5 ms·

I apologize if this comes off as blunt, but there is overwhelming evidence that the purpose of US intervention in the middle east is almost purely for reasons o

I apologize if this comes off as blunt, but there is overwhelming evidence that the purpose of US intervention in the middle east is almost purely for reasons of power and resources, and this has been obvious to scholars and even casual laymen observers for nearly half a century. Human rights and self defense have very little to do with it, and to believe so is to fall to propaganda.

refurb 5y ago
You’ll have to define power and resources. I mean, Afghanistan offers very little of either and any control you want to exert comes at a high cost and fades pretty quickly.
remarkEon 5y ago
You can be as blunt and stupid as you choose. >but there is overwhelming evidence that the purpose of US intervention in the middle east is almost purely for reasons of power and resource Sure, I'll collect my check at the pump, I guess. >and this has been obvious to scholars and even casual laymen observers for nearly half a century I think you're missing the meaning of my original post, which was a comment about people who experienced war in Afghanistan feel about it. You're welcome to contort that into whatever point about human rights, "America is bad", whatever point you feel like. Like I said originally. I don't care.
- colordrops 5y ago
  I was replying to this: > Does anyone in America actually care about what style of government Afghanistan adopts? Apparently these people in DC think they do.
  - remarkEon 5y ago
    Are you asking what I think the DC establishment thinks is the right government structure for Afghanistan?
    - colordrops 5y ago
      No. Buy you seem to think your policy buddies care about finding the right government structure. If they are true establishment and not just cogs they don't care about anything other than game theory and maximum extraction of value.
      - dr_dshiv 5y ago
        Ah yes, the power and resources that flow from the rich nation of Afghanistan. I had dinner with the ambassador to the Taliban once at Yale, back in 2000. He said they banned TVs because there wasn't any Pashtun programming, so they were effectively just banning porn. He was accompanied by this very nice lady, Lailia Helms, who was the granddaughter of the former king of Afghanistan and married to the son of the former CIA director, Richard Helms. Weird.
        colordrops 5y ago
        The value that is extracted is not from the "rich" Afghanis, but from American taxpayers, in the trillions to the military industrial complex.
        dr_dshiv 5y ago
        Ah, then we are on the same page.
        bbarnett 5y ago
        Two things. Outside of the excessive dev costs, and high price tags of these things, ongoing, year after year, institutional knowledge of "how to construct weaponry", and "how to test / build" the same is absolutely vital. You absolutely cannot be in a position where no company and employees exist, which knows these things. The cannot be overstated. Imagine a war breaks out, and now you try to build ... missiles. You have no tooling, no factory, no employees which have ever done so, and no supply chains either. Nor even engineered, first step designs! Now, I agree things are not perfect, but something must be in place. Something ongoing. This same logic holds with the military too. You want to lose a war? Have a no standing military, or one which is never deployed. You need trained, experienced troops, which will train other troops if a massive war breaks out and your numbers swell. You need experienced persons to lead, which have not been trained in isolation. Canada tries to solve this, as much as possible by peacekeeping. It's not perfect though, blue hats don't often engage in large scale actions. Point in all this is, trying to pick just, humanitarian causes for troop deployment, and weaponry usage in the field, and to keep supply chains alive, is difficult, yet is literally essential if you want to have a real defense potential. Or should the US, the West, just degrade their military, and hope for the best? (Canada was in Afghanistan for more than a decade.)
voldacar 5y ago
>the purpose of US intervention in the middle east is almost purely for reasons of power and resources if this were the case, then the USA would have actually benefited from these wars. you ascribe far too much competence to our ruling class The actual reason is more like an unholy mishmash of the sunk cost fallacy and the ever-present need to pad the pockets of Boeing and Raytheon
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  ">the purpose of US intervention in the middle east is almost purely for reasons of power and resources" "if this were the case, then the USA would have actually benefited from these wars." I don't see where that conclusions comes from unless you fall for the same mistake you mention - adress too much competence. Also the US ruling class can loose a gamble.
  - voldacar 5y ago
    I don't think you can correctly conceptualize the US presence in Afghanistan as a gamble for resources that was lost. It's been 20 years. If there was ever a gamble, it was a while ago
    - hutzlibu 5y ago
      It was "ressources and power". Strategic influence, military bases on the ground (vs. Iran) etc. So if one would characterize complicated geo politics as gamble, I think it is fair to say the gamble was lost, considering the huge ressources spend.
      - jessaustin 5y ago
        The "geopolitics" is just marketing. The point is to spend money that will disappear unaccountably into the Pentagon. Thousands of rich people get even richer. None of them care who is more secure or who dies, here or abroad. All of the fables that USA (war) news media excretes are for the purpose of making those rich people even richer.
geraneum 5y ago
> the purpose of US intervention in the middle east is almost purely for reasons of power and resources True, but the power and resources for a few corporations and individuals for sure! But not American people. Nah, not the common man.
- colordrops 5y ago
  Correct, the common person in the US suffers immensely due to the resources being poured into the military, leading to wealth, health care, and education outcomes far below many other countries with smaller GDP per Capita.
Nimitz14 5y ago
Ah yes all those resources and power the US got from invading Afghanistan. Lol. You might want to ponder what propaganda you have been falling for.
- jdgoesmarching 5y ago
  Afghanistan is extremely rich in mineral resources. The fact that we failed to secure them isn’t really proof of anything. We have a long history of trying to install foreign leaders who are friendly to US business interests with mixed results.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
    Citation needed. No doubt Afghanistan has resources but I'd like to see supporting evidence that it was the reason for invasion.
- colordrops 5y ago
  I said middle east, not Afghanistan. As mentioned elsewhere, the main resource extracted from Afghanistan is money from taxpayers.

