Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
A question on Wars and Conflicts.........
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
Listening to the Minister for The Armed Forces on the radio this morning, I am still none the wiser from his barely lucid answers to questions about why in fact, we are in a war in Afghansitan.
Are only those Wars and Conflicts far enough back in history acceptable for open debate in relation to political correctness?, whilst those of recent time appear to be taboo subjects to a greater degree because of political incorrectness.Link to this forum: A question on Wars and Conflicts.........
-
Message 2
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
As far as I can see, the reasons for going to war are very seldom the 'reasons for going to war' given to the soldiers/followers/voters/peasants of the combatants. This is more embarrassing to the leaders of today, who are still around to answer awkward questions, than the Kings and Princes of yesterday, whose true motives are so often analysed (and found wanting) on these pages.
High moral reasons are more likely to gain popular support than a simple 'OK to get your son killed, Missus, so that Haliburton can make some more money?'Link to this forum: A question on Wars and Conflicts.........
-
Message 3
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
As far as I can see, the reasons for going to war are very seldom the 'reasons for going to war' given to the soldiers/followers/voters/peasants of the combatants. This is more embarrassing to the leaders of today, who are still around to answer awkward questions, than the Kings and Princes of yesterday, whose true motives are so often analysed (and found wanting) on these pages.Β
I agree, so why does war remain supported by many, when it is quite obvious we are unable to trust or gain a clear or precise answer to the simplest of questions of WHY this one.
And could we easily believe the answer IF we were given one?
High moral reasons are more likely to gain popular support than a simple 'OK to get your son killed, Missus, so that Haliburton can make some more money?'Β
Surely progress of time alone shows that there is very little moral reason for war, except that one might be plucked out of thin air in a Ministarial meeting.
Terrorism is here to stay because it is modern warfare. So there will always be terrorists in
Afghanistan, the poppies keep growing, and the opium keeps coming....Link to this forum: A question on Wars and Conflicts.........
-
Message 4
Posted by ElizaShaw2 (U14061379) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
I thought the real-politik theory behind the military involvement in both Afghanistan and Iraq was that it diverted Muslim rage away from blowing up things and people in western countries?
Plus, now, with Pakistan a nuclear state, I guess they want to stop the Muslim extremists taking over there out of Afghanistan, and sending us all to perdition.Link to this forum: A question on Wars and Conflicts.........
-
Message 5
Posted by Frank Parker (U7843825) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
I thought the real-politik theory behind the military involvement in both Afghanistan and Iraq was that it diverted Muslim rage away from blowing up things and people in western countries?Β Maybe - but common sense surely dictates that it has precisely the opposite effect!
Link to this forum: A question on Wars and Conflicts.........
-
Message 6
Posted by lindavid (U10745308) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
The reason we are in Afganistan is to take the fight to them, I see every day the effects of drugs on the youth, each score paying for arms for the taliban so the can suppress womans rights etc etc,What every one in the western world needs to wake up to is that militant Islam is coming to take over the whole world and nothing we do short of genocide will stop it, all those wolly liberals who shout about human rights and the rest of it should get real, Militant Islam comming to oppress you soon.
Link to this forum: A question on Wars and Conflicts.........
-
Message 7
Posted by Old Hermit (U2900766) on Thursday, 9th July 2009
I'm sure they said the same things about the Jews at one point in human history. In fact they still do. If you advocate genocide you're a fool and seriously need to re-consider your views on the world.
Link to this forum: A question on Wars and Conflicts.........
-
Message 8
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Friday, 10th July 2009
Let one and all understand that I 100% back the troops in Afghanistan to do whatever it takes to stop the enemy.
However I do get the impression that there and in Iraq the UK Govt. wnated troops on the ground ASAP to ensure the broad backing of the population in the prosecution of "the war on terror" which now appears to be the "war to liberate the oppressed" in Afghanistan.
No pardon me but if the people of Afghanistan could fight the Soviet Union out of their borders (albeit with support of US/UK etc.), then surely the could if they wanted form a nation resistance/patriotic front to oust the blatantly foreign influence of "the Taliban" that has came in from Pakistan etc.
However the Northern Alliance under Dostum and others failed to oust the Taliban, 9/11 came in and then NATO came along - we're still there 7 years later and still losing soldiers in the same way we were and in the same places we were.
