Without something to juice the Afghan economy, the West is already playing the long game to lose. It can hold parts of Afghanistan at great cost for many years, but it can't indefinitely deny the Taliban influence or bases of operation. At some point, the West will simply lose the will to pour hundreds of billions of dollars into a bottomless hole.
Since there appears to be no stable economy in Afghanistan that is feasible to build, maintain, and defend, the Taliban's supporters have an incentive to invest, and its recruits have incentive to join up. Ambivalent forces in Afghanistan that might help thwart the Taliban are disincentivized to do so, because there's no path to victory, and they'd be subject to reprisals when the effort failed.
Vast mineral resources could change that. Saudi Arabia has approximately the same population as Afghanistan, but enjoys a massively better standard of living, a far stronger central government, and operates an effectively modern social safety net. If mineral investment can set that trend in motion in Afghanistan, the state may have an actual path to stability. Which alters the equation there in a way that disfavors the Taliban.
Everyone seems to be citing the case of the Congo. But the Congo isn't essentially occupied by the rest of Western Civilization. Apart from foreign corporations, which are agnostic to which regime controls the country, nobody has a stake in the Congo. That's not the case in Afghanistan.
* Saudi Arabia has approximately the same population as Afghanistan, but enjoys a massively better standard of living, a far stronger central government, and operates an effectively modern social safety net.*
IF you're a Saudi elite. Their economy relies on a huge population of foreign-workers that live as indentured serfs, are commonly brutalized, and enjoy no rights. It's also an Islamic absolute monarchy with less political freedom than China.
Which alters the equation there in a way that disfavors the Taliban.
I don't think this is true at all. The Taliban have significantly more military skill than the Afghan warlords they've been fighting for the last decade. Consider: if the warlords, after having gotten billions of dollars of aid from the US and tens of thousands of western soldiers helping them, still haven't been able to defeat the Taliban, how large must the disparity be. Plus, the Taliban have a reputation for being less corrupt than the warlords that currently comprise the government. There's a reason Afghanis turn to Taliban-run courts instead of going to the government ones: the justice might be crazy, but it will be impartial.
Before this find, the future of Afghanistan was pretty clear: sooner or later, there was going to be a negotiated settlement with the Taliban, culminating in some sort of power sharing agreement. Given the find, that will still probably happen, but my guess is that the Taliban get more power in the end.
From a western/Chinese companies perspective, who would you rather deal with? Religious fanatics that are honest and maintain order with horrific brutal efficiency? Or obscenely corrupt bumblers who couldn't administer their way out of a paper bag? Extraction industries have plenty of experience dealing with the former in Saudi Arabia. Given the choice, I can't imagine why they'd prefer the later.
"Apart from foreign corporations, which are agnostic to which regime controls the country, nobody has a stake in the Congo."
Corporations are going to prefer regimes that enforce the rule of law. The Congo's primary problem (from a business standpoint) is it's lack of stability. If legal matters are not handled in a predictable way, then it's impossible for to do business in a predictable way.
While I agree that it seems like a positive development, what worries me is that Afghanistan already has a huge problem with government corruption (bribes, graft, etc). This will only make that problem worse. However, even businesses that could benefit their economy in the long run will tolerate some level of graft as long as the rule of law is enforced in a predictable manner.
The tl;dr version being: You can't have stable governments and institutions without having a viable economy underpinning the whole thing. In this respect, this find is very good, and will encourage outside investment.
It's good that Afghanistan has a resource potentially more valuable than the drug trade and its inputs.
The title of the article's a little misleading. The US discovered some treasure maps with a big red 'X marks the spot' that the Soviets made in the 80's
from the second page -
In 2004, American geologists, sent to Afghanistan as part of a broader reconstruction effort, stumbled across an intriguing series of old charts and data at the library of the Afghan Geological Survey in Kabul that hinted at major mineral deposits in the country. They soon learned that the data had been collected by Soviet mining experts during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, but cast aside when the Soviets withdrew in 1989.
The Soviets did preliminary mapping. The Chinese "private" sector did more detailed charts, which were undoubtedly intercepted by NATO intelligence in country.
I must embarrassingly say that you're wholly correct, the United States was rather late to arrive at this party.