refurb 5y ago

You’ll have to define power and resources. I mean, Afghanistan offers very little of either and any control you want to exert comes at a high cost and fades pretty quickly.

remarkEon 5y ago

You can be as blunt and stupid as you choose. >but there is overwhelming evidence that the purpose of US intervention in the middle east is almost purely for reasons of power and resource Sure, I'll collect my check at the pump, I guess. >and this has been obvious to scholars and even casual laymen observers for nearly half a century I think you're missing the meaning of my original post, which was a comment about people who experienced war in Afghanistan feel about it. You're welcome to contort that into whatever point about human rights, "America is bad", whatever point you feel like. Like I said originally. I don't care.

colordrops 5y ago
I was replying to this: > Does anyone in America actually care about what style of government Afghanistan adopts? Apparently these people in DC think they do.
- remarkEon 5y ago
  Are you asking what I think the DC establishment thinks is the right government structure for Afghanistan?
  - colordrops 5y ago
    No. Buy you seem to think your policy buddies care about finding the right government structure. If they are true establishment and not just cogs they don't care about anything other than game theory and maximum extraction of value.
    - dr_dshiv 5y ago
      Ah yes, the power and resources that flow from the rich nation of Afghanistan. I had dinner with the ambassador to the Taliban once at Yale, back in 2000. He said they banned TVs because there wasn't any Pashtun programming, so they were effectively just banning porn. He was accompanied by this very nice lady, Lailia Helms, who was the granddaughter of the former king of Afghanistan and married to the son of the former CIA director, Richard Helms. Weird.
      - colordrops 5y ago
        The value that is extracted is not from the "rich" Afghanis, but from American taxpayers, in the trillions to the military industrial complex.
        dr_dshiv 5y ago
        Ah, then we are on the same page.
        bbarnett 5y ago
        Two things. Outside of the excessive dev costs, and high price tags of these things, ongoing, year after year, institutional knowledge of "how to construct weaponry", and "how to test / build" the same is absolutely vital. You absolutely cannot be in a position where no company and employees exist, which knows these things. The cannot be overstated. Imagine a war breaks out, and now you try to build ... missiles. You have no tooling, no factory, no employees which have ever done so, and no supply chains either. Nor even engineered, first step designs! Now, I agree things are not perfect, but something must be in place. Something ongoing. This same logic holds with the military too. You want to lose a war? Have a no standing military, or one which is never deployed. You need trained, experienced troops, which will train other troops if a massive war breaks out and your numbers swell. You need experienced persons to lead, which have not been trained in isolation. Canada tries to solve this, as much as possible by peacekeeping. It's not perfect though, blue hats don't often engage in large scale actions. Point in all this is, trying to pick just, humanitarian causes for troop deployment, and weaponry usage in the field, and to keep supply chains alive, is difficult, yet is literally essential if you want to have a real defense potential. Or should the US, the West, just degrade their military, and hope for the best? (Canada was in Afghanistan for more than a decade.)

voldacar 5y ago

>the purpose of US intervention in the middle east is almost purely for reasons of power and resources if this were the case, then the USA would have actually benefited from these wars. you ascribe far too much competence to our ruling class The actual reason is more like an unholy mishmash of the sunk cost fallacy and the ever-present need to pad the pockets of Boeing and Raytheon

hutzlibu 5y ago
">the purpose of US intervention in the middle east is almost purely for reasons of power and resources" "if this were the case, then the USA would have actually benefited from these wars." I don't see where that conclusions comes from unless you fall for the same mistake you mention - adress too much competence. Also the US ruling class can loose a gamble.
- voldacar 5y ago
  I don't think you can correctly conceptualize the US presence in Afghanistan as a gamble for resources that was lost. It's been 20 years. If there was ever a gamble, it was a while ago
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
    It was "ressources and power". Strategic influence, military bases on the ground (vs. Iran) etc. So if one would characterize complicated geo politics as gamble, I think it is fair to say the gamble was lost, considering the huge ressources spend.
    - jessaustin 5y ago
      The "geopolitics" is just marketing. The point is to spend money that will disappear unaccountably into the Pentagon. Thousands of rich people get even richer. None of them care who is more secure or who dies, here or abroad. All of the fables that USA (war) news media excretes are for the purpose of making those rich people even richer.

geraneum 5y ago

> the purpose of US intervention in the middle east is almost purely for reasons of power and resources True, but the power and resources for a few corporations and individuals for sure! But not American people. Nah, not the common man.

colordrops 5y ago
Correct, the common person in the US suffers immensely due to the resources being poured into the military, leading to wealth, health care, and education outcomes far below many other countries with smaller GDP per Capita.

Nimitz14 5y ago

Ah yes all those resources and power the US got from invading Afghanistan. Lol. You might want to ponder what propaganda you have been falling for.

jdgoesmarching 5y ago
Afghanistan is extremely rich in mineral resources. The fact that we failed to secure them isn’t really proof of anything. We have a long history of trying to install foreign leaders who are friendly to US business interests with mixed results.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  Citation needed. No doubt Afghanistan has resources but I'd like to see supporting evidence that it was the reason for invasion.
colordrops 5y ago
I said middle east, not Afghanistan. As mentioned elsewhere, the main resource extracted from Afghanistan is money from taxpayers.