Withdraw from Afganisthan

Salvelinus

worldrepublic wrote: »

True, simple rule: those who declare wars must fight on the front line -no more wars!

And what about Pakistan. The War on Terror is bigger than it ever was. Difference is, there actually are WMD's in Pakistan.

Can you imagine Bush Jnr. or Obama, or Hilary on the front lines -not on your nelly.

Plus, let's face it the whole left versus right paradigm is a joke. It's like a pro-wrestling match where the biggest politicians appear to hate each other's guts, before skipping off to play a round of golf together.

Although Hitchens was pro the war in Iraq, and is an out and out atheist, is also speaks to the hypocrisy of the left:

The very idea of one side thinking "we are the goodies" and the other side are 100% evil is childish. Corruption and hypocrisy is the only constant. Public perception is manufactured, black and white, good and bad, lower class and upper class. The truth always seems to involve shades of grey, or shades of green.

Shoo little sheep, off to the nutbar section.

CathalMc

"Everyone who advocates war should sign up and go fight themselves... those who declare wars must fight on the front line."
Lets suppose we do just that, and lets grant you that no NATO army every leaves NATO territory again. Again I ask, what is your alternative solution to the fermentation of oppressive extremism in these regions? Should we love them to death?

I'm shocked that you can't determine some sort of morally superiority of say, your own family and friends and nation and allies, over, say, a radical militant group killing, plundering and and oppressing with a unquestionable strain of extremism. Surely you won't try and make that argument in front of us!

worldrepublic

the same rule applies to the "other side", those, as you suggest, from the dark orient! Their leaders are equally unlikely to want to join the front lines. The point here is that ordinary people never want war, they just want a simple life looking after their families. War is insane, and it takes two to tango. In modern history that means the occident versus the orient. Western ideology is just as insane, if not more so, than eastern equivalents. The additional problem with westerners is this middle-class tendency to "talk the talk". I doubt we'll ever see you on the front lines! Like hello? The USA has over 12000 nuclear warheads to protect them from a few arabs in a cave somewhere! Oh yeah, we westerners are sooo civilised and (morally?) superior.

CathalMc

You are attributing all sorts of reasonableness and a sense of justice and logic to a group that has rarely demonstrated it. These people defer only to unshakable and immoral oppressive, militant extremist views. I dare say your project would be an embarrassingly unilateral effort. And your suggestion goes as far as to hope for, to plead for, to beg for, some sort of cease-fire between terrorist and NATO countries - you have all your work yet to do to establish some sort of self-determination and non-oppression of the citizens of those areas under extremist control. So please continue.

You do "ordinary people" a disservice by suggesting they'd prefer an apathetic existence, pussyfooting around any sort of conflict lest it break your sort of immoral no-harm-at-every-cost absolutist law. And yet, I suggest you would do great harm to defend your mother. Justly so. I'm not drawing any sort of moral equivalency there and don't dare to attempt to try to make one. But would you not offer the same sense of justice - immediate and unwavering - to those mothers in these oppressed nations? Perhaps at least you can understand why many of us believe that your position is a form of cowardice of the worst kind, an unwillingness to stand up to oppression because of the some affected moral "greyness," and a complete capitulation to real tyranny that ultimately threatens us all - and has already followed through numerous times?

All these "it takes two to tango... insane ideologies..." are just empty platitudes, join us with some realism, and talk solutions with me. We have the proverbial crazy neighbour with a shotgun, abusing his kids, and you've decided the swat are simply immoral - lets get at it.

Regarding "talk the talk", this borders on pointless if we discuss solutions; it does not strengthen nor weaken either of our arguments so it is at least irrelevant; and it is fundamentally a form of ad hominem, so ultimately weakens your position if you do actually get around to revealing any substantative solutions. But, and let this be the end of it, if you absurdly demand of me this call-to-action, I'm sure you will gleefully concede to be on the first unarmed peace-and-love envoy out to Afghanistan. Oh and as this happens, try not to let on that you are Christian, or Jewish, or Buddhist, or moderate Islamist, or extremist Islamist from a different sect, or atheist - they have some stated and rather nasty reactions to those kinds of unreasonable positions.

Finally, please explain to me how you think these nukes are at all useful in this sort war?

