[Archived] Afghanistan

[adopted scouser]

Another six British soldiers killed in Afghanistan. The total number of our servicemen killed in that stone age Islamic rat hole is over 400.

What exactly are we doing there ? They don't want a nice, democratic government with decent health and safety regulations and opportunities for all. They want to stone homosexuals and adulterers, beat up women and murder anyone who isn't a Muslim.

The government WE put in place has just decided that under Islamic law it's OK to beat up women.

We've been kidding ourselves for 11 long years, let the Taliban have it. Sometimes a country gets the government it deserves.

[Ozz]

Allied forces entered Afghanistan as a result of 9/11-the stated motivation to rid the country of the Taliban/al Quieda axis that was a breeding ground for international terrorism. From what I read now, this no longer is an issue there, and Mission Creep has left the forces now micro managing the less (!) well Policed areas, such as Helmand etc. But all they appear to have done is move them all into Pakistan, but I can't see US/UK/NATO forces moving into a nuclear armed state as quickly as they did into Afghanistan.

They of course there is the issue of Iran and their `Programme` and the Israel issue, plus Syria...

Good job everyones worried shitless about domestic issues right now cos the Middle East is a real ticking time bomb.

[Mattyblue]

It's gone from flushing out the Taliban and Al Queda- fair aim,

Then it was to 'stop the opium poppy trade'- failure, now there is a 20 times bigger harvest than when the war started.

Then it was to 'rebuilld infrstructure, democracy, women's rights' and so on. Failure, Afghanistan will NEVER be a stable, democratic society, never.

We couldn't conquer them a hundred plus years ago, neither could the Soviets and we still can't.

5 years after we leave, the Taliban will be back in charge.

[thenodrog]

Doubt it will take 5 years.

Not wanting to tar em all with the same brush but the greatest threat to world peace comes from the followers of islam. No need to take my word for it just pick up a paper or turn on the news.

[SouthAussieRover]

What's the news angle over there re the SBS operation in Nigeria?

[Ozz]

The BBC are focussing on how Cameron only told the Italian PM after he OK'd the (failed) mission, and they Italian reaction to it.

[Amo]

Not wanting to tar em all with the same brush but the greatest threat to world peace comes from the followers of islam. No need to take my word for it just pick up a paper or turn on the news.

Do you believe everything you read/see?

[HemelRover]

Do you believe everything you read/see?

Do you think he believes everything he types?

[thenodrog]

Do you think he believes everything he types?

Whether I do or don't matters little, but it's obvious that you hang onto my every word. Ten/twenty years time and you'll be repeating them as your own.

[roversWASmylife]

As a serving Soldier I won't comment on whether we should or shouldn't be there.

R.I.P Lads

We Will Remember Them

[HemelRover]

Whether I do or don't matters little, but it's obvious that you hang onto my every word. Ten/twenty years time and you'll be repeating them as your own.

It's not that I hang onto your every word, it's just that I've read about 95% of the posts on this board and as, sadly, I cant put your bigoted drivel onto ignore, occasionally I find myself commenting around something you have posted.

[Tom]

More bad stuff from that region today either one or a group of american soldiers went on a rampage killing 16 civilians including kids then burnt the bodies according to Reuters.

I expect there will be some fallout there, hope they are punished to the full extent of the law, either that or hand em over to the Afghan authorities!

[pg]

Not wanting to tar em all with the same brush but the greatest threat to world peace comes from the followers of islam.

The biggest threat to world peace comes from the those wishing to maintain Western global financial hegemony.

That includes the West's addiction to oil.

[purplegrover]

5 years after we leave, the Taliban will be back in charge.

Agreed. They will naturally gravitate towards fundamentalism because their religion encourages and fosters it. The same will happen in Libya now that the dictator has gone, and in Iraq. And in Syria if the incumbent loony is deposed, as seems likely soon. Secular dictators at least keep the radicals in check (not that their methods can be condoned.

As soon as we pull out of there, the Taliban will be back. We can't 'civilise' the local people to become like Western society, no matter how much we try, because 'civilisation' is how you percieve it. Its arrogant for us to assume that because we think "our way" is better, we should impose it on everyone. To them, our way of life is not 'civilised' at all. Our basic moral compass and fundamental values are different than theirs. Its not right or wrong, its just different. To those peoples, their own basic moral compass is what makes up 'civilisation'. We may not agree, but who's to say ?

To us, civilisation means being able to wear what you like walking down the street and having freedom of choice.

To them, civilisation means murdering your daughter if she fraternises with an infidel boy, or dares to wear shorts or a miniskirt.

The interesting thing to me (and I speak to all cultures as part of my work) is that they cannot fathom why that is 'wrong'. They look at you like you're mad if you suggest that there is something wrong with that. To them, it is the right thing, and we are the oppressors. How can you reason with that ? You can't. Because our "reason" is illogical to them. The same way that theirs is to us.

How can we possibly make any headway occupying their countries ? They will never accept our norms, and we will never accept theirs. Get our boys out of there is what I say. Clearly (by the news this week of the American soldier going mad), when our troops aren't being shot by the people we are supposedly there to help, the troops are going insane. Its a lose/lose. Get them out of there and bring them home.

[thenodrog]

Its a lose/lose. Get them out of there and bring them home.

It might be win win purplegrover.

Dunno if anyone shares my opinion but fully equipped military bases and recent very relevent combat experience in both Iraq and Afghanistan provide perfect preparation for the time when the west is forced to engage the nutters in Iran in a full on military conflict. And that time might not be too far off.

