Afghanistan

layke

On the original post.

Of course countries are reluctant to supply troops to sort out Afganistan. From the poijnt of view from a leader of a country no way in hell would I volunteer the lives of my troops to sort out a mess made by the US.

bonkey

layke wrote:

Of course countries are reluctant to supply troops to sort out Afganistan. From the poijnt of view from a leader of a country no way in hell would I volunteer the lives of my troops to sort out a mess made by the US.

If I was a country leader, I don't know that I would agree with your take on things.

See, if I cared about the Afghani people and the wellbeing of the nation, I wouldn't let it go to the dogs because even though I could help fix it, I refused cause I wasn't the one who broke it.

On the other hand, if I didn't care about the Afghani people and the wellbeing of the nation, then I wouldn't care who had broken it either.

Holding the US accountable for its actions should be seperated from helping Afghanistan (or whoever) recover from its past, for which the US is partly responsible. Linking the two only makes sense if you care more about nailing teh US then helping the Afghanis, and are willing to prolong their suffering to add leverage to your "get America" platform.

Thankfully, I'm not a world leader.

jc

layke

JC if you ever pull me up on things again I shall be straight onto Anita!

We haven't evolved to the point where we think 'help the world' we think 'help ourselves'. From what I have seen in my experience a head of state thinks my country = No.1 priority, the world = No.2 and probably will always remain that way.

Suppose thats the difference between idealism and realism.

FYI

If Islamic Fundamentalists are the enemy then why did 'we' kill over 100,000 Iraqis?

If many of them [the Iraqi insurgency] are not even Iraqi then why is it a fact that the insurgency is prodominantly home grown?

If they kill far more Iraqis than Americans why do the statistics not bear out this fact?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5052138.stm

If the Taliban is part of the Islamic fundamentalist threat why was there a deal 'on the table' to offer over bin Laden?

If the Allied attack on Afghanistan was entirely legal, why is it that has never been authorized by the United Nations Security Council.

http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle0917.html

Even if Afghanistan provided sanctuary for those 'who did', what are the grounds for invading the country?

Saddam would still be in power today if...

George Bush, speaking in October 2002, said that ‘The stated policy of the United States is regime change… However, if [Hussein] were to meet all the conditions of the United Nations, the conditions that I have described very clearly in terms that everybody can understand, that in itself will signal the regime has changed’ Bob Kemper, ‘Saddam can keep rule if he complies: Bush ‘ Daily Times October 23 2002 available at http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_23-10-2002_pg4_1;

‘It would be possible for Saddam Hussein to remain in power in Iraq if he eliminated his weapons of mass destruction, says the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell’ Anne Kornblut, ‘Saddam can stay if he disarms, Powell says’, Sydney Morning Herald, October 22 2002 available at http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/10/21/1034561443683.html;

Sgt. Sensible

Mick86 wrote:

Afghanistan provided sanctuary for those who did. Do you seriously believe that the Taliban would have extradited Bin Laden and co under any circumstances. Don't be so naive.

You just don't know what you're talking about.

By the end of 1999 US sanctions and near-world-wide political ostracism were costing the Taliban dearly and they had come to see Osama bin Laden and his training camps as, in Mohabbat's words, "just a damn liability". Mohabbat says the Taliban leadership had also been informed in the clearest possible terms by a US diplomat that if any US citizen was harmed as a consequence of an Al Qaeda action, the US would hold the Taliban responsible and target Mullah Omar and the Taliban leaders.

In the summer of 2000, on one of his regular trips to Afghanistan, Mohabbat had a summit session with the Taliban high command in Kandahar. They asked him to arrange a meeting with appropriate officials in the European Union, to broker a way in which they could hand over Osama bin Laden . Mohabbat recommended they send bin Laden to the World Criminal Court in the Hague.

Shortly thereafter, in August of 2000, Mohabbat set up a meeting at the Sheraton hotel in Frankfurt between a delegation from the Taliban and Reiner Weiland of the EU. The Taliban envoys repeated the offer to deport bin Laden. Weiland told them he would take the proposal to Elmar Brok, foreign relations director for the European Union. According to Mohabbat, Brok then informed the US Ambassador to Germany of the offer.

After a rocky start on the first day of the Frankfurt session, Mohabbat says the Taliban realized the gravity of US threats and outlined various ways bin Laden could be dealt with. He could be turned over to the EU, killed by the Taliban, or made available as a target for Cruise missiles. In the end, Mohabbat says, the Taliban promised the "unconditional surrender of bin Laden" . "We all agreed," Mohabbat tells CounterPunch, "the best way was to gather Osama and all his lieutenants in one location and the US would send one or two Cruise missiles."

