But little development is taking place, so in the current time frame the only one making a profit is Afghanistan, and whom ever in the government pockets the money.
Not necessarily. We've seen this pattern before so I think it's safe to assume that companies from the countries that are engaged will pocket a whole lot, just as they've done in Iraq.
Afghanistan was given bribes 'aid' in exchange for selling of those resources, in the form of development rights, very early on (funny enough the fire sale happened around the time of the announcement of those resources). Of course companies from NATO countries were given the best and juiciest and that was all done above board. Those rights will be sold and traded several times over since the real speculating is whether or not there will be enough stability to develop them. And you can bet that those companies that actually want to develop those resources will be lobbying hard for stability by any means necessary.
The Afghan government sold of their resources for a pittance in exchange for almost nothing. Sure, there might have been a measly profit, but it was at the expense of mortgaging the future of Afghanis.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, you are dangerously equating "strong states" with "socio-political structures [...] similar to those we have in the west". Please tell me this isn't based on something as simplistic as empire = empire?
Pardon? I'm not sure you understand what 'state' means - it has nothing to do with 'empire' and is distinct from government or nation. The state is the entity supported by the infrastructure and governance amongst other things.
Japan had a functioning state which resembled what we have in the west. Contrast that with Afghanistan, a very large part of which is based around tribal governance and infrastructure.
But none of those resources are being developed, and with regional instability they way it is, they might not ever develop it.
Sure, but it isn't necessary to develop resources to create profit. Rights are already being sold in Afghanistan. Obviously there's more to be gained with stability but it isn't necessary. And don't forget that there's been plenty of oil extracted over the years in the midst of a whole lot of instability.
Regardless, I don't believe that's the primary reason for being in Afghanistan, just one of many on the list. Freedom, democracy and women's rights likely aren't even on that list - they're merely tools to market the war.
Democracy in Japan was most assuredly not a natural occurrence.
Sure, but both Japan and Germany were very unique 'nation building' exercises - there was a strong state in place. The socio-political structures of both these countries were very similar to those we have in the west so it really wasn't terribly difficult to make it a western liberal democracy. The occupational government in Japan was focused on governance - not on creating a state and the necessary infrastructure and fighting an insurgency. Western liberal democracy may not have been a natural occurrence in Japan, but the state was there long before the US got there and changed very little.
OTOH, most of the failed attempts at nation building post-WW2 have involved countries without strong states and often without the necessary infrastructure to sustain any such transition.
The Soviet Union went into Afghanistan because they wanted Pakistan
And the US wants to encircle Iran.
It has no mineral resources.
The US 'found' more than a trillion in resources after they went in, and wrestling over the contracts has just begun. And let's not forget that Afghanistan is one of the best routes for oil and gas to the southeast.
Afghanistan is of massive strategic importance for a large number of reasons, and it has been since colonial times. See The Great Game and The New Great Game
Unfortunately the number of Canadians using the alternatives is relatively small, so I don't think they're getting 'killed' just yet. However, I think there may be a big unintended consequence: a large number of Canadians just realized that there are cheaper alternatives that provide unlimited bandwidth thanks to all the press this generated.
I'll hold off cheering until AFTER they install a democ government.
but for some reason, I suspect it will be a muslim-based one. in which case, we are now WORSE off.
change - for change sake - does not always get us what we were hoping for.
I'll hold off cheering until I see WHO is going to run that country.
Assuming you are not from Egypt...
Why would that be worse for you? Why is this about what you are looking for? Shouldn't it be about want Egyptians want?
If you deny those people the right to live under a government of their choosing, which may not be a western Liberal Democracy (which is what you really mean), you've created a whole new problem.
Looks like they want to link and propagate ads. It's likely interesting for the advertisers - they'd be able to put together a string of ads based on what the user has seen across multiple sites and tailor them to specific 'likes'. For us, just more stuff to ad-block.
You mean, they maintain low prices at a loss, only until other businesses go bankrupt, then raise them higher than it would otherwise be? If I were mean, I could ask you to cite a real life example of this (there are none)
Walmart, which artificially deflates prices to eliminate competition (there's numerous other examples). And that's in a market where the barriers to entry are substantially lower. With electricity, it's much, much higher. The startup costs for both generation and distribution are extremely high which is one of the main reasons you don't see any real competition coming into markets where they are permitted to.
Perhaps you missed the part where the rest of the market is being gouged, and the reduction in price to the customer is only a temporary measure to eliminate competition.
That's assuming that anyone would enter the market at all, of course. Which would be unlikely as the return on investment is abysmal even without a monopoly.
The question I think you should ask yourself is, why is a single provider bad?
Because a single provider can prevent competition from entering the marketplace.
In the case of utility companies, the largest buys out the smallest, than the second smallest, etc, etc until it has an effective monopoly. Now, Joe's Energy might be able to generate and/or deliver power cheaply, but that same monopoly can drop its rates in that region long enough to put Joe out of business. And Bob. etc. In regions where it has squashed the competition it can gouge the customer.
