Thread: Is this worth the killing ????

only because they have been kept uneducated by their own rulers...

Probably right there
But we could say the same about them

we don't want there laws or we don't want there way of life

The difference is we welcome them and their culture with open arms and offer a higher standard of living and friendship in return

That's another strange concept

Originally Posted by steve_35

Thats the problem

They don't want our living standards
They don't want our laws
they don't want our culture
and the don't want our way of life

But for some some reason we feel we have to impose it on them regardless

They already have the good life as far as they are concerned

they don't work for others in their culture
To be an employee is a strange concept most prefer to feed there own family's rather than feed someone elses

Why would they want to and why should we force them

Opportunity...that's the key word. Sydney, especially some suburbs...are full of migrants from these countries who have, by whatever means fair or foul, sought a life here where they DO want our lifestyle...ask any Lebanese, Afghan or Iraqi if he would like free passage to Australia with his family, and be placed in public housing and provided with a health care system that bulk bills so he won't have to put his hand in his pocket, and he would walk on water to get here.

And if they would rather stay there, surely their life would be better where they can live free of oppression, where one can speak his or her mind, without being thrown in a gaol cell? Or is it acceptable to club someone to within an inch of their life for daring to have an opinion?

Hopefully, stability will be brought to that part of the world in time...that is what the Allies are trying to do...that is what our men and women are doing.

The USA has "Liberated" more countries than anyone else

Originally Posted by cartm58

The USA has "Liberated" more countries than anyone else

I think you have miss spelled the word it is spelled " I.N.V.A.D.E.D"

I wonder how many of these type of conversations would happen if we'd just offed all the hippies at birth....

Originally Posted by digger

Or maybe, trying to find some way that Afghanistan could support itself and base its economy on, the US is conducting all these surveys etc...to basically get a head start for the locals???

Possibly, just maybe, not everyone who is involved in this thing is part of some huge conspiracy, possibly, just a wee bit, that there are people out there who think they are helping build the afghan nation up so it can survive???

sorry but sometimes I think a little too much james bond movie plot is brought into the weigh up??

My brother is currently over there and I will be damned if I believe the Australian forces are there as part of that kind of crap conspiracy stuff!

My 5c....(was 2c but I rounded up!)

cheers
digger

So many things I want to say and so little time to say it in... Firstofall, I have a lot of respect for people serving in our armed forces. They dont have a say in where they go... that's our politicians. And its that I don't agree with...

Originally Posted by digger

Possibly, just maybe, not everyone who is involved in this thing is part of some huge conspiracy, possibly, just a wee bit, that there are people out there who think they are helping build the afghan nation up so it can survive???
digger

Agree with the above 100% - IMO it is only a very small, (but equally influential) minority who shape much of what's going on in the world today...

That said, I don't believe we should be there... The reason I think we are there... well, we believe the US saved our bacon in WW2 and for that we owe them allegiance. That and the belief they'll come to our rescue should the need arise. IMO, whether they do or not has more to do with how well it coincides with their ultimate goals, but that's a different matter... we're talking about Afganistan...

I believe its naive to think the US is there to better the lives of people in Afganistan. Or Iraq for that matter. Or potentially Iran in 3 to 5 years time, or Venezuela in 10 to 15 if some Republicans and their backers have their way. But once again, I digress...

So, what ulterior motive could "the US" have to "liberate" the people of Afganistan. (and before I go on, I just want to define "the US" as the country's leadership, and not its people). The area around the Caspian sea is very rich in oil and gas and more importantly, it has recently become "accessible" (or within reach) and is largely undeveloped. Up until the breakup of the USSR, the only two nations bordering the Caspian sea were the USSR and Iran. Both had other oil fields to focus on - USSR in Siberia, and Iran well, anywhere you can dig a hole.

After the breakup of USSR however, all of a sudden Kazakhstan, Azarbaijan and Turkmenistan now have access to the Caspian basin. Ever since then, the who's-who of US oil (Chevron, Unocal, Amoco and Exxon to name a few) have been trying to get consessions and make pipeline deals with the newly formed countries.

For example, in 1993, Chevron negotiated a deal with Kazakhstan to exploit the Tengiz oil field and export oil across the caspian sea to Baku and then through Russia onto the Black sea oort of Novorossiisk. Part of the pipeline passess through Chechnya and Dagestan, neither of which are very stable, not to mention the arguements as to who owns the bottom of the Black sea. To date, ChevronTexaco has spent an estimated $3 billion on the pipeline, and its future is uncertain. On that note, any guesses what the Russia / Georgia conflict over South Ossetia and Abkhazia may have been about, and the motives behind US "protests" over Russian brutality... once again, another topic...

At the same time (~93), an Argentine company Bridas approached Unocal after entering agreements with Turkmentistan and Pakistan to build oil and gas pipelines through Afganistan. (It wasn't big enough to pull it off on it's own and was looking for a deep-pocket partner). It's since been frozen out of the deal... but I'm getting sidetracked again. The problem was Afganistan, where there was an endless civil war following the end of the Soviet occupation (1989).

The Taliban was thus backed by the US, especially after they captured Kabul in 1996, as they were the best bet for stability in the region (hmmm... Saddam, Osama, the Taliban ... getting sidetracked again). Stability was / is required for investors to feel comfortable sinking large amounts of cash into a high risk project such as that. To Taliban's credit, they did restore law and order (even if it was a medieval version of extreme Islamic practice). The human rights abuses were largely overlooked - the US believed they could work with the Taliban. Apparently, they were wrong. Attempts by US oil - CentGas, the Central Asia Gas and Pipe Consortium that was put together by Unocal failed to reach agreement with the then government and pulled out at the end of '98...

... with that in mind, fast forward to today - Afganistan is "under control" and following the invasion (or liberation, as some prefer to call it), the US has bases in Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. If you look at a map, you'll find that together with Afghanistan, they provide corridors to the south and to the east directly into China and India, the biggest growth regions for oil consumption. The bases are established to offer security for potential future pipelines.

Some people call that a conspiracy... I don't think that's a conspiracy - the facts certainly seem to point in that direction.

An example of conspiracy is believing that elements in the then US government allowed 911 to happen (or even orchestrated it), to give them public support for what would otherwise be a largely unpopular war.... (or should I say wars?). Some people could conclude the timing was rather convenient. Many in the incoming Bush administration had/have private interests in oil in the Caspian basin. Bush, Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, James Baker III, Brent Scowcroft, Richard Armitage all have stakes in oil projects in the region. In less than 2 years after the negotiations (to build the pipeline through Afganistan) fall through, Bush gets appointed into office (its interesting to note that he wasn't elected). A year later (after 911), the world is so outraged by the attacks, any moves the US makes after this point seem well justified. In less than a month following the attacks, the Bush administration negotiates deals to put bases in Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan (in addition to setting up shop in Afganistan). Anyone recall how long it took the same administration to coordinate aid into New Orleans and restore order after Katrina?

Is that a conspiracy? - I think its far fetched, but you could forgive a guy for questioning if it could actually have an element of truth in it.

Makes for a good James Bond plot anyway.

With those words, he runs off ducking for cover...
... pretending to be getting his car ready for the technical inspection tomorrow to get his 120 registered before he leaves for the Canning...

BTW, I'm not having a go at digger's post, it just provided a good lead-in for my view of the world