It's nice to know our country can still afford this crap

Democratic? A while.

However, I think a stable Dictatorship is a bit more realistic. I think we could see Afghanistan back on its own 2 feet within another 5 or so years. It all depends on Pakistan at the moment really.

 

i didn't bother to read this whole thread, because i'm knackered but from what i have read, i agree with azog. i dont like wars and would be happier than anyone here if the wars were over as that would mean my hubby would be home tonight and not in iraq but we can't just stand by and let every other country do what they want. if we wern't over there how long before the taliban would be on our doorstep and we would be fighting the same war on our soil and losing our civilians etc. there are already insurgents in this country. and terrorist sects. if we just left the taliban to exact there 'revenge against the west' with no form of defence because our taxes wern't funding it, we would be up shit creek without a paddle. imo it's just not viable to think we shouldn't be funding defence for our country and if we wern't in afghanistan or iraq they would all be havin a tea party and not bothering us at all. surely if 9/11 proves anythings its that they will bring it to our door if we let them. and sure i'm all for peace, that would be lovely. saying goodbye to my hubby every few months and not knowing if he will arrive home safely i could certainly do without but peace is never going to happen. humans just arn't capable. there are many selfish, curropt and greedy people in this world and always will be. our goverment, other peoples goverments it doesn't matter. and i'm happy to pay taxes to fund defence for our country. and any other such things. paying for MPs to have a wank though, is taking it a bit far.

 

And once that "stable dictatorship" starts to develop weapons of mass destruction in 10 or 20 years, we can then invade it again and spend another 5 years committing genocide so that a democratic government can be elected.

All in the interest of keeping Britain, The Armour Plated Ostrich's economy/defence industry in good shape.

We can even film some of the weapons used and make a commercial for selling them to other dictatorships in Africa (via whatever legal loopholes exist at the time). It keeps people in jobs, you know.

 

Exactly, although I wouldn't put it quite so severe- I believe terrorists are a big threat, but I don't think it would turn into a war (At least no in the same sense as Afghanistan or northern Ireland). It would be more like a war between our security services and those coming over here to plot our demise (An ever growing threat- particularly if the Taliban ever get a hold of Pakistan's nuclear weapons)

Saying that, it wasn't really our motive for going into Iraq (IMO, Iraq ruined everything- it destroyed our progress in Afghanistan, led to hundreds of thousands of civilians being killed and hundreds of our troops). However, I do respect what our troops have done over there. Look at the country in the after-math of the invasion and look at it now. Now people have freedom of speech and a stable democracy. Whether that was worth the pain and suffering is questionable- but at least we have done some good out of a fucked up situation.

Anyways, respect to your husband. I have had thoughts about joining the army (The Parachute Regiment)- not out of any sense of duty or honour or believing in the wars we are fighting. But it is something I have always wanted to do. I can't really explain it tbh. One thing is certain though, if Britain ever came under direct threat (Such as in WW2) and I felt my family etc were threatened, I would sign up straight away (Although if it ever gets to that situtation, we will probably be conscripted anyway)

 

Do you seriously think the people of Britain will ever accept a war like Iraq ever again? No government would risk it becuase they know they would be out of the door straight away.

BTW,what do you mean by genocide? If you think Iraq was genocide- you are either naive or dilluded. Saddam committed genocide- we have done no such thing.

 

Did we accept the last one?

I don't think we did actualy, it was those expenses-milking, two-faced, lying, deceitful cunts down in westminster that put our country up to it. Most people in the UK did not want it.

Definition of genocide:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

Do you still think it wasn't genocide?

I'm glad people think the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of people was justified, of course it is easy to be so flippant when it's not your own home land that is being invaded and bombed.

 

So which religious, ethnic, racial or national group did we in whole or in part systematically destroy?

A bit contradictory don't you think considering earlier you were saying we should leave Afghanistan in anarchy?

Yet for some reason we vote Blair back in.

 

Well since it all took place in Iraq, I'd say it was Iraqis...

I really don't follow your logic. The Taliban were not performing genocide when we invaded, the country was not in anarchy.... although it is now.

