knoxxsouthy wrote:
Paula,
Maybe we should liberate the UK.
Feel free. I have a suspicion that an average British hooligan beer monster will rip your head off and sh
It down your neck without spilling his pint of Kronenbourg tho.
Omegavageta wrote:
Because I don't think my country should give back Afghanistan to the people who will use it as a base of operations to attack the US. I'd rather give it the people of Afghanistan chance to run things first.
1. Afghanistan isn't
yours to give. Where on Earth do you get the idea that you are
entitled to give Afghanistan back to the Afghanis?
2. The people your country is fighting
are the Afghanis. What are you going to do? Kill them all?
3.By 'attack the USA', what do you mean? No attack came
from Afghanistan. Planning for an attack could be carried out anywhere in the world, and the same for training. Theres nothing special about Afghanistan that makes it the ideal base of operations for attacking anyone. Europe is far better. At least they have 24 hour electricity and a functioning telephone/internet system.
4. By 'base of operations', what do you actually picture in your head? Hi-tech facilities with satelite dishes and hangars full of equipment and orderly barracks full of highly traine commandoes? If so, you need to stop watching Hollywood movies for a while and give reality a bit of time to resettle your brain.
Jophiel wrote:
This is making the assumption that the vast majority of people in Afghanistan consider themselves to be suffering as a result of the invasion.
Its a pretty sound assumption. I'm struggling to think of any people who find themselves hosting a foreign military power that considers themselves
lucky to be subjected to occupation. The Afghanis have never been very amenable to it in the past. You think they might see things differently now because its the good ol' boy hearsts and minds Americans who are doing the occupying?
I wouldn't. Would you?