, some basic understanding of Latin and a few 24 hour days to get to the bottom of it.

Then you can say nahhhhh that's just crazy talk.

Me I just say Hail Caesar.

I like making friends not enemies!