Five British Soldiers Killed in Afghanistan

[Betty Boop]

Five British soldiers have been shot dead in Afghanistan by a "rogue" Afghani policeman. Time to leave, surely? The Afghanis don't want us there, and add to that our support of a corrupt government, and the rigged election. This war is going from bad to worse, and is not worth the loss of so many lives. :bitchy:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8341659.stm

[Ed De Gramo]

Five British soldiers have been shot dead in Afghanistan by a "rogue" Afghani policeman. Time to leave, surely? The Afghanis don't want us there, and add to that our support of a corrupt government, and the rigged election. This war is going from bad to worse, and is not worth the loss of so many lives. :bitchy:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8341659.stm

:top marks

Bring them home...:agree:

[LiverpoolHibs]

This isn’t meant to be a pop at you, Betty, but I find it singularly distasteful that the debate around Afghanistan is near-constantly framed in how terrible it is for 'us' - the occupier. And this isn't meant to downplay the awfulness of the deaths of these men either.

So that admissions such as this (http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2009/s2586413.htm) from Lt. Col. David Killcullen, can be made without so much as a wimper from any corner of the media. How? Does anyone have any recollection of that being reported? That is a clear admission that between ninety-eight and ninety-two Afghan civilians are killed for every two to eight militants in every single drone attack. Yet 'the West' are supposedly in some position to object to cowardly and indiscriminate suicide bombings? It’s baffling. George Orwell would have a field day with this ****. From his essay 'Politics and the English Language'...

In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism., question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called 'pacification'. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called 'transfer of population' or 'rectification of frontiers'. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called 'elimination of unreliable elements'. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them.

And we still get the same old arguments of the NATO presence being there for our good (erm, really?) and the good of the Afghan people, like the US/UK client regime are meant to be in any way preferable to the alternative; when in fact all they've done is replace one set of fundamentalist regime with another fundamentalist regime. So that, as Malalai Joya says, "When the U.S. and its allies replaced the Taliban with the old notorious warlords and fundamentalists of the Northern Alliance, I could see that the only change we would see was from the frying pan to the fire."

What a ****ing mess.

[Tinyclothes]

LiverpoolHibs :top marks

[PeeJay]

And we still get the same old arguments of the NATO presence being their for our good (erm, really?) and the good of the Afghan people, like the US/UK client regime are meant to be in any way preferable to the alternative.

What a ****ing mess.

It is of course excatly what you say, and part of me would welcome the troops being brought home. The reality of the situation however, is - I feel - that if we leave Afghanistan on its own to sort out its own problems, then the problem we currently have will not go away. Not in the long term and not "in the scheme of things". If Pakistan than falls to the morons, we are all in big, big trouble. It's a mess, and I do not envy our troops out there, but I do not believe that "we" are the bad guys - I don't know the solution and I'm not even going to try to suggest one. In a perfect world we wouldn't have had to go there, but now that we are, I don't see how we can just walk away and hope things work out. Things won't work out - we would pay sometime in the future for walking away and tomorrow's generation would then ask "why did you not do something back then"?
As you say: "what a ****ing mess!"

[Twa Cairpets]

This is why people should reads history.

Afghanistan has for hundreds of years been a tribal, essentially lawless state governed by a mixture of bandits, ethinically divided groupings and deeply religious fundamentalists. As a society, they are effectively mediaeval. Sadly for everyone concerned, this is a mediaeval society with guns, RPGs and IEDs

The idea of imposing western notions of democracy on a society where the concept is utterly alien is doomed to failure. Whether or not this means that the troops should pull out is another matter - If we've gone in, its surely up to us to sort it out, whatever "it" turns out to be.

The alternative is to give up, walk away and leaving an already militant country with even more grievances and even more opportunity for infiltration by religious fanatics. That scares me more than possibility of a long occupation.

[LiverpoolHibs]

It is of course excatly what you say, and part of me would welcome the troops being brought home. The reality of the situation however, is - I feel - that if we leave Afghanistan on its own to sort out its own problems, then the problem we currently have will not go away. Not in the long term and not "in the scheme of things". If Pakistan than falls to the morons, we are all in big, big trouble. It's a mess, and I do not envy our troops out there, but I do not believe that "we" are the bad guys - I don't know the solution and I'm not even going to try to suggest one. In a perfect world we wouldn't have had to go there, but now that we are, I don't see how we can just walk away and hope things work out. Things won't work out - we would pay sometime in the future for walking away and tomorrow's generation would then ask "why did you not do something back then"?
As you say: "what a ****ing mess!"

Firstly, I'm not sure what 'our' presence in Afghanistan has to do with stability in Pakistan. It's part of the West's imaging of the East to create an idea of a united and homogenous Islamist bloc seeking to create a caliphate over the entire Middle East - it's a complete construct.

There's really no overlap of Taliban (and also bear in mind that 'Taliban' and 'anti-occupation militants' are not interchangeable, however much we may be led to believe this) and al-Quaeda to speak of - I'd also question the extent to which any single entity called al-Quaeda actually exists, but that's for another thread. And furthermore there is only an absolutely negligible al-Quaeda presence in Afghanistan; General Jim Jones numbers (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/27883_Page2.html) them at under one-hundred. The Taliban have no interest whatsoever in events outside their own borders.

That isn't, by the way, an argument for continuing the occupation as they could quite easily be there if they wanted to be.

I also completely fail to see how continuing the occupation is likely to reduce the chance attacks in the West rather than fuel Islamist anti-Western sentiment. It doesn't make any sense. Regularly slaughtering entire families isn't exactly likely to endear you to the local populace.

So yeah, we are the bad guys.

[PeeJay]

Firstly, I'm not sure what 'our' presence in Afghanistan has to do with stability in Pakistan.
(Most political experts in various countries feel that Pakistan's stablity is greatly threatened by events in Afghanistan. Pakistan itself is making great efforts to contain militants in its country and from outwith it borders.)
It's part of the West's imaging of the East to create an idea of a united and homogenous Islamist bloc seeking to create a caliphate over the entire Middle East - it's a complete construct.
( I personally think its part of the East's imaging of the West to create an idea of a united and homogenous Christian bloc seeking to create Christian supremacy over the entire Middle East - it's a complete construct!)

The Taliban have no interest whatsoever in events outside their own borders.
(I don't give a **** about the Taliban - the people of Afghanistan are decent ordinary people who want to go about their daily lives, making a living and sending their children to school so they can lead better lives. That's why we are there - the neanderthal morons known as Taliban kill thousands as well; isn't it strange that we never hear of Taliban inflicted slaughter of innocent families - funny that. All death in Afghanistan seems to be the West's fault?)

So yeah, we are the bad guys. (We are most definitely NOT the bad guys, it's more complicated than black & white!!!)

