It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


U.S. Discovers Vast Riches of Minerals in Afghanistan

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 05:19 AM
I have to question how much of a "surprise dicovery" these mineral deposits are in reality...

The ESA (europe's fledgling space agency)describe how satellite technology can look under the surface,in order to map out mineral deposits from space:

Satellite data can map and identify large-scale geological structures related to hydrocarbon and mineral deposits that ground-based surveys may find more difficult to see: satellite radar interferometry can precisely identify surface faults or slight ground motion connected with hydrocarbon reservoirs. Multi-spectral optical sensors can directly identify different minerals, either valuable in their own right or chemically altered by contact with oil and gas deposits.

Now,if the ESA can acheive this,I imagine that the massive US space program has been doing this for years already.

What I am saying is that the US probably knew exactally where and what minerals existed in Afghanistan,long before the troops arrived in the country.

Now they release the information as though its some amazing "new discovery."

I expect the odds are high that Iran also has massive "unknown" mineral deposits as well...

[edit on 14/6/2010 by Silcone Synapse]

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 05:35 AM
how coincidental. how is it that valuable goods seem to be where we end up having wars?

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 05:46 AM
Africa is rich in diamond and gold, and there is still horrible poverty.

These things never help locals.

Plus whatare the chances, it will be other countries asking to dig there, not afganistan themselves.

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 05:58 AM
reply to post by ghostsoldier

yea, l wonder how long its been known too. Never could figure out what we were in Afghanistan for, at least now we know the reason our brave soldiers have been dying out there, good old corporations. Maybe some good will come out of it though. Maybe we will pay the natives to mine it for a couple of dollars a day. kind of, you work for us and we promse not to blow innocent civillians up. Mind you that will put people in the army, who get up in the morning and go to their office, play their computer games with their drones, that they are going to blow some village or wedding party up thousands of miles away. Yep, that will pizz them off. WHEN WILL OUR ARMED FORCES WAKE UP. Do you really believe the wars you are fighting are because of terrorist. cant you see you are killing innocent people for corporate GREED. The are laughing at you all, they see you as robots, when you come back with your limbs blown away and your minds so damaged with the horrors you have seen. do they take care of you? Hell no, why should they, the cost of repairing a damaged soldier is far to expensive, after all there are plenty more where they come from, for a fraction of the price... lt is so sad, we are 0n the verge of the biggest disaster mankind has experienced, but, hell we just found ore in Afghanistan say the corpoate GREEDERS. peace is all l can hope for all of all.

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 06:01 AM
Ah.. the government's new "black hills".

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 06:02 AM

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Originally posted by Chevalerous

That's also a funny thing!

(Snip & Shortened!)

Everyone who is knowledgeable on this subject is foaming at the mouth to get into those mountains and have been for many decades. Apparently the MSN was left out of the loop. Shows how little homework they do themselves before putting pen to paper.

Yes! but the western world has to do the right thing here and I also think they will do so, they will bring in western style minings operations and western mining know-how - but Afganistan will gain most of the profits, and this will be used to build the country once this silly & phony WarOnTerror is over.

If they can work it out with the extremists that is?

If they were about to steal their natural resources, the flow of additional Afghani freedom fighters from foreign countries would never end and the conflict would escalate to uncontrollable levels for Nato and US forces.

You know the old saying: Afghanistan, where empires go to die.

No! to succeed as an western Empire in Afghanistan you'll need to make business friends out of former enemies and do business their way - where all partners involved are profiting from this.

Then the winners would be the Afghani people but also the American & European Corporations as well.

It's so damn sad to read the comments here like: America fu*k yeah! when actually many of the Nato countries and their troops are fighting and dying together with America in Afganistan.

Afganistan was and is a Western world Joint venture for future profits and the control of strategic resources in the region.

And to call it an American Empire would not be correct, this went out of the window exactly the same moment the PNAC agenda went to hell and was replaced with the Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC).

What we are seeing now is a Joint Empire being built by both America and by interests of Europe and their TransAtalantic economic council & pact.

So I think we instead should call this Empire for what it really is: A new Western world Empire led by the International Banking Cartel and the Elites from both America and Europe.

By 2015 America and the EU will be one common market with intregated economies - the work begun 2007 when Bush signed the papers with Merkel & Barroso:

EU-USA - Transatlantic Economic Council

The Transatlantic Economic Council is a political body to oversee and accelerate government-to-government cooperation with the aim of advancing economic integration between the European Union and the United States of America.

At the EU-US Summit on 30 April 2007, Commission President Barroso, German Chancellor Merkel and US President Bush signed the " Framework for Advancing Transatlantic Economic Integration between the United States of America and the European Union.

Key elements of this framework were the adoption of a work programme of cooperation, and the establishment of the Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC) to oversee, guide and accelerate the implementation of this work programme.

Transatlantic Economic Council

"We seek to strengthen transatlantic economic integration, with the goal of improving competitiveness and the lives of our people."