Buffy the bitch

Salvelinus wrote: »

Like Bin Laden or other clerics?

Well give him a bit of credit he does actually fight, I wonder how many congressman kids are actually fighting in the war.

I remember the detail now, although I'm afraid I forget where I heard this. Essentially young Afghan men require their mothers willing blessing to join the Taliban, and educated women are highly likely to refuse. To go against their mothers' wishes in this way is apparently highly dishonorable. This, of course, further fuels Taliban attacks on schools, and those who would bring education to to their villages.

Where did you hear that Fox news? :rolleyes:

Can I ask the anti-war folk for what they see as preferable solutions to military action for the Taliban/Al-Qaeda/Islamic-extremist situation? Particularly one with a realistic chance of success, with clear overall improvement in moral standing.

Hard to say but I'd imagine trying to get the Taliban to get rid of Bin Laden but they've tried that already and it hasn't worked, even Karzai has called on them to come home and reconcile for the elections.

Suppose the British and Americans pulled out of every non-NATO country in the morning for example.

Al-Qaeda would just take back control, IMO that's gonna happen anyways. America should be more worried when they start taking control of Pakistan.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Taliban have to have a base of support somewhere.
NTM

Of course they do, but it's not in Afghanistan.

worldrepublic wrote: »

You have thought up your own little "conspiracy theory" -well done!

That's my opinion, I'm right though about Pakistan telling him about the missiles Clinton fired at him think it was in 98.

Sand wrote: »

Yes it was. You just werent paying attention. Jihadists didnt start their war in 2001 you know. Its an idealogy forged in the 1950s.

Yeah because the Taliban were doing things like the Madrid bombings well before 9/11 :rolleyes:

Tricity Bendix wrote: »

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

You would think with that comment America were bombed the whole time on their soil, there hasn't been a big bomb in Ireland since Omagh the brits didn't have to invade here did they.

CathalMc

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Well give him a bit of credit he does actually fight, I wonder how many congressman kids are actually fighting in the war.

Well that's quite a naive comment. I think its quite logical that he keeps himself far away from all the shooting and bombing. Or do you think the lead clerics are the primary executors of these regimes. I think the evidence would have been the collapse of the entire extremist when Bin Laden blew himself up outside an embassy or flew himself into a building.

Also, about 10 members of congress have sons (or daughters?) in active military service. You could have easily looked that up.

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Where did you hear that Fox news? :rolleyes:

Its not at all clear why you said that, what relevance it has, nor why it contributes at all to the conversation. I'm virtually positive that is not where my information was from, and it was from an interview with some military or civilian aid agency people operating in Afghanistan.

Buffy the bitch wrote: »

Hard to say but I'd imagine trying to get the Taliban to get rid of Bin Laden ...

How do we do that?

Manic Moran

I'm not in a position to confirm or deny the comment about the Taliban requiring permission from their mothers to go fight (I hadn't heard it before, but it wouldn't surprise me) but can confirm that they do seem to have a distinct preference for shooting up schools and killing teachers.

Interestingly, they suffered a bit of a PR blunder in our area a couple of months ago: They burned down a school, and it seems there were a few copies in the Koran in the school at the time. Ooops.

I am still trying to catch up on what happened outside of my little sector yesterday (I spend the day out with a patrol in Alishang district, relatively quiet except for a little harassment fire), but to give you an idea, another patrol had to deal with an incident where a Taliban chap shot his own sister for voting. We got her to the hospital, last I heard she was going to survive.
People who are that extreme are not going to reconcile. Some Taliban will. I'll bet money he won't.

Of course they do, but it's not in Afghanistan.

Well, in that case, I'm sure the Helmlandians have little objection to having the Taliban removed from their backs.

NTM

CathalMc

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm not in a position to confirm or deny the comment...

I'd love if you come across that information, for or against, you might let me know, its a very interesting phenomenon.

Manic Moran wrote: »

...Taliban chap shot his own sister for voting.

That's insanity. When these guys are captured, are they easily reasoned with once they're separated from their peers and leaders? How deep does the indoctrination go?

