Afghanistan.

[anonymous-user]

[redacted]

[Marf]

To bring democracy to a tribal people who dont really want it ensure those with a capital interest in their natural resources can extract them safely, with an elected installed government who is sympathetic to that goal.

Edited by Marf on Friday 6th November 10:18

[V8mate]

I thought we went because the septics told us to (and TB always did what GwB told him to)

[Bosshogg76]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Did you see this mornings BBC Breakfast program about 6:45. They had a widow of a soldier killed in Helmand, towards the end of the interview she was asked, "So do you know why your husband died over there?" and her answer was "no"

If the average person on the street doesn't have a clue what the reasons are for us being there, then we are pretty sunk to be honest. It must be bloody hard for her to explain to her children why their father was killed when they are old enough to understand.

Edited by Bosshogg76 on Friday 6th November 10:24

[Marf]

Its not the oil, its the gas, and also the ability to run a pipeline across the country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pip...

Edited by Marf on Friday 6th November 10:25

[Tiggsy]

We are there for the reasons the Gov of the day give. You may not agree with them but those are the reasons that matter...its the basis on which every one of those soldiers fights and the basis on which every solider signing up signs up for.

As long as the Gov wants it and the army is happy to do it (and the public does little) it just plods on.

[Hugo a Gogo]

I thought they were fighting for 'our freedom' '(well, yours anyway, presumably I'm not free in Germany, or we're just riding on Britain's coattails)

[Puggit]

Hugo a Gogo said:

I thought they were fighting for 'our freedom' '(well, yours anyway, presumably I'm not free in Germany, or we're just riding on Britain's coattails)

I had more freedom and a damn sight less threat of terrorism before this little jaunt started...

[Hugo a Gogo]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

traitor!

[Marf]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

If the government are paying off the Taliban, what does that matter?

[Bosshogg76]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

It wasn't my intention to say that you were a thicky, i apologise if my post came across like that. But as you say, whereas there was a understandable (as in the public knew why we did it), reason for entering Iraq. Afghanistan just appears to be a fog of confusion and misinformation with people being killed for a rather unidentifiable cause.

[RegMolehusband]

I thought Afghanistan was supposedly a principal training ground for worldwide terrorists and they were trying to stamp it out by destroying the taliban. Other than I don't know. All very sad and seemingly endless.

[B Oeuf]

The slack jawed traitor said "it is vital for us to maintain a military presence in Afghanistan to prevent further acts of terrorism in the UK"
Now, personally, I have no recollection of any Afghans commiting acts of terrorism in the UK

The slack jawed traitor also said that if we withdrew it would cause mass immigration to the UK. I have never met an Afghan in the UK.

He also said "everyone knows that terrorists are trained in Afghanistan and pakistan" Well, that'll be pakistan now I guess, just move the problem somewhere else whydontcha

I haven't a clue, although I am quite thick

Edited by B Oeuf on Friday 6th November 10:56

[jshell]

We're STILL there due to the type of war and peculuarities of the region and people. That and not having a proper management or exit strategy.

We WENT there as it was the world's 'centre of excellence' for terrorist training and had to be shut down.

It was a just cause, badly mis-managed (surprise, eh?) and now falling about out ears.

It was everything that the Iraq war wasn't.

[silver.fox.2008]

It's sold to us as a requirement to protect 'our freedoms' but it is to protect 'our interests' i.e natural resources in the Caspian Sea. Its not a coincidence that the president of Afghanistan was also the President of Unocoal

[Marf]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

[B Oeuf]

Another reason, much more valid IMO is the fact that pakistan has tactical capability and the possibility of the Taliban getting that technology is very real. I still think kicking the st out of Afghanistan has merely speeded up this process

[V8mate]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Are we there because a terrorist who may have known someone who may have knocked down something in New York (on behalf of the CIA )once went to Afghanistan on holiday?

[Greg_D]

this is an interesting thread, i, like many people think i must have missed something because i don't know why we are there either, i heard paddy ashdown on GMTV yesterday give a reasonable explanation, all centred on trying to wipe out the kernel of worldwide terrorism.

But, like most people, i have a strongly held suspicion that there are economic forces at hand as well, it is noted that there are no humvees trundling round zimbabwe or any of the other feudalistic banana republics!!!

Greg

[jshell]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Loosely speaking, yes. But, it was as much to do with a whole industrial sized terrorist training machine set up there and protected by the Taliban. 9/11 would just have been the start of it.

I really do think the original intervention was the correct move, but subsequently mis-managed.