Something has got to give - I know the arguments are if we'd not got involved in Iraq then we could have "won" (whatever that means) in Afghanistan but personally I think if the Afghans (and come to think all these "minority" populations that want "freedom" ) can't fight for it themselves then are not worth fighting for - which ironically means only "the taliban" are doing something dubiously worthwhile I suppose.Link to this forum: A question on Wars and Conflicts.........
-
Message 9
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Friday, 10th July 2009
If the USA were not in Afghanistan, (and Iraq before that) does anyone seriously think we would be there? So what we need to examine is their government's motives in fighting these wars.
Does anyone seriously believe that they went there to 'liberate the oppressed people of Iraq'? What about the oppressed people of a dozen other countries - are we going to help them as well, in our righteous anger? Even the ones with no oil?Link to this forum: A question on Wars and Conflicts.........
-
Message 10
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Friday, 10th July 2009
I thought the real-politik theory behind the military involvement in both Afghanistan and Iraq was that it diverted Muslim rage away from blowing up things and people in western countries?
Plus, now, with Pakistan a nuclear state, I guess they want to stop the Muslim extremists taking over there out of Afghanistan, and sending us all to perdition.Β
ElizaShaw2
How can it be possible to divert rage by occupying another country?
Isnt it more than likely to win converts and would be terrorists to extreme Islam?
Why are we fighting a war in Afghanistan at the same time that a Mosque with the capacity for between 40.000 - 70,000 worshippers of Allah is going to be built in East London.?
If we are concerned about extremist and would be terrorists how does it make sense to fight a war In a Muslim country that we can not possibly win?
It has been tried often enough without successLink to this forum: A question on Wars and Conflicts.........
-
Message 11
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Friday, 10th July 2009
Something has got to give - I know the arguments are if we'd not got involved in Iraq then we could have "won" (whatever that means) in Afghanistan but personally I think if the Afghans (and come to think all these "minority" populations that want "freedom" ) can't fight for it themselves then are not worth fighting for - which ironically means only "the taliban" are doing something dubiously worthwhile I suppose.Β
Well, we only have the politicians word or rather nearly words and half baked idea's on why they believe we are there.
Opiates are still everywhere to be had from the school gates to the cemetary gates and all point in between.Link to this forum: A question on Wars and Conflicts.........
-
Message 12
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Friday, 10th July 2009
The reason we are in Afganistan is to take the fight to them, I see every day the effects of drugs on the youth, each score paying for arms for the taliban so the can suppress womans rights etc etc,What every one in the western world needs to wake up to is that militant Islam is coming to take over the whole world and nothing we do short of genocide will stop it, all those wolly liberals who shout about human rights and the rest of it should get real, MilitaΒ
But the drugs keep coming do they not? this week in my local area almost a dozen men (youths) have been given lengthy jail sentences in trying to bring drugs accross the Channel in Dinghies in seperate incidents.
Drugs are are not just on the streets, but in schools and in prisons and everywhere else in between. I think you are mistaken if you believe the Taliban is making war on opium dealing alone.Link to this forum: A question on Wars and Conflicts.........
-
Message 13
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Friday, 10th July 2009
Maybe - but common sense surely dictates that it has precisely the opposite effect!Β
Plotinlaois
Exactly! so why are we there?Link to this forum: A question on Wars and Conflicts.........
-
Message 14
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Friday, 10th July 2009
Does anyone seriously believe that they went there to 'liberate the oppressed people of Iraq'? What about the oppressed people of a dozen other countries - are we going to help them as well, in our righteous anger? Even the ones with no oil?Β
Perhaps the politicians and government of this country would be better placed with what the war is costing in financial terms alone, to 'liberate' the oppressed people of Casualty or A&E of a saturday night competing with the inibriated and bleeding or the Schoolchildren denied a proper education suited to their individual abilities...etc., etc.,Link to this forum: A question on Wars and Conflicts.........
-
Message 15
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Friday, 10th July 2009
The total irony of all the wars have fought/are fighting/will fight between 9/11 and in the future is as Kim Jong-Il has proved if you've got WMD then you're OK and if not (or if you're in Africa) then we'll be coming to get you.......if Saddam had had WMD then the troops would still be waiting to board their aircraft to the Gulf in Cyprus, Germany & Brize Norton.
