Withdraw from Afganisthan

Manic Moran

What is the mission and in what order..

1 - Destroy the Taliban and then the Western troops go home
2 - Beef up the Afghan military to such an extent it would be very powerful and then the Western troops go home even without a defeated Taliban.
3 - A bit of both depending which comes first?

None of the above, and I think that's part of the reason there is any significant opposition to the ongoing operations.

I'm going to copy from the thread linked to earlier. Read it, and tell me how close this is to what you envision the Afghan war to be like.

We're the 'Battlespace owners' of Laghman province. It's between Kabul and the Pakistani border, so fairly important and not exactly the quiet, out of way NorthWest countryside that the Germans are mucking around in.

Twenty minutes ago, I watched two helicopters leave our base with a cargo of government officials and sling-loaded humanitarian aid. They're going up to one of the district centres, where our units have spent the last two days driving around from town-to-town advertising a 'shura', a sort of town-hall-meeting. We did exactly the same thing on the 10th, and the same thing on the 4th before that, in different parts of the province.

Also departing the base today were the Agricultural Development Team, consisting of a bunch of about 60 soldiers and experts from the Kanasas Army National Guard. They run an agricultural academy at the provincial capitol. Wheat production in the area has increased 50% in the last two years, increasing local wealth and providing viable alternatives to opium or mercenary work.

The Provincial Reconstruction Team is another unit to have left the base today. This is a joint US Air Force/US Army 80+man organisation which tends to spend its time building roads, school, micro-hydro projects, and otherwise attempt to build the quality of life for the people of Afghanistan.

Lastly, we have our Military Police platoon going out and about. Their job is to train up the local police.

[Edit: Afghan police called. Said they found a roadside bomb, likely targeting the people coming back from the Shura. We've dispatched a patrol to take the bomb squad out]

The figures for Laghman province came across my desk earlier this week, for the period 01APR - 31JUL.

Number of verified insurgents killed 6.

Number of civilians killed by US forces 0.

Number of civilians murdered. 10

Number of civilians killed in motor vehicle accidents. 17

Number of sexual assaults reported 1. (Apparently described as the man promising to marry a woman before having sex, then reneging).

That's what our war is like. We're not afraid to accept battle, if the opposition gives us an excuse then we'll blow the crap out of them, and we'll use every weapon we have to do it. We had quite the fight one evening last month. That's why the lads advertising the Shura brought their artillery along with them: The insurgents around here don't like it when the government talk to the people. On occasion, there will be a pitched fight the likes of which you will see on the news. We will call in an airstrike or artillery or whatever, but they really are the exception more than the rule. Of course, "American army opens agricultural academy" isn't the sort of thing to make headline news on CNN, so nobody tends to know about it. Except for the Afghans, who are the people who count. Too many people think we're just out here slinging high explosives around, using the following very discriminating method of identifying the enemy: We go up to someone, and ask "Are you a muslim?" If they say "Yes", we shoot them. In reality, we realise that the centre of gravity is not killing the insurgents, it's making them irrelevant by focusing on the populace.

Destroying the Taliban is never going to happen. You can't destroy what is effectively an ideology. I note you use 'defeat' instead of 'destroy' in option 2, the two words have different meanings. You can defeat someone without destroying them, and even if you destroy them, that doesn't mean they're defeated.

The secret to getting out of Afghanistan actually has very little to do with the Taliban, or HiG or any of the other groups out there. The secret is stability, a lack of power vacuums. Let's say we were to kill off every Taliban person there, and pull out. If there isn't a capable and somewhat supported central government, all you're doing is leaving a vacuum for the next group of people to take over. Maybe they'll be benevolent dictators, maybe they'll be nutters. The secret is not in firepower, but in getting the people to trust that the best course of action is not an unstable collection of rival tribes but a system of peace and stability with all the benefits which accompany a government. We are introducing people to the concept of 'roads.' A pretty fundamental piece of infrastructure: With it comes an economy and government services. However, as long as a large portion of the population doesn't have something that you can at least drive a Toyota Hilux over, you will have instability. As long as there is instability, there is a need for stabilising influences. It's a sort of a vicious circle: To have stability you need to have governance and development. To have governance and development, you need to have security. To have security, you need stability. That's where the military forces come in: By providing the security by military means you can break the cycle caused by what would otherwise be the lack of security.