Salvelinus

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm not in a position to confirm or deny the comment about the Taliban requiring permission from their mothers to go fight (I hadn't heard it before, but it wouldn't surprise me) but can confirm that they do seem to have a distinct preference for shooting up schools and killing teachers.

Interestingly, they suffered a bit of a PR blunder in our area a couple of months ago: They burned down a school, and it seems there were a few copies in the Koran in the school at the time. Ooops.

I am still trying to catch up on what happened outside of my little sector yesterday (I spend the day out with a patrol in Alishang district, relatively quiet except for a little harassment fire), but to give you an idea, another patrol had to deal with an incident where a Taliban chap shot his own sister for voting. We got her to the hospital, last I heard she was going to survive.
People who are that extreme are not going to reconcile. Some Taliban will. I'll bet money he won't.



Well, in that case, I'm sure the Helmlandians have little objection to having the Taliban removed from their backs.

NTM

There's the problem, destroy a school (they seem to target girls ones more often), that's ok but a bunch of stories form desert tribes and all hell breaks loose.
You're probably in a good position to answer this. I read a book by Jason Burke about Al Qaeda, the premise is that it's not your typical monolithical, hierarcichal organisation with Bin Laden at the top giving commands to his minions, but more of a banner that various organisations rally under for training, financing and 'inspiration". He reckoned that there were only about 30 or 40 core members and the people carrying out the attacks were small groups that sprang up and eventually got in contact with these core members. Anyway he claimed that in the case of the taliban it's only really the top level that have an "international focus" and many of the lower level local leaders are jsut worried about heir own area. Would you find this to be the case?

Manic Moran

Anyway he claimed that in the case of the taliban it's only really the top level that have an "international focus" and many of the lower level local leaders are jsut worried about heir own area. Would you find this to be the case?

Bearing in mind that AQ and Taliban are different organisations, I'm not going to go into the specific enemy breakdown of my AO on the Internet (it being slightly classified), but think about how we're doing it from our point of view:

We have a high-ranking General in Washington whose job it is to worry about where to send resources and what to do all over the world. We have General Patraeus giving instructions to Iraq and Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, we have General McChrystal worried about just that country. His next junior, General Scaporetti concentrates on the Eastern half of Afghanistan. Below him he has brigade commanders worrying about groups of provinces, and my boss concerns himself solely with Laghman province. Beneath him, two of his officers worry about three of the province's districts.

This is no different to how the Taliban are organised. They have their own chains of command, with echelons reporting to echelons above them, and giving instructions to echelons below them. My boss' counterpart in the Taliban is concerned only about Laghman province because it's his job to be concerned about it. And their commanders get shuffled around a bit from time to time as well: For example, commanders who show ability in one province may be transferred to take command of a more important province.
Also, one of the advantages of having a commander from outside the area he's fighting in is that they tend to be a little less squeamish about killing the locals.

How AQ is arranged, I don't know, as I'm not focused on them so much.

[Edit: Adding a quote from my 'blog' thread: ]

According to the Provincial Governor, the turnout was about 65% of registered voters. That's a little better than the US, if I recall, and in America you don't need to worry about small-arms-fire, people lopping off your fingers, or having to walk five miles over a mountain.

Our XO was listening to a Podcast from The Economist this afternoon, and he was astounded. He usually thinks they're pretty decent, but he has no idea what country they were talking about on the radio, it certainly bore very little resemblance to what we could see.

NTM

A Primal Nut

Surely its up to the women to vote against the extremists who want to restrict their rights? They ar 50% of the population and can decide an election.

Of course that assumes the election people are doing their job right and that the law at least ensures women can vote. If that doesn't happen its pointless.

irish_bob

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Surely its up to the women to vote against the extremists who want to restrict their rights? They ar 50% of the population and can decide an election.

Of course that assumes the election people are doing their job right and that the law at least ensures women can vote. If that doesn't happen its pointless.

has it occurred to you that the women are intimidated into not voting and are threatended with death if they do , often by thier own brothers , husbands and fathers

Gruffalo

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm not in a position to confirm or deny the comment about the Taliban requiring permission from their mothers to go fight (I hadn't heard it before, but it wouldn't surprise me) but can confirm that they do seem to have a distinct preference for shooting up schools and killing teachers.