Do you seriously think that our leaving Afghanistan is going to
a) improve life for the people of Afghanistan
b) make the world a better and safer place

[LiverpoolHibs]

(Most political experts in various countries feel that Pakistan's stablity is greatly threatened by events in Afghanistan. Pakistan itself is making great efforts to contain militants in its country and from outwith it borders.)

Ok, in what way?


(I personally think its part of the East's imaging of the West to create an idea of a united and homogenous Christian bloc seeking to create Christian supremacy over the entire Middle East - it's a complete construct!)

I've no idea what this means. Who has suggested a 'Western Christian bloc attempting to create Christian supremacy in the Middle East'? Strange...


(I don't give a **** about the Taliban - the people of Afghanistan are decent ordinary people who want to go about their daily lives, making a living and sending their children to school so they can lead better lives. That's why we are there - the neanderthal morons known as Taliban kill thousands as well; isn't it strange that we never hear of Taliban inflicted slaughter of innocent families - funny that. All death in Afghanistan seems to be the West's fault?)

We never hear of 'Taliban inflicted slaughter'? Are you kidding, not really paying attention, or just trying to counterpoint everything I say for no particular reason? No-one has attempted to defend the Taliban. I'm just curious as to why it's apparently not particularly newsworthy that the regular NATO drone attacks kill on average 98 civilians for every 2 militants in 'collateral damage' (there's that language Orwell was on about again). Could it be, shock horror, that civilian lives in places such as Afghanistan are considered expendable?

A minute ago we were there to protect ourselves, now we're there to protect the Afghan people. Which is it?


(We are most definitely NOT the bad guys, it's more complicated than black & white!!!)

This isn't really going anywhere.


Do you seriously think that our leaving Afghanistan is going to
a) improve life for the people of Afghanistan
b) make the world a better and safer place

It would be churlish to suggest there would be no risk whatsoever attached to a complete withdrawal, just that it is outweighed in every single area by the risk attached to continuing the occupation.

[Brizo]

This is why people should reads history.

Afghanistan has for hundreds of years been a tribal, essentially lawless state governed by a mixture of bandits, ethinically divided groupings and deeply religious fundamentalists. As a society, they are effectively mediaeval. Sadly for everyone concerned, this is a mediaeval society with guns, RPGs and IEDs

The idea of imposing western notions of democracy on a society where the concept is utterly alien is doomed to failure. Whether or not this means that the troops should pull out is another matter - If we've gone in, its surely up to us to sort it out, whatever "it" turns out to be.

The alternative is to give up, walk away and leaving an already militant country with even more grievances and even more opportunity for infiltration by religious fanatics. That scares me more than possibility of a long occupation.

:top marks

[Betty Boop]

This isn’t meant to be a pop at you, Betty, but I find it singularly distasteful that the debate around Afghanistan is near-constantly framed in how terrible it is for 'us' - the occupier. And this isn't meant to downplay the awfulness of the deaths of these men either.

So that admissions such as this (http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2009/s2586413.htm) from Lt. Col. David Killcullen, can be made without so much as a wimper from any corner of the media. How? Does anyone have any recollection of that being reported? That is a clear admission that between ninety-eight and ninety-two Afghan civilians are killed for every two to eight militants in every single drone attack. Yet 'the West' are supposedly in some position to object to cowardly and indiscriminate suicide bombings? It’s baffling. George Orwell would have a field day with this ****. From his essay 'Politics and the English Language'...

In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism., question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called 'pacification'. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called 'transfer of population' or 'rectification of frontiers'. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called 'elimination of unreliable elements'. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them.

And we still get the same old arguments of the NATO presence being there for our good (erm, really?) and the good of the Afghan people, like the US/UK client regime are meant to be in any way preferable to the alternative; when in fact all they've done is replace one set of fundamentalist regime with another fundamentalist regime. So that, as Malalai Joya says, "When the U.S. and its allies replaced the Taliban with the old notorious warlords and fundamentalists of the Northern Alliance, I could see that the only change we would see was from the frying pan to the fire."

What a ****ing mess.


Agree with everything you have said. They don't call Afghanistan "The Graveyard of Empires" for nothing.

[LiverpoolHibs]

This is why people should reads history.

Afghanistan has for hundreds of years been a tribal, essentially lawless state governed by a mixture of bandits, ethinically divided groupings and deeply religious fundamentalists. As a society, they are effectively mediaeval. Sadly for everyone concerned, this is a mediaeval society with guns, RPGs and IEDs

The idea of imposing western notions of democracy on a society where the concept is utterly alien is doomed to failure. Whether or not this means that the troops should pull out is another matter - If we've gone in, its surely up to us to sort it out, whatever "it" turns out to be.

The alternative is to give up, walk away and leaving an already militant country with even more grievances and even more opportunity for infiltration by religious fanatics. That scares me more than possibility of a long occupation.

Although I agree with you about the absolute and unremitting insanity of violently and brutally imposing (pseudo) democracy from 'above' onto any society (if that is indeed what NATO are attempting to do through their presence, I'd seriously doubt that - all evidence suggests otherwise), talk of a 'medieval society' is pretty unpleasant – the implication of course being that they're undeserving of democracy and are, at the root of it, barbaric savages. Rather than the reality of the numerous historical, economic and political forces at work within Afghanistan making it the mess that it is.

The concept of democracy isn't 'utterly alien'. There are a great number genuine democrats in Afghan society but they are constantly beseiged and marginalised by Karzai's US-sponsored-warlord/UIF-client regime on one side and the Taliban and their dissenting ilk on the other, both supremely narco-rich.

I think the final line of that passage also veers close to the same imperialist tendencies. Awfully close to the 'white man’s burden', no? 'We have to sort it out as the natives will only get into even more of a mess.' Ignoring the fact that the occupation is the main source of grievance and analysing why it is that the Taliban have become the preferable option for many Afghans.

Going back to my previous point about Afghan civilians being expendable in the context of the occupation, having thought about it this afternoon I think it goes beyond that. The U.S. seems to have learnt (or not learnt depending on how you read it) from the Vietnam war and employed a comparable non-dilineation of combatant and civilian in both Iraq and Afghanistan. If they're all out to get you, practically everything and everyone becomes a 'legitimate target'. Analogous to the modus operandi of the average suicide bomber. The more brutally you need to act to gain 'control' the more brutally you are obliged to act to keep control.

[hibsbollah]

Although I agree with you about the absolute and unremitting insanity of violently and brutally imposing (pseudo) democracy from 'above' onto any society (if that is indeed what NATO are attempting to do through their presence, I'd seriously doubt that - all evidence suggests otherwise), talk of a 'medieval society' is pretty unpleasant – the implication of course being that they're undeserving of democracy and are, at the root of it, barbaric savages. Rather than the reality of the numerous historical, economic and political forces at work within Afghanistan making it the mess that it is.