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html

Mick86

FYI wrote:

If Islamic Fundamentalists are the enemy then why did 'we' kill over 100,000 Iraqis?

To overthrow Saddam Hussein and conquer Iraq.

FYI wrote:

If many of them [the Iraqi insurgency] are not even Iraqi then why is it a fact that the insurgency is prodominantly home grown?

It isn't

FYI wrote:

If they kill far more Iraqis than Americans why do the statistics not bear out this fact?

Lies, damn lies and statistics

FYI wrote:

If the Taliban is part of the Islamic fundamentalist threat why was there a deal 'on the table' to offer over bin Laden?

I've already answered that.

FYI wrote:

If the Allied attack on Afghanistan was entirely legal, why is it that has never been authorized by the United Nations Security Council

Beacause the UN is a sad joke.

FYI wrote:

Even if Afghanistan provided sanctuary for those 'who did', what are the grounds for invading the country?

The answer is in your question.

FYI wrote:

Saddam would still be in power today if...]

He hadn't invaded Kuwait.

Mick86

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

You just don't know what you're talking about.

What you mean to say is that you do not agree with my opinions.

If the Taliban wanted to get rid of Osama why didn't they do it. According to you they wanted to do it prior to 9/11. After 9/11 they refused to do it without proof that he was a bad guy. There's no logic in that argument

FYI

Sorry Mick I mistook this for an actual argument, or shame on me, a debate.

Sgt. Sensible

Mick86 wrote:

What you mean to say is that you do not agree with my opinions.

If the Taliban wanted to get rid of Osama why didn't they do it. According to you they wanted to do it prior to 9/11. After 9/11 they refused to do it without proof that he was a bad guy. There's no logic in that argument

Not only do you not know what you're talking about, you evidently haven't bothered to read the link I provided.

ISAW

Mick86 wrote:

To overthrow Saddam Hussein and conquer Iraq.

which had nothing to do with Islamic fundies and so is not an answer to the question

It isn't

blank contradiction is not a substitute for cogient argument.

Lies, damn lies and statistics

Nor are clichés! You made a claim. The facts of the matter are posted saying your are incorrect and you reply "they are only statistics"

I've already answered that.

Evasion noted

Because the UN is a sad joke.

Evasion noted

The answer is in your question.

Evasion noted

[/quote]
He hadn't invaded Kuwait.[/QUOTE]

Not a reason. In fact you contradict yourself since that happened a decade before and the Us did not take over Iraq at that time!

banaman

rom London Independant

Quote:
"We are flattening places we have already flattened, but the attacks have kept coming. We have killed them by the dozens, but more keep coming, either locally or from across the border," one said. "We have used B1 bombers, Harriers, F16s and Mirage 2000s. We have dropped 500lb, 1,000lb and even 2,000lb bombs. At one point our Apaches [helicopter gunships] ran out of missiles they have fired so many. Almost any movement on the ground gets ambushed. We need an entire battle group to move things. Yet they will not give us the helicopters we have been asking for.

"We have also got problems with the Afghan forces. The army, on the whole, is pretty good, although they are often not paid properly. But many of the police will not fight the Taliban, either because they are scared or they are sympathisers."

British officers in Helmand acknowledge that the next few months will be crucial in this conflict, which they insist can still be won with an additional thousand extra fighting troops.

Last week General James Jones, the Nato military chief, called for 2,500 extra troops, armour and helicopters from member states. But at the Warsaw summit currently under way, the countries with significant forces, Germany, France, Italy and Turkey, say they will have their hands full with Lebanese peacekeeping duties and have no troops to spare.

Read what was said about the war in Vietnam. Its eerily similar

Sgt. Sensible

banaman wrote:

Read what was said about the war in Vietnam. Its eerily similar

No it's almost identical to the Soviet/Afghan war, except that the soviets had many many more troops and helicoptors, they killed a lot more people due to more robust tactics and they were more successful at building things, getting girls to attend school and so on.

ISAW

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

No it's almost identical to the Soviet/Afghan war, except that the soviets had many many more troops and helicoptors, they killed a lot more people due to more robust tactics and they were more successful at building things, getting girls to attend school and so on.

And even more successful than that at similar tactics were the French in algeria. and look what happened there?