A few years ago Dr John Reid said that were going to go to Afghanistan on a mission to repair and create an infrastructure for the people there and we would be in and out in 3 years without a shot being fired. As the casualties pass 300 and the number maimed is many more this clearly hasn't gone to plan.
Then we put 3700 underequipped and under resourced troops into an area the size of Wales and hoped they would be able to quell the insurgent locals and exercise control and that hasn't worked either, yet.
What has caused me to start this discussion is a report in a paper today that a pregnant widow was given 200 lashes and shot because she had comitted adultery. This, closely following the killing of aid workers whose presence in the country was solely to do good for people with minmal access to any medical care makes me think that we, the US and NATO don't have the means or the will to impose our Western standards of morality on the country, do they want it and should we bother?
The Afghan Government appears to be incompetent and corrupt, no foreign power has ever had any success at quelling or ending the internal fighting there. Look at the efforts the Russions made before they gave up!
Do we continue our well intended but ineffective military efforts which won't be possible after the Defence Review anyway or get out and let the population get on with the lives they have led for centuries? I think there is more of a terrorist threat to us from UK Muslims living the the cities of N/W England than there is from Afghanistan anyway.
|
I Sir, think you may have a very good point. However, others I'm sure, will follow.
Best regards,
Martin D.
|
There is no military* reason to be there, and we should have no interest in other countries morals or human rights.
Out now.
*dont give me the "to keep terrorism in check" argument. YOu could easily do that by beefing up the border with Pakistan, and in effect putting the country under quarantine, - no one in or out.
There was a very simple and relatively cheap fix for the area. Western governments buy the output of the poppy farmers. Two effects, the locals soon turn their backs on the militias (who in turn willnot be militais anyway - they will be growing poppies for greenbacks), and a source of raw opium gets cut off.
Simples huh?
|
>>Simples huh?<<
No, and yes ... Blair took us into Afghan because the U.S. were going in due to 9/11 which even my dog knows was carried out by the Saudis,
Many other countries in this happy world subject their people to far worse treatment than the Sharia law dished out by the Taliban,
The invasion of Afghanistan was carried out to get control of that country, to build U.S military bases there, to have access to its vast mineral wealth and, look who's on their doorstep ‹(•¿•)›
why do you think the U.S give USrael $3 billion per annum.
|
|
Didnt work for the Sovs. I just dont understand why you dont use the money you pour in with arms and men, to buy the people.
|
Zero, if it could work, your idea would be cheaper in monetary terms and nobody dies due to the conflict/war.
Once you have got the farmers to accept money for poppies, you might get them to switch to a different crop too.
|
>>Didnt work for the Sovs<<
See The F-22 Raptor :(
With Americas awesome military might and technology I just don't see how their 'mission' can fail really, sure I know Afghanistan is the graveyard of Empires and all that, but that is past tense,
We are 'buying orf' people out there, like we did in the 80's with the Mujahideen.
|
|
They had that in Vietnam as well Dog - didn't get them anywhere only 55,000 dead squaddies.
|
>>They had that in Vietnam as well Dog<<
Of course I do realise that Pugley, I suppose Afghan is not unlike N.I. where the IRA would quickly launch an attack, including on the mainland, and just as quickly disappear again,
I believe its called terror-ism.
|
A war plane worth over £100m is useless in Afghanistan though. They need lots of people on the ground and many helicopters to safely move them about.
But if a large number of people do not want to do what the new government want them to do, what can the troops really achieve. As has been said here and many places before.... the British failed to achieve anything the last time as did the USSR. And I would imagine the USSR took more troops to Afghanistan than the Americans.
|
>> A war plane worth over £100m is useless in Afghanistan though. They need lots of
>> people on the ground and many helicopters to safely move them about.
>>
Afghans are a multitude of tribes, who in the main run their lives on a tribal loyalty basis followed by a religious conviction. They have a deep sense of "honour" built in to their brains from birth. This is so paramount that they will kill and risk their own lives in order to maintain honour. If a distant Taliban cousin gets killed in action, there will be twenty cousins willing to give up their lives to avenge the death of the one.
richarddawkins.net/articles/2695
|
|
NVA were very much the same.....one man's terrorist etc etc
|
My thiughts were in similar vein to Z and Rob. Why not pay them , say, 50% more than any price offered for the poppy crop and get them to grow wheat or maize Give them the money and let them keep the crop. Hell, the West can afford it .
Since at least Victorian days, the area has been a graveyard for forces attempting to change it.