Anyway, anarchy is good. Perhaps if we fucked off and stop giving the Taliban a reason to fight, then it would be peaceful anarchy... well maybe not, more like a dictatorship.

Speaking of dictatorships, does anyone know who elected Gordon Brown as our leader? Does anyone know what the actual vote count was following the 2000 US presidential election, AFTER the republican party blocked a final recount?

Are we in any better a position to judge other countries, when we (the US and the UK) have almost the lowest rating in terms of child care in the western world, we lock people up for growing plants, kidnap people and transport them to an island off Cuba and torture them, have been selling weapons to dictatorships for decades, rely upon third world slavery for our commercial products and spend billions a year developing our own weapons of mass destruction?

Afghanistan is in anarchy because we are there. Maybe if we just left them to grow their opium fields or whatever then things would calm down a bit.

People forget things when it comes to elections very easily. "A week is a long time in politics." Governments are good at putting a spin on things and deceiving people.

I think the biggest ever turn-out for an anti war protest in the weeks running up to the invasion is more elucidative of what people wanted when things were about to kick off.

 

I think Systematically is the word you are missing there. The Holocaust was a genocide, Rwanda was a genocide, Saddam killing the Kurds was a genocide, civilians getting caught up in the cross-fire is not genocide.

I think you will find it was. The country was in a civil war when we arrived (As it was throughout much of the 90's). I will also think you find the country isn't in anarchy. There is a centralized government. It is arguably a civil war (I say arguably becuase the majority of the Taliban are not actually Afghans)

We are in a better position. Why? Because we are bigger and more powerful. I am not saying I agree with that, but its the way things are.

Like I said its not in anarchy. If we left them, you would have the Taliban, the Warlords, the Drug Barons, the government and whoever else wants to take power, fighting it out. That would be anarchy. If you believe us leaving will bring peace to the country, you are living in a fantasyland.

I am personally a supporter of Lib Dems who support (Amongst many other things) Proportional Representation. I agree thats its bullshit that a party can recieve 35% of the votes, and yet hold a majority in Parliament.

 

It doesn't matter if it's intentional or not, it happened. we went into another country, bombed the living dayights out of it, forced what was once a propserous and cultural place into a third world police state, killed hundreds of thousands of people, many of them women and children, and while this was going on no-one in the military hierarchy decided that perhaps their strategy wasn't working and they should maybe pull out and rethink. No of course not, because that would make them appear weak and vulnerable. Peoples lives don't matter, what is important is whether the oppressive regime is sanctioned by the US or not. We installed a democratic government that still uses capital punishment, and one that films the execution of people and broadcasts it around the world.

We should know because we trained them.

Being bigger and more powerful puts us in a position to judge them? Perhaps having any better moral standards would, but bigger only grants us the military might to interfere.

Whatever it is, it's still not our business. Whether there is peace or not when we leave, and I never said I thought there would be, I do think the country stands a better chance if we leave it to it's own affairs.

Did you know that at the start of the century, just before we invaded Iraq at the beginning of WW1, we were at war with China who wanted to oppose the United Kingdom's global trade in opium? We were fighting our right to trade in opium. Why did we do that? Because we liked the money, same reason the Taliban want it.

Things have moved on in the UK since then, women can now vote, and black people can eat in the same restaurant as white people, but

Kind of puts things in perspective.

If we pull out it will fall again to some opposition group, whether well pull out now or in ten years.

That's you bad. You cant trust the lib dems either.

 

We did not kill hundreds of thousands. Most of the civilians who died were killed by militant groups etc. And you will see military strategies changed several times throughout the course of the war. It started off 'hearts and minds' etc. Then we decided we would negotiate with the militants. That back-fired. Then we decided to only stay in certain strong points and make regular patrols out. Then the surge happened which proved pretty effective. Now Basra is back on its feet.

We trained the Mujahideen. The Taliban didn't even exist back then. The Taliban only came into existence in the 90's when they came over the border from Pakistan. Some of the Mujahideen joined them, most opposed them.