As opposed to the British and American love of bombing wedding parties. Lets face it both sides are terrorists, just one side is better paid.

Interestingly, they suffered a bit of a PR blunder in our area a couple of months ago: They burned down a school, and it seems there were a few copies in the Koran in the school at the time. Ooops.

As opposed to PR blunders like lying about weapons of mass destruction pretending to support womens rights while allowing Karzai to bring in a law whereby women can be starved by their husbands for not having sex. You really could have a nice big list of blunders from the Allies.

I am still trying to catch up on what happened outside of my little sector yesterday (I spend the day out with a patrol in Alishang district, relatively quiet except for a little harassment fire), but to give you an idea, another patrol had to deal with an incident where a Taliban chap shot his own sister for voting. We got her to the hospital, last I heard she was going to survive.
People who are that extreme are not going to reconcile. Some Taliban will. I'll bet money he won't.

People who are so extreme that they would lie about weapons of mass destruction in order to steal oil are hardly in a position to influence reconciliation.

Well, in that case, I'm sure the Helmlandians have little objection to having the Taliban removed from their backs.

I am sure they would be every bit as happy to be shot of the Allies who have brought war and destruction to their country repeatedly, whether it is arming them to fight the Russians or blowing up their wedding party in order to achieve goals that noone can remember.

The constant interference of countries like Britain and America has made world a more dangerous place. Then they expect us to feel sorry for them every time one of their fellows gets clipped. Both sides are terrorists and the only people who really deserve sympathy are the innocents who get caught up in the middle.

Manic Moran

Lets face it both sides are terrorists, just one side is better paid.

Oh, up yours. We screw up on occasion. As do the opposition. But the percentage of screw-ups compared to the amount we get it right is pretty low. I posted the figures for our province a little earler.

As opposed to PR blunders like lying about weapons of mass destruction pretending to support womens rights while allowing Karzai to bring in a law whereby women can be starved by their husbands for not having sex

So your alternative is to have us install a puppet government who will do exactly what we tell them? We're making progress in this country in terms of women's rights. I'm sorry if our overturning hundreds of years of culture isn't happening fast enough for you. Perhaps you would consider coming over here yourself and trying it out?

I am sure they would be every bit as happy to be shot of the Allies who have brought war and destruction to their country repeatedly, whether it is arming them to fight the Russians or blowing up their wedding party in order to achieve goals that noone can remember.

Have you tried going around and asking random Afghans of their opinion? (We have. We're actually quite pleased, according to our contacts, 'the soldiers with the black horses' have quite a positive reputation around here). Yes, they're tired of war, but unlike previous occasions, we're actually involving the Afghans in their own governance. They see this as a good thing, and are hopeful, as am I, that this is going to be it once and for all.

NTM

Gruffalo

Manic Moran wrote: »

Oh, up yours.

Nice attitude. Is that how you react everytime someone pulls you up on your little propaganda campaign.

We screw up on occasion. As do the opposition. But the percentage of screw-ups compared to the amount we get it right is pretty low. I posted the figures for our province a little earler.

Stop talking nonsense. The murder rate in Afghanistan has gone through the roof since you terrorists invaded. So has the poppy production which had almost been eliminated by the Taliban. So not only are the Allies responsible for innocent deaths in Afghanistan, they are responsible for them all around the Western World too.

So your alternative is to have us install a puppet government who will do exactly what we tell them?

That is what ye tried to with Karzai hence the whole purpose of your investigation. Not working too great though, is it.

We're making progress in this country in terms of women's rights. I'm sorry if our overturning hundreds of years of culture isn't happening fast enough for you. Perhaps you would consider coming over here yourself and trying it out?

Another blatant lie. The law allowing men to starve their wives for not having sex is a new law. That is not progress, it is a step backwards. It was introduced under your watch. Congratualations on demeaning women.

Have you tried going around and asking random Afghans of their opinion?
(We have. We're actually quite pleased, according to our contacts, 'the soldiers with the black horses' have quite a positive reputation around here).

Take the propaganda elsewhere. Considering the number of Brits they are sending home in body bags lately, you are not very popular. The number is increasing so the opposition must be too. But it will just continue until the Brits run home with their tails between their legs just like they did in Basra.

