- This topic has 64 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
In view of this mornings news from usa I agree with you, they can strike anywhere and that includes their maniacal supporters, we should bring british servicemen home and invest the money saved in fighting terrorism on the domestic front.
You would have been wise to pluralise the title of this thread to AFGHAN WARS to remind our beloved leaders and military strategists that it’s all happened before and has always ended in tears.Time for a blindingly obvious cliche – is nothing learnt from history?
Mountain fastnesses of which Afghanistan is a prime example provide an all but impenetrable refuge for an ‘enemy’ born and brought up in such a hostile environment and an all but insurmountable challenge for ‘invaders’ to whom it is totally alien.
The Pakistani army, drilled in mountain warfare are best equipped to defeat the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and the signs thus far are encouraging.
The British army, drilled at Sandhurst and on Salisbury Plain are but lambs to the slaughter from a rain of arsenal out of sight and out of reach high above the Helmand Plain
What a desperately, desperately dismal
carry on up the khyber
It never ceases to amaze me the ammount of people who use the word ‘we’, when talking about wars. It’s blind patriotism. The British Army do not represent me. I have no problems with Argentines, Irish nationalists or Afgans and Iraqi’s. The main excuse now is that they can’t leave Afghanistan because of the terror threat. How high was this terror threat before they invaded those countries ? Is it a terror threat they created by going over there by any chance ? the Americans must be doing a roaring arms trade…on top of the money Britain still owe them from the 2nd world war.
I asked someone a few months ago about why we were there, not as if there’s oil there, I said..no, she replied, no oil..but there is gas…first time I’d heard of this. Not saying she was right but, made me think….
The Taliban is a worldwide terrorist organisation that can strike any where in the world.
The idea that isolated Wazir and Mehsud hilltribes who have defended their territory against foreign invasion for centuries, are a worldwide terrorist organisation is almost beyond laughable (no disrespect happy).
Too much Sky News.
It’s true that members of the Taliban leadership were flown to Texas in 2001 before the 9/11 attacks by the Bush administration for talks regarding a gas pipeline to be built across Afghanistan, the Taliban government were keen and would have been payed handsomely for this.
If the twin towers hadn’t been attacked the Taliban would probably still be in power now as they’d got the Northern Alliance pinned into a small area of the North of the country.
The terrorism I would suggest comes almost exclusively from foreign visitors to the country, but the local Afghan tribespeople will attack anyone who upsets them not just coalition troops, Al Quada training camps have been attacked by local tribespeople for example.graeme , bet you would want to use the word we and would want british forces to represent you if ever" we" were invaded, or would that not be PC.
"I am not a political person. I cannot understand why we are in Afghanistan except I think we were pushed into it by the USA."
Your honest comment sums up why we are helping the terrorists do their job for them. We are there as part of a NATO UN-mandated International Security Assistance Force along with another 47 countries. The main difference in this Afghan war from previous is that in this conflict ISAF is not trying to conquer Afghanistan. We are trying to stabilise the country and get out ASAP.
Most people have forgotten why we are there. Every bomb the terrorists set off to kill an ISAF soldier is actually aimed at all of us. The terrorist know that the only way they can win such a conflict is to get on TV and in our Press to multiply the effect. Just like Vietnam they win by manipulating fickle public opinion “back home”. Take away the oxygen of publicity and this would be all over relatively quickly.
Indeed you could argue that we are all putting our own troop’s lives in greater danger by our well meaning but naïve view of this conflict. Getting out of Afghanistan now could be a lot bloodier both in the long and short term for our troops.
Whatever if you want to know more about why we are there i.e the ISAF Missions you could try the following hyperlink to the NATO website. I paste a small section below.
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_8189.htm
"NATO’s main role in Afghanistan is to assist the Afghan Government in exercising and extending its authority and influence across the country, paving the way for reconstruction and effective governance. It does this predominately through its UN-mandated International Security Assistance Force.
Since NATO took command of ISAF in 2003, the Alliance has gradually expanded the reach of its mission, originally limited to Kabul, to cover Afghanistan’s whole territory. The number of ISAF troops has grown accordingly from the initial 5,000 to around 50.000 troops coming from 42 countries, including all 28 NATO members.ISAF missions
ISAF is a key component of the international community’s engagement in Afghanistan, assisting the Afghan authorities in providing security and stability and creating the conditions for reconstruction and development.Security
In accordance with all the relevant Security Council Resolutions, ISAF’s main role is to assist the Afghan government in the establishment of a secure and stable environment. To this end, ISAF forces are conducting security and stability operations throughout the country together with the Afghan National Security Forces and are directly involved in the development of the Afghan National Army through mentoring, training and equipping"Have a nice day
graeme , bet you would want to use the word we and would want british forces to represent you if ever" we" were invaded, or would that not be PC.
Defence is a better option. That would mean getting at the people who are causing the trouble, and not their civilians.
Kevin – are you a British Government spokesman by any chance as you seem to have swallowed the Government line hook,line and sinker.
The overt International action in Afghanistan and covert action in Pakistan is a dream for the terrorists and serves as the best possible recruiting agent for them.
The most extreme and dangerous terrist threats come not from Afghanistan or Pakistan (although they can be dangerous) but from cells centred on Saudi Arabia – where did the 9/11 terrorists come from?
Yet we take no action against Saudi Arabia, a regime with a human rights record which makes the Taliban look decidedly liberal – could it be because of oil and lucrative arms sales. (note no question mark – it is a rhetorical question)
The approach of the "international community" is hypocritical and as long as they display these double standards in approach the situation will get worse.
The money and effort being spent on Afghanistan would be better spent dealing with the issues internally. Better intellegence and not being so arrogant as to assume we can impose out values and way of life on others.
