um. Seems to me it was actually the East India Company and the British Army was repeated defeated defending it. They may have been nominally in control of the place but they soon wished they weren't. Did you ever read Kipling? Here's a link on some of the early history behind the name:
http://www.britishbattles.com/first-afghan-war/kabul-1842.htm On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Larry C. Lyons <larrycly...@gmail.com>wrote: > > The graveyard of empires is really a myth. Afghanistan through most of > its history was a part of larger empires - the Persian, Mongol, > British etc. It wasn't until the 1700's that it became effectively > independent. The British actually controlled Afghanistan from the > 1880's through 1930 or so. > > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 1:50 AM, Eric Roberts > <ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: > > > > There is a good reason Afghanistan is called the graveyard of Empires. I > > don't think the Bush administration was operating in any known > reality...so > > this "fantasy" was probably a part of it. The rest is greed and giving > tax > > dollars to his buddies based on no bid contracts for civilians to take > over > > many of the military functions...like cooks, mechanics, laundry, > > construction, etc....also throw in the "protection" role of Blackwater or > > whatever they call themselves these days...Xe I think...or did they > change > > that too? You have a pretty sweet deal for defense contractors. > Military > > industrial complex is swimming in cash...at least until the treasury is > > drained. He certainly didn't try to bolster the treasury with the tax > cuts > > to the rich. The ones to the middle class and lower class were a > pittance > > and in reality didn't do squat. Welcome to the fascist police state my > > friends... > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Judah McAuley [mailto:ju...@wiredotter.com] > > Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 10:17 PM > > To: cf-community > > Subject: Re: Pics from the NATO Protest > > > > > > Afghanistan also has significant deposits of minerals used in high tech > > manufacturing. > > > > However, I really don't think that was the reason we invaded. It's > possible > > that some far right delusional folks thought we might take over > Afghanistan > > and suppress the Taliban and do a good job extracting resources and > helping > > guard against an alliance over oil between Russia and the Middle East. > But, > > given history, I think that most people in their right minds would have > > regarded that as a rather extreme fantasy. We can bomb a country back to > > the dark ages, but when it's already in the dark ages? Really, what are > your > > odds of success? > > > > No, we've got the good old fashioned military industrial complex at > work. I > > know, seems trite, doesn't it? Eisenhower warned us against it, after > all. > > That makes it pretty long in the tooth. Obviously just hippy shit these > days > > that people tell each other as they fit aluminum foil hats. > > > > There is a huge amount of money to be made and a huge amount of power to > be > > had by simply being at war. Doesn't matter so much with who. > > There are advantages one way or another with different enemies. Sure, if > we > > did manage to triumph in Afghanistan, it would have some nice benefits. > Same > > thing for Iraq. Or Iran. But that's all secondary. A nice bonus, if you > > will. Keeping people afraid allows you to pass further draconian laws > that > > blow away privacy. Being at war allows you to funnel massive amounts of > > money to a tiny number of big companies and agencies with secret budgets > and > > no bids. Spending trillions on wars allows you to look at the increasing > > deficits and say, "oh no! We need to cut everywhere other than defense!" > and > > put people further into poverty and even more into subjugation. > > > > The brilliant part of the "war on terror" is that it isn't a war with > > anyone. It's a war with an idea. No one ever gets to easily claim "we've > > won" and be able to show it. There is no white flag from the enemy. > Anyone > > who ever says "we're done" will have a well trained group of media attack > > dogs jumping them and saying "you gave up and are a coward" and "you've > > placed everyone's children at risk". Hell, that's happened to Obama and > he > > doubled down in Afghanistan. > > > > Nope. The legacy of 9/11 is that we have a country where we funnel almost > > unlimited (and totally untracked) amounts of money into an endless war > > against unknown and constantly changing enemies while sacrificing an > untold > > number of civil liberties for no appreciable end game. There are plenty > of > > other games within a game (like the millenarian folks that think that > Israel > > has to have some sort of weird war stuff to happen for the rapture to > come) > > but when you have hugely profitable companies making large amounts of > money > > and government power brokers gaining greater control over the populace, > > they'll be pretty happy with a continued state of rolling unrest. > > > > Authoritarianism suits large industry and large government. And war is > the > > best way to ensure that authoritarianism keeps a strong grip on our > country. > > > > Judah > > > > On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Larry C. Lyons <larrycly...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> exactly the only greed factor I can see is with KBR, but during that > >> time period they didn't have the same presence as they did in Iraq. I > >> think Tim can enlighten us on that - he was there. > >> > >> But the only real money to be made in Afghanistan are with opium and > weed. > >> > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:351412 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