Yes, they're tired of war, but unlike previous occasions, we're actually involving the Afghans in their own governance.

Do you even see the imperialism and hypocrisy in that statement?

Imperialism - we are involving them in running their country.

Hypocrisy - You gave out to me earlier in the post for suggesting that Karzai's lot are a puppet Government but that comment makes it clear who is running the country and that you are only allowing them a part in the process. That is a puppet Government. You cannot even keep your propaganda straight for one post.

They see this as a good thing, and are hopeful, as am I, that this is going to be it once and for all.

Stop talking nonsense. Their is no independent evidence that they see it as a good thing and given the number of innocents ye have killed, the number of innocents that have been killed as a result of your invasion and the number it must take to inflict so many casualties on ye, then this suggestion that they want ye there is absolute rubbish.

They dont want ye there, the Canadians are leaving when their agreement ends in 2011 because their people dont want them there.

And then of course you want to tell us you are making progress. If that is the case why did David Milliband announce last month that Britain was prepared to talk to the Taliban, the very people who are killing you. It's Basra all over again - 2 sets of terroists arguing over whos got the biggest ....

worldrepublic

Gruffalo wrote: »

Manic Moran wrote: »

Nice attitude. Is that how you react everytime someone pulls you up on your little propaganda campaign.


Stop talking nonsense. The murder rate in Afghanistan has gone through the roof since you terrorists invaded. So has the poppy production which had almost been eliminated by the Taliban. So not only are the Allies responsible for innocent deaths in Afghanistan, they are responsible for them all around the Western World too.



That is what ye tried to with Karzai hence the whole purpose of your investigation. Not working too great though, is it.


Another blatant lie. The law allowing men to starve their wives for not having sex is a new law. That is not progress, it is a step backwards. It was introduced under your watch. Congratualations on demeaning women.

Take the propaganda elsewhere. Considering the number of Brits they are sending home in body bags lately, you are not very popular. The number is increasing so the opposition must be too. But it will just continue until the Brits run home with their tails between their legs just like they did in Basra.



Do you even see the imperialism and hypocrisy in that statement?

Imperialism - we are involving them in running their country.

Hypocrisy - You gave out to me earlier in the post for suggesting that Karzai's lot are a puppet Government but that comment makes it clear who is running the country and that you are only allowing them a part in the process. That is a puppet Government. You cannot even keep your propaganda straight for one post.

Stop talking nonsense. Their is no independent evidence that they see it as a good thing and given the number of innocents ye have killed, the number of innocents that have been killed as a result of your invasion and the number it must take to inflict so many casualties on ye, then this suggestion that they want ye there is absolute rubbish.

They dont want ye there, the Canadians are leaving when their agreement ends in 2011 because their people dont want them there.

And then of course you want to tell us you are making progress. If that is the case why did David Milliband announce last month that Britain was prepared to talk to the Taliban, the very people who are killing you. It's Basra all over again - 2 sets of terroists arguing over whos got the biggest ....

Well said indeed! One minor point: the word "EMPIRE" is no longer in vogue. If you are a moderate, or an academic with manicured fingernails, you can still acquiesce and use terms like "neocolonialism". If you are a lefty and fully support the "necessity" of empire, call it "spreading democracy to other nations". The later will likely get you a nice brown envelope.

The problems with super-states/emerging super-states like Russia, the EU, China, the US is the overt tendency to set up "blocks".

Manic Moran

Gruffalo wrote: »

Nice attitude. Is that how you react everytime someone pulls you up on your little propaganda campaign.

No, it's how I react any time an opinionated twerp (Can I say 'twerp' on live Internet?) who has little practical knowledge of what's going on on the ground decides to describe me as a terrorist and when I know that any form of rational debate is going to be useless. If you're going to be insulting, please allow me the privilige of returning the favour.

The murder rate in Afghanistan has gone through the roof since you terrorists invaded.

See what I mean?

And yes, it has gone up. That tends to happen when an opposition who uses civilian casualties to further their own goals decides to start killing people. "We don't want you to vote. So we'll kill you." Murder, it is indeed. But is that a better situation than not being allowed to vote at all?

So has the poppy production which had almost been eliminated by the Taliban.

