British forces have been fighting eight long years in Afghanistan and instead of making progress, one soldier a day has died; fifteen soldiers have died in just two weeks. The goal posts have changed several times. Anti-narcotics was the original goal in the early days.
When are we going to know if this is worth it ? Why are Western lives being lost to support a corrupt government in Afghanistan ? Is there really a chance to create a national entity in one of the most corrupt governments in the world ?
We set out our objective, but now we are not clear what that objective is. Are we in there forever ?
As more British soldiers are losing their lives, in the meantime they must toe the line. Now the goal posts have changed, Afghanistan cannot be turned into a democratic state over- night, it is absolutely an unfeasable undertaking and we should move out of State building. It is not realistic; it is not realizable through military methods. The British forces are being asked to do something unatainable and the politicians are asking them to lay down their lives for something that is can't be done and they do not have a moral obligation to do what you cannot do. People have paid a high price for this. It is an unwinable war, we should not be there. We are a foreign force fighting a war against the Afghan people. Why are we there ?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
.jpg)
21 comments:
The truth these days isnt hard to find...in ww2 it was said Hitler couldnt be beaten,there were those who wished england would make a peace with him and nazi germany...the french did ,though that was to be expected of them of course.People have always died in defence of freedom,I guess until one lives under the thumb of govts of the ilk of the taliban or the nazis or the muslims it might be difficult to understand the concept of freedom ...we take it for granted in the west.
Perhaps we should adopt the attitude of "if you cant beat them-join them"?
Countries like Afghanistan will be a thing of the past 100 years from now. Capitalism and materialism always win in the end.
Dougie, Robert,
The question is..why do British lives have to be sacrified to help prop one of the most corrupt governments in the world ?
If the Afghans are not happy with the Taliban, then the fight has to come from within Afghanistan. As things are now, we are an occupying foreign force..an invading army trying to force the Afghans to accept Democracy with a gun.
It has been eight years now and nothing has been achieved, so how long more are the troops supposed to be there ?
How much more of tax payers money will be needed to fund this adventure in the Middle East ?
Is it fair that British lives have to be sacrified to retain one of the most corrupted governments in the world ?
Dougie,
The scenario is quite different. Germany INVADED Britain.
This time, we are the agressors, as we are an invading force.
The U.S. has spent 3 Trillion dollars. How much is the British tax payer is supposed to pay ? Personally I do not give a fig whether Afghanistan has a democracy or not.
Hi Maria
Surely you didn't mean that Germany INVADED Britain? They didn't. It's fortunate for us that they couldn't, because if they'd got troops ashore they'd have won - they had more men and weaponry than us.Then they would have set up a puppet Government of collaborators. I think I know who the collaborators would have been - the same sort of people who took their orders from Soviet Russia in the 50s and 60s and are taking their orders from Europe now.
Robert,
You forget about the home guard...that sturdy crew of men armed with maces and pikestaffs and flintlock rifles and sticks and stones...theyd have seen em orf! Maria....The taliban-afghanistan-al quaeda- pakistan-nuclear weapons- iran-state sponsored terrorism- bombs in public places-sharia law-the spread of islam.....thats why we are in afghanistan,iraq,its why we are trying to kill them before they kill us...or worse still impose on us by force,or by proxy ..their own particular brand of government....personally i see no reason why the muslims should try to do that by force, all the time they have a labour government that will impose that way of life on us without a shot being fired.
You are WRONG Robert on two counts.
Germany invaded Britain - The Channel Islands, Guernsey, Jersey, Sark, Herm. These islands were and are part of Britain then and now. The Germans invaded them and set up their government on the same lines as they set up the military government in all the countries they invaded.
Also, the whole idea of an invasion of mainland Britain as opposed to the islands was a plan badly thought out and fortunately for us would never have been workable. During the planning phase the Germans were building barges specifically to transport horses! The planned invasion was badly judged and badly timed: the day marked on their calendar as Adlertangriff, "Eagle Day" was set so late in the year that it would almost guarantee bad weather and impossible landing conditions. England had a Navy that would have been capable of blocking an invasion force. The only chance Germany had was to dispose of the RAF and therefore make the invasion force unopposed by air and due to the interference of Hitler and the incompetence of Goering plus making their air force dependent on the wrong sort of planes, the Germans never obtained air superiority and could not invade.