Our leaders don't seem to learn anything from history. Bring our men back, together with any other of our people who wish to leave. Use our forces to beef up our home security at little danger to themselves.
Ted
|
>> There was a very simple and relatively cheap fix for the area. Western governments buy
>> the output of the poppy farmers. Two effects, the locals soon turn their backs on
>> the militias (who in turn willnot be militais anyway - they will be growing poppies
>> for greenbacks), and a source of raw opium gets cut off.
>>
>> Simples huh?
>>
Exactly what should have been done. Unfortunately, as time passes I'm becoming more and more convinced that Bush simply wanted a war with anyone and we were dragged in thanks to Blair's brown-nosing at the time.
|
Why did the anti war protests not succeed? news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1596810.stm
I remember at the time, there was quite a lot of playing up the terrorism threat to would be anti-war protestors, it came across to me as almost like a subtle suggestion "don't protest this".
In the US media this was even more pronounced, there were several articles with bold attacking headlines against the protestors that were very wooly in content of the article (google news archive still has them, Google news archive --> bit.ly/cEY9bW ) and also selective quotations.
|
|
And the "honour" aspect of killing 8 unarmed charity workers is - - - - - ?????
|
>> And the "honour" aspect of killing 8 unarmed charity workers is - - - -
>> - ?????
>>
- - - - that clearly you are asking a question from a Western viewpoint. Your mindset is the same as that of the politicians and armies of the West who are sending their young men and women to die, because these decision makers are ignorant and have absolutely no idea of what they are fighting against.
"izzat" is what they call it.
|
>> "izzat" is what they call it.
www.islam-watch.org/Others/Honour-and-Shame-in-Islam.htm
"One feels shame when one's relatives are treated unjustly or attacked, and one wishes to intervene between them and whatever peril or destruction threatens them." Also,
"The affection everybody has for his allies results from the feeling of shame that comes to a person when one of his neighbours, relatives or a blood relation in any degree is humiliated."
|
|
I would have thought, in any religion, the slaughter of unarmed civilians, providing a service to the population, which their own government can't or won't provide, would be unlawful and/or against their religious beliefs. "Izzat"? More like "Wozzat?"
|
>> I would have thought, in any religion, the slaughter of unarmed civilians,
It seems you have just woken up to what has been going on in the Muslim world. This is a tale that is centuries old, it did not start with partitioning of India nor of Kashmir, nor establishment of Israel in Palestine, nor invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, nor the war by the two President Bush's in Iraq, nor the destruction of the twin Word trade Centre towers in New York.
Killing of innocent unarmed civilians has been carried out by freedom fighters of many religions (including by Catholics belonging to the IRA). Are you not aware of the slaughter of Westerners in Beirut or the Israeli athletes in Munich.
As for Afghanistan, look at these report from 2006 and 2008
www.rawa.org/aidworkers.htm
30 May 2006 Seven aid workers lost their lives in Afghanistan on Tuesday in two separate incidents. At least four were killed in the northern Afghan province of Jawzjan when unidentified gunmen ambushed their vehicle, a government spokesman said in the capital Kabul. Aid workers have frequently been targeted over the past few months. On 12 May, unidentified gunmen attacked a United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) vehicle in the western province of Herat, killing two aid workers and injuring another. In April, unidentified assailants killed five health ministry workers, including nurses, doctors and a driver, at their clinic in the Qadis district of the northwestern province of Badghis.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7558076.stm
August 2008 Aid agencies are frequently targeted in the Afghan conflict, with convoys attacked and staff abducted or killed. 2008: An estimated 84 attacks on aid agencies so far, 21 in June. Nineteen aid workers had been killed so far this year - more than during the whole of 2007
Wozzat? The latest killings?
news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100809/wl_csm/318700_1
The murder of an international medical aid team in Afghanistan has driven home the delicate position of Christian-affiliated organizations operating in the country. A Taliban spokesman claimed they were killed for spying and trying to convert Muslims. The team was assembled by the International Assistance Mission (IAM), a group that describes itself as an international nonprofit Christian charitable organization.
The lesson is that if you are Caucasian, or Christian of any origin, be very careful where you go in Afghanistan, and if you do try to hide under a full burkha dress.
|
People have been slaughtering each other in the name of craven idols since pre grecian times.
Religeon, in all its forms is the biggest cause of bloodshed since man ran out of dinosaur meat.
|
>> Religion, in all its forms is the biggest cause of bloodshed since man ran out of dinosaur meat.