Are the Western troops and Afghan military really tackling the opium trade seriously?(why has the supply continued when troops are everywhere at point of entry at borders)

Fairly low priority, I would guess. It's a source of financing for the opposition, but it doesn't actually contribute anything much that I can think of to the instability of the country outside of that. We are trying to get them to move to even more profitable crops, but we're starting with the people we can reach. (See comments about 'roads')

There are not troops everywhere, and you certainly can't seal the borders. The US can't seal an open desert with Mexico, there's no way to seal a country as rugged as Afghanistan.

NTM

gurramok

Not close is answer to your question. Its economic as well to show the Afghans the fruits and potential wealth from their own means.

I don't see in your post how the afghan govt are doing what the US are doing in all of this, where are their edcuation/economic programs?

Will there be a point that the Afghan security forces will be so powerful to contain and destroy/defeat the Taliban that there be no need to have US troops there?

philologos

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Did you even read my post? I said the 7/7 bombers were not the Taliban. These guys were Muslims making a stand becasue people of their religion were been murdered / still are.

Are you seriously justifying the butchering of innocent Londoners on the the way to work? Londoners who had nothing to do with the Blair Government apart from being merely British, bear in mind British from all ways and walks of life. They even butchered some of their fellow Muslims. I find it a bit uneasy that someone could make such an argument.

In the Western world, we encourage civil liberties and rights in our countries and we allow for freedom of practice of religion. Can we really say the same about Pakistan and Afghanistan under the Taliban regime?

I held reservations towards going into either of these wars. However to say that it is justified to blow yourself up on a bus because of the Afghanistan war when you live in a free society like Britain is really out of line.

We are all humans first and foremost. You say that these people stood up because Muslims were being killed in Afghanistan. However, at the end of the day, we are all born, we all will die, we all feel, we all love. This goes beyond whether or not you are Muslim, Christian, Jew, and so on.

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Oh yeah because there isn't a muslim out there who can travel to any country like Pakistan for any other reason than go there and learn how to make bombs :rolleyes:

That isn't the point. Of course Muslims go to Pakistan to meet their families and the like. The point is in this case 2 people went to Pakistan, and actually did learn how to make bombs.

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

No they didn't say they're the Taliban, here is what Khan said:

Here is what Tanweer said:

I don't think acknowledging what they argued makes it any more justified.

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

And Clinton sending missiles into Afghanistan would have nothing to do with that? By the way the topic is about Irish troops in Afghanistan not American troops.

It's all a related surely?

Buffy the bitch

Jakkass wrote: »

Are you seriously justifying the butchering of innocent Londoners on the the way to work? Londoners who had nothing to do with the Blair Government apart from being merely British, bear in mind British from all ways and walks of life. They even butchered some of their fellow Muslims. I find it a bit uneasy that someone could make such an argument.

Yes I am. These brave men gave their lives for something they believed in. Fair enough innocent people but how many slaughtered in Iran/Afghanistan/Palestine and many other countries. You see you see it from one end and I see it from another. Just think about it if bombings like this were happening everyday would Britain still they have their murderer troops in the likes of Iraq? The answer to that is no, it might be hard for someone liek you to except that but it's the truth. Why is it someone who sticks on a suicide belt willing and knowing he about to end his life regarded a terrorist when infact the biggest terrorism on this world is state terrorism but sure what hell it's the good guys so it doesn't count as terrorism.

Jakkass wrote: »

In the Western world, we encourage civil liberties and rights in our countries and we allow for freedom of practice of religion. Can we really say the same about Pakistan and Afghanistan under the Taliban regime?

You sound like George Bush.

Jakkass wrote: »

I held reservations towards going into either of these wars. However to say that it is justified to blow yourself up on a bus because of the Afghanistan war when you live in a free society like Britain is really out of line.

No it's not, may god greet these men with open arms.

