War and Peace

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by slim, Sep 5, 2009.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. We have been at war in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2003. Many lives have been lost on both sides.
    Now as I see it the war with Iraq was illegal as no weapons of mass destruction have ever been found and it is highly doubtful if there ever were any.
    Afghanistan, we are there cos good old George W blew a bugle.

    At the end of the day I believe that these conflicts are oil induced.
    With this in mind.

    1. If the massive amounts of money spent on these conflicts had been invested in an renewable alternative energy sources, could this have led to a non dependence on Arab Oil?

    2. Would relations between Christian and Muslim races be as volatile?


    Please discuss and add.
     
  2. In the case of Iraq there is probably a connection to the oil theory.But with Afghanistan the link is a lot more tenuous as they haven't got any(that we've heard about anyway).The original idea to invade Afghanistan was to clear out the Al Qaeda training camps.That was largely accomplished so I have no idea what we are fighting for now.
     
  3. They not only have oil but significant quantities of minerals. I don't believe that the initial idea to get involved in Afghanistan was to clear out Al Qaeda but that it did give opportunity to expand the sphere of influence where the Russians had failed. Crops remain untouched ie poppy fields and only token PR crop clearances are shown to the media.
    There will always be discord between Christianity and the teachings of Allah. The Muslims were great theologians, scientists and mathematicians in the middle ages but sadly the fervour of the few has held back progressive thought and replaced it with oppression and an enslavement of the female in that society. The world will be a better place when we have a Catholic King, A Protestant Pope and a Methodist Mullah :wink:
    But then again I could be wrong!
     
  4. I am still not entirely convinced about the " keep terror of the streets of the U.K" excuse being fed to the public at the moment. Iraq was a crime and those involved should be prosecuted IMHO.
     
  5. "And in Mr Browns opinion If you use enough Persil it will become whiter than white. :wink:
     
  6. It is my belief that the British (et al.) presence in Afghanistan and other Muslim lands causes the "terror threat", not prevent it.
     
  7. I would agree with all the above comments;and add "Why can't we get out of there now?"There is a time when saving lives on both sides far outweighs political influence or "face";that time is now.
     
  8. So are you saying we should have an isolationist approach, block all trade with Muslim countries, force all UK/US/Western companies to withdraw their personnel from said countries, renege on all treaties, bilateral MOU and defence agreements that require the presence of westerners (non-Muslims in general) and then everything will be OK? Or are you making a massive generalisation that is nonsense as it stands?

    What everyone, all of us, every single person? Do you really mean that or just the political leadership? The Attorney General, Leader of the House, Leader of the Opposition, HM (as head of State), Lord Chief Justice, CDS, CGS, 1SL, CAS, DI, Sy Service, GCHQ and anyone else involved in the int or C2 process must also bear some blame. Also remember that if the war was illegal, then so were all of our actions within it, bringing us back to the idea of prosecutions all round. This is much more complex than the simple statement you made ie would UK law protect those that thought they were following legal orders (as the CIA interrogators in the US)? Even if it would; could the same be said for European law?

    I have no gripe with you having either opinion (although I don't agree necessarily with them) but making such all encompassing statements clearly does not help any reasoned debate for the short reasons given above. I've made my point before on the way the wars were handled so I won't go into it again except to say that given the time scale from 9/11 to US/UK insertion into Afghanistan plans for “sphere of influence†and “mineral exploitation†must have been off the shelf and dusted off pretty dam quickly!!



    As to renewable energy, no I don't think it would have made much difference. Cover Bodmin and Dartmoor in wind farms and sod the activists then build several modern, glow-in-the-dark power stations and we are sorted. :wink:

    IMD
     
  9. I read Dunkers quote as meaning the British military presence in Afghanistan is causing the problems, not their commercial links; in which case I agree entirely with the logic of his statement and see no reference to isolationism.

    There is little doubt that the Iraq war was illegal and that Bliar was the prime mover and should be indicted for war-crimes. He lied to his own ministers, he lied in and to Parliament and he lied to the people of Great Britain. His lies were of both omission and commission. The CIA torturers are presently using the Nuremberg Defence of a big lad told me to do it. Committing crimes whilst following orders didn't work for the Nazis and there is no Statute of Limitations for them.

    As to the real reasons for being in Afghanistan; access to Central Asia's energy is certainly one of them and there were ongoing talks between the USA and the Taleb right up to 9/11; so no rapid dusting off of war plans. They were already in place and the major political players were already involved in the commercial negotiations to install a trans-Afghan energy route:-

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD201A.html

    RM
     
  10.  
  11. So then would you argue that getting involved in Iraq was to enhance our position in the M/E, and therefore gain further access to its energy resources?

    Lincs
     
  12. My comment related to the British military presence (as Bergen correctly noted). Your average extremist Muslim is enraged by the fact that numerous divisions of kuffar are contaminating his brothers' holy lands, and consequently plots terrorist attacks against such Western countries as pollute them. Western interventionist governments are largely the cause of jihad; terrorist atrocities, their effect.

    Pull out British forces from Afghanistan and our alleged reason for being there will largely disappear.
     
  13. I am a great believer in the simplicity of Occam's Razor so let us decide first the reasons that we didn't invade.

    1. Weapons of Mass Delusion; The US and UK governments both knew that there were no WMD. The UN knew and it is why the UN inspectors were forced out of Iraq by the USA. It is why Bliar lied to Parliament and why Colon Powell lied to the UN. It is why the Niger yellowcake documents were forged and why Dr David Kelly died. Not a plausible reason but good for public consumption.

    2. 9/11 - well 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, as was Usama bin Laden and also the finance for the operation. Bush and PNAC plans for invading Iraq were already well advanced before 9/11 occurred. Not a plausible reason but good for public consumption [especially in the USA where the great unwashed still maintain that it was Mr. al Tikriti wot done it].

    3. Hunting Al Qaeda. Iraq was probably the most anti-AQ country in the Middle East which is why the US spent so much time and money fabricating fictitious links between them and Iraq. Not a plausible reason but it played well to the masses.

    4. Bringing demokracy, quilted toilet paper and MacDonalds. Yeah right.... Iraq was no worse than Saudi, Kuwait, the UAE and other assorted family run kleptocracies in the region.

    What are we left with? Iraq had nationalised it's oil industry, evicted the oil majors and was about to open an oil bourse and trade oil in Euros. That would have been the beginning of the end for the US$ [which as we have seen from recent economic events is really a wobbly fiat currency].

    Iraq sits on huge proven reserves and the projected unproven reserves put it ahead of even Saudi in potential. Iraq oil is sweet and easily accessible [<$4 bbl to produce].

    Quotes from the link below:-

    Oil is why the looting of Baghdad was ignored and why the Americans only guarded the oil-ministry and the ministry of the interior.

    Oil is why Cheney told the US oil industry prior to the invasion - "By 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from? While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

    Here's a recent headline in The New York Times: "Deals with Iraq Are Set to Bring Oil Giants Back."

    "Four western companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power." There you have it. After a long exile, Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP are back in Iraq and all with no-bid contracts
    .

    LINK>
    http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/185/40703.html

    RM
     

Share This Page