athom Posted August 21, 2009 Author Share Posted August 21, 2009 As medicine isn't my background I'm sure we could use something. you take the biscuit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
athom Posted August 21, 2009 Author Share Posted August 21, 2009 OK you've done that now what? We back our own, or at least I do. No we haven't done that. You perfectly demonstrate the reason why despite being generally proud of my country past and present i refuse to be blindly nationalistic. No one is perfect, we all make mistakes but the only way to learn from that is to honestly view them as mistakes. I think you are incapable of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
better-than-expected Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 As i understand it, the U.S wanted to transport gas and oil from from central asia to all asian areas and other viable markets. This was the shortest, easiest and most profitable route for the big U.S oil companies. May i suggest you read this :http://www.expressindia.com/news/fe/daily/19970602/15355423.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1929crash Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 You can't or won't back our troops because of what exactly? 1. Because it's unwinnable. 2. Our troops are dying for a lie. 3. We were told it was to go after Bin Laden - well he's not there anymore, he was allowed to get away. We are there to protect a pipeline route from central Asia to Karachi. 4. The Kabul government we support are the main backers of illegal drug supplies via Pakistan, and to some extent via Turkey. 5. The elections yesterday were not free. The Taliban were not allowed to stand. 6. There is an unacceptable level of civilian casualties. We are killing those we are there to suposedly help. 7. The war has deteriorated into an ethnic conflict, with us excluding the majority Pashtuns to the benefit of the Tajiks, Uzbeks etc. 8. We can't afford it in financial terms. 9. Obama is now escalating the conflict to destroy Pakistan. 10. Widespread torture and human rights abuses by NATO troops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
athom Posted August 21, 2009 Author Share Posted August 21, 2009 So you don't think getting rid of the opium plants which cause so much suffering isn't a good idea then? Or at least genetically engineering some other solution. So if it is miss-used we should eliminate it? How do you feel about everything else which can be miss-used? Should we ban everything else too?? I would hardly know where to start. My previous comment though was more to with this sentance "As medicine isn't my background I'm sure we could use something." Priceless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
athom Posted August 21, 2009 Author Share Posted August 21, 2009 I back our troops whether the fight is a worthy cause currently isn't my concern, I wish them well and hope, one day soon their objective is reached which as far as I can see is an attempt to bring about some sort of stable societal structure. Really you are cracking me up! ROFL!! Brilliant stuff mate, really you make half the comedy of this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1929crash Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 As medicine isn't my background I'm sure we could use something. Certainly worth looking into though if it were possible to destroy the Opium fields by genetically engineering them in someway or at least taking out their potency.Although I see you offer no solutions for debate or otherwise. I was merely pointing out that destroying opium is not a solution, especially when there is a world wide shortage of medical morphine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blankster Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 To me it is very clear why we went into Afghanistan. Al Qaeda were facilitating international large-scale acts of terror aimed at bringing down western civilisation and establishing a global strict islamic caliphate. Al Qaeda consisted mainly of non-Afghans. Afghanistan was ruled by the Taliban who were hand-in-glove with Al Qaeda. After 9/11, clearly something had to be done about Al Qaeda and this could only be done by taking on the Taliban as well. The 'coalition' invasion of Afghanistan (unlike Iraq) was done with full UN authority. The war might be continuing, but it must be remembered that the Taliban ruled Afghanistan before the invasion and Al Qaeda operated with impumity there, with terrorist training camps. Their positions are greatly weakened now although they seem to be gaining strength again, worryingly. Clearly the war is still going on. In a war you expect casualties and around 200 British casualties over 6 years is actually a very low rate. Obviously the death of each soldier is a tragedy, a life cut short and an irreplaceable loss to their loved ones, but people join the military knowing this might be the outcome, just like trawlemen know that they might die at sea. The big issue as far as I'm concerned is whether our soldiers are being given inadequate protection, riding round in lightly armoured Land Rovers while there are compounds full of new proper armoured vehicles stockpiled by the MOD, as I saw on TV the other day. There is no option but to stay in Afghanistan and fight. A retreat would see a resurgence of the Taliban, who would regain control of Afghanistan and then increase their influence in Pakistan until they seize power there too, which would probably mean war with India. One slightly disturbing observation is that when young soldiers serving in Afghanistan were interviewed on TV, some were saying they were just doing their job 'for the Queen' or 'doing my bit for Aunt Betty'. Errr..... I thought it was a slightly wider remit than that!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
athom Posted August 21, 2009 Author Share Posted August 21, 2009 To me it is very clear why we went into Afghanistan. Hurrah! At last Al Qaeda were facilitating international large-scale acts of terror aimed at bringing down western civilisation and establishing a global strict islamic caliphate. Actually Al Qaeda is a name we gave to a pretty small group of mainly Arab fighters who were with the mujahideen. They were in Afghanistan initially to fight the Russians with their fellow Muslims and with the help of the USA. After defeating the Russians some of them stayed together to form an army, kind of a mercenary army to go and defend other Muslim countries who were under attack. So they went to Bosnia and Kosovo for example and Somalia. Attacks on western interests were never said to be because they "hate our freedom" or want to take over the world but as a response to us attacking or in other ways harming muslim countries. They claimed to fight only in self defence and i've seen nothing actually put out BY THEM that suggests to me they thought they could or intended to take over the world Al Qaeda consisted mainly of non-Afghans. It would as it is the name given to the Arab group of fighters who had no job left in Afghanistan and were looking outside there. Afghanistan was ruled by the Taliban who were hand-in-glove with Al Qaeda. Actually that's not true from most accounts. The arab fighters were becoming a political hot potato and the Taliban did not want them there. But as they'd just helped them free their country from the Russians it would not be very easy to ask them to leave. After 9/11, clearly something had to be done about Al Qaeda and this could only be done by taking on the Taliban as well. Actually you would think that the USS Cole and Nairobi would have been enough but instead by reliable accounts Bin Laden was so pally with the USA that he could get free medical treatment from them in