Coulod have imagined the state of the worrld economy if Saddam had been able to mass lauch the "WMD's" onto Saudi OIl terminals etc.Link to this forum: A question on Wars and Conflicts.........
-
Message 16
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Saturday, 11th July 2009
The total irony of all the wars have fought/are fighting/will fight between 9/11 and in the future is as Kim Jong-Il has proved if you've got WMD then you're OK and if not (or if you're in Africa) then we'll be coming to get you.......if Saddam had had WMD then the troops would still be waiting to board their aircraft to the Gulf in Cyprus, Germany & Brize Norton.Β
There are many weapons of mass destruction, not all Armery is of metal and explosives or nuclear war heads.
Man does pretty well himself on that front in Africa (Mugabe) it may take more time, but is just as heinous surely.
How many civillians have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan? Did we need WMP every life has value, and one who takes life loses something of his own, so in a way, are we not all destroying ourselves?Link to this forum: A question on Wars and Conflicts.........
-
Message 17
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Saturday, 11th July 2009
why are we there indeed
after 9/11 the us had to smash someone
al queda was trained in afghanistan - that will do - we supported the us so in we went
if we went in to do the destruction we had to tell everyone we were also going to stay for the rebuilding - that is what keeps us in there
we destroyed the taliban government - ie the people we had armed and assisted against the 150000 russian troops who had invaded - they were the only real fighters
after supporting the northern alliance we had to keep supporting them - pretending that they were the real government
after ignoring afghanistan for 10 + years - because of 9/11 we had to take an interest again
which is where we are now
so british troops are there to defend our homeland - right - al queda cant operate from there anymore - does it matter
they are now operating from iraq iran - any islamic country and indeed parts of west midlands uk
lets get out now - before my daughter gets posted there - if we find out through intelligence that al quaeda is operating from certain parts - napalm it or drop a daisy cutter
2 years after we leave it will all be back to the norm - the governors of the country will be the people who fight hardest - any guesses who that will be ??
or am i just a cynic
stLink to this forum: A question on Wars and Conflicts.........
-
Message 18
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Sunday, 12th July 2009
"if we find out through intelligence that al quaeda is operating from certain parts - napalm it or drop a daisy cutter"
The irony is President Karzai [no pun intended by the character i Carry on Up The Khyber played by Kenneth Williams I suppose] would complain if NATO started battering down anything where Al Qaida is/are training........however he'd be the first person hung from gallows if Al Qaida/"taliban" actually do take over Afghanistan.Link to this forum: A question on Wars and Conflicts.........
-
Message 19
Posted by Andrew Host (U1683626) on Monday, 13th July 2009
Hi all,
As with the other thread on Afghanistan can you focus the thread on the second parag of the OP and therefore keeping it more in the remit of the History boards and away from current affairs.
This has the additional benefit of being less attractive to the anti/pro Bush/US/Blair etc etc flamers and trolls.
Cheers
AndrewLink to this forum: A question on Wars and Conflicts.........
-
Message 20
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Monday, 13th July 2009
Andrew
As with the other thread on Afghanistan can you focus the thread on the second parag of the OP and therefore keeping it more in the remit of the History boards and away from current affairs.Β
Yesterday was history and today will be tomorrow
current affairs is 18years olds are dying in my name on my taxes, current and in the future.
What an affair!
This has the additional benefit of being less attractive to the anti/pro Bush/US/Blair etc etc flamers and trolls.
18 year old dying for either a lost cause, or a cause that doesnt have a cause is pretty unatractive dont you think?Link to this forum: A question on Wars and Conflicts.........
-
Message 21
Posted by delrick53 (U13797078) on Monday, 13th July 2009
S&S,
One of the problems with these boards is that the only place to discuss current affairs is a place of one-liners, sound-bites, and the occasional insult.
Any post of more than 5 or 6 lines will be declared 'boring' by those who post on the 5Live forums.
Apart from that, I'm still waiting for an actual debate to break out over there.
And as a devoted, 100% pacifist, you could use any war as the topic, and say the same things, could you not ?
It would be more interesting to hear you justify the pacifist position - that we were wrong to oppose Hitler and his European rampage with violence - and what we should have done instead.Link to this forum: A question on Wars and Conflicts.........