As mentioned a few posts above, it is now being defended by the Taliban. They're nothing if not pragmatic, it's a source of income, and they'll take whatever money they can to fight the war.

That is what ye tried to with Karzai hence the whole purpose of your investigation. Not working too great though, is it.

Don't see why, they've just had another election. If the people want Karzai to continue in power, then what's the issue?

Another blatant lie. The law allowing men to starve their wives for not having sex is a new law. That is not progress, it is a step backwards. It was introduced under your watch. Congratualations on demeaning women.

Ah, and women were so much better treated under the previous administration. Not only were the men permitted to starve their wives back then, they were prohibited from education, working or even revealing their faces. Are they better off in August 2009, or August 2000?

Take the propaganda elsewhere.

Sorry if you can't handle the ground truth. How many Afghans have invited you into their home for chai?

Considering the number of Brits they are sending home in body bags lately, you are not very popular.

No, we never are with the enemy. We go try to kill them, they try to kill us. Kindof standard practice in a war, really.

The number is increasing so the opposition must be too.

No, just means we're being more aggressive about going out and looking for the opposition.

Imperialism - we are involving them in running their country.

Imperialism: We invade and do not let them run their country. What we're doing: We invade, and hand the country over to them.

Hypocrisy - You gave out to me earlier in the post for suggesting that Karzai's lot are a puppet Government but that comment makes it clear who is running the country and that you are only allowing them a part in the process. That is a puppet Government. You cannot even keep your propaganda straight for one post.

You are allowing your own prejudices to confuse 'involving' with 'letting'. One of the problems we've had is getting the various citizens groups and government officials to be more involved with each other. Yes, they like the whole voting thing, but they are reluctant to actually govern, so we need to facilitate it. I refer you to an earlier post where I pointed out how we fly government officials about so that they can meet the people that they're governing, and allow the locals to understand that on a daily basis, their government works for them, they're not just random people in Kabul.

Stop talking nonsense

It's true, I don't care if you think it's nonsense.

Their is no independent evidence that they see it as a good thing

I have all the evidence I need. The 300,000+ Afghans who live in the province I'm stationed in. We estimate that the opposition is somewhere shy of 100. You don't believe me, come on out and check. Kabul airport is operating and has a few routes you can choose to come here on.

And then of course you want to tell us you are making progress. If that is the case why did David Milliband announce last month that Britain was prepared to talk to the Taliban, the very people who are killing you. It's Basra all over again - 2 sets of terroists arguing over whos got the biggest ....

As I said, some people you can reconcille with, some you can't. We've gotten a few Taliban to turn themselves in and get involved in a reconciliation process. I'm not so well-up on it myself, it's something the Afghans are doing.

NTM

worldrepublic

Manic Moran, do you really believe that anyone here thinks the US/UK and other forces are somehow justified in continuing (accelerating) the wars started by the Bush dynasty? We should be bringing troops home, not moving into Pakistan trying to defeat Al CIAda and finally capture Osama Bin Laden (Dead of Alive -REWARD offered!).

ejmaztec

Gruffalo wrote: »

And then of course you want to tell us you are making progress. If that is the case why did David Milliband announce last month that Britain was prepared to talk to the Taliban, the very people who are killing you. It's Basra all over again - 2 sets of terroists arguing over whos got the biggest ....

Whenever David Milliband opens his mouth, it's Labour Government face-palms all round. I don't know why he has the job that he has, because he hasn't a clue what he's talking about.

The Labour party in the UK has had a long history of cutting military budgets, so it's hardly surprising that the UK's body-count is on the up and up, given what they have to work with.

Gruffalo

Manic Moran wrote: »

No, it's how I react any time an opinionated twerp (Can I say 'twerp' on live Internet?) who has little practical knowledge of what's going on on the ground decides to describe me as a terrorist and when I know that any form of rational debate is going to be useless. If you're going to be insulting, please allow me the privilige of returning the favour.

I clearly have more knowledge than you do because everything you have been saying is a lie.

By the way, you spend a lot of time on the internet for a man that is supposedly in a war zone.

The British and American armies are terrorists. They have spread terror in Iraq and Afghanistan to further their own selfish interests.

See what I mean?

