Anna Glypta Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 That's because they don't have anything worth invading for. Afghanistan has opium and minerals. Iraq has oil. Iran has oil and gas. Palestine, however, got invaded simply because she got in the way of israel's territorial ambitions. So we invaded Afghanistan for opium and minerals. Your argument rather falls apart with the fact that WE aren't expoiting either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fake Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 That's because Iran can't be trusted, as they contunually demonstrate In what way cant they be trusted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANGELFIRE1 Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 It's surprising that nobody on SF ever voted for Blair in those eight years. I thought he was a socialist like all of you. Indeed Bliar was a socialist, the best and the worst kind, the original CHAMPAGNE socialist. The real Socialist's were simply duped by Bliar, hook, line and sinker. They just could not wait to jump onto the Bliar hook. Angel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Bourne Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I do. Once they have one and use it the rest of the world will have the perfect reason to wipe them off the map. That will include China and Russia who only have them as a deterrent. So if Iran have a nuclear deterrent, but don't use it, then everybody's happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Bourne Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 So we invaded Afghanistan for opium and minerals. Your argument rather falls apart with the fact that WE aren't expoiting either. I suspect we're staying in Afghanistan for the resource exploitation. But all we're bringing home is our dead and injured soldiers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Bourne Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 So why haven't we invaded Nigeria or Sudan then? Is it because these countries are not mouthy towards other countries perhaps? Nigeria is already being exploited by the oil companies. As for Sudan and Somalia, we've had them in our crosshairs for a while now. Let's give them a few more years of war for the countries to deteriorate further, before we can move in under the guise of peacekeeping and nation-building. This does mean you'll be forced to welcome hundreds of thousands more African refugees who will seek asylum in the UK, but I'm sure you've already thought of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 So we invaded Afghanistan for opium and minerals. Your argument rather falls apart with the fact that WE aren't expoiting either. Some were: British troops investigated for heroin smuggling http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11277466 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Instead of sabre rattling and warmongering, I don't know why we don't work closer with them rather than trying to stop their plans to develop nuclear power. For some reason the West see "power" as "weapons" when it comes to Iran. We are trying to work closer with them; but they keep denying entry to their plants when the IAEA officials turn up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna Glypta Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I suspect we're staying in Afghanistan for the resource exploitation. . You're just being silly now. We haven't exploited any resources and as we are pulling out in 2014 it doesn't look as though we will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Bourne Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 You're just being silly now. We haven't exploited any resources and as we are pulling out in 2014 it doesn't look as though we will. We originally got involved in Afghanistan because Tony thought it'd look really really good on his CV to partner in one of America's wars. Still, 400 dead British soldiers is a small price to pay for Tony's estimated £40million fortune. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.