Opium poppies grow well in Afghanistan and farmers already know how to cultivate and prepare it for shipping in large quantities.
Potential mineral riches are spiffy and all, but it seems foolish to toss money at projects which require large-scale construction and worker training when an existing high-demand product already exists to productively employ the populace.
These folks don't yet have infrastructure capable of large-scale mineral extraction. Why not build upon useful agricultural exports and start from there?
"but it seems foolish to toss money at projects which require large-scale construction and worker training"
I understand your argument to not abandon the poppies, but do you really think "foolish" is the right word to describe pursuing vast amounts of minerals that are in high demand? It's literally digging money out of the ground. Wouldn't the large-scale construction and worker training be funded by the profits from the minerals?
Agriculture may be wise in the short term, but as soon as the pathways are elucidated we will be able to produce synthetic opioids through recombinant DNA synthesis.
This story is pretty weak. What they apparently have are a bunch of anomalies from extremely coarse geophysical surveys. Aerial surveys even! That's about four steps from having deposits, in the same way that having a bunch of startup ideas is about four steps away from an exit. Each of those steps results in major winnowing.
The next logical phase of exploration would be having geologists hiking and driving around on these prospects to try to understand the specific geology of each. If things look good then maybe a program of surface level geophysical surveys, which are far more precise than aerial surveys (though still pretty fuzzy). Finally some (very expensive) exploratory drilling, then a lot more drilling to establish with some certainty the size of the deposit. Now you have a mineable property.
By the way, at every step you need a bunch of skilled people on location who currently have plenty of work opportunities in non-war zones.
Sure, there are almost certainly good mines to be found since it's a huge country and mineral exploration has been on hold for thirty years and was pretty spotty before then. But saying that aerial geophysics surveys confirm this is pretty funny.
EDIT: It looks like some ground geophysical surveys have been done as well. But no drilling as far as I can tell from the story.
"Armed with the old Russian charts, the United States Geological Survey began a series of aerial surveys of Afghanistan’s mineral resources in 2006, using advanced gravity and magnetic measuring equipment attached to an old Navy Orion P-3 aircraft that flew over about 70 percent of the country."
Can anyone in the know describe how this works? It sounds interesting.
My old man did this work in the Navy (on P-3s) on 'pure science' missions and later on Twin Otters looking for oil. As I understand it they look for slight variations in gravitational pull that represent different densities in the crust of the Earth. The S/N is so bad that even with current computers they couldn't do the analysis on the aircraft. They would have to beam the data to Boston where a room full of computers tackled it.
The main problem the oil industry faces is the density of oil is similar to the density of salt. The only way to tell one from the other is to drill an insanely expensive exploratory well. My dad said half the time they hit salt. Really expensive salt.
Aerial gravity surveys are not particularly new. I've done a ground-based survey, but we were looking for a weak anomaly and the region had strong topography so the results were dubious (the inverse problem is very ill-posed to begin with and the topography doesn't help).
This reminds me of the guy who dated the somewhat gawky looking girl at high school who ended up blossoming into the most gorgeous young woman you could imagine. Either that, or the US has, behind the scenes, known about this all along.
Chinese mining companies have been quietly performing exploratory studies in the north for the past few years. It was the Chinese activity that actually tipped us off that there could be significant copper and lithium deposits.
The Afghan people have repelled every major imperial power including Alexander the Great, the Persian Saffavids, Ghengis Khan, the Moghul Empire, the Russian Empire, the British Empire, and the United Soviet Socialist Republics. As a result, Afghanistan is one of the last remaining pieces of land on the planet that has never been properly surveyed, mapped, or mined.
The ground is untouched. The nation borders China, which has an almost insatiable appetite for minerals. The United States has over one hundred thousand troops present. It is a recipe for a disaster of the highest order.
Perhaps, but I think China is alot more low-heat than other (former) industrialized communist countries. They'd much rather tap Africa's copper and lithium mines with no strife or conflict than try to work with the resurgent Taliban.
They figure, let the US quell the beast, then go in and make deals with whatever Afghani government is in power at the moment the US leaves. China doesn't nation-build, it makes deals; which makes it a bit of an aloof superpower.
