JTaylor

Martin2005

Juggers - given that you will never accept any answer I give you, why don't you answer your own questions. What I mean is you lay out your reasons for believing the war was illegal and all about oil. I will do the same point by point layout why I disagree.

How about it?

pslewis

Dear me ... what an intelligent answer ... says it all, really ... heaven help us!

dpb

Ok then that's settled

Wazz777

It wasen't an answer as a question wasen't asked. Just my opinion based on your drivel. But please, feel free to prove me wrong with some substantiated proof that you are not a complete tool. You do know how that works dont you?

Oh, and for the love of god no more of your 'experience'.

cster

He's got no teeth

TelBoy

Martin, just so i understand better, what would be your response to the Wikipedia (for what it's worth) entry regarding the legality of the war. What facts are they missing? I'm guessing that both sides think they have valid claims to call the war either legal or illegal, are there really any facts as such on the issue?

Martin2005

Wow at least somebody wants to debate a substantive point

The most obvious and succinct reason is one of basic self defense

The more subtle one surround whether the Talibans harbouring subsequent refusal to hand over Bin Laden and AQ , constitute an act of war by Afghanistan upon the US

If you cast your mind back to 2001 there wasn't really much of a debate going on about legality.

Also it's worth noting that the action was taken by NATO not solely by the US. It is unlikely that NATO would get involved in a act of illegal war, moreover the French (remember them under Chirac) were fully signed up)

You are right of course international law is a murky business, and there can be different interpretations. I've been waiting for Jugger's interpretation for 3 days now

Hope that answers your question, at least in part anyway

Shaid

And... this is why i have a lot of respect for UK armed forces due to people like Mr Griffin. This is also the reason why i detest the american terrorising scumbags and why i have very little sympathy for them. Hell, they created Al Qaeda and now they are supplying them with arms in Syria!

Ultimately the Americans are lining the pockets of the Saudi's who are the ones exporting a lot of nasty stuff. But hey, the Americans aren't affected so they couldn't give a damn. Yes the Americans helped us in WW2 however whilst our men were fighting ***** they were in our country getting jiggy with the ladies left behind. Yet we still as a country stick our tongue firmly up their anus. And whilst i'm ranting can America please take back it's bloody rap culture. There is nothing special about being a bum and glorifying violence.

JTaylor

https://www.scoobynet.com/showpost.p...2&postcount=16

Shaid

juggers

iTrader: (1)

In short you've failed to answer my questions, can't answer my questions and have asked me to answer my questions. ......... so much for a debate.

Martin I won't waste any more time.

Martin2005

Oh either he wasn't being honest with me, or his views have 'evolved' since he posted that

oh what the odds that he actually comes back with some actual answers this time?

TelBoy

Hmm ok. So the crux is that in 2001 everybody perceived there to be an imminent threat to Western civilisation given 9/11, and that waiting for official UN approval would take too long? I sort of get that side of the argument, but you can also see why those calling it illegal have a point, if you play strictly by the rules. Easy for them to call foul in hindsight for sure, and i for one was never quite sure why Afghanistan itself was targeted rather than the wholly different proposition of nuclear-armed and Western-friendly Pakistan, but that's another point. Just seemed that the US wanted to be seen to be doing "something" to appease public outrage, whether it was rubber-stamped or not.

juggers

iTrader: (1)

O come on Martin is the best you have, you can't even manage to debate the topic at hand let alone what happened on 9/11.

Stop clutching at straws go away and just look into it and spend a few hours on google. And stop reading the Dailymail it's for morons

hodgy0_2

can you just elucidate for me what the above statement means in the context of your post

Martin2005

I mean that people have just post-rationalised

Shaid

In 2001 there was a massive and i mean massive demo in London against the war. I remember, i was at it. A peaceful demo and a long march (although it was hard finding a place to buy ****).

Martin2005

Come on tell me how and why this was all about oil? Afterall it's your basic argument, yet you have singularly failed back this up with a coherent chain of events.

Let me give you some starter questions

What role did 9-11 play in the invasion of Afghanistan?

Why attack Afghanistan for oil? How much oil is there in Afghanistan, is there enough to justify a war?

What has the US done with all the Afghani oil since 2001?

Given that both Iraq and Afghanistan were 'all about oil' why am I having to paying £1.50 a litre for petrol?

Shaid

The Taliban pipeline deal

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm

http://ericlandrews.hubpages.com/hub...in-Afghanistan

Mineral wealth not oil

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10311752

As for why your petrol is soo expensive


Although i am not a fan of the Taliban or associates i really do wish the Afghans manage to keep their countries untapped wealth within their country for their people.

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

Tell us Shaid, if the country had been left to the Taliban, how many centuries or millenia do you think it would have been before the people ever saw any of that wealth?

Martin2005

OK I’ll layout my arguments as to why this was never about oil. Please note that I do not approach this from an ideological perspective, I’m simply putting 2 + 2 together, using rational thought and as much common-sense as I can muster.

9-11 – this was the reason NATO backed the Northern Alliance with special forces and air support and intel. Note the US did not invade, they did not march into Kabul, the Northern Alliance did.
The assertion that oil was the reason for the operation in Afghanistan means that I have to suspend disbelief and go with the logic that 9-11 was pure coincidence, and the US were planning to attack all along. Effectively meaning that Bin Laden gave the US the pretext to do what they always wanted to do. This line of reasoning doesn’t really stand up to much scrutiny though.

Cost – most recent estimates put the cost of the war at around $600bn. You can buy an awful lot of oil for that amount of money, and it dwarfs the value of even top-end estimates of the known oil reserves in Afghanistan. I would also like to mention the human cost here too, as far too many people have already died on all sides. Personally I wish there was a whole lot more oil there, it might help move that desperate country out of the terrible poverty that afflicts it.

Availability – The US has MASSIVE domestic untapped oil reserves, why go around attacking other countries when they can simply drill more?
What has America done with the Afghani oil, I’ve not seen or read anything that even hints that America has stolen or misappropriated any oil. In fact I think you’ll find that companies from all around the world are involved in exploration – why would the US allow that?


Over to you Juggers

btw can you clear up why you changed your mind on whether Afghanistan had oil in the first place? As you started off by talking about this being 'all about oil', then got called on it by someone, and then stated 'If you read the sentence and understood it correctly, you would understand that my reference to the OIL could be that of the OIL in Iraq or Iran...could it not?'. Now you've obviously subsequently done a google search and caught up with the facts on that too. I don't really know what to make of that

Martin2005

Best estimate was that 20,000 people took part in that demo, or to put it another way about 2% of those who came out on the streets to protest the war in Iraq

btw this is what I mean by post rationalisation

Shaid

Rather the wealth stay uncapped than the select few leaches line their pockets and NO you would not have benefited. Seriously mate stop being a mouthpiece for those that sent you there in the first place.

JTaylor

Look-up abrogation (or Naskh if you're feeling advanced), it's a key to the success of Islam as a memeplex. The practice of conjuring up several versions of an event and reflexively evoking that which is most useful given the conditions is hard-wired in.

pslewis

Is that even a word?

You truly were at the end of the queue when God was giving out brain cells

I take it you realise what a tool is, and how you epitomize it so well?

Shaid

Wow, the bull you come out with is amazing. I suppose you believe Shia eat babies too right?

JTaylor

No, but Sunnis murder Shia babies and Shia murder Sunni babies, right? Anyway, in what way is naskh "bull" please, Shaid?

Shaid

I refer to such randomn out and middle of nowhere most Muslims couldn't give a toss type terms as not credible considering the one questioning has a history of nonesense.

JTaylor

Yes, but does the term naskh exist, Shaid?