The concept of democracy isn't 'utterly alien'. There are a great number genuine democrats in Afghan society but they are constantly beseiged and marginalised by Karzai's US-sponsored-warlord/UIF-client regime on one side and the Taliban and their dissenting ilk on the other, both supremely narco-rich.

I think the final line of that passage also veers close to the same imperialist tendencies. Awfully close to the 'white man’s burden', no? 'We have to sort it out as the natives will only get into even more of a mess.' Ignoring the fact that the occupation is the main source of grievance and analysing why it is that the Taliban have become the preferable option for many Afghans.

Going back to my previous point about Afghan civilians being expendable in the context of the occupation, having thought about it this afternoon I think it goes beyond that. The U.S. seems to have learnt (or not learnt depending on how you read it) from the Vietnam war and employed a comparable non-dilineation of combatant and civilian in both Iraq and Afghanistan. If they're all out to get you, practically everything and everyone becomes a 'legitimate target'. Analogous to the modus operandi of the average suicide bomber. The more brutally you need to act to gain 'control' the more brutally you are obliged to act to keep control.

I think the Vietnam parallel is an excellent one and it goes further. Vietnam has been etched on the Western psyche as an 'American tragedy', we think of Arlington cemetery and countless Holywood movies dedicated to the tragedy of 50,000 dead GIs, that like to blame the politicans for not letting the soldiers fight the war 'properly'. We are rarely reminded that 5 MILLION Vietnamese and Laotians died and those countries civilians are still living with death in the form of agent orange and 'ordinance' 40 years later. We were told that if Vietnam went Communist there would be a 'domino effect':faf: of Communism infecting surrounding countries, and we are taught the same things about radical Islam today. The Vietnamese were dehumanised, the lines between the civilians and the fighters were blurred so everyone became a 'gook' and deserving of death.

Vietnam's lessons still havent been learnt. We are still being lied to.

[Twa Cairpets]

Although I agree with you about the absolute and unremitting insanity of violently and brutally imposing (pseudo) democracy from 'above' onto any society (if that is indeed what NATO are attempting to do through their presence, I'd seriously doubt that - all evidence suggests otherwise), talk of a 'medieval society' is pretty unpleasant – the implication of course being that they're undeserving of democracy and are, at the root of it, barbaric savages. Rather than the reality of the numerous historical, economic and political forces at work within Afghanistan making it the mess that it is.

The concept of democracy isn't 'utterly alien'. There are a great number genuine democrats in Afghan society but they are constantly beseiged and marginalised by Karzai's US-sponsored-warlord/UIF-client regime on one side and the Taliban and their dissenting ilk on the other, both supremely narco-rich.

I think the final line of that passage also veers close to the same imperialist tendencies. Awfully close to the 'white man’s burden', no? 'We have to sort it out as the natives will only get into even more of a mess.' Ignoring the fact that the occupation is the main source of grievance and analysing why it is that the Taliban have become the preferable option for many Afghans.

Going back to my previous point about Afghan civilians being expendable in the context of the occupation, having thought about it this afternoon I think it goes beyond that. The U.S. seems to have learnt (or not learnt depending on how you read it) from the Vietnam war and employed a comparable non-dilineation of combatant and civilian in both Iraq and Afghanistan. If they're all out to get you, practically everything and everyone becomes a 'legitimate target'. Analogous to the modus operandi of the average suicide bomber. The more brutally you need to act to gain 'control' the more brutally you are obliged to act to keep control.

"...the implication of course being that they're undeserving of democracy and are, at the root of it, barbaric savages. Rather than the reality of the numerous historical, economic and political forces at work within Afghanistan making it the mess that it is." This certainly isnt the implication that I wanted to make. The conclusion you draw is yours - not mine. it is indisputable that Afghan society is fundamentally different to Westrn society, and in term sof socio-economic is still, in many ways, feudal - therefore mediaeval. It is also deeply religious, with some leaders motivated by their belief in the absolute rightness of their religion. I think your comment regarding being "undeserving" of democracy is meaningless - I just believe it is a political system that has never had any basis within Afghan society, and is therefore alien. If anything, it is patronising to impose it on them.

"I think the final line of that passage also veers close to the same imperialist tendencies. Awfully close to the 'white man’s burden', no? 'We have to sort it out as the natives will only get into even more of a mess.' Ignoring the fact that the occupation is the main source of grievance and analysing why it is that the Taliban have become the preferable option for many Afghans."
Dont agree with your reading of this at all. The reality if the situation is - rightly or wrongly - NATO troops are on the ground in Afghanistan. If we just withdraw, there will be a vaccum. Neither you nor I can absolutely predict what will fill that vacuum, but we can probably agree that is likely to be something fairly unpleasant for normal Afghanistans, and there is a real risk of the region being further destabilised. Its "The Great Game" all over again.

[Betty Boop]

I think the Vietnam parallel is an excellent one and it goes further. Vietnam has been etched on the Western psyche as an 'American tragedy', we think of Arlington cemetery and countless Holywood movies dedicated to the tragedy of 50,000 dead GIs, that like to blame the politicans for not letting the soldiers fight the war 'properly'. We are rarely reminded that 5 MILLION Vietnamese and Laotians died and those countries civilians are still living with death in the form of agent orange and 'ordinance' 40 years later. We were told that if Vietnam went Communist there would be a 'domino effect':faf: of Communism infecting surrounding countries, and we are taught the same things about radical Islam today. The Vietnamese were dehumanised, the lines between the civilians and the fighters were blurred so everyone became a 'gook' and deserving of death.

Vietnam's lessons still havent been learnt. We are still being lied to.
I reminds me of the Country Joe and the Fish song- I Feel Like I'm Fixing To Die. Substitute Vietnam with Afghanistan.

Yeah, come on all of you, big strong men,
Uncle Sam needs your help again.
He's got himself in a terrible jam
Way down yonder in Vietnam
So put down your books and pick up a gun,
We're gonna have a whole lotta fun.

And it's one, two, three,
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Vietnam;
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why,
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.

Well, come on generals, let's move fast;
Your big chance has come at last.
Gotta go out and get those reds —
The only good commie is the one who's dead
And you know that peace can only be won
When we've blown 'em all to kingdom come.

And it's one, two, three,
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Vietnam;
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.

Huh!

Well, come on Wall Street, don't move slow,
Why man, this is war au-go-go.
There's plenty good money to be made
By supplying the Army with the tools of the trade,
Just hope and pray that if they drop the bomb,
They drop it on the Viet Cong.

And it's one, two, three,
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Vietnam.
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.