[Jeru tha Damaja]

Oh great, preparing for a war in Iran. Because it'll be different there than it has been in Iraq and Afghanistan. We won't be bringing more young men home draped in the flag, lost for a cause that we'll never win.

And why would we be going to war in Iran in the first place? Because their government oppresses a population who quite freely gathered to protest after the last elections? Because they threatened to launch the nuclear weapon they don't have at Israel (who do have nuclear capabilities to use in their defence)? Because they are likely to have a nuclear weapon soon, even though every piece of nuclear material they have is accounted for and the Israelis keep assassinating their scientists? Or maybe it's because they're stopping us from bringing our looted legally drilled oil out of Iraq through the Strait of Hormuz.

In any case, what could possibly go wrong? It's not like Iran is 3/4 times bigger than Iraq, with a population more than twice the size. It doesn't border any volatile countries like Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan, and there was certainly a time when an Iranian government was friendly with the West back in erm...maybe not.

Only a complete fool who has learned nothing from the US and British adventures over the past 11 years could possibly contemplate action in Iran, especially when there is absolutely nothing to warrant sending so much as a Rambo DVD box-set to Tehran.

Anyway, that was rather a large detour on a thread that should have been remembering the tragic waste of 6 more lives.

[thenodrog]

Oh great, preparing for a war in Iran. Because it'll be different there than it has been in Iraq and Afghanistan. We won't be bringing more young men home draped in the flag, lost for a cause that we'll never win.

And why would we be going to war in Iran in the first place? Because their government oppresses a population who quite freely gathered to protest after the last elections? Because they threatened to launch the nuclear weapon they don't have at Israel (who do have nuclear capabilities to use in their defence)? Because they are likely to have a nuclear weapon soon, even though every piece of nuclear material they have is accounted for and the Israelis keep assassinating their scientists? Or maybe it's because they're stopping us from bringing our looted legally drilled oil out of Iraq through the Strait of Hormuz.

In any case, what could possibly go wrong? It's not like Iran is 3/4 times bigger than Iraq, with a population more than twice the size. It doesn't border any volatile countries like Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan, and there was certainly a time when an Iranian government was friendly with the West back in erm...maybe not.

Only a complete fool who has learned nothing from the US and British adventures over the past 11 years could possibly contemplate action in Iran, especially when there is absolutely nothing to warrant sending so much as a Rambo DVD box-set to Tehran.

Nothing to warrant? Iraq was phase 1 and Afghanistan is massively strategic.

The Iranian govt is a thorn in the flesh to peace politics in the middle east and under Iran are massive reserves of oil and even more massive reserves of gas. On top of that you state they have a significant opposition to their govt within their own population. All the necessary ingredients are there for US intervention. The only counter are possible diplomatic manoevres with the Russky's and the Chinese.

You've set yourself up as your own complete fool jeru.

[Jeru tha Damaja]

There's a significant opposition to the government in the UK. Does that mean the Americans should be plotting an annexation of London?

In fact, in the past year there have been demonstrations, looting and even violent riots against perceived institutional corruption that the masses don't believe could be changed by diplomatic process. Quick, mobilise the marines.

The fact that you think Iran owning huge reserves of oil and gas means we would be right to invade and take it from them just shows you to be an imperialist dinosaur who hasn't quite woken up to Britain's current status as a globally over-represented island still clinging to the coat-tails of the US to vicariously relive our former "glories". 'They've got, I want' isn't a reason for war, and unless you would be prepared to break the news and explain the nature of the sacrifice to the family of each soldier that would be killed in a war against Iran then I really think you should get back under your blanket and try rearranging some of the ideas that are rattling your head until they make sense.

The only way the public would back a war in Iran is if we were lied to by our own government once more. It wouldn't surprise me if it happened, but it by no means proves that a war would be justified.

Should we be weighing up the gain in oil from a successful war in Iran against the loss of the gas that we have pumped across Europe from Russia?

As for Iraq and Afghanistan, if you would care to explain to me why we are still there with reference to the stated aims of each campaign, the likelihood of ever completing that mission and without the mention of oil then I would be very grateful, because it's got me stumped.

Maybe after that we could re-open the discussion about whether it was worth the number of young lives that have been lost in the cause.

[thenodrog]

'They've got, I want' isn't a reason for war,

There's been lots of wars throughout history so study up and tell me another reason then.

[Jeru tha Damaja]

That's my fault, I meant it's not a good reason for war, but clearly you either can't read between the lines or you just don't want to.

But your original point was about us being "forced" to go to war with Iran, and lusting after oil is hardly being forced. I suppose it makes it all the easier to argue when you can constantly change the basis of your argument.

So which is it?

Are we being forced into war by a dangerous and militant Iran? (Already established that there's no proof for that theory)

Are we fighting for democracy? (Pointless, thankless and more than a little arrogant)

Or are we fighting to quench our thirst for oil? (Which could be the truth but is nowhere near your original stance and would be an incredibly unpopular war that would undermine any remaining faith we might have in the morals of our system)

[braddock]

I think it's only fair to remember those whom the servicemen have killed as well as the departed servicemen as well, many of whom were simply born in the wrong place at the wrong time and fed utter garbage to a greater extent than we are.

[pg]

Agreed. They will naturally gravitate towards fundamentalism because their religion encourages and fosters it.

Recent events in Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Syria and Libya suggest otherwise.

[purplegrover]

Recent events in Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Syria and Libya suggest otherwise.

How do you explain the trashing of all our war graves in Benghazi last week ? Give it time.

[braddock]

How do you explain the trashing of all our war graves in Benghazi last week ? Give it time.

Individual idiots, not the act of a nation or even a specific community.

[ABBEY]

click

Recent events in Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Syria and Libya suggest otherwise.