Jakkass wrote: »

We are all humans first and foremost. You say that these people stood up because Muslims were being killed in Afghanistan. However, at the end of the day, we are all born, we all will die, we all feel, we all love. This goes beyond whether or not you are Muslim, Christian, Jew, and so on.

Unfortunately the world is not like that. If it was as simple as that there would be no wars.

Jakkass wrote: »

That isn't the point. Of course Muslims go to Pakistan to meet their families and the like. The point is in this case 2 people went to Pakistan, and actually did learn how to make bombs.

And you know this how? Oh because you might have seen this on the news. What just like the Guildford four or even the Birmingham six were guilty!! Don't believe everything you read on the news. If they were so high up in the Talibhan why make homemade bombs? Don't forget these were just homemade bombs whiich police later said they learned how to make off the internet.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think acknowledging what they argued makes it any more justified.

Like I said they weren't the Taliban.

Jakkass wrote: »

It's all a related surely?

Yes it is but who attacked who first? At least you're clever enough to know this war didn't start on 9/11.

irish_bob

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Yes I am. These brave men gave their lives for something they believed in. Fair enough innocent people but how many slaughtered in Iran/Afghanistan/Palestine and many other countries. You see you see it from one end and I see it from another. Just think about it if bombings like this were happening everyday would Britain still they have their murderer troops in the likes of Iraq? The answer to that is no, it might be hard for someone liek you to except that but it's the truth. Why is it someone who sticks on a suicide belt willing and knowing he about to end his life regarded a terrorist when infact the biggest terrorism on this world is state terrorism but sure what hell it's the good guys so it doesn't count as terrorism.



You sound like George Bush.



No it's not, may god greet these men with open arms.



Unfortunately the world is not like that. If it was as simple as that there would be no wars.




And you know this how? Oh because you might have seen this on the news. What just like the Guildford four or even the Birmingham six were guilty!! Don't believe everything you read on the news. If they were so high up in the Talibhan why make homemade bombs? Don't forget these were just homemade bombs whiich police later said they learned how to make off the internet.




Like I said they weren't the Taliban.



Yes it is but who attacked who first? At least you're clever enough to know this war didn't start on 9/11.

may i ask you what experiences have so radicalised your outlook that you admire the 7-7 bombers , are you yourself iraqi

Poccington

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Yes I am. These brave men gave their lives for something they believed in. Fair enough innocent people but how many slaughtered in Iran/Afghanistan/Palestine and many other countries. You see you see it from one end and I see it from another. Just think about it if bombings like this were happening everyday would Britain still they have their murderer troops in the likes of Iraq? The answer to that is no, it might be hard for someone liek you to except that but it's the truth. Why is it someone who sticks on a suicide belt willing and knowing he about to end his life regarded a terrorist when infact the biggest terrorism on this world is state terrorism but sure what hell it's the good guys so it doesn't count as terrorism.

How many innocent people were slaughtered on 9/11?

The Brits aren't in Iraq anymore by the way.

Buffy the bitch

Poccington wrote: »

How many innocent people were slaughtered on 9/11?

Small bit under 3,000, I know nothing compared to the innocents murdered in Iraq/Afghanistan.

Poccington wrote: »

The Brits aren't in Iraq anymore by the way.

That's right. They go there, bomb the **** out of the place, take their oil then leave for Afghanistan. Like I stated the war is bigger than just Iraq it is a war on Muslims.

may i ask you what experiences have so radicalised your outlook that you admire the 7-7 bombers , are you yourself iraqi

It takes some balls to go out and willing to give your life for a cause you believe in.

100% Irish...

philologos

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Yes I am. These brave men gave their lives for something they believed in. Fair enough innocent people but how many slaughtered in Iran/Afghanistan/Palestine and many other countries. You see you see it from one end and I see it from another. Just think about it if bombings like this were happening everyday would Britain still they have their murderer troops in the likes of Iraq? The answer to that is no, it might be hard for someone liek you to except that but it's the truth. Why is it someone who sticks on a suicide belt willing and knowing he about to end his life regarded a terrorist when infact the biggest terrorism on this world is state terrorism but sure what hell it's the good guys so it doesn't count as terrorism.

I don't consider blowing yourself up to be brave. You don't get to live with the consequences of your own actions.