Yes Maria, I thought of the Channel Is. when I made my post but thought it a bit pedantic to call their capture an invasion of Britain. In any event, we declared war on Germany before the Channel Is. were occupied and would have continued that war even if the Germans had withdrawn from the Channel Is.
How am I wrong to say that the Germans would have won if they'd got ashore? Of course, as Dougie says, Captain Mainwaring and Co would have taken a few Germans with them - the vicar might have taken quite a lot - but the result would not have been in any doubt.
Dougie,
The Taliban in Afghanistan doesn't have an airforce nor a navy to pre-arrange an invasion of Britain.
They would need a lot of helicopters and bombers and billions of money and expertise I don't think they even have pilots! nor seamen. An invasion from Afghanistan being one of the poorest countries in the world, is unlikely. The scenario that you have painted of having Afghans in every city in the U.K. is laughable !
It amazes me how people fall for these daft lies the politicians tell them. This is as ridiculous as the.. " being within 45 minutes from being obliterated by Iraq's WMS" the most infamous of Tony Blair's lies.
Robert,
Its not pedantic, its the truth.
Germany invaded British soil. That is all there is to it.
In the month of June in the year 1940, triumphant German forces reached the French coast and saw British territory within their grasp ! There was Jersey, the largest and nearest of the Channel Islands. There was Guernsey, the second largest, further away and to the North, and only visible on a clear day; Alderney, Sark, Herm and Jethou coming in between. There were pleasant islands for any conqueror to tread. After all, Alderney had some importance as a garrison island. A fortified British outpost against France.
As a coincidence... one of our clients from Guernsey has just called an upon asking him about it, he said "That everybody considers it as an invasion of Britain"
Yes Maria it was an invasion of Britain but if you asked anyone in World War Two, or indeed now, what they understand by "invasion of Britain" they will immediately think of forces landing on the mainland.
Maria,
I didnt mean or think for one minute that afghanistan was going to launch a conventional invasion.....these days you dont need to...anyway they dont need landing craft ,parachutists and air raids to invade..half the muslim world is here in britain allready.......One nuclear weapon is about all they will need....a state of the art nuclear device or a ramshackle one in a briefcase will do. Set one off in london,birmingham or even paris, then threaten to unleash more if demands arent met. its why that stage mustnt be reached,its why we are in afghanistan and iraq, its why iran will be most likely obliterated if they pursue their present policies..its why n.korea will be stopped,either by america or by china eventually. You know ive never really understood why protest groups have opposed george bushs "war on terror".How can it be wrong in principle? Shouldnt EVERY country be for that noble goal? Shouldnt every country want to stop terrorism?......now you and others will say "aah yes,well the poor palestinians are downtrodden,the west abuses them ,they are fighting for their rights....its nonsense,the west doesnt abuse them....the west has and still does (unfortunately) FEED THEM....spends millions prob billions on aid.....and still the ungrateful mob turn on us. They blackmail us with oil prices,throw bombs at the hand that feeds them. maybe we should cut off all aid,stop giving them medecines,stop food consignments,then see how they fare.the middle easterners are the scum of the earth,treacherous,spiteful,and untrustworthy....the world should let them rot.....unfortunately they have the oil,which we ,as well as them need....im looking forward to day when the west develops alternative energies...then we can telll the arabs to stuff their oil up their arse....
Robert,
British territory is British territory whether its in the mainland or not. Take a look at
The Faulkland Islands which are as far away as they can be, (in another continent) and still Britain went to war with Argentina over there to reclaim back, British territory.
Dougie,
Can't you see the contradiction? if half of the Muslim world is already here.. then what is the point of going to bomb Afghanistan and Iraq ?
On the contrary. If you provoke and attack a country, it is only then that you will create terrorism. No one in Afghanistan or Iraq is happy if their innocent family, wife and friends are killed by an invader. We are that invader who went there on a blatant lie by our politicians, our soldiers died in vain. This is paranoia going rampant.
It is a myth to think that anyone with a brief-case can launch a nuclear bomb attack. Nuclear weapons are not exactly sold in the super-maarket.
Pakistan and India have had nuclear weapons for many years now, without posing a threat to us.