Well, come on mothers throughout the land,
Pack your boys off to Vietnam.
Come on fathers, don't hesitate,
Send 'em off before it's too late.
Be the first one on your block
To have your boy come home in a box.

And it's one, two, three
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Vietnam.
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why,
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.

[LiverpoolHibs]

This certainly isnt the implication that I wanted to make. The conclusion you draw is yours - not mine. it is indisputable that Afghan society is fundamentally different to Westrn society, and in term sof socio-economic is still, in many ways, feudal - therefore mediaeval. It is also deeply religious, with some leaders motivated by their belief in the absolute rightness of their religion. I think your comment regarding being "undeserving" of democracy is meaningless - I just believe it is a political system that has never had any basis within Afghan society, and is therefore alien. If anything, it is patronising to impose it on them.

I think that implication is inherent to the argument.

The logic here seems to be 'we might have been a bit over the top with this but generally they just haven’t taken to democracy that we've tried to give them' so the 'undeserving' comment isn't meaningless, otherwise what’s the evidence for the 'alien-ness' of democracy (and keeping in mind that British-style parliamentary democracy isn’t necessarily the be-all-and-end-all of 'democracy'), especially given that the Afghan state as we know it has only existed for about ninety years (was the near complete absence of democracy in Russia throughout it's history until '91 evidence of a national antipathy to democracy)? This doesn’t bear any relation to the facts. The antipathy of vast swathes of Afghan society to Karzai's government isn’t based in some innate anti-democratic impulse but is a reflection of the brutality of the regime and Afghans recognising it for what it is, a U.S./NATO decreed proxy-government, 'reign without rule'. Genuine democratic elements in Afghan society are crushed and marginalised by the occupation on one side and the Taliban on the other.

Agreed that it's patronising – I'd go further, it's absolutely insane - to 'impose it upon them' but, again, I don’t think that’s what the U.S/U.K./NATO have been doing or plan to do.


Dont agree with your reading of this at all. The reality if the situation is - rightly or wrongly - NATO troops are on the ground in Afghanistan. If we just withdraw, there will be a vaccum. Neither you nor I can absolutely predict what will fill that vacuum, but we can probably agree that is likely to be something fairly unpleasant for normal Afghanistans, and there is a real risk of the region being further destabilised. Its "The Great Game" all over again.

This keeps coming up again and again with no refernce to the reality of the situation. The 'something fairly unpleasant for normal Afghanistans [sic.]' is another pretty abhorrent and myopic idea; as if the occupation and the actions of the Afghan government and its allies (lovely chaps like Abdul Dostum, Mohammed Fahim and Karim Khalili) aren’t 'fairly unpleasant'. I'll reiterate the thoughts of Malalai Joya, just in case they were missed, there's nothing remotely benevolent about the occupation...

"When the U.S. and its allies replaced the Taliban with the old notorious warlords and fundamentalists of the Northern Alliance, I could see that the only change we would see was from the frying pan to the fire."

And I've had no answer from anyone, after asking previously, what the idea that a withdrawal will 'destabilise the region' is based upon other than the vague, illogical notions that we get through the media.

[Twa Cairpets]

I think that implication is inherent to the argument.

The logic here seems to be 'we might have been a bit over the top with this but generally they just haven’t taken to democracy that we've tried to give them' so the 'undeserving' comment isn't meaningless, otherwise what’s the evidence for the 'alien-ness' of democracy (and keeping in mind that British-style parliamentary democracy isn’t necessarily the be-all-and-end-all of 'democracy'), especially given that the Afghan state as we know it has only existed for about ninety years (was the near complete absence of democracy in Russia throughout it's history until '91 evidence of a national antipathy to democracy)? This doesn’t bear any relation to the facts. The antipathy of vast swathes of Afghan society to Karzai's government isn’t based in some innate anti-democratic impulse but is a reflection of the brutality of the regime and Afghans recognising it for what it is, a U.S./NATO decreed proxy-government, 'reign without rule'. Genuine democratic elements in Afghan society are crushed and marginalised by the occupation on one side and the Taliban on the other.

Agreed that it's patronising – I'd go further, it's absolutely insane - to 'impose it upon them' but, again, I don’t think that’s what the U.S/U.K./NATO have been doing or plan to do.

Sorry Liverpool, youre still missing my point. The bit I've italicised above is an interpretation you are arriving at which is coloured by your (very strong) view of the situation. The argument for the lack of any type of democratic tradition - British based or otherwise - is clear with even the most cursory glance at the history books. Trying to fast forward a country (regardless of its age) from feudalism to Western Democracy is surely fraught with danger. It took the UK 500 years of evolutionary political process to arrive where its at - how can anyone expect a country as culturally alien as Aghanistan to immediately accept the concept?

Im also slightly at a loss in understanding what your solution is? You rail against US/UK/NATO, against Karzai, against the Northern Alliance and against the Taliban. I'm not defending them by the way, but you dont appear to offer a solution. (No reason why you should of course, but it would be of interest).



This keeps coming up again and again with no refernce to the reality of the situation. The 'something fairly unpleasant for normal Afghanistans [sic.]' is another pretty abhorrent and myopic idea; as if the occupation and the actions of the Afghan government and its allies (lovely chaps like Abdul Dostum, Mohammed Fahim and Karim Khalili) aren’t 'fairly unpleasant'. I'll reiterate the thoughts of Malalai Joya, just in case they were missed, there's nothing remotely benevolent about the occupation...

"When the U.S. and its allies replaced the Taliban with the old notorious warlords and fundamentalists of the Northern Alliance, I could see that the only change we would see was from the frying pan to the fire."

And I've had no answer from anyone, after asking previously, what the idea that a withdrawal will 'destabilise the region' is based upon other than the vague, illogical notions that we get through the media.

Apologies for the typo in "Afghanistanis".

So are you suggesting that the withdrawal of Western forces wouldnt create a vacuum? Are you suggesting that some benevolent self-regulating government is going to magically appear? I dont have the depth of research into the current situation as you appear to have, so cant confirm how bad the situation is, but extending your own quote, would the removal of the current regime not just mean, at best, a very rapid return to the frying pan?

On the political situation, on the assumption that you accept that there are genuine global-political tensions between the West/US and fundamental Islam (not necessarily Islamic states), then you would have to be monumentally naive to suggest that any withdrawal that could be construed as a defeat for the West doesnt have potential implications across a much wider area than Afghansitan. The re-establishment of a fundamentalist state would impact its neighbours - the history of this region is clear, and I dont buy the argument that it is an analogous situation to Vietnam. I dont have any great stomach for a country with a nuclear arsenal even potentially being governed by religious madmen. It was scary enough when Bush had his finger on the trigger, for exactly the same reason.