Wow, victory was in doubt because the motivation to run a prolonged war over nothing wears out. That's why everyone lost in Afghanistan, it was hard to capture but had little worth capturing. Now that money is at stake, victory from a serious war effort is more likely.
I wish the money goes to the Afghan people. I wish also if it did, they don't build another Dubai, but focus on teaching children and make a new enlightened generation.
If justice were rendered the Afghan people would get a dividend a la Alaska oil and amazing infrastructure to bring forth an Arab/Islamic renaissance on the doorstep of economic giants: China and India.
In our world though, powers will struggle for control of the purse strings. Strong men will rule, aided by the US, the Taliban, both, or more. The mines will become inland islands to themselves as the people get promises of a better life.
Let's hope something along the lines of the former happens - would be world changing.
Yes, I hope so too. The Afghans have been taken advantage of by so many different groups in recent decades. It would be nice if this find ended up helping them build a new more prosperous life...but it's probably wishful thinking.
If you want opium, google for "dried poppy pods" and you will get raw, dried opium sent to your door for a reasonable price and in a professional manor. That we are waging a war in Afghanistan to stop the supply of opium when it is so easily available (legally!!!!!!) on the internet is just one more example of how the world is insane.
The thing I don't understand about this is why the US would be prospecting in Afghanistan in the first place. Is there any valid reason why the US should have made this discovery? (Genuine question; I can't think of any reasons.)
Nation building. We (supposedly) learned from our first exercise in Afghanistan that you can't help a people fight off their oppressor then leave them to fend for themselves. Things quickly degrade to where they were with the Taliban as the ruling body. Some believe it is in our interest to build up the nation with a favorable government in place.
And no, GWB's administration didn't invent this ideology. Neither did PNAC, or any of the other conspiracy-nut targets. This kind of thing has been going on for thousands of years.
Did you read the article? The discovery was accidental. There were charts secreted away by Afghan geologists during the Taliban years.
In 2004, American geologists, sent to Afghanistan as part of a broader reconstruction effort, stumbled across an intriguing series of old charts and data at the library of the Afghan Geological Survey in Kabul that hinted at major mineral deposits in the country. They soon learned that the data had been collected by Soviet mining experts during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, but cast aside when the Soviets withdrew in 1989.
We look for large valuable resources in order to help democracy. (I'm only half-joking, I think there are both sinister and non-sinister reasons why this may occur, which is why it makes it hard to discern true motives.)
A trillion dollars? Really? What a round figure. Wait a minute ... that reminds me of something that I read recently. Now, what was it? Oh yeah, it was this observation by Vijay Prashad over at CounterPunch.
"On May 30, at 10:06am, the United States exchequer turned over its trillionth dollar to the U. S. armed forces for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A trillion dollars is a lot of money. As my friends at the National Priorities Project put it, if I made a $1 million a year, it would take me a million years to earn a trillion dollars. The U. S. government expended the same amount in nine years, fighting two wars. So what did our trillion tax dollars buy?"
Alan Greenspan: “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil” (The Age of Turbulence, 2007, p. 463).
Me: “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Afghanistan war is largely about gas and mineral wealth” (My unpublished international bestselling debut, 2011, p. 231).
I'll file this story under "nuke, pillage, plunder."
While I'm not for war of any kind, and least we seem to have a semi-legitimate reason to be over there now. However, if there was trillions of dollars of valuable minerals, one could venture to guess we knew about those a while ago.
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise at the down-votes.
From the article:
"An internal _Pentagon_ memo, for example, states that Afghanistan could become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium,”"
and
"“There is stunning potential here,” Gen. David H. Petraeus, _commander of the United States Central Command_, said in an interview on Saturday."
and
"“No one has tested that law; no one knows how it will stand up in a fight between the central government and the provinces,” observed Paul A. Brinkley, deputy undersecretary of defense for business and leader of the _Pentagon_ team that discovered the deposits"
and
"The _Pentagon_ task force has already started trying to help the Afghans set up a system to deal with mineral development."
and
"Soon, the _Pentagon_ business development task force brought in teams of American mining experts to validate the survey’s findings, and then briefed Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Mr. Karzai."
