Could minerals replace poppies as a source of Afgani income? Will there now be as much interest as has been in Middle East oil? Could this help pay the cost of this miserable war?
Who will the major players be in exploiting this new found wealth?
Afghanistan's 'Vast Riches Of Minerals' Highlighted By Pentagon
Well How About This?
-
Clodhopper
- Posts: 5115
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:11 pm
Well How About This?
It might. I'm pretty cynical about the altruism of big business though. We're probably too broke to take advantage, so I imagine the big US corporations will take any profit there might be. One thing you can be sure of - ordinary Afganis won't see much if any of the money.
And it's got to be pretty risky mining in a war zone...
And it's got to be pretty risky mining in a war zone...
The crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!"
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Lone voice: "I'm not."
Well How About This?
I have often wondered why the heck a legitimate business deal isn't struck over the opiates in Afghanistan. The UK is short of them for medicinal purposes, and it would be legitimate export for Afghanistan, and it would solve a problem for the UK, I don't know if the shortage is world-wide. Maybe the shortage has been caused by the illegal exporting of the drug? Maybe Afghanistan gets more money, or at least the farmers may? if they have it exported illegally. Perhaps somebody can explain this? 
I'm a Saga-lout, growing old disgracefully
-
Richard Bell
- Posts: 1228
- Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 8:56 am
Well How About This?
Lon;1315833 wrote:
Who will the major players be in exploiting this new found wealth?
China, USA, China, Russia, China, EU, and China.
Who will the major players be in exploiting this new found wealth?
China, USA, China, Russia, China, EU, and China.
Well How About This?
G#Gill;1315890 wrote: I have often wondered why the heck a legitimate business deal isn't struck over the opiates in Afghanistan. The UK is short of them for medicinal purposes, and it would be legitimate export for Afghanistan, and it would solve a problem for the UK, I don't know if the shortage is world-wide. Maybe the shortage has been caused by the illegal exporting of the drug? Maybe Afghanistan gets more money, or at least the farmers may? if they have it exported illegally. Perhaps somebody can explain this?
Poppy being illegal makes the drug cost more money thus increasing profits. If the market opened completely for poppy everyone and their mother would grow it and sell it driving the cost way down.
Problem with legalizing it is that people would buy it by the boatload including children on the street trying it without fear only to overdose.
A new form of heroin which is stronger has hit the streets of Dayton and people are overdosing like mosquitoes in a bug zapper.
Poppy being illegal makes the drug cost more money thus increasing profits. If the market opened completely for poppy everyone and their mother would grow it and sell it driving the cost way down.
Problem with legalizing it is that people would buy it by the boatload including children on the street trying it without fear only to overdose.
A new form of heroin which is stronger has hit the streets of Dayton and people are overdosing like mosquitoes in a bug zapper.
Well How About This?
Lon;1315833 wrote: Could minerals replace poppies as a source of Afgani income? Will there now be as much interest as has been in Middle East oil? Could this help pay the cost of this miserable war?
Who will the major players be in exploiting this new found wealth?
Afghanistan's 'Vast Riches Of Minerals' Highlighted By Pentagon
For the afghan people to benefit there would have to be acceptance of the notion that a country's resources belong to and should be exploited for the benefit of the people as a whole. that's a socialist idea which is not something the western mining companies and in particular those of the united states will accept. It's an age old debate - who gave that person/company the right to take that land/oil/coal/forest and exploit it for their own benefit at the expense of others.
If they accept it it raises questions at home like why should all the wealth be concentrated in the hands of big corporations and shouldn't the wealth be used for the benefit of all especially when the mining, oil drilling activities have such an impact on the environment and those who live next to it. A left wing government was overthrown and replaced by the taliban with the help of the west - remember the gallant mujahadeen? freedom fighters against the oppressive communists who were aided by the nasty russians. Now they are insurgents opposing freedom and liberty.
It's going to be the big mining companies aided by their respective governments and we know how they react to the idea that maybe the people of a country are entitled to benefit from their own resources.
Mineweb.com - The world's premier mining and mining investment website Australian mining tax "deeply flawed" BHP Billiton - POLITICAL ECONOMY | Mineweb
Xstrata's move, which targets Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's home state of Queensland, will pile further pressure on the government to water down a proposed 40 percent tax on mining profits and give new ammunition to the tax's political opponents.
But Rudd, whose government has started negotiations with miners on what he says will be generous transitional arrangements, said the tax was the right policy.
"Overall, the government is confident of its argument, because the people of Australia deserve a fairer share back for the resources which they themselves ultimately own," Rudd told local television on Friday.
"All I can say is, yes, you should take what big mining companies -- very big mining companies -- have to say in this big debate about them paying more tax with a bit of a grain of salt sometimes," Rudd said.
If the Australian government is having problems what chance will the Afghans have? I suppose it all comes down to who has the power to do what they like - I don't know what the original owners of australia have to say on the matter. Mind you Obama seems to think he would have the right to sequestrate the assets of a big multinational like BP if they don't clean up their mess. It's not a big leap to think maybe companies should pay more back in the form of taxes for the privilege of being allowed to exploit natural resources. I think the big companies will be in there take their profit and bugger the consequences or any moral considerations.
Who will the major players be in exploiting this new found wealth?
Afghanistan's 'Vast Riches Of Minerals' Highlighted By Pentagon
For the afghan people to benefit there would have to be acceptance of the notion that a country's resources belong to and should be exploited for the benefit of the people as a whole. that's a socialist idea which is not something the western mining companies and in particular those of the united states will accept. It's an age old debate - who gave that person/company the right to take that land/oil/coal/forest and exploit it for their own benefit at the expense of others.