And it's why you cannot win in Afghanistan. It seems those that live there are happy doing what they do and we cannot enforce on them what we want. Maybe if we paid them for a useful crop they might stop blowing up soldiers etc.
How much has the USA plus allies spent in Afghanistan now? How many tens of billions or more? (I suspect hundreds of billions).
I thought this started as a search for one person and his terrorist team and then we were rebuilding a country. Two different reasons to be there.
If the USA wanted to sort out a lot of the world's problems their military spending could make a difference. But don't they need wars to justify the huge spending and the jobs behind it. But an F22 is no use when you're on the ground in Afghanistan.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Tue 10 Aug 10 at 18:41
|
|
" Craven" - think not; "Graven" maybe!
Last edited by: landsker on Tue 10 Aug 10 at 22:19
|
>> (google news archive still has them, Google news archive --> bit.ly/cEY9bW ) and also selective quotations.
A good link. If you add the word Afghanistan and alter the date to start in 1850 then you get a bigger picture of what it's all about, and always has been (and probably always will be).
|
|
Fascinating link Crankcase! I had no idea of the existence of these archives. As you say, the story is similar and the outcome predictable; almost all that has changed is the dates and the technology used by those involved
|
Buying the opium poppies isn't the end of the deal. I've posted about this before.
1. Buy the poppies
2. Make diamorphine
3. Make it available to druggies on the streets in London, Paris, New York etc. etc. free of charge, in clean surroundings.
Benefits:
a. Drug dealers go out of business - benefits to society are great, not least that we don't get new addicts being given drugs as a loss leader by dealers.
b. Druggies stop breaking into cars/houses/mugging old ladies to nick things that cost insurance companies thousands to replace but are sold on the street for a few quid for the next fix - benefits to society in terms of insurance etc. etc. enormous
c. Druggies are given clean drugs, not drugs that have been cut with weedkiller; they don't share works; if they have a bad trip they are shooting up under medical supervision - benefits to public health extraordinary
d. Afghanistan problem sorted.
Problems
i. Daily Mail headlines "druggies to be given free drugs" - somebody please shoot the Mail's editor.
ii. The states don't use diamorphine at all medically - I think it's some sort of religious objection.
iii. Errr, that's it.
iv. Oh yes, the political will just isn't there (see point i)
Anybody who thinks I'm a bleeding heart liberal doesn't know me at all.
|
Or why not bring all the troops home and send out all the druggies direct to the source and leave them to find their own way????
A midnight swoop across Britain, involving all forces, every druggie picked up, chucked in a cargo plane and flown out to Afghanistan. Oh and take all the Human Rights lawyers with them!!!
|
What Next?, i suppose whatever our new politicians fancy a crusade over to make their names/reputations on, subject to the whims of whatever might be seated in the white house at the time, we're only the tail getting wagged, damned insulting seeing the cameroon sucking up to his new master, he does not represent me.
If another country invaded mine and killed my loved ones then they'd better hurry up and get me too if they know whats good for them, and i imagine the same goes for most here.
And me a good if lapsed Catholic.
Actually religeon has little to do with it, it's family and broader community which are still important to many people, we used to have it in this country...once.
What really galls me is the hypocrisy of western politicians strutting round like some sort of demi gods deciding who should and shouldn't be in power in places that have the right to determine their own fate.
|
Very wise words in deed comrade bennet,
The Taliban actually banned opium production for the first time in Afghan history in 2000, by 2001 production was reduced from 12,600 acres to only 17 acres, but then along came the invasion, sorry - I mean War, and with the expulsion of the Taliban, opium cultivation returned,
Many of these so-called Taliban fighters are just freedom fighters really, prepared to sacrifice their lives to ward off the invaders, and kill them where necessary, or be killed themselves,
And as for Karzai, well - he's just a puppet of America.
Last edited by: Dog on Wed 11 Aug 10 at 09:03
|
>> Many of these so-called Taliban fighters are just freedom fighters really, prepared to sacrifice their
>> lives to ward off the invaders, and kill them where necessary, or be killed themselves,
No they are not. Afghanistan, as a country does not and has never existed. Its just a fence round a bunch of disperate tribes and warlords. All the warlords care about is maintaining power, influence and wealth as in the old fuedal days. They use fighting as a tool to do it, and if they dont have a common cause to fight against they fight against each other.