If someone points out that the US Pentagon has discovered riches under the soil of a foreign country its troops are waging a war in I'll certainly point out how much that war effort has cost and is costing each and every person in the States.
Seriously - the first thing I thought of was InfoWars getting a hold of this and saying:
"The US planned 9/11 in order to invade Afghanistan to get at it's vast mineral resources - especially lithium and copper to power the future of energy - just like oil in the Middle East!!" - Alex Jones in Parody
As much as I would like to consider the outlook that US can possibly improve Afghanistan as an industrialized nation, create jobs, increase GDP and whatnot... it just boils down to historical autonomy. Afghanistan, no matter how many years they are at war and political turmoil, does not want any outside entity breathing down their throats no matter how "benevolent" their intentions are. If the US only came in as an economy-oriented entity instead of a war-figure, then the story might change.
This is not going to be a good example, but unless you give consent, do you want some overwhelming authority barging into your household saying that they struck gold while you and your significant other are having a disagreement (and that you've been doing this and resolving for a while)?
But then again, who am I to steer things like these? Government contractors make up a good percentage of our economy, technology included.
[+] [-] tptacek|16 years ago|reply
Since there appears to be no stable economy in Afghanistan that is feasible to build, maintain, and defend, the Taliban's supporters have an incentive to invest, and its recruits have incentive to join up. Ambivalent forces in Afghanistan that might help thwart the Taliban are disincentivized to do so, because there's no path to victory, and they'd be subject to reprisals when the effort failed.
Vast mineral resources could change that. Saudi Arabia has approximately the same population as Afghanistan, but enjoys a massively better standard of living, a far stronger central government, and operates an effectively modern social safety net. If mineral investment can set that trend in motion in Afghanistan, the state may have an actual path to stability. Which alters the equation there in a way that disfavors the Taliban.
Everyone seems to be citing the case of the Congo. But the Congo isn't essentially occupied by the rest of Western Civilization. Apart from foreign corporations, which are agnostic to which regime controls the country, nobody has a stake in the Congo. That's not the case in Afghanistan.
This seems like a positive development.
[+] [-] metamemetics|16 years ago|reply
IF you're a Saudi elite. Their economy relies on a huge population of foreign-workers that live as indentured serfs, are commonly brutalized, and enjoy no rights. It's also an Islamic absolute monarchy with less political freedom than China.
[+] [-] MichaelSalib|16 years ago|reply
I don't think this is true at all. The Taliban have significantly more military skill than the Afghan warlords they've been fighting for the last decade. Consider: if the warlords, after having gotten billions of dollars of aid from the US and tens of thousands of western soldiers helping them, still haven't been able to defeat the Taliban, how large must the disparity be. Plus, the Taliban have a reputation for being less corrupt than the warlords that currently comprise the government. There's a reason Afghanis turn to Taliban-run courts instead of going to the government ones: the justice might be crazy, but it will be impartial.
Before this find, the future of Afghanistan was pretty clear: sooner or later, there was going to be a negotiated settlement with the Taliban, culminating in some sort of power sharing agreement. Given the find, that will still probably happen, but my guess is that the Taliban get more power in the end.
From a western/Chinese companies perspective, who would you rather deal with? Religious fanatics that are honest and maintain order with horrific brutal efficiency? Or obscenely corrupt bumblers who couldn't administer their way out of a paper bag? Extraction industries have plenty of experience dealing with the former in Saudi Arabia. Given the choice, I can't imagine why they'd prefer the later.
[+] [-] kungfooey|16 years ago|reply
Corporations are going to prefer regimes that enforce the rule of law. The Congo's primary problem (from a business standpoint) is it's lack of stability. If legal matters are not handled in a predictable way, then it's impossible for to do business in a predictable way.
While I agree that it seems like a positive development, what worries me is that Afghanistan already has a huge problem with government corruption (bribes, graft, etc). This will only make that problem worse. However, even businesses that could benefit their economy in the long run will tolerate some level of graft as long as the rule of law is enforced in a predictable manner.
[+] [-] rianjs|16 years ago|reply
It's good that Afghanistan has a resource potentially more valuable than the drug trade and its inputs.
