Guest MattP Posted 26 September 2011 Share Posted 26 September 2011 And yet we haven't invaded North Korea to liberate their citizens from Kim Jong Ill's reign of terror, we took many a decade to bother looking at Lybia, we didn't do anything about Mubarak and co in some of the northern African states, We've still done **** all about Cuba - why not if we invade to help civilians? I'm not sticking up for the Taliban, nor do I value their lives more than US/UK troops - I just don't see that these are our "enemy" by choice, they fight us because we ****ing started it, they're just defending themselves. Also every single life is are equally as valuable. To be fair I was ok with the original invasion of Afghanistan after the Taliban refused to hand over OBL, that said now that objective has been killed I see no reason to still be there, I was against the Iraq war and I think it's quite clear now that Blair and his "security cabinet" clearly lied to parliament about it and he should be facing trail over it. Don't agree with the comments that just because we can't go into everywhere we shouldnt go into some places though, we halted a massacre in Libya (I just hope we hand it over to pro-democracy groups), I would have had no qualms about going into Zimbabwe 6-7 years ago either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FoxyPV Posted 27 September 2011 Share Posted 27 September 2011 I don't see how you can compare us invading Afghan to Britain being invaded. But if we were under a dictatorship or had the equivalent of the taliban running amock in this country, then is be crying out for an invading force similar to Britain to come and help us. You do know that Briatin and the US armed the Taliban so that they could fight the USSR? So to say that the West is liberating Afghanistan is like me saying I helped my mate to hospital after I beat him up with an iron bar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finnegan Posted 27 September 2011 Share Posted 27 September 2011 Oh Charlie Wilson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted 27 September 2011 Share Posted 27 September 2011 To be fair I was ok with the original invasion of Afghanistan after the Taliban refused to hand over OBL, that said now that objective has been killed I see no reason to still be there, I was against the Iraq war and I think it's quite clear now that Blair and his "security cabinet" clearly lied to parliament about it and he should be facing trail over it. Don't agree with the comments that just because we can't go into everywhere we shouldnt go into some places though, we halted a massacre in Libya (I just hope we hand it over to pro-democracy groups), I would have had no qualms about going into Zimbabwe 6-7 years ago either. Ey? I never made those comments, what I said was if we are invading to liberate citizens then why have we only bothered with a couple of countries - Gaddafi was in charge and doing mad shit for 40 years, why did it take us so long to get round to doing anything? Kim Jong Il has been ****ed in the head and acting like a psycho nut-case for 13 years now, we've still done nothing. Mubarak was in charge for 30 years running a dictatorship - we did **** all and left it to the Egyptians to overthrow him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sphericalfox Posted 27 September 2011 Share Posted 27 September 2011 Ey? I never made those comments, what I said was if we are invading to liberate citizens then why have we only bothered with a couple of countries - Gaddafi was in charge and doing mad shit for 40 years, why did it take us so long to get round to doing anything? Kim Jong Il has been ****ed in the head and acting like a psycho nut-case for 13 years now, we've still done nothing. Mubarak was in charge for 30 years running a dictatorship - we did **** all and left it to the Egyptians to overthrow him. The simple reason was that we were selling arms, intelligence and military hardware to both on a colossal level. You don't overthrow your best customers. I find it seriously uncomfortable that Cameron has the balls to show his face in these countries as some sort of liberator, when his and previous governments held wealthy contracts with these dictators, effectively keeping these people socially castrated. It's an embarrassment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Bleu Posted 27 September 2011 Share Posted 27 September 2011 In war fighting combat and under direct fire, most soldiers are really very pleased and relieved when they see Air come in and take out the enemy who are trying their best to kill them, some laugh, some cheer, some just heave a huge sigh of relief. Most of it is a nervous, adrenaline fuelled response, a reflex reaction if you like. . I have seen few soldiers actually rejoice in the death of the enemy, just happy to have removed or neutralised the threat and pleased to have achived an objective. You never become immune to the death and destruction, but you learn to live with it. TV can never tell you what its really like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
21st Century Fox Posted 27 September 2011 Share Posted 27 September 2011 None of those countries have anything we want. 2 out of the 3 countries we've 'liberated' are members of OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries). If anyone genuinely believes we're involved in these conflicts for the good of their people, you're deluded. We want stability and political sway in key areas of the Middle East because it serves us (and the U.S.). There've been uprisings and rebellions in alot of other countries that we already have relationships with but that news is generally buried and we've sent delegations of private arms contractors out to these countries to quash any uprisings. http://en.qantara.de/The-West-Is-Terrified-of-Arabic-Democracies/16409c16621i1p114/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran–Iraq_war Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted 27 September 2011 Share Posted 27 September 2011 None of those countries have anything we want. 2 out of the 3 countries we've 'liberated' are members of OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries). If anyone genuinely believes we're involved in these conflicts for the good of their people, you're deluded. We want stability and political sway in key areas of the Middle East because it serves us (and the U.S.). There've been uprisings and rebellions in alot of other countries that we already have relationships with but that news is generally buried and we've sent delegations of private arms contractors out to these countries to quash any uprisings. http://en.qantara.de...09c16621i1p114/ http://en.wikipedia....–Iraq_war I did expect it would be about oil - but don't Lybia have vast reserves of the stuff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr The Singh Posted 27 September 2011 Share Posted 27 September 2011 None of those countries have anything we want. 2 out of the 3 countries we've 'liberated' are members of OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries). If anyone genuinely believes we're involved in these conflicts for the good of their people, you're deluded. We want stability and political sway in key areas of the Middle East because it serves us (and the U.S.). There've been uprisings and rebellions in alot of other countries that we already have relationships with but that news is generally buried and we've sent delegations of private arms contractors out to these countries to quash any uprisings. http://en.qantara.de...09c16621i1p114/ http://en.wikipedia....–Iraq_war Afghan war in many eye's is about the 20 billion oil pipeline from Irq\Iran, throught Afghan to the rest of asia!!! WHoever controls the pipeline, controls the oil!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
