Apparently "they" are "winning in Afghanistan"

Frederico

According to Blair..

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1242377,00.html


This is just the latest in a line of statements, gathering momentum, for the big push to distract the public from the civil war/unholy quagmire in Iraq.. it will probably work too..

Villain

"We"????

spanner

irish1 wrote:

"We"????

free nations:rolleyes:

Manic Moran

irish1 wrote:

"We"????

Ireland has a small contingent there. One of my sergeants worked in a commo shop with an Irish Commandant. I didn't believe him until he showed me some of the 'gimmes' he got.

NTM

AbusesToilets

So i take it you think they are losing in Afghanistan?

MrJoeSoap

Manic Moran wrote:

Ireland has a small contingent there. One of my sergeants worked in a commo shop with an Irish Commandant. I didn't believe him until he showed me some of the 'gimmes' he got.

NTM

Still wouldn't justify the use of the term "we", imo.

JaysusMacfeck

"We". Oh dear, oh dear..

Rock Climber

We changed to they as its misleading,given this is not a British site.

flogen

Hasn't there been an upsurge in action by the Taliban in recent months as they try to take control of key points (and poppy supplies)?

banaman

They said they were wining in Vietnam too.

Its a load of spherical objects related to the genitalia of male mammals.

If they are winning why are they looking for more money, more troops etc?

mike65

To press home the advantage before winter sets in and then have enough man-power to snuff out trouble next spring before it takes hold.

Mike.

sovtek

Blair thinks things in Iraq are going well too...isn't saying much.

Fratton Fred

So should NATO pull out then and return the country to it's former ways of producing heroin, oppressing women and supporting terrorism?

For years the left were demanding something be done about the oppressive regime in Afghanistan, now they have people are complaining again.

leninbenjamin

Fratton Fred wrote:

So should NATO pull out then and return the country to it's former ways of producing heroin, oppressing women and supporting terrorism?

For years the left were demanding something be done about the oppressive regime in Afghanistan, now they have people are complaining again.

the NATO presence simply hasn't stopped the country returning to thier old ways, that's why they are losing. The Irish Times on Monday said that Opium production has reached record levels in AFghanistan, and accounts for about 60 % GDP. Suicide bombings were up four fold this year so far. That says a lot about the success of NATO there. They are having sweet f*ck all of an effect there. While Blair continues to shout how they are "winning," he is really just trying to convince the leaders of other nations in NATO to remain there and fork up more troops. The rest of NATO are talking about pulling out so they don't continue to make a mockery of themselves. The country will continue down that route regardless...

Fratton Fred

leninbenjamin wrote:

the NATO presence simply hasn't stopped the country returning to thier old ways, that's why they are losing. The Irish Times on Monday said that Opium production has reached record levels in AFghanistan, and accounts for about 60 % GDP. Suicide bombings were up four fold this year so far. That says a lot about the success of NATO there. They are having sweet f*ck all of an effect there. While Blair continues to shout how they are "winning," he is really just trying to convince the leaders of other nations in NATO to remain there and fork up more troops. The rest of NATO are talking about pulling out so they don't continue to make a mockery of themselves. The country will continue down that route regardless...

So the world should surrender to the terrorists and leave the decent people of Afghanistan (ie the majority) to suffer at the hands of the Taliban then?

leninbenjamin

Fratton Fred wrote:

So the world should surrender to the terrorists and leave the decent people of Afghanistan (ie the majority) to suffer at the hands of the Taliban then?

i) the average innocent afghan isn't helping much. they don't want to fight the Taliban with the suicide bombbings and all. And it's your average innocent Afghan farmer who harvests the opiates.

ii) it would require a hell of a lot more troops (and deaths) than NATO are willing to commit. most of the nations of NATO who have troops in there have national caveats limiting what troops commit to. most of them will only commit troops to the safer areas.

iii)you have Pakistan next door funding and supplying the Taliban, as they don't want to see Afghanistan ever grow into a rival.

so as it stands today, NATO will never win control of Afghanistan, they are just wasting thier time causing needless damage and suffering.