[+] [-] edge17|16 years ago|reply
from the second page -
In 2004, American geologists, sent to Afghanistan as part of a broader reconstruction effort, stumbled across an intriguing series of old charts and data at the library of the Afghan Geological Survey in Kabul that hinted at major mineral deposits in the country. They soon learned that the data had been collected by Soviet mining experts during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, but cast aside when the Soviets withdrew in 1989.
[+] [-] sdurkin|16 years ago|reply
I must embarrassingly say that you're wholly correct, the United States was rather late to arrive at this party.
[+] [-] alexyim|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] charleso|16 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opioid#Global_shortage_of_poppy...
Opium poppies grow well in Afghanistan and farmers already know how to cultivate and prepare it for shipping in large quantities.
Potential mineral riches are spiffy and all, but it seems foolish to toss money at projects which require large-scale construction and worker training when an existing high-demand product already exists to productively employ the populace.
These folks don't yet have infrastructure capable of large-scale mineral extraction. Why not build upon useful agricultural exports and start from there?
[+] [-] techiferous|16 years ago|reply
I understand your argument to not abandon the poppies, but do you really think "foolish" is the right word to describe pursuing vast amounts of minerals that are in high demand? It's literally digging money out of the ground. Wouldn't the large-scale construction and worker training be funded by the profits from the minerals?
[+] [-] tomkinstinch|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] herdrick|16 years ago|reply
The next logical phase of exploration would be having geologists hiking and driving around on these prospects to try to understand the specific geology of each. If things look good then maybe a program of surface level geophysical surveys, which are far more precise than aerial surveys (though still pretty fuzzy). Finally some (very expensive) exploratory drilling, then a lot more drilling to establish with some certainty the size of the deposit. Now you have a mineable property.
By the way, at every step you need a bunch of skilled people on location who currently have plenty of work opportunities in non-war zones.
Sure, there are almost certainly good mines to be found since it's a huge country and mineral exploration has been on hold for thirty years and was pretty spotty before then. But saying that aerial geophysics surveys confirm this is pretty funny.
EDIT: It looks like some ground geophysical surveys have been done as well. But no drilling as far as I can tell from the story.
[+] [-] rjett|16 years ago|reply
Can anyone in the know describe how this works? It sounds interesting.
[+] [-] mbenjaminsmith|16 years ago|reply
The main problem the oil industry faces is the density of oil is similar to the density of salt. The only way to tell one from the other is to drill an insanely expensive exploratory well. My dad said half the time they hit salt. Really expensive salt.
[+] [-] jedbrown|16 years ago|reply
The GRACE satellites are a neat instrument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Recovery_and_Climate_Ex...
[+] [-] petercooper|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dminor|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Alex3917|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arnorhs|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] epall|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sdurkin|16 years ago|reply
Chinese mining companies have been quietly performing exploratory studies in the north for the past few years. It was the Chinese activity that actually tipped us off that there could be significant copper and lithium deposits.
The Afghan people have repelled every major imperial power including Alexander the Great, the Persian Saffavids, Ghengis Khan, the Moghul Empire, the Russian Empire, the British Empire, and the United Soviet Socialist Republics. As a result, Afghanistan is one of the last remaining pieces of land on the planet that has never been properly surveyed, mapped, or mined.
The ground is untouched. The nation borders China, which has an almost insatiable appetite for minerals. The United States has over one hundred thousand troops present. It is a recipe for a disaster of the highest order.
[+] [-] muhfuhkuh|16 years ago|reply
They figure, let the US quell the beast, then go in and make deals with whatever Afghani government is in power at the moment the US leaves. China doesn't nation-build, it makes deals; which makes it a bit of an aloof superpower.
[+] [-] Detrus|16 years ago|reply
I'm betting $10 on a USA victory now.
[+] [-] brianobush|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ck2|16 years ago|reply
But there are HUGE deposits of Lithium in the USA.
You know who owns the rights to them? Canadian corporations.
They refuse to mine them because it's not economically beneficial (yet) they want the price to go up.
[+] [-] csomar|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ars|16 years ago|reply
And what does "enlightened" mean, anyway? Does it mean "follows my ideals"?
