I asked you first, what would you do-can you trust Karzai to control the Taliban?

You mentioned Iraq. What do you think of the actions to convert it illegally into a broken country, kill many many thousands of innocent civilians, and now it is torn with political strife on the brink of civil war with an average of 10 a day killed by terrorist activity, and no hope of keeping the factions apart. And the country is still suffering from the destroyed infrastrucure, except the oil wells which Bush and Billy Liar made sure were the first items to be repaired after the conflict. Why was that?

Les

 

Why was that? Because we're at war. We want the oil, strategic position and regime change. We want this so that we may win the war.

So what you do propose we do in Afghanistan?

 

P.S. We wouldn't be trusting Karzai, we'd be pulling his strings and occasionally he'd be portrayed as rebelious and autonomous so that the people
bought the illusion.

 

Saddam managed it, to be fair. What a guy!

 

i hate to say it, but its another country, there laws are there own and as far as i can see if you don't like them stay out.

its exactly the same here, or at least should be, if you come in, follow our laws and morals. Just because we live in a tolerant society according to our beliefs and morals doesn't mean that they don't think the same in there own country.

Personaly i think its barbaric, but its there country's moral's not ours.

as far as giving aid to them, well you either choose to help or you don't when people are in need

 

The allies never killed 1000's of civilians in the invasion. Stop lying.

...and on the contrary the oil fields are only just now being invested in, years later.

Odd that for an invasion supposedly only 'about oil'?

 

Yes Bush wanted the oil and the regime change has always been considered an illegal reason to attack a country. Do you think that was a good reason to destroy the country and kill so many people? Can you feel proud to be associated with that?

Les

 

All's fair in love and war. Now, Les, what do you propose we do in Afghanistan? You're sidestepping the question with the skill of a politician.

 

How long do you think it would take the Taliban to take over the rule of the country again if all the allies left Karzai and his "army" in charge?

If you want to suppress the Taliban the only way is by having a permanent enormous allied force out there and continuing to have our young servicemen lose their lives.

How can you possibly "control" Karzai and the Taliban from a distance. Is the attempt actually worth the candle looking back in history at other forces and also the British once before and how they all failed!

Les

 

You are sidestepping, all you can do is to come up with very old and innaccurate statements.

Les

 

Strange that you cannot resist jumping in with both feet with inaccurate statements and obviously not really understanding the subject anyway.

I do take exception to being called a liar too. You would do well to choose your words more carefully instead of making an **** of yourself.

Les

 

That's all well and good, Les, but what do you propose the Allies do in Afghanistan?

 

Yes that is true of course, not in the most friendly way of course, but they were not losing an average of 10 people a day via terrorist activities as they are now.

Many Iraqi's were saying they were generally better off under SH than after the attack.

He was a dreadful tyrant of course coupled with his sons and his ministers.

Les

 

I'll show you mine if you show me yours!

Les

 

It's easy to criticise, not so easy to come up with solutions.

 

No you posted two assertions that are untrue, one being the amount of Iraq civilians killed as collateral damage by the Allies, and then complete rubbish about the oil fields.

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...shia-sunni.htm

Here's a link for you to read to help with your understanding of Sunni and Shia relations in Iraq. Accessible and will take about 3 mins to read.

You're essentially supporting 'peace' through terrifying dictatorship and I'm confident you wouldn't intentionally do that.

 

No humanist of substance could support a regime like Saddam's; professional rapists on the payroll and torturers using power tools.

 

Les: "not in the most friendly way of course". You know, if there was a prize for understatement.....

 

No one could sensibly go along with SH's style of course, as I said above. As JT said, he did manage to control the country with all of its differences between the factions.

Regime change is not a legal reason to attack a country, although Billy Liar tried to use that as an excuse when no WMD were found, after he had been telling us that SH could attack British territory within a short spell of time with WMD!

If a leader of a country is of bad character then it is basically down to the people to change that. Attack by another country is not justifiable for that reason.

The war on Iraq was illegal and also it was carried out with no kind of plan on how to proceed after the war was won. That in itself is disgusting and apart from the deaths of innocent Iraqis during the conflict, the infrastructure of the country was destroyed and it still has not recovered. Terrorist bombing is rife. Can you justify doing that to a country which was not threatening the US or the UK at the time as was known by the security forces.

Les

 

And your solution in Afghanistan?

 

But we went to war with **** Germany precisely to effect regime change.

 

Now you really have lost it. Nothing to do with regime change. We went to war because of Germany's belligerent attacks on other countries and also in our own defence.

Didn't the Fuhrer commit suicide anyway.

Read the history old chap!

Les

 

And your solution in Afghanistan?

 

Tell me what your lasting solution is first.

Les

 

I already have, Leslie. Go and read back through.

 

So if it wasn't regime change why didn't we accept Himmlers proposal to use the SS to police the new Germany? A ready made solution using organs of the old regime.

Your confusing the motives/rationalization with the action.

Anyway Iraq had invaded Kuwait and attack Iran. Saddam had a history of belligerent behavior. You can't just say WW2 was self-defense because Hitler invaded Poland not us!

 

There is no comparison between Iraq 2000 and Germany 1939. Yes Iraq invaded Kuwait, but they were ousted from there in 1991.

Then Amreica decided to go back in 10 years later.... an illegal war and then another in Afghanistan and both are a complete mess with no chance of 'victory'.

To add insult to injury Blair decided to hang off Bush's coat tails and illegally send hundreds of our servicmeen to their death ... and for what????

 

Of course there is a comparison; both were wars to effect regime change.

...and what is this 'illegal war' meme stuff you keep parroting? What the hell has legality got to do with war!?

 

No, they weren't, stop spoouting your (ridiculous) opinions as if they were fact. You do that all the time and it is pathetic franky.

Please don't play dumb about the legalities of invading Iraq and Afghanistan ... you know as well as I do that neither had any mandate from the UN or support of the other countries other than the UK and bloody Israel of course.