It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"When we sit and watch the news on TV we hear that the Taliban attacked here and there and destroyed tanks and killed soldiers. Then in the next news item you hear that the Americans are calling for negotiations and of course you understand that these two news items are related. The second news item is the result of the first, and the Americans want to negotiate because they are losing.
"Why don't they just leave?" he said. "What are they waiting for?"
"But the benefits of the Taliban outweigh the harm we do to the people. In our area there were thieves and bandits. It was chaos.
"People needed someone to monitor and rule and punish. They needed us to impose order.
"The government is besieged in its fortresses and can't come to the people, and corruption is paralysing it. One of the main reasons for our popularity is the failure of this government."
In a striking parallel with what the Americans have been advocating as part of their counterinsurgency initiative, the Haqqanis have set up local shura (consultation) councils made up of village elders and clerics to run the affairs of villagers in the "liberated" areas and create local security. The old man's job is to supervise these councils.
"I am a representative of the movement and I walk among the people and everyone knows me. I move between the people and the commanders, watching the commanders' behaviour. I listen to the people and convey the picture to the supreme leaders," he said.
Had the Taliban changed? A future administration would be based on Islamic rule, which was what the Afghan people wanted, but it would be different in detail from the Taliban regime that had ruled in Kabul before. "We will not rule based on theory. The people want us to be more pragmatic."
He quoted the Muslim poet Muhammad Iqbal. "When the painter works on the same old painting again, he will make it much better.
"The Taliban that will return will not be like the old Taliban. We have learned from the old mistakes. We will accept others. We are not and cannot be all of Afghanistan, but we are an important part of it."
Originally posted by FalselyFlagged
Simple answer?
Too much money to be made, old chap. Far too much money.edit on 26-11-2010 by FalselyFlagged because: (no reason given)
Almost 1 trillion will be spent in Afghanistan just spending money on Soldiers, do you think US will make a trillion from Afghanistan in 5 years to balance it out?
Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by backinblack
Makes sense, because the TAX PAYERS in the end of the day have to keep working and find money one way or another. In that sense, TAX will always come flowing in towards the government.
Then again
I thought America was broke? I thought they were borrowing money from China? I suck at economic stuff lol..
The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials.
Originally posted by oozyism
Originally posted by FalselyFlagged
Simple answer?
Too much money to be made, old chap. Far too much money.edit on 26-11-2010 by FalselyFlagged because: (no reason given)
Almost 1 trillion will be spent in Afghanistan just spending money on Soldiers, do you think US will make a trillion from Afghanistan in 5 years to balance it out?
OR
Is it long term?
Originally posted by FalselyFlagged
reply to post by oozyism
Is that a serious question?
"The law would transform Iraq's oil industry from a nationalized model ... into a commercial industry all-but-privatized, that is fully open to all international oil companies. The Iraq National Oil Company would have exclusive control of just 17 of Iraq's 80 known oil fields, leaving two-thirds of known - and all of its as yet undiscovered - fields open to international oil companies." ...That provision will allow a lot of (if not most) of Iraq oil revenues to flow out of Iraq; winding up in cash revenues for the international oil companies. It stands to reason that Iraq would lose out if their oil assets are decentralized and their total control of oil revenue is only of 17 of their 80 oil wells.
Originally posted by FalselyFlagged
Simple answer?
Too much money to be made, old chap. Far too much money.