We gave them the common cause. Once we are gone they will be back to killing each other.
|
>>No they are not. Afghanistan, as a country does not and has never existed. Its just a fence round a bunch of disperate tribes and warlords<<
But the fact remains that it is their country and we invaded it, at no time have they attacked or threatened Britain, what right have we got to invade another country just because they don't do things our way.
|
>>
>>
>> What really galls me is the hypocrisy of western politicians strutting round like some sort
>> of demi gods deciding who should and shouldn't be in power in places that have
>> the right to determine their own fate.
>>
In WW 2 lots of MPs served in the armed forces, and several were killed on active service.
How many recent MPs
1) Are serving in Afghanistan?
2) Are serving anywhere?
3) Have been killed on active service?
4) Have ever had any active service experience?
|
you cant compare WW2 with modern times
There was national service, conscription and it was total global war.
Also pre war, only the wealthy and gentry made it as an MP, and the wealthy and gentry considered being commisioned in the forces was a social club.
|
>> and it was total global war.
>>
>>
>>
>>
Like the "war on terrorism" ?
|
>> Like the "war on terrorism" ?
No.
|
>>How many recent MPs
1) Are serving in Afghanistan?
2) Are serving anywhere?
3) Have been killed on active service?
4) Have ever had any active service experience?<<
(5) Have Sons or Daughters on the ground in Afghanistan)
|
|
At least the royal family have kept up the tradition of having family members in fields of conflict,
|
|
Aye, including The Falklands War/Conflict/Crisis.
|
The North West Frontier as it was once called, populated by the "Wily Pathan" was never conquered by the Raj when Imperial Britain ruled India.
Never was, never will be: politicians, by and large, don't study history.
|
For a politician to have the right, i would say honour but that word belongs to very few and i'm struggling to think of any current, to send soldiers into battle they should have to prove themselves worthy of such a responsibility.
|
>> For a politician to have the right, i would say honour but that word belongs
>> to very few and i'm struggling to think of any current, to send soldiers into
>> battle they should have to prove themselves worthy of such a responsibility.
Thatcher had no military experience when she sent the troops into the Falklands.
However she did it with conviction, and she backed them up, would stand no criticism, and she praised them on return.
The last shower have no idea.
|
>> Thatcher had no military experience when she sent the troops into the Falklands.
Different scenario though, our land was invaded and we had a right to defend it.
Agree with you though about Thatcher, she also took responsibility for her decisions right or wrong without having a scapecoat or three ready to pin the blame on, think teflon tone the shifty one and his true heir the current one.
|
|
So in the defence cuts it looks like all the Tornado GR4 aircraft will be scrapped. And yet we're sending an additional two to Afghanistan to make the total 10. We obviously do not need the planes then.
|
|
By the way just like you to know I HATE politicians, don't want anyone thinking i'm toadying up to teflon dave for a gong, where the sun don't shine old son.
|
|
If they are sending more it surely meanas that we DO need them. Whether we need them or not they are probably going to be scrapped. This, BTW, will leave us with a limited recce capability.
|
|
It was sarcasm when I said we didn't need them. And the GR4 is more capable in many roles than the Eurofighter - that needs developing to make it useful. The Tornado had the same problem. Planes designed for the cold war.
|
www.independent.co.uk/opinion/columnists/julie-burchill/julie-burchill-ill-be-an-armchair-warrior-any-time-rather-than-an-armchair-appeaser-2048851.html
some selected quotes from the above article in today's Independent:
on hearing of the death of Dr Karen Woo and her colleagues. Whether they were killed by the Taliban or not (and the big old heroes have certainly claimed responsibility for the killing of the unarmed aid workers as they have boasted of similar butcherings before), their murders have acted as a grisly litmus test for so many sentient souls back here at home.
Standing for nothing, standing up for nothing, giving in to anything for a quiet life – it is the armchair appeasers among us whose deaths will be truly, deeply meaningless.
I don't know an awful lot about Islam – probably about as much as the average Muslim knows about Christianity or Judaism (for example, the fact they resemble apes and dogs, according to some Islamic school textbooks) – but I do know about the Muslim concept of "umma". This refers to the one-ness of the international community of Islam, which is apparently the reason the sons of Saudi millionaires murder, by proxy, innocent strangers (including fellow Muslims) on London buses and in New York skyscrapers, in order to advance the cause of the poor Palestinians.
|
It has always been thus since primitive tribes invented the totally ridiculous idea of the Sky Pixie and his/her/its followers.
"My Sky Pixies are better than yours and I'll kill you if you don't agree."
It is probably true to say that the followers of the monotheistic idiocies, such as Christianity, Judaism & Islam have been responsible for more deaths and suffering than anything else man-made on this planet, in all its history.
|
Afghanistan - What Next? - MD
