What on earth does AMERICA and ENGLAND expect to acheive in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN?

What on earth does AMERICA and ENGLAND expect to acheive in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

wankerforuse -> What on earth does AMERICA and ENGLAND expect to acheive in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN? (2/7/2008 4:36:02 PM)
As it's all such a waste of money,and not only that but a waste of time and effort aswell.I mean by all means America defend your own country against attack the same goes for ENGLAND.But don't invade others cause that just is'nt right at all.And not only that the masses of money AMERICA has wasted in IRAQ and in AFGHANISTAN has seriously damaged your economy and pushed you on the verge of a recession,it's and also it has also had a knock on effect on us brits aswell.British and American troops should pull out straight away from IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN. As staying in either of these countries for 10 years to 50 years is madness absolute madness,they have'nt acheived very much in either of these countries.As they are still fighting militia are'nt they to this day so come on Mr Brown and Mr Bush instead of wasting so much money in AFGHANISTAN or in IRAQ.That money could be much better spent on the homeless,making the economy stonger in both AMERICA and in ENGLAND.The money could be so much better spent on strengthing these two great nations as opposed to fighting a pointless war.I do feel very sorry for all the servicemen and women who have died,it's such a shame.AMERICA and ENGLAND for that matter have really betrayed their servicemen and women by letting them go off to fight in an illegal war that no one wants except for corrupt politicans.

LadyEllen -> RE: What on earth does expect to acheive in IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN it's all a huge waste of money. (2/7/2008 4:47:01 PM)
You are confusing the two conflicts. Afghanistan - a conflict we had to get involved in as the homebase and safe haven for the nutters who need to train in order to kill us. Also the source of most if not all of the heroin in our country. Essential that we remain and dont let the place become nutjob central again, if possible. Iraq - an entirely wrong thing to have got involved in. But now we're there we cant just leave that easily as we've made the country and the region unstable - which wouldnt matter except Iran is next door and Iraq and the region sits on lots of that black sticky stuff we rely on. E

popeye1250 -> RE: What on earth does expect to acheive in IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN it's all a huge waste of money. (2/7/2008 4:50:51 PM)
LadyE, yeah, Iraq was so "stable" before.lol Bin Laden and al qeada are in Pakistan not in Iraq. What are we supposed to do chase a few thousand "insurgents" around for 5 more years?

DomKen -> RE: What on earth does expect to acheive in IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN it's all a huge waste of money. (2/7/2008 4:51:06 PM)
I am totally opposed to the Iraq conflict. It was unnecessary and a distraction from what we needed to do. Afghanistan is something we need to put more effort into. We need enough troops in country to support the central government and to effectively deal with the warlords and the Taliban .

NorthernGent -> RE: What on earth does expect to acheive in IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN it's all a huge waste of money. (2/7/2008 4:54:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Afghanistan is something we need to put more effort into. We need enough troops in country to support the central government and to effectively deal with the warlords and the Taliban . Political rights is a path of slow, steady progress. It took England nigh on 900 years (800-1650) to work out the principles of limited monarchy; it has to come from the bottom up. You change by force; you need to maintain by force.

LadyEllen -> RE: What on earth does expect to acheive in IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN it's all a huge waste of money. (2/7/2008 4:59:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 LadyE, yeah, Iraq was so "stable" before.lol Yes, it was. It might have been ruled by a psychopath and his henchmen who used murder, abduction and torture to preserve their power, but it was stable. And the region was stable because Iraq had a psychopath in charge who scared the daylights out of everyone around. E

Slavehandsome -> RE: What on earth does expect to acheive in IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN it's all a huge waste of money. (2/7/2008 5:00:14 PM)
Now that our troops have direct access to Afghanistan, the United States now has about 3 times the Heroin that it ever had on the street. How about a round of applause for Bush? Also, if you hold stock in CACI, TITAN, KBR, Halliburton, Blackwater, VeriChipCorp.com, or any of the defense contractors, you'd see that, financially, lives-be-damned, it makes sense to plan on occupying those countries for the next 100 years. New York stores have just started taking the Euro as acceptible cash, since the dollar will lose value by the time the merchant takes his deposit to the bank. When you've had enough of tyranny lying to you, look to the history books on how to act.