[hibsbollah]

Trying to fast forward a country (regardless of its age) from feudalism to Western Democracy is surely fraught with danger. It took the UK 500 years of evolutionary political process to arrive where its at - how can anyone expect a country as culturally alien as Aghanistan to immediately accept the concept?



This is a much used argument which I can never get my head around. It took the UK a long time to develop modern democracy because the concept of parliamentary democracy itself was evolving over this time. Just because it took Britain a few hundred years to resolve a relationship between the House of Lords and House of Commons doesnt excuse mass corruption in the Afghan elections. Just the reverse should apply, they have hundreds of years of experience to draw upon and the world's best bureaucratic brains (apparently) working on it.

And you say you don't accept an analogy between Afghanistan now and Vietnam in the 1960s. Can you think of a better analogy or do you just not 'do' analogous links?

[Twa Cairpets]

This is a much used argument which I can never get my head around. It took the UK a long time to develop modern democracy because the concept of parliamentary democracy itself was evolving over this time. Just because it took Britain a few hundred years to resolve a relationship between the House of Lords and House of Commons doesnt excuse mass corruption in the Afghan elections. Just the reverse should apply, they have hundreds of years of experience to draw upon and the world's best bureaucratic brains (apparently) working on it.

And you say you don't accept an analogy between Afghanistan now and Vietnam in the 1960s. Can you think of a better analogy or do you just not 'do' analogous links?

The point regarding the developmental nature of parliamentary democracy is that it is just that. The society which is governed by a the results of the elections is fully accepting of the process and the results, and has built up that acceptance over the years. To shoehorn a new way of governance would be as alien to that culture as the introduction of, say, Sharia law would be here. The question of corruption is (partly at least) a direct result of this. Previously powerful people dont want to see their powerbase diluted, so they do what they can do circumvent the "new" system because they dont accept the validity of it.

There are parallels between Vietnam and Afghansitan - of course there are. Its a US/Western led action/war in an Asian country. Soldiers are being killed and are being sent home in body bags. The basis for the both conflicts are, at best, debatable.

But there are critical differences which make the wholesale comparison both unhealthy and unhelpful. The nature of the conflict is different in terms of respective combatants. The global backdrop to the whole thing has a huge amount of religion mixed-in, which is hugely scary. The global political situation is massively different as a result of the fall of the Soviet Union. The (to me, if not to Liverpool) potential for regional reprecussions are much more real in Afghanistan than they ever were in Vietnam.

So yes, if there are analgous links, I'll "do" them. But why challenge me to find a better analogy? Does there have to be one? But if you insist, the British imposition of Shah Soojah to replace Dost Mohammed in Kabul in 1839, and the subsequent military and political disasters that followed over the next four years would be a much better analogy.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Sorry Liverpool, youre still missing my point. The bit I've italicised above is an interpretation you are arriving at which is coloured by your (very strong) view of the situation. The argument for the lack of any type of democratic tradition - British based or otherwise - is clear with even the most cursory glance at the history books. Trying to fast forward a country (regardless of its age) from feudalism to Western Democracy is surely fraught with danger. It took the UK 500 years of evolutionary political process to arrive where its at - how can anyone expect a country as culturally alien as Aghanistan to immediately accept the concept?

I really don't think I am missing you're point, I'm merely disagreeing with the fundamentals of it.

Firstly, Afghan society isn't really 'feudal' in any proper application of that term. That just seems to be used as a lazy catch-all term for an 'underdeveloped' socio-economic system. Afghan society, at a base level, works in terms of congregations called 'qawms' - which are very, very different from a genuine feudal system. In fact the qawm is pretty indisputably a form of grass-roots democratic organisation.

Secondly, as above. Why was the near-complete absence of Western notions of democracy in Russia from conception to elections in 1991 not evidence of an innate anti-democratic impulse?

I'm not suggesting anyone tries to 'fast-forward' Afghanistan to Western secular liberal democracy. I've already agreed with you that this 'liberal hawk' notion is fundamentally misguided (and, moreso, culminates in apologism for murder and atrocity).

Finally, the final line is a tacit acceptance of the idea that 'democracy' is, fundamentally, a white, Western idea that is the culmination of human history; somehow too advanced (or too 'alien') for certain societies or nations. I don't accept it. It's dangerously close to the rhetoric of the 'Clash of Civilisation' buffoons. Fourty or fifty years ago people would have said the same not just about S. and S.E. Asian, Eastern European and South American nations in which democracy has taken hold (and proved pretty unshakable) but about Western European states under dictatorship - Spain and Greece.


Im also slightly at a loss in understanding what your solution is? You rail against US/UK/NATO, against Karzai, against the Northern Alliance and against the Taliban. I'm not defending them by the way, but you dont appear to offer a solution. (No reason why you should of course, but it would be of interest).

Well, because a passing interest in what's going on there reveals that, despite what we're led to believe, the only possibilities are not occupation/UIF/Taliban. People seem to absolutely refuse to believe that the current regime can be as bad as the Taliban, this seems to drive much of the 'liberal hawk' argument without them considering why it might be that we've come to see at as infinitely preferable.

Mainstream opinion seems to regard as self-evident the idea that occupation weakens all 'rogue' elements to make life bearable. I think that's bollocks, it strengthens the UIF and it strengthens the Taliban - support for whom has surged in the last few years.


Apologies for the typo in "Afghanistanis".

So are you suggesting that the withdrawal of Western forces wouldnt create a vacuum? Are you suggesting that some benevolent self-regulating government is going to magically appear? I dont have the depth of research into the current situation as you appear to have, so cant confirm how bad the situation is, but extending your own quote, would the removal of the current regime not just mean, at best, a very rapid return to the frying pan?

Possibly. As I've said it would be churlish to claim there's absolutely no risk of the Taliban regaining control (and lets bear in mind that they already control large areas of the country). Just that the risk is constantly outweighed by the risk of staying. There's a more than fair chance of Karzai and the UIF maintaining the status quo if that's what people are worried about.


On the political situation, on the assumption that you accept that there are genuine global-political tensions between the West/US and fundamental Islam (not necessarily Islamic states), then you would have to be monumentally naive to suggest that any withdrawal that could be construed as a defeat for the West doesnt have potential implications across a much wider area than Afghansitan. The re-establishment of a fundamentalist state would impact its neighbours - the history of this region is clear, and I dont buy the argument that it is an analogous situation to Vietnam. I dont have any great stomach for a country with a nuclear arsenal even potentially being governed by religious madmen. It was scary enough when Bush had his finger on the trigger, for exactly the same reason.

It's already a fundamentalist state!

Again, this is a point I've sort of already made in less depth. The West has attempted to contsruct 'political Islam' as one homogenous and co-operative bloc. This is complete and utter nonsense and it drives the entire sorry ideology.

