France gets tough...

[Guest alex]

I do remember reading about something along those lines although I thought it was a natural gas pipeline (might have been oil). Supposedly there are huge reserves in landlocked places like Turkmenistan and the countries round there and in theory the most efficient way of getting them out of there would be a pipeline going right through Afghanistan.

 

The way I read it was that that was why Karzai was chosen as the puppet - he promised to deliver the gas pipeline.

And who just won a corrupt election? Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

The story actually first came to my notice in the aftermath of 9/11 when the forces had just gone into Afghanistan. There was a story at that time that members of the Taliban had been over to the US to discuss the possibility of a pipeline before 9/11 had taken place.

[NJS 3997]

And who just won a corrupt election? Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

The story actually first came to my notice in the aftermath of 9/11 when the forces had just gone into Afghanistan. There was a story at that time that members of the Taliban had been over to the US to discuss the possibility of a pipeline before 9/11 had taken place.

 

That's sometimes the problem with instilling "democracy" in places where it doesn't really fit - people just revert to old tribal or religious allegiances (see Iraq or half of Africa ) or they vote for candidates foisted on them because they have no real choice. I remember Ortega losing elections in Nicaragua because the CIA put up a candidate and basically told the people that if he wasn't elected the US would bully the world into destroying their economy.

 

The Taliban angle is also an indication of how practicality triumphs over principle in foreign policy - odious regimes are left untouched as long as there's business to be done while relatively harmless countries like Cuba are made into pariahs. I think everyone generally accepts that but imo it is made worse when people like Bush or Blair add some kind of moral crusade element to their actions.

 

Basically if Saddam had played ball, nobody would have cared how many Kurds he gassed.

[Park Life 71]

And who just won a corrupt election? Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

The story actually first came to my notice in the aftermath of 9/11 when the forces had just gone into Afghanistan. There was a story at that time that members of the Taliban had been over to the US to discuss the possibility of a pipeline before 9/11 had taken place.

 

That's sometimes the problem with instilling "democracy" in places where it doesn't really fit - people just revert to old tribal or religious allegiances (see Iraq or half of Africa ) or they vote for candidates foisted on them because they have no real choice. I remember Ortega losing elections in Nicaragua because the CIA put up a candidate and basically told the people that if he wasn't elected the US would bully the world into destroying their economy.

 

The Taliban angle is also an indication of how practicality triumphs over principle in foreign policy - odious regimes are left untouched as long as there's business to be done while relatively harmless countries like Cuba are made into pariahs. I think everyone generally accepts that but imo it is made worse when people like Bush or Blair add some kind of moral crusade element to their actions.

 

Basically if Saddam had played ball, nobody would have cared how many Kurds he gassed.

 

More or less sadly.

 

I remember when he started saying Q8 was nicking their oil by drilling at an angle, Madleline Albright didn't really seem that bothered even when he amassed the tanks. iirc meetings took place and he must have had an indication that it was alright to go in and teach the Q8eees a lesson. What did for him was the Saudi's panicking and making up stories that the tanks were coming their way and that their fields would be in danger (could have easily been checked by satellite). In that period Saddam made other mistakes (buying Russian arms and talking about selling oil in Euro's). Iraq always has really been 3 countries (peoples) cobbled together with poor access to the sea (old imperealist trick) and Saddam had to rule with a rod of iron to hold it together as we know see it is almost impossible once the factions start getting ideas. I was quite surprised the U.S. toppled him and took on what is effectively a war that will go on forever and is instrinsically unwinnable economically or militarily. What we are dealing with now is the legacy of the hawks in the Whitehouse at a time when they tried to tear up the rule book that had been in place since Korea and Vietnam. On the upside these two wars plus the carnage of the financial markets should limit American meddling elsewhere.

[Guest alex]

And who just won a corrupt election? Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

The story actually first came to my notice in the aftermath of 9/11 when the forces had just gone into Afghanistan. There was a story at that time that members of the Taliban had been over to the US to discuss the possibility of a pipeline before 9/11 had taken place.

 

That's sometimes the problem with instilling "democracy" in places where it doesn't really fit - people just revert to old tribal or religious allegiances (see Iraq or half of Africa ) or they vote for candidates foisted on them because they have no real choice. I remember Ortega losing elections in Nicaragua because the CIA put up a candidate and basically told the people that if he wasn't elected the US would bully the world into destroying their economy.

 

The Taliban angle is also an indication of how practicality triumphs over principle in foreign policy - odious regimes are left untouched as long as there's business to be done while relatively harmless countries like Cuba are made into pariahs. I think everyone generally accepts that but imo it is made worse when people like Bush or Blair add some kind of moral crusade element to their actions.

 

Basically if Saddam had played ball, nobody would have cared how many Kurds he gassed.

Aye, Saddam only became a 'problem' when he invaded Kuwait. When he was fighting Iran he was one of the good guys.