slaveboyforyou -> RE: What on earth does AMERICA and ENGLAND expect to acheive in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN? (2/7/2008 5:19:59 PM)
While I agree with you on Iraq, I strongly differ with you on Afghanistan. We had to respond to what happened in 2001. The only way to respond to an attack like that is with force. Of course, that is not to say that NATO forces did not make serious blunders. But that happens in all armed confrontations. I can think of many different places that we don't need troops, but we still have them there. Korea, Germany, Okinawa, etc. are all relics of the Cold War. We should have left a long time ago. We should have disbanded NATO after the fall of the Soviet Union, but we expanded it and, we are increasingly irritating our Russian neighbor who still are armed to the teeth with every weapon of mass destruction imaginable. We have real threats in the world that we are ignoring. China is the big elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about. But we are selling our souls to them, while they use the profits to massively increase their military strength. What does China need a military machine that huge for? I'll tell you what for...the West. It's going to get worse as we increasingly compete with them for resources.

Termyn8or -> RE: What on earth does AMERICA and ENGLAND expect to acheive in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN? (2/7/2008 8:33:39 PM)
Hold on here, first of all the Taliban did not support nor condone heroin production, in fact under their rule it was almost non existent. Now business is good. If this necessary action against Afghanistan was needed becaue of 9/11, why did it happen BEFORE 9/11 ? And if it were necessary by some stretch, why the hell was the operation to quell Afghanistan focused on Iraq ? And if Iraq was led by a madman, just why did we put him there in the first place. This happened during the time Iran had the prisoners in the embassy. Not that day, but the groundwork was layed for the future history of the middle east back then. Saddam was about to screw them up the dupa. By changing over to Euros, he underestimated their power to know what is going on. They have accountants and had a pretty good idea how much US currency he was amassing. After years of sanctions and all that he wanted to basically fuck them right up the ass, and I would too. Let someone come here and tell us there is a no fly zone in our own airspace. Sometimes the issue is not in what we have to gain, it is in what we have to lose. We have lost our image of integrity, which honestly has only been an image anyway. But it was too much to bet. They gambled on a losing proposition with our money. Our rent money actually, but not their's. Enough for now. I'll get steamed up if I do not stop. What did we gain ? the animousity of the Arab world, and half of Europe. Did we even ever get Bin Laden ? Y'know his family was quickly flown out of the US, instead of having to be questioned, possibly asked for DNA samples etc., like they would do with anybody else. This does not point to complicity, it points to conspiracy. And the evidence mounts continually, unless you cop denial, saying that we really can trust our "leaders" and that they have been maligned. By the BBC for telling the truth, by Al Jazerra for broadcasting pictures of Iraq while we were dessimating them. And we supposedly deride Hugo Chavez Frias for denying a broadcast license to a TV station in Venezuela. That station did not operate in the public interest, they suported the insurgency caused by the CIA there. When a foreign power is trying to take over the country, supporting the invaders is not operating in the best interest of the public. While broadcast TV is still on the air in the US, read the statement they have to run every day. They tend to do it at like five in the morning. It states that Citizens are welcome to offer feedback as to whether the station has been operting in the public interest. An address is given, and it is to the FCC, who can revoke their license. And all complaints, by law are kept on file and then reviewed at renewal time. At least that is how it used to be. Chavez Frias did not revoke the license of that station, he just ordered that it's renewal will be refused. And he certainly did not bomb it. If China decided to invade the US and install their puppet government, what do you think the FCC would do if TV stations or networks came out in favor of the invading forces ? OK, that is it for now. If you get diverse news sources and can think objectively, from the points of view of other peoples', you might not be so proud of the US. For years people here have been fooling themselves with the notion that the end justifies the means. Now it is such that these ends are not in sight, they speak of subjugating peoples for decades, and I would like to know just what ends would there ever be, as well as just how they justify the carnage carried out in their pursuit. There is obviously alot more to it than meets the eye to say the least. T

CuriousLord -> RE: What on earth does AMERICA and ENGLAND expect to acheive in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN? (2/7/2008 8:44:45 PM)
It continually strikes me as interesting that an alleged minority of corrupt idiots continually seems to hold power over the supposedly vast majority of intelligent and noble people. So interesting, in fact, I wonder if there's not a hint of fiction livening it up?

