I'm not disputing that they were *there* -- just taking issue with the idea that they were in any way *controlling* the place. Your previous post seemed to imply that they retaliated and that was that.
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Larry C. Lyons <larrycly...@gmail.com>wrote: > > the Indian rebellion had little to do with Afghanistan. That said, two > can play the wikipedia game. I think that some of the historical > sources are online - such as order of battle on the British side etc. > But there are 3 wiki refs that basically concur with what I am saying. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Anglo-Afghan_War#Reprisals > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Anglo-Afghan_War > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Anglo-Afghan_War > > I am also basing some of my opinion on this book: > http://www.amazon.com/The-Great-Game-Struggle-Kodansha/dp/1568360223 > The Great Game: The Struggle for Empire in Central Asia (Kodansha > Globe) by Peter Hopkirk > > > So please I think I know what I am talking about. > > > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Dana <dana.tier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Rebellion_of_1857 > > > > http://www.garenewing.co.uk/angloafghanwar/ > > > > It's nowhere near that simple, Larry. > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_(novel) > > > > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Larry C. Lyons <larrycly...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > >> > >> That was the Elphinstone expedition. While a lot is made out of that > >> defeat, very frew note that the British came back a year later and > >> torched all of Kabul and half of the country in revenge. They also got > >> the right to dictate all of Afghanistan's foreign relations. That > >> lasted until just before WW1. The Afghani's were really stupid > >> afterwards, they decided to invade the Raj in 1918. The British > >> inflicted a series of decisive defeats from the Khyber pass through > >> Kandahar. At the time fanaticism just could not compete with chemical > >> warfare and heavy machine guns. > >> > >> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Dana <dana.tier...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > 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:351428 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