Regarding democracy, another thing about installing it is that it cannot be done overnight. I caught a bit of Simon Schama's programme about Obama's America last night and he compared the wars in Vietnam (obvious US failure) and Korea (which he considered at least a partial US success based on the wealth, freedom and democracy in South Korea now). What he omitted though (unless I missed that bit) was the length of time it took for South Korea to achieve anything like the democratic process they now have in place. The war there ended in the early 1950s but the country was still a military dictatorship until just before they held the Olympics in Seoul over 30 years later. Obviously every country is different but you'd have to think that the conditions for a stable, democratic process taking place in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan are light years away when you consider all the problems.

[Park Life 71]

And who just won a corrupt election? Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

The story actually first came to my notice in the aftermath of 9/11 when the forces had just gone into Afghanistan. There was a story at that time that members of the Taliban had been over to the US to discuss the possibility of a pipeline before 9/11 had taken place.

 

That's sometimes the problem with instilling "democracy" in places where it doesn't really fit - people just revert to old tribal or religious allegiances (see Iraq or half of Africa ) or they vote for candidates foisted on them because they have no real choice. I remember Ortega losing elections in Nicaragua because the CIA put up a candidate and basically told the people that if he wasn't elected the US would bully the world into destroying their economy.

 

The Taliban angle is also an indication of how practicality triumphs over principle in foreign policy - odious regimes are left untouched as long as there's business to be done while relatively harmless countries like Cuba are made into pariahs. I think everyone generally accepts that but imo it is made worse when people like Bush or Blair add some kind of moral crusade element to their actions.

 

Basically if Saddam had played ball, nobody would have cared how many Kurds he gassed.

Aye, Saddam only became a 'problem' when he invaded Kuwait. When he was fighting Iran he was one of the good guys.

Regarding democracy, another thing about installing it is that it cannot be done overnight. I caught a bit of Simon Schama's programme about Obama's America last night and he compared the wars in Vietnam (obvious US failure) and Korea (which he considered at least a partial US success based on the wealth, freedom and democracy in South Korea now). What he omitted though (unless I missed that bit) was the length of time it took for South Korea to achieve anything like the democratic process they now have in place. The war there ended in the early 1950s but the country was still a military dictatorship until just before they held the Olympics in Seoul over 30 years later. Obviously every country is different but you'd have to think that the conditions for a stable, democratic process taking place in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan are light years away when you consider all the problems.

 

I think Iraq will be divided up.

 

The backstory here of course is that the West is running out of oil that is cheap to access and transport. All this stuff about Siberia, Antartica et all is all pipedreams as that oil is about as fiddly and expensive to drill and transport as mining for gold on the moon. The era of oil is about to end. All across the board they are lying about reserves.....Even the Saudi's have starting to drill at sea...!!

[Guest Stevie]

Leazes, I see you've chosen to ignore the examples given of British soldiers murdering civilians.

Might've known you'd mention something twisted like this. You'll be mentioning food getting shipped to England in the 1840's next.

[ewerk 26782]

Leazes, I see you've chosen to ignore the examples given of British soldiers murdering civilians.

Might've known you'd mention something twisted like this. You'll be mentioning food getting shipped to England in the 1840's next.

 

He said that the British army hadn't murdered innocent civilians, I provided an example of where they did. Their own civilians I hasten to add.

[LeazesMag 0]

Leazes, I see you've chosen to ignore the examples given of British soldiers murdering civilians.

Might've known you'd mention something twisted like this. You'll be mentioning food getting shipped to England in the 1840's next.

 

He said that the British army hadn't murdered innocent civilians, I provided an example of where they did. Their own civilians I hasten to add.

 

 

why are you so anti british

[Sima 0]

Don't see how he is being anti-British by stating facts tbh.

 

But, if it suits your argument....

Edited January 16, 2010 by Sima

[LeazesMag 0]

Don't see how he is being anti-British by stating facts tbh.

 

But, if it suits your argument....

 

how are you today Patel ?

[Happy Face 29]

Leazes, I see you've chosen to ignore the examples given of British soldiers murdering civilians.

Might've known you'd mention something twisted like this. You'll be mentioning food getting shipped to England in the 1840's next.

 

He said that the British army hadn't murdered innocent civilians, I provided an example of where they did. Their own civilians I hasten to add.

 

 

why are you so anti british

 

It's amazing isn't it. Imagine living here and not supporting great British traditions like the murder of civilians, torture and the erosion of rights.

 

...oops hang on, I've got it wrong there. What I meant was we're proud to be British when we DON'T do those things and kick off big style when it happens....rather than sweep it under the carpet and pretend only the baddies do it.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Happy Face

[LeazesMag 0]

Leazes, I see you've chosen to ignore the examples given of British soldiers murdering civilians.

Might've known you'd mention something twisted like this. You'll be mentioning food getting shipped to England in the 1840's next.

 

He said that the British army hadn't murdered innocent civilians, I provided an example of where they did. Their own civilians I hasten to add.

 

 

why are you so anti british

 

It's amazing isn't it. Imagine living here and not supporting great British traditions like the murder of civilians, torture and the erosion of rights.

 

...oops hang on, I've got it wrong there. What I meant was we're proud to be British when we DON'T do those things and kick off big style when it happens....rather than sweep it under the carpet and pretend only the baddies do it.