The Transatlantic Economic Council held its fourth meeting since its establishment in April 2007 under the Framework for Advancing Transatlantic Economic Integration between the U.S. and the European Union.


The EU and the US in a changing world - Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC)

What I want to do today, however, is to look at the TEC in the wider economic context. I want to argue that the TEC can and should be the forum where the EU and the US set out our joint approaches to a world in which the economic and political order is changing very fast.

The EU and the US account for almost a billion of the world's people, and the bulk of its wealth. While I do not believe that we can any longer dictate the global agenda, we nevertheless still have the collective weight and influence – and responsibility – to shape that agenda – and the answers that humankind is seeking to the shared problems we face. The question I want to answer today is, how? And to what purpose?



Close ties between Europe and the United States are still the main foundation of world politics and the global economy. We have a deep store of shared values, experiences, and interests. The EU is beginning to transform itself from an internal market into an outward looking political actor – as President Sarkozy reflected in his speech to Congress this week. The EU and the US cannot dictate every contour of the global age, but that does not mean we will be dictated to either.

Close cooperation between the EU and the US should not be perceived or presented as an attempt to organise economic change exclusively on their own terms or to block the rise of others, but as a way to underwrite a strong multilateral order based on cooperation and economic openness.

more see link:


Bush OKs 'integration' with European Union - Congress never asked
about new obligation

President Bush signed an agreement creating a "permanent body" that commits the U.S. to "deeper transatlantic economic integration," without ratification by the Senate as a treaty or passage by Congress as a law.

The "Transatlantic Economic Integration" between the U.S. and the European Union was signed April 30 at the White House by Bush, German Chancellor Angela Merkel – the current president of the European Council – and European Commission President Jos? Manuel Barroso.

The document acknowledges "the transatlantic economy remains at the forefront of globalization," arguing that the U.S. and the European Union "seek to strengthen transatlantic economic integration."

The agreement established a new Transatlantic Economic Council to be chaired on the U.S. side by a cabinet-level officer in the White House and on the EU side by a member of the European Commission.

The Transatlantic Economic Council was tasked with creating regulatory convergence between the U.S. and the EU on some 40 different public policy areas, including intellectual property rights, developing security standards for international trade, getting U.S. GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Practices) recognized in Europe, developing innovation and technology in health industries, implementing RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) technologies, developing a science-based plan on bio-based products and establishing a "regular dialogue" to address obstacles to investment.

At a joint press conference, Bush thanked the other two leaders for signing the "trans-Atlantic economic integration plan," commenting that, "It is a recognition that the closer that the United States and the EU become, the better off our people will be."

Barroso said the Transatlantic Economic Council is meant to be "a permanent body, with senior people on both sides of the Atlantic."

As WND has reported, Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez repeatedly has pushed for North American integration, much as the April 30 agreement proposes closer U.S.-EU integration.

Mexico's ambassador to the U.N., Enrique Berruga, has called for a North American Union to be created in the next eight years.

But the Bush administration's push for North American integration is facing increasing opposition within Congress.

WND reported Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., has introduced House Concurrent Resolution 40, which opposes the administration's Security and Prosperity Partnership, blocks a NAFTA Superhighway System and expresses opposition to the U.S. entry into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada.

Resetting the Transatlantic Economic Council

The Trans-Atlantic Economic Council (TEC) is at a crossroads. It has great potential as a forum for discussing strategic issues between the United States and Europe but is often bogged down in single-issue gridlock. In light of the role for the G20 in financial regulation, economic development, energy and climate issues, strong U.S.-EU cooperation within the TEC is increasingly essential. Progress at the October 2009 gathering will provide an important indication of how transatlantic economic integration will move forward.

This publication, a joint effort of the Atlantic Council and the Bertelsmann Foundation, is intended as a contribution to advancing the integration of the transatlantic economy. Atlantic Council experts unveiled the report on the Hill for the House EU Caucus.


Agenda-setting for the TEC - Focus on Energy and the Green Sector.

•Develop a strategic “path away from oil”

•Determine the economic consequences of shifting to a low‐carbon economy

•Consult on green‐technology transfer

•Enhance R&D cooperation

•Coordinate environmental standards

•Ensure the interoperability of cap‐and‐trade programs

•Guarantee that any transatlantic energy cooperation works together with the TEC

•Break down existing and emerging barriers to bilateral investment.

See more:

Transatlantic Economic Council meets in Brussels

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 06:07 AM
I couldn't care less about Afghanistan getting out of debt. What about the American dept?

Now even after the US pulls out after discovering and developing the mineral mining for Afghanistan (at the US taxpayers expense). The terrorists, arms dealers and false flag operators will have a new source of funding. Only the few rich dictators at the top of the rat pile are likely to benefit In Afghanistan.

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 06:11 AM
I'll be taking bets all day that Haliburton gets the contract to oversee this operation.

Any takers?