Maria..you say that when you attack a country you provoke it....ok then wouldnt it have been wiser for the terrorists Not to have flew planes into the twin towers? or blew up british people in london...or try to blow up glasgow airport?
You say why attack afghanistan when there are muslims allready here?ok attack the ones that are here then..it would be a start wouldnt it?
Dirty bombs (as theyre called) can be nade if you have access to nuclear material...thats why the terrorists are KNOWN to have been trying their hardest to acquire such material.Its what the west is terrified about.
Pakistan and india ,as you say have had nuclear weapons and posed no threat to us....thats because whatever u might think of those countries they are run by pragmatic leaders....the same can be said of russia and china....they are probabley not too worried about having conventional war with the west,but a nuclear war is the end-they realise that......the muslim fundamentalists on the other hand are quite crazy enough to use them,frankly i believe its only a matter of time anyway,but we can try to put it off for as long as possible...this is what iraq and afghanistan war is really about,its also about the free trade and passage of oil....which if halted for relatively short period of time would destroy our society as we know it.....no light,no heating,no machinery (or very little anyway,clockwork toys would still work i presume) ...no piped water,no properly functioning hospitals,computers, cars, buses trains,and the rest.
as for the iraqis and afghans and palestinians "rights" theres an old song which sums up my feelings......"jimmy crack corn and . .... ...." (the last 3 missing words sum my feelings up perfectly
Dougie,
The twin towers ARE NOT in Britain.
Every country has their own terrorists and they deal with it without having to summon the entire world to help them. Besides.. is not like if the U.S. has them in their territory is it ?
We had the IRA terrorists, Spain has the ETA terrorists, Colombia has El Sendero Luminoso terrorists, Russia has the Chechian terrorists China and Iran also have their own terrorists too. They have them WITHIN their territory.
Russia, France and Germany stayed away from what essentially is a U.S. problem. NOT ours.
Dougie,
According to the memoirs of the former CIA Director Robert Gates,
The CIA aid to the mujahideen, Osama bin Laden and the Taliban started in June 1979.
It was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul.
According to Robert Gates memoirs he wrote a note to the President in which he explained to him that in his opinion, this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention...
With the support of Pakistan's military dictator, General Zia-al Haq, the U.S. began recuiting and training both mujahideen fighters from the 3 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan and large numbers of mujahideens from Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries. Estimates of how much money the U.S. government channeled to the Afghan Taliban over the next decade vary, but most soources put the figure between six billion dollars or more. Whatever the exact amount, this was the largest covert action programme since World War II - much bigger, for example, than Washington's intervention in Central America at the same time, which received considerable more publicity. According to one report: The CIA became the grand coordinator: purchasing or arranging the manufacture of Soviet-style weapons from Egypt, China, Poland, Israel and elsewhere or supplying their own; arranging for military training asking for donations, notably Saudi Arabia which gave many hundreds of millions of dollars in aid each year.
In the first years after the Reagan Admon inherited the Carter programme, the covert Afghan war "tended to be handled out of (CIA director William Casey's back pocket" recalled Ronald Spiers, a former U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, the base of the Afghan Taliban rebels.
Beginning in 1985, the CIA supplied mujahideen Taliban with extensive satellite reconnaissance data of Soviet targets on the Afhan battlefield, plans for military operations based on the satellite intelligence, intercepts of Soviet communications, delayed timing devices for tons of C-4 plastic explosives for urban sabotage a targeting device for mortars that was linked to a U.S. Navy satellite, wire-guided anti-tank missiles, and other equipment. Between 1986 and 1989 the mujahideen were also provided with more than 1,000 state of the art shoulder-fired Stinger anti-aircraft missiles. By 1987, the annual supply of arms had reached 65,000 tons, and a "Ceaseless stream of CIA and Pentagon officials were visiting Pakistani ISI ( Inter-Services Intelligence headquarters in Rawalpindi and helping to plan mujahideen operation. CIA operations officers helped Pakistani trainers establish schools for the mujahideen in secure communications, guerrila warfare, urban sabotage and heavy weapons.
Althouth the CIA claimed that the purpose was to attack military targets, mujahideen trained in these techniques, and using chemical and electronic-delay bomb timers supplied by the U.S. carried numerous car bambings and assassination attacks in Kabul itself.