And yes, it has gone up. That tends to happen when an opposition who uses civilian casualties to further their own goals decides to start killing people. "We don't want you to vote. So we'll kill you." Murder, it is indeed. But is that a better situation than not being allowed to vote at all?

What are you talking about? As you go on to say yourself what I said is true. The murder rate and death of innocent civilians has sky rocketed because of the invasion of the British and American terrorists. They are being killed by terrorists on both sides.

As mentioned a few posts above, it is now being defended by the Taliban. They're nothing if not pragmatic, it's a source of income, and they'll take whatever money they can to fight the war.

Again another piece of propaganda by you. That is clearly all you are any good for.

Heroin production was almost eliminated until you lot invaded. Then it increased rapidly as the Taliban tried to find a way to buy weapons but the clear fact is that heroin production has increased since you lot invaded. Stop trying to re-write the facts.

Don't see why, they've just had another election. If the people want Karzai to continue in power, then what's the issue?

Seeing as you are on the internet look up the papers. Once again, massive vote rigging is being alleged where the Brits and Americans are supposed to be ensuring otherwise. Puppet Governance continues along with your propaganda attempts.

Ah, and women were so much better treated under the previous administration. Not only were the men permitted to starve their wives back then, they were prohibited from education, working or even revealing their faces. Are they better off in August 2009, or August 2000?

But here is more lies from you. The law allowing men to starve their wives was introduced in the past couple of weeks despite your claims that ye are making progress on womens rights. That is not progress, you are a liar.

Sorry if you can't handle the ground truth. How many Afghans have invited you into their home for chai?

None but none have tried to send me home in a body bag either, and lets face it they are proving more successful at that lately. If they had as little support as you try to maintain then in the 8 years that you have been there you would have wiped them off the face of the Earth. Instead America and Britain have had to redeploy troops from Iraq. America are doubling their contingent in Afghanistan. And despite all this the Allie death toll is rising. These are all facts and they paint a very different picture to your little fairytale.

No, we never are with the enemy. We go try to kill them, they try to kill us. Kindof standard practice in a war, really.

And considering your death toll of late there are quite a lot of "the enemy" i.e. you are not very popular in Afghanistan.

No, just means we're being more aggressive about going out and looking for the opposition.

Lol. After 8 years you have decided to get aggressive. What, were you playing before now? Pull the other one. You are losing.

Imperialism: We invade and do not let them run their country. What we're doing: We invade, and hand the country over to them.

Rubbish. The strings are still being pulled by Britain and America but they are not doing much of a job. You even said yourself, in the last post, what the truth is. It is just another dose of imperialism.

You are allowing your own prejudices to confuse 'involving' with 'letting'.

Buy a dictionary and look up the meaning of prejudice. I am against both sides in this war so unless you are suggesting that I am prejudiced towards peace (and that is a compliment) then how on Earth can I be prejudiced.

One of the problems we've had is getting the various citizens groups and government officials to be more involved with each other. Yes, they like the whole voting thing, but they are reluctant to actually govern, so we need to facilitate it. I refer you to an earlier post where I pointed out how we fly government officials about so that they can meet the people that they're governing, and allow the locals to understand that on a daily basis, their government works for them, they're not just random people in Kabul.

And now we go to the lowest stoop of imperialist propaganda i.e. they need us, they dont really want to run their own country, they need us. What a load of crap.

It's true, I don't care if you think it's nonsense.

No it is not. It is the rubbish they fill you lot with.

I have all the evidence I need. The 300,000+ Afghans who live in the province I'm stationed in. We estimate that the opposition is somewhere shy of 100. You don't believe me, come on out and check. Kabul airport is operating and has a few routes you can choose to come here on.

Ha ha, it gets better. The opposition are only 100 and yet it has taken 8 years and you have not even come close to beating them. That is hysterical.

As I said, some people you can reconcille with, some you can't. We've gotten a few Taliban to turn themselves in and get involved in a reconciliation process. I'm not so well-up on it myself, it's something the Afghans are doing.

You are clearly not well up on anything that is going on out there. You are just coming on here spinning your propaganda and lies. It is sad really.