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 06:44 AM
pardon my pessimism.

but while this potentially can be great for the afghans....i doubt they'll be released to benefit from any of its "discovery".

empires dont work that way. you know, "discover" something on foreign soil, teach the natives how to capitalize on it and leave them be.....nope.

so sad....

and what about our american debt? the greed of the peoples we put in power, PUT US IN DEBT. at least give one country the chance to square themselves together. we shot ourselves in the foot by electing pompous arses who can care less about "WHERE THEY CAME FROM" and their neighbors.

we're too scared to evict them from our capitol, so until we do that. we suffer.

[edit on 14-6-2010 by ahmonrarh]

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 07:06 AM
I don't have time to read all of the replies right now.

I just thought I might pass along some information from a 1967 World Alminac. It has several maps of known mineral deposites from all over the world. Guess what !

Some of the largest deposites of almost anything an industry would want are in Afganistan. I am suprised this has been stated as a new finding.

I seems the only thing they do not have a lot of is crude oil. The maps do show several places of natural gas. Since this was from 1967, why have they not yet been developed? Maybe some one wanted to wait until the prices got right.

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 07:11 AM

Originally posted by warpcrafter
You're right. Now the US will never leave Afghanistan. The war will escalate and corruption will skyrocket. Like an inbred from the holler winning a massive lotto jackpot, this is the worst thing that could have happened to them.

Again I would like to comment "Thats the worst thing that could happen to THEM (MEANING NWO). When will people learn and begin to differentiate America from NWO (which whom is REALLY at play here wanting to see 6 BILLION OF US DEAD so THEY could have the worlds RESOURCES to themselves).

Doesn't anyone learn anything having spent so much time on here?

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 07:13 AM

Originally posted by hdutton
Maybe some one wanted to wait until the prices got right.

NWO perhaps? Or it still just America? (sarcasm at it's finest folks)

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 07:14 AM

Originally posted by ragman
It's pointless to argue with you all. But-- I think all of you are missing the point. Finding resources in Afghanistan is good thing for the war effort. These people need to be able to sustain themselves without growing poppy seeds or functioning off of dirty money from our enemies funding terrorism-- The US has every reason, for the sake of our national security to try to find any plausible resource in that dirt farm.

Its not a conspiracy if they are open about it. Its no secret the US wants to establish a stable economy over there, and natural resources are a big part of that. But keep talking about secrets, plundering, empire building, etc etc....

It's not a pointless argument. However, let me ask you this one question. Give me the timeframe in which growing poppy seeds has been a valid money making operation in that country.

To give you a bit of help I will tell you that it was NOT a valid money making opportunity before the end of 2001. That should tell you a lot.

Good thing? Yes. But as we have found in other 'occupied' countries that we 'Freed' from tyranny, those natural resources always seem to end up making the rich bastards richer while employing the population at a pittance.

So who is really going to benefit? And what war effort are we talking about? I thought this war was SOLELY to get Osama. Yet now it has transformed into something completely different. Now it's about oil and other natural resources and giving the country their freedom.

Yeah, I'll believe that when we actually and truly leave the region for good.

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 07:25 AM
reply to post by ModernAcademia

Honestly I'd trust US rule over rule by people that through acid at girls trying to go to school.

In the rare case, sometimes imperialism is better than barbarianism.

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 07:31 AM
reply to post by SLAYER69

Probably known before 9/11...

Hence, hello Afghanistan puppet government!

No, those brave young men and women are not dying for nothing...they are dying for trillions in minerals and oil pipelines..doesn't it just make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside!

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 07:44 AM
This is going to be great.

Can we strip mine the entire country? I mean, they don't need the earth or anything right? Obviously there's no wildlife that lives there.

Eco-destruction is fine as long as it's for major profit ... especially if it benefits major corporations.

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 07:49 AM

Originally posted by JauntyFlannigan
Expect more surprise announcements of this nature while the compromised Wikileaks State Department cables are still in the open.

Yep pretty much the whole basis of this war and why soldiers such as the one who supposedly leaked info were disillusioned.

This was not a war to stop terrorism, this was a surveying exercise to to a massive land grab, period.

So I agree, we are going to see more strange announcements in the near future.

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 07:58 AM
I don't get what everyone is saying
This is good for afghanistan?

As if Oil was good for afghanistan and Iraq too?
How did Oil help Afghanistan or Iraq in the last ten years?

Have we learnt nothing from history?
no no let me rephrase?
Are we learning nothing from the present????

And blood diamonds was great for western Africa too right?

Did oil deposits help Chechnya?
I'm not defending the Chechnians but a poster in this thread has a Martin Luther King quote how war creates bitter survivors, and that's exactly what happened to Chechnya.

I mean that's quite naive to think it will help them in any way shape or form.

[edit on 14-6-2010 by ModernAcademia]

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 08:02 AM
Maybe we can get some cheaper iPads and iPhones.

Great news!

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 08:20 AM
It was in our interests on many levels to scout out these resources. Many Afghan issues stem from the fact that they are dirt poor. Now they can have an economy based on something other then drugs and extremism. Lets just hope those resources are managed wisely.

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in