I already told you, I wasn't originally supportive of the Iraq or Afghanistan war, but now that the troops are there, I feel the troops are obliged to clean up and secure the region before leaving.

As for "bombings like that happening every day". Nobody could orchestrate bombs like that every day in Britain given CCTV and policing infrastructure.

However to consider that people who may have disagreed with the war. Even Muslims who they claim to be standing up for on the London Underground and on London's buses is detestable.

As for Palestine, I have to ask you something:
Do you think the increase in anti-Semitic attacks during the period of the Gaza war in Britain was acceptable yes or no?

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

You sound like George Bush.

I sound like George Bush for saying the truth?

We have a better standard of human rights in our countries than there is in Pakistan. I thought that was obvious. I regret the civilian lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan, but at least their Governments are more accountable to the international community and they are on the road to providing a better quality of life for their current citizens.

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

No it's not, may god greet these men with open arms.

I'd like to think that God would hold them to account for their actions.

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Unfortunately the world is not like that. If it was as simple as that there would be no wars.

You advocate the view that they were right to blow themselves up because Muslims have died in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I brought up the point that humanity is one, and that even if they believed they were doing it to defend Muslims they killed Muslims on 7/7. I have yet to see how this is okay.

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

And you know this how? Oh because you might have seen this on the news. What just like the Guildford four or even the Birmingham six were guilty!! Don't believe everything you read on the news. If they were so high up in the Talibhan why make homemade bombs? Don't forget these were just homemade bombs whiich police later said they learned how to make off the internet.

There was police intelligence performed between British and Pakistani authorities on the issue. The Pakistanis are attempting to clamp down on their own terror problem at the minute.

We can assess their guilt by the very fact that they lay dead many taken with them on 7/7.

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Like I said they weren't the Taliban.

I have already clarified that there are quite a lot of interlinks with this group. Following the attacks on London a video was released by Al Queda with Khan featured.

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Yes it is but who attacked who first? At least you're clever enough to know this war didn't start on 9/11.

If you think that the first attacks started on 9/11 I would advise you to do some research on the 1993 WTC attacks.

Sand

It takes some balls to go out and willing to give your life for a cause you believe in.

100% Irish...

My, youre so shocking and out there.

Is that enough attention or do you want more?

Buffy the bitch

Jakkass wrote: »

I already told you, I wasn't originally supportive of the Iraq or Afghanistan war, but now that the troops are there, I feel the troops are obliged to clean up and secure the region before leaving.

And how long would that take? Until worlds end. Let's just install a puppet government to do the job.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for "bombings like that happening every day". Nobody could orchestrate bombs like that every day in Britain given CCTV and policing infrastructure.

Of coursr they could if they wanted too. Countries cannot stop people like them if they really did want to attack. I'm sure you've heard the term we have to be lucky once, you have to be lucky all the time.

Jakkass wrote: »

We have a better standard of human rights in our countries than there is in Pakistan. I thought that was obvious. I regret the civilian lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan, but at least their Governments are more accountable to the international community and they are on the road to providing a better quality of life for their current citizens.

Don't forget China, you know the country that has one of the worse humman rights record in the world but sure they loan America money so everything is ok. Well why don't they go and attack Pakistan then?

Jakkass wrote: »

You advocate the view that they were right to blow themselves up because Muslims have died in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I believe people have a right to resist.

Jakkass wrote: »

I brought up the point that humanity is one, and that even if they believed they were doing it to defend Muslims they killed Muslims on 7/7. I have yet to see how this is okay.

But are you so sure it even was the men? Maybe you should honestly wach this it's about an hour long but have a look http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8756795263359807776

Jakkass wrote: »

There was police intelligence performed between British and Pakistani authorities on the issue. The Pakistanis are attempting to clamp down on their own terror problem at the minute.

Pakistan trying to get rid of the Taliban :eek: are you joking me, sure many Pakistan officials are high up in the Taliban. I bet the Pakistan government are sorry they told Osama a missile was on the way well before 9/11.

Jakkass wrote: »

I have already clarified that there are quite a lot of interlinks with this group. Following the attacks on London a video was released by Al Queda with Khan featured.