Dubai until just before 9/11. Makes you think doesn't it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1929crash Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Actually you would think that the USS Cole and Nairobi would have been enough but instead by reliable accounts Bin Laden was so pally with the USA that he could get free medical treatment from them in Dubai until just before 9/11. Makes you think doesn't it. It makes me think, but some people are just too far gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest X-QUORK Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Actually you would think that the USS Cole and Nairobi would have been enough but instead by reliable accounts Bin Laden was so pally with the USA that he could get free medical treatment from them in Dubai until just before 9/11. Makes you think doesn't it. If true that would be very surprising. What's the source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1929crash Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 If true that would be very surprising. What's the source? Many sources, but here's one: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov/0...istan.terrorism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest X-QUORK Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Many sources, but here's one:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov/0...istan.terrorism An interesting anecdote, but hardly conclusive evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1929crash Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 An interesting anecdote, but hardly conclusive evidence. In the world of intelligence there is often no such thing as conclusive evidence: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHERWICK Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Until last year the question was 'why are we in Iraq and not in afghanistan?'. Now the question is 'why are in in afghanistan?' Very bizarre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1929crash Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Until last year the question was 'why are we in Iraq and not in afghanistan?'.Now the question is 'why are in in afghanistan?' Very bizarre. And next year it will be "Why are we in Pakistan?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHERWICK Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 And next year it will be "Why are we in Pakistan?" Or "why are we NOT in pakistan?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
athom Posted August 21, 2009 Author Share Posted August 21, 2009 An interesting anecdote, but hardly conclusive evidence. What a predictable response. So typical of someone who doesn't want to see the truth. You had 11 minutes assuming you saw the post immediately. How many minutes to read the Guardian article and then how many to scour the internet for other info on this story which you found "very surprising"?. Why was it surprising? Because it totally blows apart the idea that Bin Laden was the USA's arch enemy. Perhaps it would go a long way to proving he was still working with them just as he was before. Why was his health important to them? Well you wouldn't want your prime patsy dying before time would you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazybones Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 Opium, I heard that there is currently a shortage in the NHS and that farmers in the UK are being offered lots of $$$ to grow poppies to remidy supply problem. Sounds like Afghanistan could be plan B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest X-QUORK Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 What a predictable response. Why are you always so tetchy? I read the bloody article and drew an initial conclusion. By all means put me right if there's more concrete evidence, but I don't have all day to scour the internet I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1929crash Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 That is a fair point, however as genetic modification becomes more common it isn't outside the releams of possibility that something like this could be considered. Perhaps we could genetically modify: 1. The Afghans - to make them more modern and civilised 2. The Americans - to make them more peace loving 3. Gordon Brown - to make him more prudent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
athom Posted August 21, 2009 Author Share Posted August 21, 2009 Sooooooooooo the Guardian is the truth now is it? At least XQurok was acknowledging what was said. you and the bloody guardian. My point was that he had not had time to properly consider such an important point before dismissing it as mere anecdote. I don't know what he would have wanted as evidence, perhaps a signed photo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
athom Posted August 21, 2009 Author Share Posted August 21, 2009 Why are you always so tetchy? I read the bloody article and drew an initial conclusion. By all means put me right if there's more concrete evidence, but I don't have all day to scour the internet I'm afraid. So you only have time to come on here and dismiss it, no time to actually check it out? Seems a shame for what you must admit would be a very significant event considering the stories we've been told. Might be worth prioritising some time for it considering how much hangs on the 9/11 story. Apologies if i'm sounding tetchy, i stopped smoking a couple of months ago and have since developed pseudo Tourette's syndrome. How did your drinking cessation go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1929crash Posted August 21, 2009 Share Posted August 21, 2009 To address:1. That remains to be seen, but history is currently on you side with that. 2. The jury's out. 3. Well possibly, but that may have financial benefits to all countries in the future surely? 4. I get your point, this government is probably the best of a bad lot though. 5. Well yes but would you want them represented considering what their aims are i.3. Sharia law in its most brutal and repressive forms. But I acknowledge that if that is really what the populous want then democratically.... 6. Not sure about that. It is true the Americans have made mistakes (as they always do), but I'd like to see the body count if one were available. 7. That was always the case, but it may not end up like in the future. 8. True. 9. Not sure about that, perhaps he sees Pakistan as part of the wider problem. 10. Really ? Links please to those. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4541056.stm http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§io...;m=3&y=2006 http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washingt..._doubts_on_cia/ http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/wo...ea-79e6eff2a7b5 http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-08/...ent_3327645.htm http://static.rnw.nl/migratie/www.radionet...n-mc-redirected http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2008/09/08/troops-contact http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle6237189.ece http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editoria...are_acceptable/ http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/world/as...;pagewanted=all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
athom Posted August 21, 2009 Author Share Posted August 21, 2009 Although it's not just the civilians who have suffered at the US's hands, Canadian and British troops in Afghanistan have also been bombed (mt mistake). Well that's all right then. No need to give it any more thought. We bombed them, we bombed us, it's all square now, I don't expect there will be any hard feelings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.