As despicable as the Taliban are, they are in no way comparable to the likes of al-Qaeda (again, the extent to which it actually exists). Some strange idea of a Taliban/al-Qaeda alliance was largely used to justify the invasion when in fact it's almost entirely fabricated. As I've already linked to, even American generals have accepted that there are under 100 'al-Qaeda fighters' in Afghanistan. Bin Laden was 'hosted' by the Taliban purely because he gave them stupendous amounts of money. Let's not forget that the Taliban had offers to hand over bin Laden rejected both pre- and post-September 11th (see Kabir Mohabbat). The Taliban are an incredibly localised, religio-nationalist orgaisation, not a global terror network.

It becomes a necessary, foundational myth to justify invasion and continued occupation to push the ideas of a united Islamist front and that Pakistan is poised to fall to al-Qaeda. It isn't, they're not even close to being capable of achieving such a thing.

Anyway, enjoyable discussion. It's quite helpful to actually write this sort of thing down rather than just have it buzzing round your head. :agree:

[hibsbollah]

So yes, if there are analgous links, I'll "do" them. But why challenge me to find a better analogy? Does there have to be one? But if you insist, the British imposition of Shah Soojah to replace Dost Mohammed in Kabul in 1839, and the subsequent military and political disasters that followed over the next four years would be a much better analogy.

Fair enough. Have a look at this article if you have time for further thought on it.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/182650

[Twa Cairpets]

Fair enough. Have a look at this article if you have time for further thought on it.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/182650

Thanks for that link - I thought it was a really good, balanced article, and found myself agreeing with pretty much all of it. conclusion - there are clear similarities (well there has to be really), but its as important to recognise the differences in deciding policy rather than viewing it as a carbon copy (not that I think this is what you were saying).

I completely agree with the comment that it is essentially "unwinnable" in any conventional military sense, but my mind, it doesnt mean we just up sticks and pull out.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I think the final line of that passage also veers close to the same imperialist tendencies. Awfully close to the 'white man’s burden', no? 'We have to sort it out as the natives will only get into even more of a mess.' Ignoring the fact that the occupation is the main source of grievance and analysing why it is that the Taliban have become the preferable option for many Afghans.

Speaking of which...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8348796.stm

Despite their fierce reputation, Afghans are mostly gentle, thoughtful people - deeply courteous, with warm humanity that radiates from luminous eyes.

They are also tolerant and very patient.

Seriously, who writes this stuff?! Are the BBC using Kipling's Plain Tales from the Hills as the source matierial for their articles? I imagine they just stopped short of references to 'Mohammedans'.

[hibsbollah]

Speaking of which...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8348796.stm

Despite their fierce reputation, Afghans are mostly gentle, thoughtful people - deeply courteous, with warm humanity that radiates from luminous eyes.

They are also tolerant and very patient.

Seriously, who writes this stuff?! Are the BBC using Kipling's Plain Tales from the Hills as the source matierial for their articles? I imagine they just stopped short of references to 'Mohammedans'.

They also love animals and enjoy evening walks and curling up with a good book.

[Hibrandenburg]

Funny how it's the same people who claim the problems there are caused by us not having intervened after the Russians left who now say it's time we left them to their own fate. You can't have your cake and eat it.

When we start seeing images of women being executed in sports arenas again for being women and all out war between rival warlords, then I hope the "bring them home brigade" realise that they are in part to blame.

[hibsbollah]

Funny how it's the same people who claim the problems there are caused by us not having intervened after the Russians left who now say it's time we left them to their own fate. You can't have your cake and eat it.

When we start seeing images of women being executed in sports arenas again for being women and all out war between rival warlords, then I hope the "bring them home brigade" realise that they are in part to blame.

What total nonsense.

[Hibrandenburg]

What total nonsense.

Your opinion, but only time will tell.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Funny how it's the same people who claim the problems there are caused by us not having intervened after the Russians left who now say it's time we left them to their own fate. You can't have your cake and eat it.

When we start seeing images of women being executed in sports arenas again for being women and all out war between rival warlords, then I hope the "bring them home brigade" realise that they are in part to blame.

Sorry, who are these people?

[hibsbollah]

Five British soldiers have been shot dead in Afghanistan by a "rogue" Afghani policeman. Time to leave, surely? The Afghanis don't want us there, and add to that our support of a corrupt government, and the rigged election. This war is going from bad to worse, and is not worth the loss of so many lives. :bitchy:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8341659.stm

I don't think these deaths should make any difference to the timescale for pulling out. How the war is going from a British point of view shouldn't affect the moral question of whether it's right or wrong.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I know there are a few fellow Adam Curtis fans on here, I've just come across this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2009/09/kabul_city_number_one.html), and it's absolutely fantastic.

It's a fairly extensive four-part history of Afghanistan and it's relationship with the West, Curtis is brilliant himself but it's also replete with archive BBC footage and the like. Links to the following parts should be at the bottom of that page. I'd advise it to everyone, fascinating.

[hibsbollah]

I know there are a few fellow Adam Curtis fans on here, I've just come across this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2009/09/kabul_city_number_one.html), and it's absolutely fantastic.

It's a fairly extensive four-part history of Afghanistan and it's relationship with the West, Curtis is brilliant himself but it's also replete with archive BBC footage and the like. Links to the following parts should be at the bottom of that page. I'd advise it to everyone, fascinating.

Everything i've seen this guy do is fantastic:agree: He's got hold of some amazing archive footage...I honestly cant see that 'cannon fodder' scene being made nowadays.

[--------]

Speaking of which...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8348796.stm

Despite their fierce reputation, Afghans are mostly gentle, thoughtful people - deeply courteous, with warm humanity that radiates from luminous eyes.

They are also tolerant and very patient.

Seriously, who writes this stuff?! Are the BBC using Kipling's Plain Tales from the Hills as the source matierial for their articles? I imagine they just stopped short of references to 'Mohammedans'.


Oi! Kipling was under no illusions whatsoever about the nature of the Afghani tribesmen or the complications of the political factions on the North-West Frontier in his day. That description you quote (the bit in bold) would have had him rolling about the floor in tears of laughter.

Last verse of "The Young British Soldier" -

"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
and the women come out to cut up what remains,
then roll to your rifle and blow out your brains,
and go to your God like a soldier...."

Kipling had seen what the women left behind.

I've made no secret of the fact that I didn't like the Iraq invasion - I believe it to have been illegal and self-defeating. I don't believe that the occupation has been to the benefit of the Iraqis, and I find it hard to see how or when the Coalition forces will reach the point when Iraq will be stable enough, and strong enough, for those forces to be withdrawn.

While we have a better and sounder mandate in international law for our presence in Afghanistan, I reckon that unless somehow we can stop the rot and start winning the hearts and minds of the Afghani people, then that presence is doomed. There really isn't even such an entity as 'the Afghani people' - there are tribes who hate other tribes who hate other tribes who hate the first tribes mentioned.