NATO needs a massive overhaul, and countries have to commit a lot more if they ever want to improve the situation in AFghanistan. And a serious international stance would have to be made against Pakistan (which wont happen as they have nukes). Until then, they are just wasting their time and people's lives.

Fratton Fred

leninbenjamin wrote:

i) the average innocent afghan isn't helping much. they don't want to fight the Taliban with the suicide bombbings and all. And it's your average innocent Afghan farmer who harvests the opiates.

ii) it would require a hell of a lot more troops (and deaths) than NATO are willing to commit. most of the nations of NATO who have troops in there have national caveats limiting what troops commit to. most of them will only commit troops to the safer areas.

iii)you have Pakistan next door funding and supplying the Taliban, as they don't want to see Afghanistan ever grow into a rival.

so as it stands today, NATO will never win control of Afghanistan, they are just wasting thier time causing needless damage and suffering.

NATO needs a massive overhaul, and countries have to commit a lot more if they ever want to improve the situation in AFghanistan. And a serious international stance would have to be made against Pakistan (which wont happen as they have nukes). Until then, they are just wasting their time and people's lives.

I think you are being a bit harsh on Pakistan there. A lot of Pakistani soldiers have died fighting the Taliban/Al Qeada in the Afghan border, but the truth is, that part of Pakistan is very tribal and very very hard line Muslim.

I totally agree that unless NATO puts more troops on the ground, then it is not going to be easy for the British, American and Canadian troops on the frontline and without the "Average" Afghan, it will never be won.

One of the problems is the fact that the country is skint and can;t afford to feed it's own people and, like parts of South America, producing drugs is an easy way for farmers to make a living. Unless the west realises this (such as making it easier for farmers to export their crops into the EU rather than paying our own farmers to sit on their arses) it will not change.

But we/they should not stop trying.

mike65

Might as well kick Germany out of NATO for all thier usefullness.

Mike.

Frederico

Fratton Fred wrote:

So should NATO pull out then and return the country to it's former ways of producing heroin, oppressing women and supporting terrorism?

For years the left were demanding something be done about the oppressive regime in Afghanistan, now they have people are complaining again.

"The left"? what are you talking about? If the Taliban had handed over Bin Laden and a few cronies the UK government would have been all chummy with them.. Blair does not give one toss about the people's suffering in Afghanistan, he is just trying to divert out attention from the mess they (UK + US) have created in Iraq..

This is nothing to do with the "people", Blair and Bush arrogantly ignored everyone, all critics, all experts, all ex-diplomats, all thinktanks and dived in with far too few troops, far too little reconstruction money, etc, etc, etc, its all been predicted and pointed out many times over for the past 5 years..

AbusesToilets

I don't think the situation is as dire as you believe it to be in Afghanistan.There has been an upswing in violence recently but the Taliban hasn't succeeded in seizing back areas of the country.I think one of the main causes of the problems NATO is having is due to the unwillingness of the member countries to fully commit to the mission,with sufficient troops and willpower.

Fratton Fred

AbusesToilets wrote:

I don't think the situation is as dire as you believe it to be in Afghanistan.There has been an upswing in violence recently but the Taliban hasn't succeeded in seizing back areas of the country.I think one of the main causes of the problems NATO is having is due to the unwillingness of the member countries to fully commit to the mission,with sufficient troops and willpower.

If Spain, Italy, France and Germany got off their arses then Afghanistan would be sorted out in no time at all.

Fratton Fred

Frederico wrote:

"The left"? what are you talking about? If the Taliban had handed over Bin Laden and a few cronies the UK government would have been all chummy with them.. Blair does not give one toss about the people's suffering in Afghanistan, he is just trying to divert out attention from the mess they (UK + US) have created in Iraq..

This is nothing to do with the "people", Blair and Bush arrogantly ignored everyone, all critics, all experts, all ex-diplomats, all thinktanks and dived in with far too few troops, far too little reconstruction money, etc, etc, etc, its all been predicted and pointed out many times over for the past 5 years..

So, what you are saying is that Britain are doing the right thing, but because it is Britain we will have a dig at them anyway?