Muttling -> RE: What on earth does AMERICA and ENGLAND expect to acheive in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN? (2/7/2008 9:09:46 PM)
I'm with E. Invading Afghanistan was a total no brainer. It was Al Qada's base of operations and safe haven before we invaded. We could not allow them to continue to have such comforts and we had to take the war to them. We have severely damaged their operational capabilities and they are no where near the danger they were pre-invasion. Iraq is a completely different story and was a mistake. However, if we simply pull out the Iranians will certainly sieze upon the opportunity to establish a puppet regime. In short, we broke it so we need to find a way to fix it. The REALLY sad part is that Iraq has distracted us from Afghanistan and we have litterally put 10x's the money and troops into the Iraqi effort. With just 2x's the money and troops in Afghanistan, we could be dramatically more successful but that hasn't happened.

Termyn8or -> RE: What on earth does AMERICA and ENGLAND expect to acheive in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN? (2/7/2008 11:40:53 PM)
Mutt, why do you suppose that is ? Cl, those idiots are not idiots, they are running game on us. They are smarter than you think, and while they can fool most people into thinking they are stupid, when they reach the highest levels of the US government, they are pretty much proven not stupid. GWB is not stupid, yes he is incapable of running a business, but look at how many chances he had. And then he gets to be President ? He ran five or six businesses straight into the ground, despite very ample funding. His Father was the head of the CIA, but he wasn't. Know why ? If they put GWB in as head of the CIA, there would likely be no CIA. Hey, maybe that's a good idea. Those people are not stupid, but they have the greed of Avarice. T

RCdc -> RE: What on earth does AMERICA and ENGLAND expect to acheive in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN? (2/8/2008 12:29:03 AM)
This is Darcy (with a short, cyncial answer) The US, by invading Iraq, got to kickstart their New World Order that was set up by 9/11, enabling GWB to give his "you're with us, or you're with the enemy" spiel. The result (in theory, anyway, it didn't quite go to plan)? The US gets control of the oil supply in Iraq, the top guys in Washington (I'm looking at you in particular Rumsfeld) get even richer by awarding themselves the rebuilding contracts (of which the UK got precisely, none), and GWB supposedly becomes the saviour of the Western world. The UK, on the other, get royally f*cked in the ass because Blair was either too much of a lapdog to resist GWB's kind offer of 'standing shoulder to shoulder' with his new best mate, or was clever in looking ahead to feathering his retirement nest through endless lectures and books on his part in 'saving the world'. The issue was so important to Blair that he spent exactly zero hours giving our Parliament a chance to vote on whether we wanted to go to war (yeah, I though we were a democracy, too, but when you don't even give your Members of Parliament the chance to have their say......), and instead spent ten times the time they debated Iraq in Parliament on the much more important issue of whether we should allow people on horseback to chase rats with furry tails through the countryside, a law that now passed is woefully inept and ineffective.

NorthernGent -> RE: What on earth does AMERICA and ENGLAND expect to acheive in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN? (2/8/2008 2:22:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord It continually strikes me as interesting that an alleged minority of corrupt idiots continually seems to hold power over the supposedly vast majority of intelligent and noble people. So interesting, in fact, I wonder if there's not a hint of fiction livening it up? Only a hint? People get the government they deserve; in the event people wish to be mere consumers, don't be surprised when the lunatics take over the asylum.