Keep in mind that the energy sector already has a rather large barrier to entry - massive upfront costs. Even if Joe had very deep pockets, his return on investment is already many years out without having to fight a monopoly.
One thing I've been curious about is whether guidance is provided to military personnel when posting anything on the internet. Just curious, since I've witnessed a few pretty heated debates between military personnel and civilians on some Canadian sites.
The private sector generally frowns on this sort of thing and it gives PR departments nightmares, although it's tough for them to control. For soldiers, I'd think the military would be keen to make sure a common message is being relayed, no? Certainly not saying they should enforce anything, just wondering if there's any 'code of conduct' of sorts when posting on public sites.
I'm sorry, but $600 a month is more value to me (and just about everyone else) than feeling good that I didn't indirectly support some sweat shop.
Well, it may make you feel good now, but in the long run it will be incredibly painful. By commoditizing production and moving it offshore rapidly you're ensuring that the US, which was once a powerhouse on both the production and consumption side, will turn into a strictly consumption economy. That can't last, and since virtually every industry that's been created in the last 100 years is a target for outsourcing, eventually the money (credit) to pay for those goods will dry up.
Nope GW is a fact (as well as Global Cooling). The question is whether it is man-made or just natural climate cycles.
Possibly, but is that really relevant? IMO the important aspect of GW is that we are pushing the limits of the environment and, eventually, it will come back to bite us in the ass. Be it GW, resource depletion, loss of natural habitat, etc. It's a bit unfortunate that one topic gets all the attention.
It isn't trivial with ISP's or websites, but Facebook is a one-stop shop for data mining, profiling, etc.
That isn't to say that I think we need to don the tin foil hats immediately, but do realize that the data is permanent (well, sorta). What you post there today might be innocent enough, but neither you nor I know what the future holds and how your rants against or leanings toward lefties or righties or whatever might be viewed in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
But little development is taking place, so in the current time frame the only one making a profit is Afghanistan, and whom ever in the government pockets the money.
Not necessarily. We've seen this pattern before so I think it's safe to assume that companies from the countries that are engaged will pocket a whole lot, just as they've done in Iraq.
Afghanistan was given bribes 'aid' in exchange for selling of those resources, in the form of development rights, very early on (funny enough the fire sale happened around the time of the announcement of those resources). Of course companies from NATO countries were given the best and juiciest and that was all done above board. Those rights will be sold and traded several times over since the real speculating is whether or not there will be enough stability to develop them. And you can bet that those companies that actually want to develop those resources will be lobbying hard for stability by any means necessary.
The Afghan government sold of their resources for a pittance in exchange for almost nothing. Sure, there might have been a measly profit, but it was at the expense of mortgaging the future of Afghanis.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, you are dangerously equating "strong states" with "socio-political structures [...] similar to those we have in the west". Please tell me this isn't based on something as simplistic as empire = empire?
Pardon? I'm not sure you understand what 'state' means - it has nothing to do with 'empire' and is distinct from government or nation. The state is the entity supported by the infrastructure and governance amongst other things.
Japan had a functioning state which resembled what we have in the west. Contrast that with Afghanistan, a very large part of which is based around tribal governance and infrastructure.
Hopefully I've simplified that enough for you.
But none of those resources are being developed, and with regional instability they way it is, they might not ever develop it.
Sure, but it isn't necessary to develop resources to create profit. Rights are already being sold in Afghanistan. Obviously there's more to be gained with stability but it isn't necessary. And don't forget that there's been plenty of oil extracted over the years in the midst of a whole lot of instability.
Regardless, I don't believe that's the primary reason for being in Afghanistan, just one of many on the list. Freedom, democracy and women's rights likely aren't even on that list - they're merely tools to market the war.
Democracy in Japan was most assuredly not a natural occurrence.
Sure, but both Japan and Germany were very unique 'nation building' exercises - there was a strong state in place. The socio-political structures of both these countries were very similar to those we have in the west so it really wasn't terribly difficult to make it a western liberal democracy. The occupational government in Japan was focused on governance - not on creating a state and the necessary infrastructure and fighting an insurgency. Western liberal democracy may not have been a natural occurrence in Japan, but the state was there long before the US got there and changed very little.
OTOH, most of the failed attempts at nation building post-WW2 have involved countries without strong states and often without the necessary infrastructure to sustain any such transition.
If there was anything to plunder in Afghanistan, this might actually be a valid argument
There's a trillion in resources, apparently 'found' after the invasion.
But more importantly, Afghanistan is the key strategic jewel in the New Great Game shaped around oil politics.
The Soviet Union went into Afghanistan because they wanted Pakistan
And the US wants to encircle Iran.
It has no mineral resources.
The US 'found' more than a trillion in resources after they went in, and wrestling over the contracts has just begun. And let's not forget that Afghanistan is one of the best routes for oil and gas to the southeast.