Paul,
This is just something I feel passionate about.Maybe the 48 Governments line is actually a good reason why we are in there! This action was taken under a UN Mandate not one government. Any number of wrongs do not make a right so I do not see your point in suggesting that we should be invading Saudi or any other state because their terrorists are worse than another bunch. The armchair view of international hypocrisy is not one that holds any water for the troops on the ground.
I think it’s pointless talking about the past just now. I am more interested in the present and the future i.e. Stabilise the country for the Afghans to take over and get our troops out. It is clear to me that the terrorists are playing to the media which is wearing down the revolve of the public which in turn encourages the Taleban.
For my mind changing the tone of the press coverage would cut the head of the Taleban efforts and reduce this conflict by years. Is a bit of balanced reporting showing what ISAF is doing on the ground to much to ask for? Could we have some stories on the majority of Afghans who want ISAF to stay and are frightened of the Taleban coming back? I suppose that is not sensational enough for the press.
War is dirty. If a SAS soldier infiltrated the Taleban and managed to kill a number of them then we would be hailing him as some kind of hero. I can just see the Sun headlines now with the possibility of a VC. However when the same happens to us we are outraged. Sometimes I think that the public think this is some kind of computer game we are involved in. The Taleban are using the same tactics that the IRA did against us for years and no amount of specialist equipment is going to stop us taking more casualties aginst this kind of low technology threat.
This is just something I feel passionate about.
You don’t have a monopoly on passion on this one Kevin
Any number of wrongs do not make a right so I do not see your point in suggesting that we should be invading Saudi or any other state because their terrorists are worse than another bunch.
Excuse me but where precisely did I say Saudi Arabia should be invaded? I posed the rehtorical question as to why Saudi Arabia has not been invaded when the terrorist risk from there is no less and probably greater than the risk from Afghanistan.
The armchair view of international hypocrisy is not one that holds any water for the troops on the ground.
I have every support for the troops on the ground – what I do not support is the reasons being given for them being there – UN mandate or not.
Stabilise the country for the Afghans to take over and get our troops out.
And what would happen should the Afghan people actually decide they want the Taliban – do we go back in again until they come up with the "right" answer?
It is clear to me that the terrorists are playing to the media which is wearing down the revolve of the public which in turn encourages the Taleban.
And our Government is not playing the media card? You cannot simply accuse one side of playing to the media – propaganda is a tool used by all sides. I would rather see both sets of propaganda and make my own mind up.
Why should I trust our Government which has already proved it is quite happy to lie to justify a war?
Could we have some stories on the majority of Afghans who want ISAF to stay and are frightened of the Taleban coming back?
… and you know what the majority of the Afghan people want?
If a SAS soldier infiltrated the Taleban and managed to kill a number of them then we would be hailing him as some kind of hero. I can just see the Sun headlines now with the possibility of a VC. However when the same happens to us we are outraged.
That depends which side of the fence you are sitting on -one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
The Taleban are using the same tactics that the IRA did against us for years and no amount of specialist equipment is going to stop us taking more casualties aginst this kind of low technology threat.
Precisely – which is why the approach being taken in Afghanistan is wrong and will not work.
You make a comparison with the IRA campaign – how did our military approach resolve the situation? It could be argued it actually prolonged the situation.
I’ve always felt that the only way to deal with terrorism is to not give it anything to feed off; any form of aggression just fuels it even more and gives them justification for their actions.
Paul,
Your retorical question implied logic in the action in Afghanistan v action in Saudi. That was what I took from your statement.
Whether you agree with the UN mandate personally is a mute point. It is the international justifciation for the action and the mission aims appear good.
The point I am making is that the Press are not reporting the conflict in a balanced way. That is my opinion right or wrong.
The British military approach in Ireland was not to pull out and leave the country to fight a civil war.
I am off to watch some racing now.
Defence is a better option. That would mean getting at the people who are causing the trouble, and not their civilians.
How do you tell the difference? They don’t wear uniforms.
Some of the ‘Civillians’ carry weapons openly.If they carry weapons openly then they are not civilians i’d assume. My main point is the British and American forces shouldn’t be there.
There’s some kind of ignorant viewpoint from people in this country that almost think that our lives are worth more than theirs. It’s as if crimes commited against Britain are the worse kind to commit, but Britain and America dropping a bomb on a wedding in 2002, killing 40 odd people including many children, isn’t as important as Jordans breast implants.
Thousands of innocent Iraqi’s and Afghans are losing their lives. Trillions of pounds are being wasted. They are fighting an army with an endless supply of volunteers.
Will Barrack Obama and Gordon Brown be encouraging their kids to join the army ?…no it’s left to the less privleged kids the army target with propaganda.
Politicians at the highest level are corrupt. They don’t care about your average Joe Public. There is a much bigger picture behind the scene, and they have no regards for peoples life’s.
It never ceases to amaze me the ammount of people who use the word ‘we’, when talking about wars. It’s blind patriotism. The British Army do not represent me. I have no problems with Argentines, Irish nationalists or Afgans and Iraqi’s. The main excuse now is that they can’t leave Afghanistan because of the terror threat. How high was this terror threat before they invaded those countries ? Is it a terror threat they created by going over there by any chance ? the Americans must be doing a roaring arms trade…on top of the money Britain still owe them from the 2nd world war.
Where does one start to answer this ?
Does it need to be pointed out that Afganistan was AQ’s base before and after 9/11 and that there was obviously absolutely no alternative other than take on the Taleban once it became clear that they were willing to continue to give state support for this organisation?
Come on Donkey, surely you are not that out of touch
its an extremely difficult war but you have to envisage what the alternative might have been. A state supported AQ base with countless recruits being trained at various bases and a free reign for its vile message to be spread amongst (the admittedly already largely bigoted) arab world…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.