NorthernGent -> RE: What on earth does AMERICA and ENGLAND expect to acheive in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN? (2/8/2008 2:30:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark The UK, on the other, get royally f*cked in the ass because Blair was either too much of a lapdog to resist GWB's kind offer of 'standing shoulder to shoulder' with his new best mate, or was clever in looking ahead to feathering his retirement nest through endless lectures and books on his part in 'saving the world'. The issue was so important to Blair that he spent exactly zero hours giving our Parliament a chance to vote on whether we wanted to go to war (yeah, I though we were a democracy, too, but when you don't even give your Members of Parliament the chance to have their say......), and instead spent ten times the time they debated Iraq in Parliament on the much more important issue of whether we should allow people on horseback to chase rats with furry tails through the countryside, a law that now passed is woefully inept and ineffective. As Protector of the Crown, he was under no obligation whatsoever to consult Parliament; he could have taken the country to war off his own back, which means Blair was playing to the rules of a flawed system.

Muttling -> RE: What on earth does AMERICA and ENGLAND expect to acheive in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN? (2/8/2008 3:46:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Mutt, why do you suppose that is ? My opinion is supreme arrogance and an absolute certainty that we know all (dissenters be damned) attitude on the part of our current administration. Iraq and Afghanistan are the only places where they really fucked up by demonstrating this attitude. The item of greatest note would be North Korea's testing of a nuclear weapon. They were pretty much driven to such massive sabre rattling by the administration's strong arm attempts at diplomacy. Fortunately, the Bush administration finally decided to take notes from the successes of the past 3 administrations and act more intelligently in their handling of North Korea. The list goes on and on and on. Sadly, I do not regret voting for Bush over Kerry. Bush is a bad president, but Kerry's ideas were absolutely terrifying to me and he was going to be an even bigger spending freak. (BTW.....I did vote for Gore and I think he would have done a better job.) As for the current situation, I like McCain and Clinton. I hope Clinton wins the nomination as I would really like to hear them in the nitty gritty details of debate. If Obama is nominated, my decision is already made. (For those who are not keeping up, McCain has basically locked in the nomination. It is mathematically possible for him to loose it, but not realisticly possible.)

farglebargle -> RE: What on earth does AMERICA and ENGLAND expect to acheive in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN? (2/8/2008 4:07:17 AM)
quote: Iraq and Afghanistan are the only places where they really fucked up by demonstrating this attitude. You forgot the economy, domestic security policy, domestic civil defense and disaster response and recovery, the gutting of the DOJ and EPA.. ( When you piss of the ex-Governor of NEW FUCKING JERSEY over Environmental policy, your policy is pretty fucked up... .... ) We were discussing how the stock market, despite it's numbers has tanked, b/c those numbers are based on devalued dollars, and not an objective measure which has retained it's value, like CND or EUR...

RCdc -> RE: What on earth does AMERICA and ENGLAND expect to acheive in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN? (2/8/2008 4:28:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark The UK, on the other, get royally fcked in the ass because Blair was either too much of a lapdog to resist GWB's kind offer of 'standing shoulder to shoulder' with his new best mate, or was clever in looking ahead to feathering his retirement nest through endless lectures and books on his part in 'saving the world'. The issue was so important to Blair that he spent exactly zero hours giving our Parliament a chance to vote on whether we wanted to go to war (yeah, I though we were a democracy, too, but when you don't even give your Members of Parliament the chance to have their say......), and instead spent ten times the time they debated Iraq in Parliament on the much more important issue of whether we should allow people on horseback to chase rats with furry tails through the countryside, a law that now passed is woefully inept and ineffective. As Protector of the Crown, he was under no obligation whatsoever to consult Parliament; he could have taken the country to war off his own back, which means Blair was playing to the rules of a flawed system. This is Darcy* I take your point, NG, which makes Blair look even more like the deluded messiah-complex moron that I'll always think of him as being. Had we been invaded by warring factions, then yes, I would have bought it, but the fact that he effectively took us to war off his own back based on 'eveidence' that he either knew to be a lie, or certainly should have raised doubts about, then it just makes him look like a self-important fool. However, the way Brown is going, he's going to force me to reassess my opinion of Blair as being the worst thing to happen to England since the Black Death. [:D]

Politesub53 -> RE: What on earth does AMERICA and ENGLAND expect to acheive in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN? (2/8/2008 5:04:57 AM)
A British PM can only declare war in defence of the realm. There certainly wasnt a case for that in Iraq. Blair got round it by using the UN article 51. This is what the UK used in Korea, the Falklands, Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan. Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875