Our moral standards are certainly better then the Talibans

The Taliban want it so they can have a state in which to oppose Shia Law. The Opium Wars were from a completely different time- back then we had an empire to look after. Do you also know we tried to invade Afghanistan in the 1890's?

Hopefully by then, if it falls to some opposition group, it will democratically. If anyone tries to take it by force, hopefully by that time the Afghan army should be capable enough to defeat it.

By the sounds of it, you don't trust anyone.

Besides, if the Lib dems got into power, it wouldn't matter if you didn't trust them. Proportional Representation would mean that parties would have seats based on the amount of votes they recieved. So, for example, Green Party might get a few seats, and hence have at least some say in how things are run.

That, plus Lib Dems want to legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes. Hopefully that would be a first step towards full legalization. I don't neccesarily think the Lib Dems are the best party, however, they have more chance of getting in then the rest of the parties. Tey have the best chance of breaking the conservative, labour, conservative, labour trend that we have had over the last 50 or so years.

 

in the states the bailouts could have paid off every mortgage in the county and half again , Im not sure if anyone has broken down the figures in the uk but thats far far worse than any weapons system and we have got into a level of debt simular to the state we were in after world war two .
we are paying more in interest on the national debt in the uk than the entire defence budget .
and there is no reason we have to have any national debt at all its just a way of having countrys under the power of the big bankers .

far worse than terrorists or polititian who are pretty powerless are the big bankers people like the Rothschilds, but the Rothschilds own most of the media they have since the 1800s they own rueters and ap so you hardly hear of them , also they use the smokescreen of anti semitism if your critical of them.
the way the money system is set up wealth is gradually being taken from the ordinary people and given to a small number of bankers for doing damn all .

if you want real revolution look at changes in currency, and banking that isnt controlled by these banksters socialism capitalism they like and can easy control

 

Thousands of people died as a result of the invasion. That makes us patently responsible.

It's apples and oranges. We don't stone women to death for adultery, but on the other hand we do sell weapons to countries that we know have a terrible record for kidnapping children, drugging them and turning them into psychopaths.

Well, it's what we do, Britannia rules the waves.

How would it not matter if the lib dems were untrustworthy, they'd still have a large share in how the country was run.

Didn't Labour suggest that they were going to decriminalise it in 1997? I don't give a fuck what party says what, clearly none of them can be trusted on their manifesto. The LDs were caught many years ago tailoring their manifesto to appeal to individual constituencies, leading to inconsistencies. Is this a party you would vote for?

 

So you agree we didn't commit genocide?

But we don't kidnap children, drug them and turn them into psychopaths

Its what we used to do. Unless you are still living in the 30's or before, then that isn't the case

They are more trustworthy then Labour and Conservative. What I mean is, even if you feel they are untrustworthy, at least the other parties will have more say then they currently do.

Dunno, I was too young to remember that. I don't like Labour anyway. And yes, its a party I would vote for becuase I feel it is a better and more realistic alternative to what we currently have.

 

.

No, we have more subtle methods of ruining peoples lives.

So you don't consider the exploitations of the third world for it's resources a form of imperialism then.

How do you know if they are more trustworthy, they have never been in power.

 

Like I said, Afghanistan doesn't have any resources

They have been in the past (Well, the Liberals anyway). I don't know they are more trustworthy, but Labour and Conservative have shown they are definitely not trustworthy, and I think its time for change.

 

Are you Odon?

This is not the point I was trying make!

It's always time for change, but nothing ever does.

 

i agree, it is time for a change. the goverment has been in too long and its getting stagnated. Azog, can i just say i agree with almost everything you have to say on this argument, and find i don't even have to reply as you've said it all. :cheers2:

 

Britain has a long standing history of poking it's nose into other countries, and I cannot think of one instance where it has achieved anything other than turning that particular country into turmoil. We'll all see who is right on this point in years to come.

 

it's not out the realms of possibility that change can happen. it won't be over night. the country is in a mess with debts etc and it will take any party a long time to right the wrongs, but it can be done. labour were once, a change for the better after the dark days of tory rule.