-
Message 22
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 13th July 2009
Why the British army is in Afganistan? Well it followed the American one, no matter what Obama says. Of course Britain might have similar interests there with US. Afterall I think there is France also there and France does not always follows the US everywhere.
Now what do these western armies do there? I am not tired of repeating it. Geopolitical control.
The above views revolving around "Taleban" and "stability" in the region vary from naif, funny to downrigh idiotic - guys please, I am talking only on the specific views, not about all dear interlocutors here (who are generally people of deep knowledge in many issues, albeit often miss that little extra to make them step over the next level of geopolitical comprehension).
Without pretending to be an expert or to know much more than others, the whole game is the geopolitical control of the largest landmass on earth, that is Eurasia. The 3 biggest countries in it are Russia, China and India - all three accounting for the largest mass of land on earth and close to 3/4ths of the global population. As simple as that. In terms of ressources all three have really a lot of stuff, albeir Russia along with Middle Eastern countries (west of China and India... west..hmmm) possess most of the energy resources (oil & gaz) that alimentate the area. You can do the maths yourselfs.
Any energy commerce will have to pass from a combination of these countries which lie in central Asia, countries like Iran, Kazakstan, Turkmenistan, Ouzbeistan, Afganistan, Pakistan etc. That means that if things are let to take their own path - i.e. these countries being developed in peace and relative tranquility, they will soon become once again the center of the world as they were in the past millenia. Practically all energy commerce - and why not, much of the common commerce - will pass by them (as far as I know train is the cheapest trasportation system). The lands of central Asia have also the potential to sustain a much larger popoulation (currently underdeveloped).
Now out of the aforementioned countries, Afganistan lies really in a central place and next to it Pakistan that borders with both India and China. I think you already get my point - it is not even my point it is common logic only if you get a map in front of you.
Now, leave Afganistan and go to the other side of Asia, Middle East and Caucasus. What happens there? On the one you have countries like problematic countries like Israel, Lebanon always on the verge of war, an isolated Syria, a fanatical US henchboy Turkey (always aggressive) and of course an invaded & destoryed Irak. Result of all these decades of tension? Ha! After 80 years of European industries being supplied energy from the Middle East there exists no pipeline worth of mentioning compared to the dense network of pipelines that the USSR built in less than 50 years of supplying... countries like Checkoslovakia or Hungary (developed countries but not exactly any industrial colossus!!!).
What do we have in Caucasus? Big games with the US trying to pay any muslim fanatic to create problems against Russia, then pay Ukrainians to cut off the gaz to disrupt Russian supplies to Europe (still western news claim it was Russians that cut it - really unbelievable lies!), pay Polish to deny access (so Russians now built a direct pipeline to Germany making Polish desperate) and of course, the usual threat of the US to countries like Greece with "trouble" if they give priority to the (most logical choice for them) Russian gaz rather than the (precarious) US backed Nabucco project (that passes from all unstable countries you can spot on the map).
So if such interesting things happened in the past and even more right now, imagine what happens on the other side of the middle of the earth, that is Afganistan and Pakistan. Well it is not something different. The game is the same. Disrupt the commercial lines, disrupt the energy transfer, delay the building of pipelines, control the markets, control the economies and the countries and so on.
You disagree? Who gave rise to the Talibans if not the US? And to go to the latest knews, who you think is behind all that unrest in western China? Uighours... hmmm I had heard them somewhere else.... about some detained people in the Guantanamo... Uighours in the Guantanamo... really it is very interesting... where did they find them anyway? And why Uighours who should be trying to fight off China were found in Guantanamo? Why would be caring to go against tthe US when their enemy is China? Does US want to help China in stabilising their western front? Hehehehe... common I won't tell you everything. Make some contribution into it.
... but stop talking about "fanatical muslims" and "terrorism" cos it is really depressive...Link to this forum: A question on Wars and Conflicts.........
-
Message 23
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 13th July 2009
In relation to Andrews well understood intervention, my above views aim in explaining the geopolitical setting as I understand and are not any moral critiscism or something - and that even if I really think that the Nabucco project is ridiculous since US backs a project that passes from countries which US policy itslelf indirectly destabilises!