That video is edited and has been proven to be a fake, look it up.

Jakkass wrote: »

If you think that the first attacks started on 9/11 I would advise you to do some research on the 1993 WTC attacks.

Like I said at least you know the war didn't start on 9/11

Manic Moran

gurramok wrote: »

Not close is answer to your question. Its economic as well to show the Afghans the fruits and potential wealth from their own means.

Sometimes the problem can be convincing them to change their ways. "Road? I don't need a road. My father had no road. His father had no road. Neither did anyone before me. I need to work my fields, sod off with this 'road' business" Once their neighbouring village has one, though, and they see the benefits of being able to transport their goods to market, then they become converted.

I don't see in your post how the afghan govt are doing what the US are doing in all of this, where are their edcuation/economic programs?

I just said what we were doing at our base, I didn't cover anything that the Afghans are doing on their own. (Actually, one of our problems is that they often don't tell us what they're doing. Getting information on how they're going to run their election this week is like pulling teeth). The Afghans have plans of their own, sometimes they just need more resources than they can provide. That's where we help out. But even in those cases, we're sure to make it a partnership event, giving credit to the Afghan government for their wisdom in their suggestions and guidance, or whatever.

Will there be a point that the Afghan security forces will be so powerful to contain and destroy/defeat the Taliban that there be no need to have US troops there?

I certainly hope so. I would change 'powerful' to 'capable' though.

NTM

philologos

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

And how long would that take? Until worlds end. Let's just install a puppet government to do the job.

Both governments have been elected by the people. Infact Afghanistan will be voting in the next few weeks, but unfortunately they've been threatened with death by the Taliban if they do so.

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Of course they could if they wanted too. Countries cannot stop people like them if they really did want to attack. I'm sure you've heard the term we have to be lucky once, you have to be lucky all the time.

I'm pretty sure if they attacked every day, the security arrangement would be a lot different. We still have to discuss whether such attacks on civilians are legitimate.

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Don't forget China, you know the country that has one of the worse humman rights record in the world but sure they loan America money so everything is ok. Well why don't they go and attack Pakistan then?

Simply because the Pakistani government is attacking the Taliban at the minute in Swat Valley. The Pakistanis are on the receiving end of support from the United States.

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

I believe people have a right to resist.

These men didn't have anything to resist. They don't live in either Pakistan or Afghanistan, and even if they did these deaths were not of military personnel but of innocent civilians of whom many probably disagreed with this war.

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

But are you so sure it even was the men? Maybe you should honestly wach this it's about an hour long but have a look http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8756795263359807776

I will do when I get time.

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Pakistan trying to get rid of the Taliban :eek: are you joking me, sure many Pakistan officials are high up in the Taliban. I bet the Pakistan government are sorry they told Osama a missile was on the way well before 9/11.

According to whom. You would need to back that up. If they were it would be just stupid for the Pakistani military to be attacking the Taliban in Swat Valley.

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

That video is edited and has been proven to be a fake, look it up.

Provide the sources, and I will consider them.

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Like I said at least you know the war didn't start on 9/11

Of course it didn't. However I'm not convinced that the US are more guilty than any other country in this.

Lemming

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

I believe people have a right to resist.

Large jump between "resist" and "murder" my shockingly radicalised dear.

Pakistan trying to get rid of the Taliban :eek: are you joking me, sure many Pakistan officials are high up in the Taliban. I bet the Pakistan government are sorry they told Osama a missile was on the way well before 9/11.

Erm .. you DO know that the swat (sp?) region in northern Pakistan is in a state of violent anarchy right now right? Frequent gun battles between Taleban (and/or sympathisers) and the government forces? It has been for months and such that it's posing direct threat to Pakistan's stability? You know that thing called "the news". Ever heard of it?

irish_bob

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Small bit under 3,000, I know nothing compared to the innocents murdered in Iraq/Afghanistan.



That's right. They go there, bomb the **** out of the place, take their oil then leave for Afghanistan. Like I stated the war is bigger than just Iraq it is a war on Muslims.



It takes some balls to go out and willing to give your life for a cause you believe in.