 

so when are you plotting the next shopping centre bombing Patel ?

[Happy Face 29]

Leazes, I see you've chosen to ignore the examples given of British soldiers murdering civilians.

Might've known you'd mention something twisted like this. You'll be mentioning food getting shipped to England in the 1840's next.

 

He said that the British army hadn't murdered innocent civilians, I provided an example of where they did. Their own civilians I hasten to add.

 

 

why are you so anti british

 

It's amazing isn't it. Imagine living here and not supporting great British traditions like the murder of civilians, torture and the erosion of rights.

 

...oops hang on, I've got it wrong there. What I meant was we're proud to be British when we DON'T do those things and kick off big style when it happens....rather than sweep it under the carpet and pretend only the baddies do it.

 

so when are you plotting the next shopping centre bombing Patel ?

 

“When stupidity is a sufficient explanation, there is no need to have recourse to any other”

[ewerk 26782]

Leazes, I see you've chosen to ignore the examples given of British soldiers murdering civilians.

Might've known you'd mention something twisted like this. You'll be mentioning food getting shipped to England in the 1840's next.

 

He said that the British army hadn't murdered innocent civilians, I provided an example of where they did. Their own civilians I hasten to add.

 

 

why are you so anti british

 

I'm not anti-British, I don't sing God Save the Queen but I'm in favour of the Union and have no problem in saying that for the most part, the UK is a great nation.

 

Now please explain how I was being anti-British?

[LeazesMag 0]

Leazes, I see you've chosen to ignore the examples given of British soldiers murdering civilians.

Might've known you'd mention something twisted like this. You'll be mentioning food getting shipped to England in the 1840's next.

 

He said that the British army hadn't murdered innocent civilians, I provided an example of where they did. Their own civilians I hasten to add.

 

 

why are you so anti british

 

I'm not anti-British, I don't sing God Save the Queen but I'm in favour of the Union and have no problem in saying that for the most part, the UK is a great nation.

 

Now please explain how I was being anti-British?

 

this thread has moved on to discussing terrorism and bombers ie muslim bombers. Why do you keep associating highly trained professional British soldiers and Special Forces with scumbags who don't have the balls to fight in the open and deliberately bomb innocent civilians going about their daily life ?

[LeazesMag 0]

Still bored with your posters on NO Davy boy

[ewerk 26782]

I was simply responding to an incorrect point that you had made. It was forgotten about until your partner in racism brought it up again.

[LeazesMag 0]

I was simply responding to an incorrect point that you had made. It was forgotten about until your partner in racism brought it up again.

 

not racist. Just seen a bit of the world lad and human nature at first hand. Like it or not, this country is changing for the worse due to mass immigration which shows no sign of being curbed and do gooders like you helping to accelerate the changes it is bringing.

[ewerk 26782]

You call me a 'do gooder' yet you have absolutely no idea what my opinions on immigration are.

 

Remember the point I made about grey areas?

[LeazesMag 0]

You call me a 'do gooder' yet you have absolutely no idea what my opinions on immigration are.

 

Remember the point I made about grey areas?

 

I can see that you are attempting to bracket cowardly shitbags without the balls to fight in the open with professional trained soldiers who are there to defend YOUR way of life.

 

No grey area there at all.

[ewerk 26782]

Firstly, I disagree with your assertion that they're there to defend my way of life.

 

And sceondly, what would you do if you were in their situation? Would you face them on the battlefield where you'd get slaughtered? Or would you adopt other tactics to give yourself a chance of success?

Edited January 16, 2010 by ewerk

[LeazesMag 0]

Firstly, I disagree with your assertion that they're there to defend my way of life.

 

And sceondly, what would you do if you were in their situation? Would you face them on the battlefield where you'd get slaughtered? Or would you adopt other tactics to give yourself a chance of success?

 

of course they are there to defend your way of life, the interests of the UK and its shores. What else do you think they are there to do ?

 

I would not go and live in a country and bomb or demonstrate against their way of life, forces, laws and traditions. End of story. Their "tactics" as you put it, are cowardly and beneath contempt.

[Meenzer 14136]

Can I just interject by pointing out how utterly ridiculous the term "do-gooder" is? Kneejerk Daily Mail-speak of the lowest order.

[Happy Face 29]

Firstly, I disagree with your assertion that they're there to defend my way of life.

 

And sceondly, what would you do if you were in their situation? Would you face them on the battlefield where you'd get slaughtered? Or would you adopt other tactics to give yourself a chance of success?

 

of course they are there to defend your way of life, the interests of the UK and its shores. What else do you think they are there to do ?

 

I would not go and live in a country and bomb or demonstrate against their way of life, forces, laws and traditions. End of story. Their "tactics" as you put it, are cowardly and beneath contempt.

 

Who's done that?

 

The London Bombers were born in Leeds and Bradford.

[NJS 3997]

Why do you keep associating highly trained professional British soldiers and Special Forces with scumbags who don't have the balls to fight in the open and deliberately bomb innocent civilians going about their daily life ?

 

Contradiction in terms in bold.