In geopolitical terms it is well understandable that US and along with it many countries like Britain and France (that does not follows everywhere of course) have all the interest not to see any proper commercial lines being set in central-eastern Asia. Also the game is so complicated with Russia being against US in the west while in the east actually being supportive in selective points (e.g. what happens in Afganistan actually favours Russian-Chinese supply lines - which of course is an unwanted side-effect of the US policy there... but it is preferable for US since the two countries are large and thus China will never over-trust Russia in its supplies, it would much rather get its ressources from smaller countries in the Middle East). etc...
We really live in interesting times (it might sound bad for all these people dying but that is how life goes...).Link to this forum: A question on Wars and Conflicts.........
-
Message 24
Posted by Andrew Host (U1683626) on Tuesday, 14th July 2009
Hi Sunshineandshowers,
The boards are set up as a place to discuss either the content of the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ History site to which these boards are attached - or history in general.
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Five Live run boards covering news stories and current affairs:
The OED definition of History:
"That branch of knowledge which deals with past events, as recorded in writings or otherwise ascertained; the formal record of the past, esp. of human affairs or actions; the study of the formation and growth of communities and nations."
Cheers
AndrewLink to this forum: A question on Wars and Conflicts.........
-
Message 25
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Tuesday, 14th July 2009
E -Nikolaos -E
Well, imo you have half the story pretty exact, but one half does not make a complete anything.
So Afghanistan was seen as perhaps the easiest target to ensure our metal if not mental superiority over, instead of Pakistan, Russia or China.?
I perhaps understand the other half of the whole picture but then that would be immediately banished from these boards because it has religion around it.
... but stop talking about "fanatical muslims" and "terrorism" cos it is really depressive...Β
Depressive it may be, and many find grief added to it from both sides, Etememists of all persuations and none have families who find it impossible to believe their child could become a killer with a bomb, a would be killer who is killed by a bomb,or a governments requirements to start a war to make it all appear necessary for our safety.
Fantatism and extremes of false religeous hatred are often used by Governments to start and continue wars for as you say, control of valuable resources and holding on to power that they hope will become absolute.
Do you not believe it strange that it is the young idealists who are willing to die horribly on any side, and yet the powerful, cowardly, supposed leaders incite and create mayhem from a secure and safe distance, wether it be Westminster and its politicians or Extremeist Mullah's in Mosques.
And through all this we hardly ever hear of the figures of the civillian numbers killed or mamed.Link to this forum: A question on Wars and Conflicts.........
-
Message 26
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Tuesday, 14th July 2009
We really live in interesting times (it might sound bad for all these people dying but that is how life goes...).Β
This really is the last straw....
Interesting for some not living daily life in a war zone!
I would prefer to call it soul deadening times.
Dead...thats how life goes when your dying, and no one can tell you why or if you needed to.Link to this forum: A question on Wars and Conflicts.........
-
Message 27
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 28
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Tuesday, 14th July 2009
sunshineandshowers
Yesterday was history and today will be tomorrowΒ
Only for those going backwards in time.Link to this forum: A question on Wars and Conflicts.........
-
Message 29
Posted by sunshineandshowers (U13926964) on Tuesday, 14th July 2009
whiteCamry
Only for those going backwards in time.Β
And your meaning?Link to this forum: A question on Wars and Conflicts.........
-
Message 30
Posted by Andrew Host (U1683626) on Tuesday, 14th July 2009
Hi all,
There is plenty of scope here for a bona fide historical discussion - it'd be good to see this thread getting back on track.
Cheers
AndrewLink to this forum: A question on Wars and Conflicts.........
-
Message 31
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 14th July 2009
Religion has virtually nothing to do with our issue here - to close it once and for all let me remind all aspiring islam-defenders how joyfull they were when US was bombing christian Serbians so as to create an aritifical country that never existed not even as a notion, Bosnia, let alone the "theft" of Kosovo. There US seems not to be so much the enemey and the mujahedins that arrived in Bosnia and Kosovo from the most remore places on earth (for looting and raping of course, we are talking about people who could not even spot Jugoslavia on a map let alone know about what is Bosnia Erzegovina) did not have any problem to be side by side the Americans, gettinng arms and payment from the Saoudis, staunch allies of the US.
