Killing each Taliban soldier costs $50 Million

Discussion in 'Economics' started by TorontoTrader2, Oct 10, 2010.

  1. piezoe

    piezoe

    That certainly was what made it easy for the admin to get congress and the public to go along. But the odd thing is that "they" were Saudis, not Iraqis. Some close to the Whitehouse have said that Bush went into office looking for any excuse to go into Iraq and kill Hussein. That he was determined to do it from the day he entered the Oval Office, well before 9/11. It is common knowledge that Sadam H. had threatened the Bush family. I don't know if he also threatened Cheney, but I wouldn't be surprised.

    His actions created a horrible mess that caused the deaths of not only Iraqis, but many young U.S. soldiers as well. Unfortunately it turned out that there was not a sufficient justification for invading Iraq. One can say that it was just a mistake. But it was not a mistake that anyone could have made. Bush and Cheney's judgment was apparently clouded by personal conviction, so much so that they only saw the facts they wanted to see. This is a very sad chapter in U.S. History.
     
    #21     Oct 11, 2010
  2. Pekelo

    Pekelo

    You don't need permanent bases for kicking ass. A quick Kick Ass Tour shouldn't have lasted for more than a year.

    Afghanistan is/was about gas/oil pipelines*, but some are being built now with an alternate route, if I recall.

    Lithium is BS. It is in Chile:

    "The largest reserve base of lithium is in the Salar de Uyuni area of Bolivia, which has 5.4 million tons. US Geological Survey, estimates that in 2009 Chile had the largest reserves by far (7.5 million tonnes) and the highest annual production (7,400 tonnes). Other major suppliers include Australia, Argentina and China. Other estimates put Argentina's reserve base (7.52 million tonnes) above that of Chile (6 million)."

    --------------------------------

    *Of mice and gas pipes:

    "What makes sense now, from a U.S. imperialist point of view? Just look at the map. Realize that Afghanistan has no products the U.S. corporate world wants or needs. During the Cold War, Iran, Iraq, Turkey sometimes played crucial roles in U.S. geostrategic thinking but Afghanistan was practically conceded to the Soviet camp even before 1978. It only acquired significance as a Cold War battleground when U.S. strategists realized (in Brzezinski’s words) that they could “bleed the Soviets…the way they did us in Vietnam.” More recently, it has acquired significance as U.S. energy corporations do global battle with the Russians over access to Caspian Sea natural gas.

    At present Europe is dependent on the supply of gas via Russia from the Caspian Sea, principally from Turkmenistan. This gives Moscow enormous political leverage when it comes to such matters as NATO’s decision to admit Georgia or Ukraine. U.S. policy has been to build pipelines from the Caspian avoiding Russia or Iran. Construction of the TAPI (Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India) pipeline which will pump the gas straight to the Indian Ocean and on to world markets has been long delayed due to the fighting in Afghanistan.

    The pipeline will run through Helmand province, then into Pakistan’s Balochistan. If it all works out, this will represent a highly significant improvement in the geostrategic position of the U.S."

    P.S.: For extra credit:

    "In 1998, Dick Cheney, now US vice-president but then chief executive of a major oil services company, remarked: "I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian." But the oil and gas there is worthless until it is moved. The only route which makes both political and economic sense is through Afghanistan. [Guardian]"
     
    #22     Oct 11, 2010
  3. What does it cost the Taliban to kill an American/Allied soldier?

    Who is funding the Taliban?. How are they able to purchase weapons when USA army is active in Afghanistan.
     
    #23     Oct 12, 2010
  4. RPGs. Ak47's and small arms are household items in rural Afghanistan. Negligible cost of a few hundred dollars for an AK and the same again for a soviet era RPG. This stuff is practically lying around out there in caches left behind by the various forces over the last two or three decades. The locals find stuff and sell it to people who want it so they can feed their families. You can equip your geurilla army for a few grand. Not exactly a budget busting venture.
     
    #24     Oct 12, 2010
  5. Does Barack Obama know about this $50 million information? I want to know Obama's response to this information. Why is the main stream media not reporting this information?. Somebody forward this $50 million information to the white house.
     
    #25     Oct 12, 2010
  6. Pretty cool... 10 years of war... $THOUSANDS of US troops killed, $Trillions spent... to kill 200 guerillas per year. Oh yeah... we're really gonna win THAT war.

    Osama Bin Laden getting last laugh... one attack and we destroy ourselves financially. :(
     
    #26     Oct 12, 2010
  7. zdreg

    zdreg

    for 1 million dollars or less the taliban leaders would kill their own soldiers. It sounds like an arbitrage opportunity.
     
    #27     Oct 12, 2010
  8. I do not think nuclear weapons will be effective/work in mountainous areas. Afghanistan is full of mountains. The taliban and al-qaeda are hiding in mountains.

    The blast wave/shock wave and the heat from a nuclear explosion will be stopped by the mountains. The mountains are strong enough to stand a nuclear explosion.
     
    #28     Oct 12, 2010
  9. At $1MM/pop, they could eradicate 50,000 for a mere $50B... sounds like a bargain.
     
    #29     Oct 12, 2010
  10. but you're all forgetting that war stimulates the economy. All these billions are spent with American companies. Oh, and all this War spending is another great way to debase the currency and improve national competitiveness and further stimulate the economy.
     
    #30     Oct 12, 2010