What IS clear to me is that the situation in Afghanistan has worsened drastically over the past 12 months, and that our government, lame ducks as they are, have not and will not (can't afford to) tell us anything like the truth of the dangers and problems our troops are facing out there.

[Hibrandenburg]

Oi! Kipling was under no illusions whatsoever about the nature of the Afghani tribesmen or the complications of the political factions on the North-West Frontier in his day. That description you quote (the bit in bold) would have had him rolling about the floor in tears of laughter.

Last verse of "The Young British Soldier" -

"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
and the women come out to cut up what remains,
then roll to your rifle and blow out your brains,
and go to your God like a soldier...."

Kipling had seen what the women left behind.

I've made no secret of the fact that I didn't like the Iraq invasion - I believe it to have been illegal and self-defeating. I don't believe that the occupation has been to the benefit of the Iraqis, and I find it hard to see how or when the Coalition forces will reach the point when Iraq will be stable enough, and strong enough, for those forces to be withdrawn.

While we have a better and sounder mandate in international law for our presence in Afghanistan, I reckon that unless somehow we can stop the rot and start winning the hearts and minds of the Afghani people, then that presence is doomed. There really isn't even such an entity as 'the Afghani people' - there are tribes who hate other tribes who hate other tribes who hate the first tribes mentioned.

What IS clear to me is that the situation in Afghanistan has worsened drastically over the past 12 months, and that our government, lame ducks as they are, have not and will not (can't afford to) tell us anything like the truth of the dangers and problems our troops are facing out there.

:top marks Sums up my thoughts on both wars quite nicely.

[Betty Boop]

:top marks Sums up my thoughts on both wars quite nicely.

Did you not imply on the other thread that the situation in Afghanistan was better,since the arrival of coalition forces? :confused:

[Hibrandenburg]

Did you not imply on the other thread that the situation in Afghanistan was better,since the arrival of coalition forces? :confused:

Two different things completely. Things are getting worse for the troops out there but for a large part of the civilian population life has become better.

[Betty Boop]

Two different things completely. Things are getting worse for the troops out there but for a large part of the civilian population life has become better.

What large part of the civilian poulation would that be? I doubt it is better for Women. The corrupt President Karzai, who is fully backed by Britain and America, passed a law permitting men to starve their wives if they fail to satisfy their sexual demands, in other words condoning rape. How is that better than life under Taliban rule?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/31/hamid-karzai-afghanistan-law

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/14/afghanistan-womens-rights-rape

[LiverpoolHibs]

Missed this (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/asia/28intel.html?_r=1) at the time and just come across it now. Afghanistan's richest man and narco-trafficker-***-gunrunner-in-chief Ahmed Wali Karzai (brother of Hamid) is a fully paid up C.I.A. agent!

Who'd have thunk it...

Edit: I'm not sure the preposition c-u-m really requires censoring...

[hibsbollah]

Missed this (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/asia/28intel.html?_r=1) at the time and just come across it now. Afghanistan's richest man and narco-trafficker-***-gunrunner-in-chief Ahmed Wali Karzai (brother of Hamid) is a fully paid up C.I.A. agent!

Who'd have thunk it...

Hamid Karzai was also a CIA agent prior to becoming our man in Kabul.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Hamid Karzai was also a CIA agent prior to becoming our man in Kabul.

Yup, contact between the Mujahideen and the C.I.A. during the Soviet occupation.

[Betty Boop]

Hamid Karzai was also a CIA agent prior to becoming our man in Kabul.

Also a consultant of the US oil corporation Unocal. :rolleyes:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD201A.html

[AndyP]

Hamid Karzai was also a CIA agent prior to becoming our man in Kabul.


The fact that he was close to Massoud would certainly make me doubt that claim somewhat.

His links with certain US companies and his subsequent "promotion" to Mayor of Kabul is more than a little coincidental especially with the Turkmenistan (IIRC) pipeline construction proposals :stirrer:

[LiverpoolHibs]

The fact that he was close to Massoud would certainly make me doubt that claim somewhat.

It isn't a claim, it's a well-recognised fact

And why would that make you doubt it? Moussad was the darling of Reagan and the neo-conservatives during the Soviet occupation and received enormous quantities of arms and cash from the U.S. (direct and by proxy) during Taliban rule.

[AndyP]

It isn't a claim, it's a well-recognised fact

And why would that make you doubt it? Moussad was the darling of Reagan and the neo-conservatives during the Soviet occupation and received enormous quantities of arms and cash from the U.S. (direct and by proxy) during Taliban rule.


Massoud was not exactly the darling of the CIA or the Pakistan Secret Service and the fact that Zia had an order out for his execution makes me doubt some of the claims however this is my opinion and if you provide proof that both were in the CIAs pay then I'll change it.

I'll also add this quote, taken from a biography site about him


In the year 1377 (1998) Olivier Roy and Christoph De Ponfilly wrote in an essay: “Massoud never understood why CIA and Pentagon decided to support his enemy Gulbuddin Hekmatyar in the fight against him. Massoud always dreamed of a united and equal people in Afghanistan and also of free elections in this country.”

Things like that also make me doubt the varacity of claims that Massoud was in the "pay" of the CIA

[hibsbollah]

Theres plenty of evidence that Karzai was CIA. Wikipedia isnt a 'source' as such, but they quote Mills, Nick (August 31, 2007). Karzai: the failing American intervention and the struggle for Afghanistan (Ilustrated ed.). John Wiley and sons. pp. 240. But Ive read that in Robert Fisks's The Great War for Civilsation-the Conquest of the Middle East, good chapters about Afghanistan under the Mujahaddin when Fisk was based there. Not forgetting Michael Moores 'Fahrenheit 911' although this probably isnt considered an impartial source:wink:

[LiverpoolHibs]

Massoud was not exactly the darling of the CIA or the Pakistan Secret Service and the fact that Zia had an order out for his execution makes me doubt some of the claims however this is my opinion and if you provide proof that both were in the CIAs pay then I'll change it.

I'll also add this quote, taken from a biography site about him

Things like that also make me doubt the varacity of claims that Massoud was in the "pay" of the CIA

Massoud was one of the foremost figures to benefit from the Reagan Doctrine.

It's not exactly unusual for there to be more than one strand to U.S. foreign policy due to competing analyses of events from the neo-con policy makers, analysts and advisors. Hekmatyar and Hezb-e-Islami were also handsomely funded throughout the Soviet occupation by the U.S. and Pakistan. From a U.S. perspective it was perfectly reasonable to keep all of the groups under the banner of the Mujahideen well armed and funded. And Hekmatyar was certainly the preferred choice of Zia and the I.S.I. The U.S. became much more luke-warm to him after he vociferously backed Iraq during the Gulf War, and funding was stepped up to Massoud and Karzai once he had irrevocably fallen out with the Taliban.