Frederico

Fratton Fred wrote:

So, what you are saying is that Britain are doing the right thing, but because it is Britain we will have a dig at them anyway?

er? it could be Finland for all I care. I am curious, do you think Blair a) is genuinely concerned for the people of Afghanistan or is b) desperately trying to divert public attention from the mess in Iraq?

Kharzai said awhile back that Afghanistan would be a paradise now IF it had had the money that was spent on the war in Iraq.

Frederico

Fratton Fred wrote:

If Spain, Italy, France and Germany got off their arses then Afghanistan would be sorted out in no time at all.

Blaming other countries now?

Fratton Fred

Frederico wrote:

er? it could be Finland for all I care. I am curious, do you think Blair a) is genuinely concerned for the people of Afghanistan or is b) desperately trying to divert public attention from the mess in Iraq?

Kharzai said awhile back that Afghanistan would be a paradise now IF it had had the money that was spent on the war in Iraq.

2/3rds of the countrys in the world would be a paradise if they were given that sort of money.

to answer your question, no I don't think Blair has any great love for the Afghan people, I can't accept it is to divert attention from Iraq. The British armed forces are already stretched as it is witout getting bogged down in another long term conflict.

Maybe, just maybe, Blair thinks he is doing the right thing for world peace.

Can anyone tell me why they (NATO) are still there? Frankly, I can't imagine them the type to be able to wipe out the Taliban, even if it was possible.

AbusesToilets

I think they are there so they can have some justification for their existance.Plus i think the US & Britain are getting tired of being ( for the most part) the only countries willing to go in after the Taliban etc. Most of the Eu countries are happy to complain about US actions in the Mid-east while profiting from them at the same time,with regards to their security and the opening up of potentially lucrative markets.

Dar

AbusesToilets wrote:

Most of the Eu countries are happy to complain about US actions in the Mid-east while profiting from them at the same time,with regards to their security and the opening up of potentially lucrative markets.

Exactly how has any nation's security been improved by US actions in the middle-east? All they've managed to do is turn a stable nation into a hotbed of sectarian violance and a recruiting poster for Islamic terror groups.

AbusesToilets

Dar wrote:

Exactly how has any nation's security been improved by US actions in the middle-east? All they've managed to do is turn a stable nation into a hotbed of sectarian violance and a recruiting poster for Islamic terror groups.

Which stable country is it that you are referring to there?
They're security is improved by virtue of the US and others taking an active role in hunting down the terrorist groups,something that the EU countries for the most part are not willing to commit to in any meaningful way.NATO's situation in Afghanistan is an example of this. It's not just in the Middle-East,you're talking about Southern Asia,North Africa,even South America.There is a very large,concerted effort going on to combat these groups,an effort being paid in the majority by the US.Europe is as much of a target as the US is,yet the EU is happy for the US & Britain to bear the brunt of the burden when it comes to combating the threat.

Dar

AbusesToilets wrote:

Which stable country is it that you are referring to there?

Pre-invasion Iraq. It wasns't a nice place my any measure - but it was stable.

They're security is improved by virtue of the US and others taking an active role in hunting down the terrorist groups,something that the EU countries for the most part are not willing to commit to in any meaningful way.NATO's situation in Afghanistan is an example of this. It's not just in the Middle-East,you're talking about Southern Asia,North Africa,even South America.There is a very large,concerted effort going on to combat these groups,an effort being paid in the majority by the US.Europe is as much of a target as the US is,yet the EU is happy for the US & Britain to bear the brunt of the burden when it comes to combating the threat.

Afghanistan is doing to the dogs and Iraq is in full fledged civil war, muslim hatred of the western nations is at an all time high. What the US/UK have obviously failed to realise is that you can't defeat terrorism through force of arms - you need to take their power and recruiting base away from them. All they have achieved in the last 6 years is to turn Al'Quida from an organisation on the brink of collapse into a poster child for all Islamic Terror groups.

AbusesToilets

you can't defeat terrorism through force of arms - you need to take their power and recruiting base away from them.

No,you need to do a combination of the above and actively hunting them down.The Coalition has not been as active with the above as they could be but that doesn't change the fact that you still need to go out and kill these people.