100% Irish...

so thier is no reason for your repulsive views , your simply a lonney lefty

btw , the vast majority of people being murdered in iraq are by muslims killing other muslims , you know , the thousand year plus sunni , shiite rivalry

Bragadin

I don't know what the solution is in afghanistan. At differnt times i thought i did, but it is difficult. You can't convince a militant afghan that his government and the method of representation is legitimate if it were set up in such a way to bar extremists from leadership, however much sense that may make to a western observer. We can't leave afghanistan without the coutnry decending towards warlordism and the eventual return of the taliban (or somethign very much like it). If 'we' (in that i mean all participants) stay in afghanistan the cost in both money, time and most importantly human lives would be great. The solution would have to involve some quasi imperial strategy as well, which would decrease NATOs reputation further.

philologos

irish_bob wrote: »

so thier is no reason for your repulsive views , your simply a lonney lefty

btw , the vast majority of people being murdered in iraq are by muslims killing other muslims , you know , the thousand year plus sunni , shiite rivalry

Although the homocide rate per 100,000 has dropped significantly from 2006 - 2008 in Iraq.

It was 101 per 100,000 in 2006, it was 21 per 100,000 in 2008. There must be something right going on. I mean Trinidad and Tobago has a homocide rate of 45 per 100,000, Guatemala has a rate of 47 per 100,000.

There must be something right happening there.

Nodin

Manic Moran wrote: »

Considering Ireland only has seven people here, who would be paid the same to sit in the Curragh and drink tea, I don't think it's really stretching the Irish taxpayer's budget.

Indeed. Plus, we voted to support the whole thing.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Personally, I think the average Afghan is better off now than they were ten years ago.

NTM

True, though thats a relative thing.

Jakkass wrote:

Do you not think the importing of heroin into the European Union a threat? Increased assistance in the curbing of heroin importation into the European Union could very much save lives in Europe

Columbia has a "pro-western" government and yet is still the largest producer of cocaine.

Rather unfortunately, the idea that the military presence can or should reduce the export of opium has been used to "sell" the war. The fact is that its on the wishlist, somewhere down past opening the first Afghan disney world in Helmand.

Jakkass wrote:

The Afghans need to be trained and effectively to ensure that all of Afghanistan is under their sovereign control.

Yes, the "Afghans" - the Pashtuns, Uzbeks, Turkmen Nuristani and jaysus knows how many others, who are further subdivided by clan and tribe.....

Tricity Bendix

SLUSK wrote: »

So you support this "war on terror" even though it has proven to be an epic fail?

Actually, given that mainland USA hasn't suffered a major terrorist attack since 9/11, I think its going quite well.

wes

Tricity Bendix wrote: »

Actually, given that mainland USA hasn't suffered a major terrorist attack since 9/11, I think its going quite well.

What about the British? They were attacked on 7/7, and then there are the other allies of the US who were attacked. Not to mentioned all the dead in Iraq and Afghanistan and destabilizing huge chunks of the Middle East and South Asia.

So we measure success on whether American's are killed or not, and everyone else be damned?

Tricity Bendix

wes wrote: »

What about the British? They were attacked on 7/7, and then there are the other allies of the US who were attacked. Not to mentioned all the dead in Iraq and Afghanistan and destabilizing huge chunks of the Middle East and South Asia.

So we measure success on whether American's are killed or not, and everyone else be damned?

Alls Im saying is that if I were the president of the US, I wouldn't be in any major hurry to pull out of Afghanistan so that the Taliban can take over again.

wes

Tricity Bendix wrote: »

Alls Im saying is that if I were the president of the US, I wouldn't be in any major hurry to pull out of Afghanistan so that the Taliban can take over again.

If I were a US ally and they had the same attitude as you about what is considered success, I would pull out and leave the US to go it alone.

Also, haven't the US lost a lot of soldiers in the Iraq and Afghanistan?!? Don't those lives count?!?

Tricity Bendix

Of course they count. But there's a difference between a soldier dying in combat to protect his or her country, and an innocent civilian blown up while at work.

As for America's allies, they should have pulled out of Iraq and left America alone. Afghanistan is completely different kettle of fish, however, and I'm proud that Irish soldiers are serving there.

wes

Tricity Bendix wrote: »

Of course they count. But there's a difference between a soldier dying in combat to protect his or her country, and an innocent civilian blown up while at work.