If they accept it it raises questions at home like why should all the wealth be concentrated in the hands of big corporations and shouldn't the wealth be used for the benefit of all especially when the mining, oil drilling activities have such an impact on the environment and those who live next to it. A left wing government was overthrown and replaced by the taliban with the help of the west - remember the gallant mujahadeen? freedom fighters against the oppressive communists who were aided by the nasty russians. Now they are insurgents opposing freedom and liberty.
It's going to be the big mining companies aided by their respective governments and we know how they react to the idea that maybe the people of a country are entitled to benefit from their own resources.
Mineweb.com - The world's premier mining and mining investment website Australian mining tax "deeply flawed" BHP Billiton - POLITICAL ECONOMY | Mineweb
Xstrata's move, which targets Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's home state of Queensland, will pile further pressure on the government to water down a proposed 40 percent tax on mining profits and give new ammunition to the tax's political opponents.
But Rudd, whose government has started negotiations with miners on what he says will be generous transitional arrangements, said the tax was the right policy.
"Overall, the government is confident of its argument, because the people of Australia deserve a fairer share back for the resources which they themselves ultimately own," Rudd told local television on Friday.
"All I can say is, yes, you should take what big mining companies -- very big mining companies -- have to say in this big debate about them paying more tax with a bit of a grain of salt sometimes," Rudd said.
If the Australian government is having problems what chance will the Afghans have? I suppose it all comes down to who has the power to do what they like - I don't know what the original owners of australia have to say on the matter. Mind you Obama seems to think he would have the right to sequestrate the assets of a big multinational like BP if they don't clean up their mess. It's not a big leap to think maybe companies should pay more back in the form of taxes for the privilege of being allowed to exploit natural resources. I think the big companies will be in there take their profit and bugger the consequences or any moral considerations.
-
rachard1583
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:55 am
Well How About This?
Great . All this mineral wealth; thanks, Obama.
One trillion dollars worth of minerals in Afghanistan will justify American lives, it shows the Afghanistan will be the new colony of USA!
One trillion dollars worth of minerals in Afghanistan will justify American lives, it shows the Afghanistan will be the new colony of USA!
[Advertising Link removed]
Well How About This?
gmc;1316441 wrote: For the afghan people to benefit there would have to be acceptance of the notion that a country's resources belong to and should be exploited for the benefit of the people as a whole. that's a socialist idea which is not something the western mining companies and in particular those of the united states will accept. It's an age old debate - who gave that person/company the right to take that land/oil/coal/forest and exploit it for their own benefit at the expense of others.
If they accept it it raises questions at home like why should all the wealth be concentrated in the hands of big corporations and shouldn't the wealth be used for the benefit of all especially when the mining, oil drilling activities have such an impact on the environment and those who live next to it. A left wing government was overthrown and replaced by the taliban with the help of the west - remember the gallant mujahadeen? freedom fighters against the oppressive communists who were aided by the nasty russians. Now they are insurgents opposing freedom and liberty.
It's going to be the big mining companies aided by their respective governments and we know how they react to the idea that maybe the people of a country are entitled to benefit from their own resources.
Mineweb.com - The world's premier mining and mining investment website Australian mining tax "deeply flawed" BHP Billiton - POLITICAL ECONOMY | Mineweb
If the Australian government is having problems what chance will the Afghans have? I suppose it all comes down to who has the power to do what they like - I don't know what the original owners of australia have to say on the matter. Mind you Obama seems to think he would have the right to sequestrate the assets of a big multinational like BP if they don't clean up their mess. It's not a big leap to think maybe companies should pay more back in the form of taxes for the privilege of being allowed to exploit natural resources. I think the big companies will be in there take their profit and bugger the consequences or any moral considerations.
Original owners of Australia? Lands are not owned. They are only occupied by those able to keep it under their control, and that pertains to present day.
If they accept it it raises questions at home like why should all the wealth be concentrated in the hands of big corporations and shouldn't the wealth be used for the benefit of all especially when the mining, oil drilling activities have such an impact on the environment and those who live next to it. A left wing government was overthrown and replaced by the taliban with the help of the west - remember the gallant mujahadeen? freedom fighters against the oppressive communists who were aided by the nasty russians. Now they are insurgents opposing freedom and liberty.
It's going to be the big mining companies aided by their respective governments and we know how they react to the idea that maybe the people of a country are entitled to benefit from their own resources.
Mineweb.com - The world's premier mining and mining investment website Australian mining tax "deeply flawed" BHP Billiton - POLITICAL ECONOMY | Mineweb
If the Australian government is having problems what chance will the Afghans have? I suppose it all comes down to who has the power to do what they like - I don't know what the original owners of australia have to say on the matter. Mind you Obama seems to think he would have the right to sequestrate the assets of a big multinational like BP if they don't clean up their mess. It's not a big leap to think maybe companies should pay more back in the form of taxes for the privilege of being allowed to exploit natural resources. I think the big companies will be in there take their profit and bugger the consequences or any moral considerations.
Original owners of Australia? Lands are not owned. They are only occupied by those able to keep it under their control, and that pertains to present day.
Well How About This?
Lon;1316569 wrote: Original owners of Australia? Lands are not owned. They are only occupied by those able to keep it under their control, and that pertains to present day.
hence my comment
I suppose it all comes down to who has the power to do what they like
hence my comment
I suppose it all comes down to who has the power to do what they like