Why do our soldiers have to go to Afghanistan?

[Harleyman]

Serious question.

 

Alot of ppl have told me it's to do with oil/gas. Where as

from the official answers tend to be not that.

 

So why? As far as I'm concerned I'd leave them all

to kill each other. our soldiers are dying for what? To stop one afghan killing another?

 

Is there oil in Afghanistan? I thought the only things there were opium fields, goat sh*t and bhurkhas

 

But maybe I'm wrong. The British army thought it was worthwhile to station soldiers in that part of the world for decades during the days of the British Empire. My father served there back in the early 1930s

[tab1]

excuse me for godsake! I've ignored nothing, hence me asking a question. Muppet.

Indeed a mupet is who ignores the facts presented in post#15 and then goes onto claim he hasn't ignored anything, what a plonker?

 

Many people have told you but you chose to ignore them as repeating hearsay, but when presented with a list of facts by myself you still ignore it, only agreeing with a certain viewpoint, something tells me you have an agenda.

[tab1]

Is there oil in Afghanistan? I thought the only things there were opium fields, goat sh*t and bhurkhas

 

But maybe I'm wrong. The British army thought it was worthwhile to station soldiers in that part of the world for decades during the days of the British Empire. My father served there back in the early 1930s

there is plenty of American sh*t there too these days, uninvited guests shooting up wedding parties and funerals and their apologists making excuses for them on fora such as this.

[Harleyman]

there is plenty of American sh*t there too these days, uninvited guests shooting up wedding parties and funerals and their apologists making excuses for them on fora such as this.

 

Just like the middle eastern sh*t who flew planes into the Twin Towers, carried out the London 7/7 bombings and still kill their own people in Iraq and Pakistan in the name of "Jihad"

 

They came to the US trashed the neighborhood and the British born scumbags loyal only to their religion and not their country of birth killing innocent people in London.

 

It's all pay back and par for the course even in an undeclared war such as this. Get used to it

[NoddyHolder]

Ok Ok..I'll concede "It's only a gas pipe". What is gas a by-product of? Who owns the oil that produces that by-product? In who's interest is that that pipe is protected?

 

Or do we just shuffle it off as a "gas pipe" as if it's something that feeds your caravan cooker?

Just like to get things right ,if you read it again its natural gas so the ownership of oil doesnt come into the equation

[mafya]

Just like the middle eastern sh*t who flew planes into the Twin Towers, carried out the London 7/7 bombings and still kill their own people in Iraq and Pakistan in the name of "Jihad"

 

They came to the US trashed the neighborhood and the British born scumbags loyal only to their religion and not their country of birth killing innocent people in London.

 

It's all pay back and par for the course even in an undeclared war such as this. Get used to it

 

My Bold

 

This is the same reasoning some of the terrorists use aswell so we are just going round in a vicious circle are we not?

[Snook]

Just like the middle eastern sh*t who flew planes into the Twin Towers, carried out the London 7/7 bombings and still kill their own people in Iraq and Pakistan in the name of "Jihad"

 

They came to the US trashed the neighborhood and the British born scumbags loyal only to their religion and not their country of birth killing innocent people in London.

 

It's all pay back and par for the course even in an undeclared war such as this. Get used to it

 

But it goes a lot further back than 9/11, and a lot further back than the US funding and arming the Taliban to fight the USSR and then when they won leaving them to rebuild their broken country on their own, we have been messing about with that part of the world for at least a century now. I'm not sure what the answer is but I know that we helped cause the problem.

 

Why did the US not invade Saudi Arabia after 9/11, though? I think that is a question that is avoided far too often.

[harvey19]

It may be worth considering my uncle was soldiering in Peshawar in 1920 and 1930. Another relative was involved in the Afghan wars in I think the 1880s.

The British army was in the area before 1880 so why are we still there?

[flowerpotdd]

Indeed a mupet is who ignores the facts presented in post#15 and then goes onto claim he hasn't ignored anything, what a plonker?

 

Many people have told you but you chose to ignore them as repeating hearsay, but when presented with a list of facts by myself you still ignore it, only agreeing with a certain viewpoint, something tells me you have an agenda.

 

An agenda? Or you smoking weed and making yourself paranoid. Don't come on here a DARE tell me what I am or am not bloody thinking!

 

I asked for facts, and from them I will make my own opinion. If you don't like the questions I've asked then **** off!

[Harleyman]

But it goes a lot further back than 9/11, and a lot further back than the US funding and arming the Taliban to fight the USSR and then when they won leaving them to rebuild their broken country on their own, we have been messing about with that part of the world for at least a century now. I'm not sure what the answer is but I know that we helped cause the problem.

 

Why did the US not invade Saudi Arabia after 9/11, though? I think that is a question that is avoided far too often.

 

 

It maybe because although the hijackers were Saudis, Saudi Arabia itself was not regarded as being an unstable and unsettling influence in the middle east region and which in fact it never has been. During the first Gulf War the US at Saudi Arabia's request provided Patriot missiles to defend the country from a possible air attack from Iraq and also provided ground forces to aid the Saudi army in case of invasion.

 

Two possible reasons for the invasion of Iraq after 9/11

 

Saddam's illogical and puzzling expulsion of United Nations observers from Iraq and his subsequent refusal to allow the UN back into the country when it was thought that he had WMD. That must have stirred up some suspicions that he might have been or have been tempted to provide WMD to terrorists

 

Second but perhaps less probablle than the first his reckless behaviour in invading Kuwait and also firing Scud missiles at Israel. Maybe the mindset in the West was that if he had done it once he might just do it again sometime in the future and trigger off yet another mid east war between the Arabs and Isarelis with the outcome being far from certain but perhaps deadly for the whole region.

 

If Saddam had done none of the above he would probably still be in charge today.

 

 

It's a known fact that during the days of the Empire when Britain controlled Afganistan there was a thriving opium trade between that country and China and perhaps certain politicians in London were getting their palms well greased to keep British soldiers in that part of the world