In 1988 with U.S. knowledge, bin Laden created Al-Qaeda (the base) pressuring and bribing Pakistan with whom recent American relations had been very poor-to rent-out its country as a military staging area and sanctuary; putting the Pakistani Director of Military Operations, Brigadier Mian Mohammad Afzal, on to the CIA payroll to ensure Pakistani cooperation.
When Ronald Reagan became president in 1981, he found the Democratic controlled Congress eager to increase spending on the Afghan war. A congressional staffer told a reporter. "It was a windfall (for the new admon). They had faced so much opposition to covert action in Central America and here comes the Congress, helping and throwing money at them, putting money their way and they say "Who are we to say no? "
Well Maria....the muhajadeen and America (and the west) at that time had a common enemy the russians.....it made sense then.of course now the people we funded have turned against us,one could argue the west could or should have forseen that,for whatever reason the west chose to ignore,or risk the chance of that happening. Afghanistan (or more correctly the oil gas pipelenes that will cross that country) and the middle east are vital to western interests....without an influence there,without the oil that comes from there,our society would shrivel ,collapse and die. Fairness doesnt come into it....since time began ,the strong survive-the weak perish...its a natural law that exists not only in our human world,but in the animal and plant world also. personally i want to be on the side that survives....the alternatives are rather pointless.You cant eat human rights,you cant use human rights for fuel,human rights wont keep you warm....the opposition know that equally as well as the west does....what do you think the terrorists ultimate aim is? merely to drive the west from iraq? that is merely a stepping stone,one small step to the acquisition of power....for themselves.Its for the same reason china does what it does...russia does what it does ,iran and n.korea....each countries aims differ as to the size of the power base they wish to acquire.....but the struggle is the same. Id much rather live in a world with america as the dominant power,than one in which the middle eastern despots are in control.Nothing of this nature is nice and neat-underhand tactics at times are essential.....now which side are you on maria? because sooner or later you may well be faced with that stark choice.....we may all be forced to state our position in near future.
Well Dougie, now that you ask, I'm on the side of justice. The human rights its exactly what keeps us away from behaving like animals, without human rights, we might as well be in the jungle, where only the fittest and strongest will survive. In a world where the laws can be put aside and the Geneva convention rules of conduct or the protocols of engagement are ignored; it really is going backwards like the crabs in terms of human decency. As we have ignored them, in every respect, then that means we cannot expect them to follow them either, so we will have more beheadings and kidnappings to our people in the future.
At the moment, how things are right now, it doesn't look like neither us, nor them are going to fare well from all this. As it is a financial drain for us and a mysery for them and this means, nothing good can come out of it.
This is another Viet-Nam and what has the U.S. achieved from all this ? Just hundreds of dead soldiers and our liberties being either eroded or taken from us.
The Afghans are now forced to fight tooth and nail to defend their fatherland. The same way the English would do, if our country was ever invaded.
Quite rightly, you say that this has to do with the pipe oils but then, just as Osama bin Laden once said: "We cannot drink the oil. We might as well sell it to them, of course" It would have been a lot cheaper to buy it from them, than spend 3 trillion dollars! which so far... has accomplished nothing, except more dead soldiers to bury and more money will be spent to keep them there.
It never ceases to amaze me how dumb people can be. The news today is that Hillary Clinton is clinching a deal to sell more weapons to India. The deal is worth $10 billion dollars and later the U.S. will complain when these weapons go missing and end up in the hands of the Taliban and Al-qaida but then of course.. at one point the U.S. was training the Taliban and Al-qaida and plaiding with arms as well. It is the same expensive game that the tax payer will be asked to fund, in a game where the expendable peons or soldiers will give their lives for. Nonsensical.
No Robert, it won't. I think that the Americans are trying to stoke up the fire between the two nations. The U.S. has no scruples to whom they sell the nuclear arms, so long as its a lucrative deal for the arm manufacturers who are seeing the $$$$ signs coming to their pockets and also to those who clinch the deal like Hillary Clinton she will also get a juicy commission... forget about how many soldiers died today in their war games. There was another British soldier dead today and three Americans too. Yesterday it was an Australian soldier, but hey ! who cares, so long as the politicians and the arm manufacturers can make their money. All it matters to them, is that the public continue to believe they are in mortal danger.
Post a Comment