21st Century Fox Posted 27 September 2011 Share Posted 27 September 2011 I did expect it would be about oil - but don't Lybia have vast reserves of the stuff? Libya seems to be more ad hoc than the others, we were able to capitalise on a situation thats was rolling that way anyway. British companies (oil & arms) have far to much money tied up in Libya to let just anyone else come into power after Gaddafi. Afghan war in many eye's is about the 20 billion oil pipeline from Irq\Iran, throught Afghan to the rest of asia!!! WHoever controls the pipeline, controls the oil!!! Yeah and we've got so much complicit history with these nations its unreal how it gets glossed over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reynard Bleu Posted 27 September 2011 Share Posted 27 September 2011 Just as important to the West is that Afghanistan borders Pakistan who it does not trust and who it does not like having nukes. You may all be right about oil wars, but if we don't someone else will and we all like our petrol don't we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houdini Logic Posted 27 September 2011 Share Posted 27 September 2011 i remember reading somewhere that Libya had potentially into the trillions of oil and assets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
21st Century Fox Posted 27 September 2011 Share Posted 27 September 2011 Obviously it isn't just about oil because theres the political and armaments aspect too but if any one thinks that we've spent £12bn (that was as of 2009) solely on the Afgan war just because they care about their people under a brutal regime, when our government couldn't care less about the majority of our own population, they're living in a dream world. Thats £12bn just on the Afgan war. That £12bn could have been spent on advancing renewable energy sources so we wouldn't need the middle eastern oil but then us driving electric cars etc doesn't shift guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilo Posted 27 September 2011 Share Posted 27 September 2011 Could people stop spelling Libya as Lybia please? I keep thinking you're talking about ladybits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 27 September 2011 Share Posted 27 September 2011 I did expect it would be about oil - but don't Lybia have vast reserves of the stuff? Not really, it has about 2per cent of the world's Oil stock. However it has the easiest route of any country to bring Oil into europe. I remember reading in Times a while back the filter tunnels etc are the best between Libya and Europe than anywhere else into this continent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 27 September 2011 Share Posted 27 September 2011 Ey? I never made those comments, what I said was if we are invading to liberate citizens then why have we only bothered with a couple of countries - Gaddafi was in charge and doing mad shit for 40 years, why did it take us so long to get round to doing anything? Kim Jong Il has been ****ed in the head and acting like a psycho nut-case for 13 years now, we've still done nothing. Mubarak was in charge for 30 years running a dictatorship - we did **** all and left it to the Egyptians to overthrow him. Kim Jong II is probably a better option than what Kim Il Sung was. Sorry I took the original comment it the wrong way it appears, I presumed you were saying we shouldnt go in there as we don't go into North Korea etc etc Obviously though we couldnt do it with North Korea and you would quite possibly start another great war, even more so considering China now has the USA by the balls. For what it's worth I have no idea why we didnt try to enter Libya earlier, maybe we didnt believe we could do it before this summer. Maybe the "Arab Spring" was the opportunity we finally had to be able to do it whilst using Gaddafi's own people against him, I can't think of an obvious chance before where that has been the case? Blair's Labour were more interested in kissing Gaddafi's arse than trying to remove him from power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 27 September 2011 Share Posted 27 September 2011 Obviously it isn't just about oil because theres the political and armaments aspect too but if any one thinks that we've spent £12bn (that was as of 2009) solely on the Afgan war just because they care about their people under a brutal regime, when our government couldn't care less about the majority of our own population, they're living in a dream world. Thats £12bn just on the Afgan war. That £12bn could have been spent on advancing renewable energy sources so we wouldn't need the middle eastern oil but then us driving electric cars etc doesn't shift guns. Got a link for that 12billion?, I'd find that interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
21st Century Fox Posted 27 September 2011 Share Posted 27 September 2011 Got a link for that 12billion?, I'd find that interesting. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/revealed-16312bn-hidden-costs-of-afghan-war-1761469.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Rod Hull Posted 27 September 2011 Share Posted 27 September 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW1BsDhpb4o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 27 September 2011 Share Posted 27 September 2011 Didn't we already have a huge chunk of the Libyan oil industry before all this conflict? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
21st Century Fox Posted 27 September 2011 Share Posted 27 September 2011 Didn't we already have a huge chunk of the Libyan oil industry before all this conflict? Yeah I think we had a £550 million deal but that could always get torn up or "re-negotiated" should the "wrong' regime come to power after Gaddafi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 27 September 2011 Share Posted 27 September 2011 Yeah I think we had a £550 million deal but that could always get torn up or "re-negotiated" should the "wrong' regime come to power after Gaddafi. So rather than this being all about oil, we were actually risking our oil industry then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
21st Century Fox Posted 27 September 2011 Share Posted 27 September 2011 So rather than this being all about oil, we were actually risking our oil industry then? Yeah but then I didn't say it was solely oil, the British arms industries have hundreds of billions tied up in Libya, we basically gave Gaddafi the means to suppress his people for so many years. If a nation defaults on payment for arms the British tax payer ends up footing the bill. But we only have the original oil deals because we're complicit in Gaddafi's regime, so oil or blood us and France are fairly invested in Libya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 27 September 2011 Share Posted 27 September 2011 Make love, not war, as the old sixties slogan goes. :thumbsup: Leave the foreign warmongers to wipe themselves out. Lovely thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sphericalfox Posted 27 September 2011 Share Posted 27 September 2011 How has this thread turned into a rational discussion about Britain's interests abroad? Have we finished chastising lcfcstu for being a cvnt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.