So let us put it aside, it has absolutely nothing to do with our issue, it is merely an excuse... in one country it will be politics, in the other local feuds, in the other narkotics, hashish, cocaine or... peoples' opium...
I wish to see this discussion get little to no focus on religion and extremism and morals and more on the core issue which is geopolitics and ressources control.
You will not be able to fully understand if you do not have a map in front of you:
Pay attention: the map is about ALL main pipelines gas & oil feeding Europe, not only about Russian ones!!! Now need I say more?
Where is the US-controlled Middle East? US was an ally of a series of countries leading to western Europe. Why it is so absenct? And how could Russia do all that when out of the 60 years it was on pipeline construction (post WWII), only less than 20 years it is trading really big-time with the west (some trade existed earlier too), when US-controlled Middle East that feeds Europe for some 80 years has absolutely no pipeline? Really how come? Is it preferable to take it by ship (you got to be kidding!).
Yes, there is in the map 1 pipeline under ... construction... the infamous Nabucco that is the Turmenistan-Azerbaitzan-Georgia-Turkey-Bulgaria-Romania-Hungary-Austria line with which the US wants to alimentate Europe... an improbable line of easily manipulated countries including US henchboy Turkey or dictatorial countries like Turkmenistan and unstable countries in proper war like Azerbaitzan and Georgia...
One can only but also see the effort of Americans to avoid the pipeline passing from navy-strong countries like Greece and Italy (pipeline? ships? hmmm...perhaps not to pass by countries with easier access to alternatives? anyway Libya is so close there and sooner or later this tap "closed" for several decades, perhaps 80 years or so, will be opened, the question is how of course!).
One can also not fail to see that one of the existing Russian gas pipelines to reach near central Europe led to Belgrade. Very interesting. For those who know, even prior to the dissolution of the USSR there were plans to use this as one of the main axes feeding central western Europe while after the dissolution of the USSR, with all these countries getting independence and trying to gain out of the fact that "accidentally" found themselves with pre-existing pipelines passing through their lands meant that Russians could utilise part of this southern pipeline to connect it via Bulgaria (i.e. fewer countries crossed) directly to Russia. Very very interesting. Now you know why Americans (and back then US-friendly European governments supported in a criminal manner the dissolution of Yugoslavia putting oil in the old national passions and of course demonising the Serbians who did not do anything different than what did the others).
I am still looking at the map and laughing with Nabucco... 1 pipeline after 80 years of exploitation of the Middle East... absolutely amazing!!! And what a pipeline! With the Russian Bluestream - not shown here in this map (for propagandist reasons) - the direct competitor to Nabucco and the reason behind US more or less direct support for every war-loving, ultra-nationalist, religious fanatic, mafia leader in Caucasus - the EU will enjoy direct access to endless Russian gas. With Nabucco, the EU will have to buy the gas from an unbelievable series of unstable countries, often in war, often with easily influenced by anyone dictatorships including of course the US henchboy Turkey that will cut the tap anytime it likes (Turkey is not a producer of gaz of course and it can do it easily)... and that is the whole point!!!
And here is the amasing core of the issue: love them or hate them Russians have every interest to keep the provision going and not only that, they have actually every interest to see a rich and healthy western Europe so as to consume as much gas as it takes. We are talking about mutual interest. US on the other hand has not much of that interest, their only interest is to control and have Europe below them. Anyway they are on a different continent and it is not even US that provides the energy ressource, rather it controls it like a pi-ai-em-pi if you get what I mean!
So if you get the above clearly or at least "grosso-motto", then you are already able to understand what is going in Afganistan and Pakistan. Note though that there is also Russia there that would not like to see the likes of Iran building pipelines through central Asia to feed China (one of the biggest games right now!)...Link to this forum: A question on Wars and Conflicts.........
-
Message 32
Posted by Spruggles (U13892773) on Thursday, 16th July 2009
E_Nicolaos_E,
Greetings,
As you might be aware, I don't often agree with your posts but I will endorse your last effort. I hate the hypocrisy of politics. And as you might have guessed from previous posts I hate Imperialism. And as far as I'm concerned you couldn't get a fag paper between them for deviousness.
Regards Spruggles.Link to this forum: A question on Wars and Conflicts.........
-
Message 33
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.