Certainly there different, but both are just as dead.

Tricity Bendix wrote: »

As for America's allies, they should have pulled out of Iraq and left America alone. Afghanistan is completely different kettle of fish, however, and I'm proud that Irish soldiers are serving there.

Fair enough, but what I was saying is that if the US consider's what is going on in Afghanistan a success based on there not being attacks on them, then everyone else should leave them to it.

Tricity Bendix

wes wrote: »

Fair enough, but what I was saying is that if the US consider's what is going on in Afghanistan a success based on there not being attacks on them, then everyone else should leave them to it.

Unless they also saw engagement in Afghanistan as a means of increasing global security...

wes

Tricity Bendix wrote: »

Unless they also saw engagement in Afghanistan as a means of increasing global security...

Well, considering 7/7, Madrid etc, and the destabilsation of both South Asia and the Middle East, the contributions to global security from the US's most recent foreign mis-adventures are questionable to say the least.

nacho libre

Jakkass wrote: »

Definitely not. We need to stay there until Afghanistan is cleared up or else it will remain as it was a huge security threat to the region, and a huge supplier of heroin to the Western market.

OP: That law was scrapped due to Western pressure on Karzai.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/05/afghanistan-shia-rape-law-scrap

it was scrapped and replaced with this:

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

Poccington

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Small bit under 3,000, I know nothing compared to the innocents murdered in Iraq/Afghanistan.

You mean the same innocents that were murdered by the very same suicide bombers you claim are "brave"?

Salvelinus

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Yes I am. These brave men gave their lives for something they believed in. Fair enough innocent people but how many slaughtered in Iran/Afghanistan/Palestine and many other countries. You see you see it from one end and I see it from another. Just think about it if bombings like this were happening everyday would Britain still they have their murderer troops in the likes of Iraq? The answer to that is no, it might be hard for someone liek you to except that but it's the truth. Why is it someone who sticks on a suicide belt willing and knowing he about to end his life regarded a terrorist when infact the biggest terrorism on this world is state terrorism but sure what hell it's the good guys so it doesn't count as terrorism.



You sound like George Bush.



No it's not, may god greet these men with open arms.



Unfortunately the world is not like that. If it was as simple as that there would be no wars.




And you know this how? Oh because you might have seen this on the news. What just like the Guildford four or even the Birmingham six were guilty!! Don't believe everything you read on the news. If they were so high up in the Talibhan why make homemade bombs? Don't forget these were just homemade bombs whiich police later said they learned how to make off the internet.




Like I said they weren't the Taliban.



Yes it is but who attacked who first? At least you're clever enough to know this war didn't start on 9/11.

Truly wow. I'm against the war in Iraq but it's comments like that is the reason I wouldn't be seen dead at an anti war march. Those morons weren't brave, they were naive, sexually repressed morons who got talked into doing it by another scum bag who loves his imaginary friend so much he wouldn't do it. There was a massive anti war rally in London wasn't there? Will you go blow up the Saudi Arabian embassy because they fund the brave muslims who kill other muslims in Iraq?

Fratton Fred

Buffy, would you mind sharing your opinion of the Madrid bombers with us?

Surely the people of Spain deserved it because Spain were one of the coalition alongside Britain, the US and Australia (which makes the Bali bombing uk as well I guess as it was a nightclub used by Aussie tourists), but the difference being of course those bombers didn't have the good manners to blow themselves up.

Are those bombers terrorist scum or brave young men, or does bravery only apply if they are killing Brits?

philologos

Salvelinus wrote: »

Truly wow. I'm against the war in Iraq but it's comments like that is the reason I wouldn't be seen dead at an anti war march. Those morons weren't brave, they were naive, sexually repressed morons who got talked into doing it by another scum bag who loves his imaginary friend so much he wouldn't do it. There was a massive anti war rally in London wasn't there? Will you go blow up the Saudi Arabian embassy because they fund the brave muslims who kill other muslims in Iraq?

Of what relevance is Islamic sexual ethics to this subject?