[+] [-] nickpinkston|16 years ago|reply
In our world though, powers will struggle for control of the purse strings. Strong men will rule, aided by the US, the Taliban, both, or more. The mines will become inland islands to themselves as the people get promises of a better life.
Let's hope something along the lines of the former happens - would be world changing.
[+] [-] DilipJ|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joezydeco|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] T_S_|16 years ago|reply
Is it just me, or is anyone else tired of perpetual war?
[+] [-] DTrejo|16 years ago|reply
When a government depends on resources for their revenue, they are setting themselves up for failure when prices fall.
Norway could have been in a similar situation with oil, but they avoided it:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/99680a04-92a0-11de-b63b-00144feabd...
Hopefully Bolivia learns something from Norway and this does not happen to them (Venezuela definitely didn't take a hint).
Similarly, if Afghanistan does not set itself up well, it could have the same resource dependency problem.
[+] [-] lowkey|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jrockway|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rms|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mattdw|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bradleyland|16 years ago|reply
And no, GWB's administration didn't invent this ideology. Neither did PNAC, or any of the other conspiracy-nut targets. This kind of thing has been going on for thousands of years.
[+] [-] blogimus|16 years ago|reply
In 2004, American geologists, sent to Afghanistan as part of a broader reconstruction effort, stumbled across an intriguing series of old charts and data at the library of the Afghan Geological Survey in Kabul that hinted at major mineral deposits in the country. They soon learned that the data had been collected by Soviet mining experts during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, but cast aside when the Soviets withdrew in 1989.
[+] [-] mkramlich|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] csomar|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] haily|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] igravious|16 years ago|reply
http://counterpunch.org/prashad06112010.html
"On May 30, at 10:06am, the United States exchequer turned over its trillionth dollar to the U. S. armed forces for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A trillion dollars is a lot of money. As my friends at the National Priorities Project put it, if I made a $1 million a year, it would take me a million years to earn a trillion dollars. The U. S. government expended the same amount in nine years, fighting two wars. So what did our trillion tax dollars buy?"
Alan Greenspan: “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil” (The Age of Turbulence, 2007, p. 463).
Me: “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Afghanistan war is largely about gas and mineral wealth” (My unpublished international bestselling debut, 2011, p. 231).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline
[+] [-] alttab|16 years ago|reply
While I'm not for war of any kind, and least we seem to have a semi-legitimate reason to be over there now. However, if there was trillions of dollars of valuable minerals, one could venture to guess we knew about those a while ago.
[+] [-] igravious|16 years ago|reply
From the article:
"An internal _Pentagon_ memo, for example, states that Afghanistan could become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium,”"
and
"“There is stunning potential here,” Gen. David H. Petraeus, _commander of the United States Central Command_, said in an interview on Saturday."
and
"“No one has tested that law; no one knows how it will stand up in a fight between the central government and the provinces,” observed Paul A. Brinkley, deputy undersecretary of defense for business and leader of the _Pentagon_ team that discovered the deposits"
and
"The _Pentagon_ task force has already started trying to help the Afghans set up a system to deal with mineral development."
and
"Soon, the _Pentagon_ business development task force brought in teams of American mining experts to validate the survey’s findings, and then briefed Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Mr. Karzai."
If someone points out that the US Pentagon has discovered riches under the soil of a foreign country its troops are waging a war in I'll certainly point out how much that war effort has cost and is costing each and every person in the States.
[+] [-] mkramlich|16 years ago|reply
(regarding the supposedly huge lithium find there)
[+] [-] nickpinkston|16 years ago|reply
"The US planned 9/11 in order to invade Afghanistan to get at it's vast mineral resources - especially lithium and copper to power the future of energy - just like oil in the Middle East!!" - Alex Jones in Parody
[+] [-] unknown|16 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] blizkreeg|16 years ago|reply
[Like the East India Trading Company led to 150 years of British rule, I just hope history does not repeat itself.]
[+] [-] moolave|16 years ago|reply
This is not going to be a good example, but unless you give consent, do you want some overwhelming authority barging into your household saying that they struck gold while you and your significant other are having a disagreement (and that you've been doing this and resolving for a while)?
But then again, who am I to steer things like these? Government contractors make up a good percentage of our economy, technology included.