See this (http://michaeljohnsonfreedomandprosperity.blogspot.com/2008/01/charlie-wilsons-war-was-really-americas.html) overview of the Regan Doctrine from Michael Johns, the man largely responsible for drawing it up and establishing it as official policy.


Having the benefit of fairly extensive involvement in some of the efforts to secure U.S. assistance for the Reagan Doctrine efforts, however, I well remember the passionate discussions in the Reagan administration and among all Congressional and U.S. supporters of the mujahideen over ensuring that U.S. support was restricted to our primary allies in the Afghan effort. And that goal was achieved. Chief among these was another great and largely unsung hero in the Reagan Doctrine's ultimate success, Ahmad Shah Massoud, who earned the warranted nickname "the Lion of Panjshir," and who was assassinated by al-Qaeda agents in what perhaps should have been a foretelling sign, on September 9, 2001, two days prior to the September 11 attacks.

[Hibrandenburg]

What large part of the civilian poulation would that be? I doubt it is better for Women. The corrupt President Karzai, who is fully backed by Britain and America, passed a law permitting men to starve their wives if they fail to satisfy their sexual demands, in other words condoning rape. How is that better than life under Taliban rule?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/31/hamid-karzai-afghanistan-law

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/14/afghanistan-womens-rights-rape

The law change was probably intended to draw sypathy from those who would normally support the Taliban. Can't believe you're saying that Taliban rule would be preferable :bitchy:

Woman executed in public (http://www.rawa.org/murder-w.htm)

Man ACCUSED of spying (http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-english/world-news/2009/08/28/taliban-evil-explosion-execution/man-accused-of-spying-blown-up-in-afghan-desert.html)

Acid attack on school girls (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/11/25/afghan.acid.attack/index.html)

Using the weak and vunerable (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/taliban-running-school-for-suicide-bombers-1764028.html)

I could post thousands of these, but what's the point? This is probably my last post coz some of you guys only see what you want to see and it really nips my head.

[LiverpoolHibs]

The law change was probably intended to draw sypathy from those who would normally support the Taliban. Can't believe you're saying that Taliban rule would be preferable :bitchy:

Woman executed in public (http://www.rawa.org/murder-w.htm)

Man ACCUSED of spying (http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-english/world-news/2009/08/28/taliban-evil-explosion-execution/man-accused-of-spying-blown-up-in-afghan-desert.html)

Acid attack on school girls (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/11/25/afghan.acid.attack/index.html)

Using the weak and vunerable (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/taliban-running-school-for-suicide-bombers-1764028.html)

I could post thousands of these, but what's the point? This is probably my last post coz some of you guys only see what you want to see and it really nips my head.

No, conversely it is those who continue to support the occupation that don't seem to be very interested in what is actually happening and the facts of the matter.

Firstly, as I've already said, the Taliban are not an absent underground force so the point about whether life would be better or worse under them is largely moot. They control 40%-50% of the country and around 80% of the most populous areas.

Posting examples of Taliban atrocities, however awful, adds little or nothing to the debate. I could retaliate with numerous NATO atrocities (I sort of already have done - the lovely figure of 90+ civilians killed for every 2-4 militant in the very frequent drone attacks, I'm sure the Taliban could only dream of that level of destruction) or similar acts carried out by the various warlords associated with the Karzai regime. It wouldn't really mean alot but people seem to just point-blank refuse to believe that any groups associated with 'our side' could be capable of acts analogous to those of the Taliban. Read up a bit on Dostum, Fahim and Khalili; perhaps look into the machinations of installing the Karzai regime which involved a carte blanche being given to the Northern Alliance to ethnically cleanse up to 50,000 Pashtuns. Or perhaps why it might be that support for the Taliban is growing by the day.

[Betty Boop]

The law change was probably intended to draw sypathy from those who would normally support the Taliban. Can't believe you're saying that Taliban rule would be preferable :bitchy:

Woman executed in public (http://www.rawa.org/murder-w.htm)

Man ACCUSED of spying (http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-english/world-news/2009/08/28/taliban-evil-explosion-execution/man-accused-of-spying-blown-up-in-afghan-desert.html)

Acid attack on school girls (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/11/25/afghan.acid.attack/index.html)

Using the weak and vunerable (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/taliban-running-school-for-suicide-bombers-1764028.html)

I could post thousands of these, but what's the point? This is probably my last post coz some of you guys only see what you want to see and it really nips my head.

I didn't say that life under Taliban rule was preferable. You said that since the invasion of coalition forces, life was better for large parts of the Afghan population. I asked which parts? I can't see that much has changed for Afghanis, from what I have read, despite the spin from British and American politicians. How can Gordon Brown support the corrupt Karzai, when he passes a law condoning rape? He is constantly banging on about how life is so much better now for women. I don't think so!

[Hibrandenburg]

I didn't say that life under Taliban rule was preferable. You said that since the invasion of coalition forces, life was better for large parts of the Afghan population. I asked which parts? I can't see that much has changed for Afghanis, from what I have read, despite the spin from British and American politicians. How can Gordon Brown support the corrupt Karzai, when he passes a law condoning rape? He is constantly banging on about how life is so much better now for women. I don't think so!

Ok, if you had the power, then what would you do to solve Afghanistans problems?

[Dashing Bob S]

I don't think this war is about making life better for the people of Afghanistan. Why should we care more or less, about the people of Afghanistan, than we do about about the people of, say, Uganda or Sudan?

The answer is that we don't.

Whatever will benefit the people of Afghanistan, I doubt it'll be the Taliban or what we've put in it's place:

http://www.salon.com/news/afghanistan/index.html?story=/news/feature/2009/11/17/afghanistan_corruption

As much as I hate the Taliban (and i've to Afghanistan four times in the last eight years and heard some of the stories at first hand) I feel that it just might not be our place to say what will benefit the people of Afghanistan.

[Betty Boop]

I don't think this war is about making life better for the people of Afghanistan. Why should we care more or less, about the people of Afghanistan, than we do about about the people of, say, Uganda or Sudan?

The answer is that we don't.

Whatever will benefit the people of Afghanistan, I doubt it'll be the Taliban or what we've put in it's place:

http://www.salon.com/news/afghanistan/index.html?story=/news/feature/2009/11/17/afghanistan_corruption

As much as I hate the Taliban (and i've to Afghanistan four times in the last eight years and heard some of the stories at first hand) I feel that it just might not be our place to say what will benefit the people of Afghanistan.
:top marks
Gordon Brown said that everything will be better though, after Afghanisation! :rolleyes: