5 ms·
Regardless of the political motivations that sparked the announcement, I was excited to hear about it. I became interested in Afghanistan in 2001, along with e
by pdx 16y ago
Regardless of the political motivations that sparked the announcement, I was excited to hear about it.
I became interested in Afghanistan in 2001, along with everybody else. Before that, my only exposure to the country was my reading of "The Man who would be King", by Kipling.
Everything that I've heard about the Afghanistan economy has had to do with opium and heroin. To have it announced that there was a very real possibility that there may be a way to grow their economy in a very real and significant way, and a way that benefits the rest of the world, rather than harms it, is exciting news to me.
- michael_dorfman 16y agoYour demographic is showing. Some of us became interested in Afghanistan back in '79, when the Soviets invaded, and President Carter (remember him?) re-instated draft registration. Seemed pretty important at the time, but seems to be forgotten now...
- pinstriped_dude 16y agoMaybe a large part of the audience here is born in the 80s?!
- cema 16y agoMaybe a large part, but not "everybody else".
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- pdx 16y agoI was, of course, aware of the soviet occupation of Afghanistan, but it wasn't an interesting thing to me. The Soviets were interesting to me, of course, but not the Afghans. 2001 made Afghanistan interesting in it's own right, not just a chapter in a Soviet story.
- bobbyi 16y agoI don't think it's fair to say that "everybody else" ignored Afghanistan until 2001. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was one of the more important events of the Cold War and was widely watched by the world.
- eru 16y ago> To have it announced that there was a very real possibility that there may be a way to grow their economy in a very real and significant way, and a way that benefits the rest of the world, rather than harms it, is exciting news to me. How about educating the population, improving the infrastructure and so on? Lots of places without any real natural resources seem to do fine.
- pdx 16y ago> Lots of places without any real natural resources seem to do fine Really? Who? Japan that's who ... and everybody marvels about how the heck they managed it. Who else? Not fair saying any country that had colonies once, even if they no longer do, as they got their "jump start" from the resources of their colonies. What country has actually succeeded without natural resources? Keep in mind that natural resources aren't just minerals. They may be geographic circumstance, such as "the only land route between X and Y", or ocean access, or "the shortest route between A and P", etc. It's very fashionable to say that you can get by on brains alone, but it turns out that more is generally required.
- eru 16y agoYour broad definition of natural resources makes it hard to bring counter examples. But what about South Korea? (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_on_the_Han_River http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_on_the_Han_River)
- heresy 16y agoKorea as a whole was a nation for over two thousand years; 99% of the population on the peninsula is of Korean ethnicity. After the war, citizens of South Korea volunteered, for no pay, to rebuild infrastructure (roads, factories). From the 60s through the 80s, there was one singular goal, namely, building the nation and becoming a prosperous society. I think that kind of scenario is a little harder to reproduce in the more heterogenous parts of the world. How do you propose getting opposing ethnicities in other countries to pull together like that?