Afghanistan is of massive strategic importance for a large number of reasons, and it has been since colonial times. See The Great Game and The New Great Game
You think the US is in Afghanistan for profit? Do you have any idea how much that costs America?
In public funds, a lot. But private industry is making a killing. Literally and figuratively.
It appears to be opt-in. So if you don't want to have a 'license to download', you don't pay.
It doesn't seem like a terrible idea, though I'd need to see a few more details.
Unfortunately the number of Canadians using the alternatives is relatively small, so I don't think they're getting 'killed' just yet. However, I think there may be a big unintended consequence: a large number of Canadians just realized that there are cheaper alternatives that provide unlimited bandwidth thanks to all the press this generated.
You forgot to mention Nelson Mandela - a 'terrorist'. Funny that you didn't bring him up.
I'll hold off cheering until AFTER they install a democ government.
but for some reason, I suspect it will be a muslim-based one. in which case, we are now WORSE off.
change - for change sake - does not always get us what we were hoping for.
I'll hold off cheering until I see WHO is going to run that country.
Assuming you are not from Egypt...
Why would that be worse for you? Why is this about what you are looking for? Shouldn't it be about want Egyptians want?
If you deny those people the right to live under a government of their choosing, which may not be a western Liberal Democracy (which is what you really mean), you've created a whole new problem.
Undoing incorrect mod...
Looks like they want to link and propagate ads. It's likely interesting for the advertisers - they'd be able to put together a string of ads based on what the user has seen across multiple sites and tailor them to specific 'likes'. For us, just more stuff to ad-block.
You mean, they maintain low prices at a loss, only until other businesses go bankrupt, then raise them higher than it would otherwise be?
If I were mean, I could ask you to cite a real life example of this (there are none)
Walmart, which artificially deflates prices to eliminate competition (there's numerous other examples). And that's in a market where the barriers to entry are substantially lower. With electricity, it's much, much higher. The startup costs for both generation and distribution are extremely high which is one of the main reasons you don't see any real competition coming into markets where they are permitted to.
Perhaps you missed the part where the rest of the market is being gouged, and the reduction in price to the customer is only a temporary measure to eliminate competition.
That's assuming that anyone would enter the market at all, of course. Which would be unlikely as the return on investment is abysmal even without a monopoly.
The question I think you should ask yourself is, why is a single provider bad?
Because a single provider can prevent competition from entering the marketplace.
In the case of utility companies, the largest buys out the smallest, than the second smallest, etc, etc until it has an effective monopoly. Now, Joe's Energy might be able to generate and/or deliver power cheaply, but that same monopoly can drop its rates in that region long enough to put Joe out of business. And Bob. etc. In regions where it has squashed the competition it can gouge the customer.
Keep in mind that the energy sector already has a rather large barrier to entry - massive upfront costs. Even if Joe had very deep pockets, his return on investment is already many years out without having to fight a monopoly.
Possibly a dumb question, but is information published in the NYT still 'classified'?
Football. Seriously, football talk on /.?
I'm confused and scared all at once.
Everyone is in a good mood. Why not :-)
Modded Troll... now that's delicious.
Parent and GP modded funny? Am I missing the joke or are there some giddy drunks with mod points?
We've got one
One thing I've been curious about is whether guidance is provided to military personnel when posting anything on the internet. Just curious, since I've witnessed a few pretty heated debates between military personnel and civilians on some Canadian sites.
The private sector generally frowns on this sort of thing and it gives PR departments nightmares, although it's tough for them to control. For soldiers, I'd think the military would be keen to make sure a common message is being relayed, no? Certainly not saying they should enforce anything, just wondering if there's any 'code of conduct' of sorts when posting on public sites.
I'm sorry, but $600 a month is more value to me (and just about everyone else) than feeling good that I didn't indirectly support some sweat shop.
Well, it may make you feel good now, but in the long run it will be incredibly painful. By commoditizing production and moving it offshore rapidly you're ensuring that the US, which was once a powerhouse on both the production and consumption side, will turn into a strictly consumption economy. That can't last, and since virtually every industry that's been created in the last 100 years is a target for outsourcing, eventually the money (credit) to pay for those goods will dry up.
It's not a only human rights issue.
Nope GW is a fact (as well as Global Cooling). The question is whether it is man-made or just natural climate cycles.
Possibly, but is that really relevant? IMO the important aspect of GW is that we are pushing the limits of the environment and, eventually, it will come back to bite us in the ass. Be it GW, resource depletion, loss of natural habitat, etc. It's a bit unfortunate that one topic gets all the attention.
It isn't trivial with ISP's or websites, but Facebook is a one-stop shop for data mining, profiling, etc.
That isn't to say that I think we need to don the tin foil hats immediately, but do realize that the data is permanent (well, sorta). What you post there today might be innocent enough, but neither you nor I know what the future holds and how your rants against or leanings toward lefties or righties or whatever might be viewed in the future.