Gruffalo

ejmaztec wrote: »

Whenever David Milliband opens his mouth, it's Labour Government face-palms all round. I don't know why he has the job that he has, because he hasn't a clue what he's talking about.

The Labour party in the UK has had a long history of cutting military budgets, so it's hardly surprising that the UK's body-count is on the up and up, given what they have to work with.

The point is that the UK Government are trying to find a cut and run deal to get themselves out of the mess they are in.

Ask yourself, realistically, if the Brits and Americans were winning like they, and this moran poster, try to pretend, would they be looking at negotiating with the Taliban. Of course they wouldn't. They are getting hammered and the budget is just one of the excuses they are coming up with. At the end of the day they are better equipped than the Taliban and they should be hammering them but they learned nothing from the Soviets.

The lack of investment in equipment is because as usual the white, middle class that make up the majority of the parliament dont care about the lives of the young men and women who are dying out there.

ejmaztec

Gruffalo wrote: »

The point is that the UK Government are trying to find a cut and run deal to get themselves out of the mess they are in.

Ask yourself, realistically, if the Brits and Americans were winning like they, and this moran poster, try to pretend, would they be looking at negotiating with the Taliban. Of course they wouldn't. They are getting hammered and the budget is just one of the excuses they are coming up with. At the end of the day they are better equipped than the Taliban and they should be hammering them but they learned nothing from the Soviets.

The lack of investment in equipment is because as usual the white, middle class that make up the majority of the parliament dont care about the lives of the young men and women who are dying out there.

I'd say that this "Moran Poster", as you describe him, knows a damn sight more about what's going on in Afghanistan, than any armchair experts on this forum.

I know, going back decades, the Labour Party has hammered defence budgets, yet expects troops to do a proper job despite this. The tories would probably give them what they needed.

You can spend as much time as you like trying to analyse the situation, but, unless your an ISAF whistle-blower, you can't possibly know what's going on behind closed doors. All that you can do is speculate with no evidence.

Manic Moran

Gruffalo wrote: »

I clearly have more knowledge than you do because everything you have been saying is a lie.

Well, how can one possibly counter that? There it is, in absolutely irrefutable terms. The person who, as far as we know, isn't spending time in Afghanistan is definitively saying that the one person who is is lying.

By the way, you spend a lot of time on the internet for a man that is supposedly in a war zone.

I know, we've had a few quiet days over the elections. There's a reason for that, I'll get back to it.

What are you talking about? As you go on to say yourself what I said is true. The murder rate and death of innocent civilians has sky rocketed because of the invasion of the British and American terrorists. They are being killed by terrorists on both sides.

Look up the definition of terrorist and get back to me.

Again another piece of propaganda by you. That is clearly all you are any good for.

At least I'm putting my money (and blood) where my mouth is. I'm out here trying to help Afghans, what have you done for the lads around here recently?

Heroin production was almost eliminated until you lot invaded. Then it increased rapidly as the Taliban tried to find a way to buy weapons but the clear fact is that heroin production has increased since you lot invaded. Stop trying to re-write the facts.

I'm not. I'm just pointing out that the increase in opium production can't be used as any sort of gauge of the righteousness of government.

Seeing as you are on the internet look up the papers. Once again, massive vote rigging is being alleged where the Brits and Americans are supposed to be ensuring otherwise.

Actually, we're not. That's why we've had a quiet couple of days. This was an Aghan election, run by Afghans. I spent the vast majoriy of election day sitting in the Alishan District Centre bored out of my skull waiting to see if something would get so out of hand that the Afghans would ask for our help. I believe the UN were doing the election monitoring.

But here is more lies from you. The law allowing men to starve their wives was introduced in the past couple of weeks despite your claims that ye are making progress on womens rights. That is not progress, you are a liar.

'Re-introduced', I think, would be the more accurate word. That does not conflict with anything I have said.

None but none have tried to send me home in a body bag either

So you're so afraid of making enemies that you won't try to make friends?

and lets face it they are proving more successful at that lately. If they had as little support as you try to maintain then in the 8 years that you have been there you would have wiped them off the face of the Earth.

Believe me, easier said than done when you're mucking around with 60,000 troops in a country like this. (The restrictions put upon us by our risk-averse superiors haven't helped either, but that's another matter)

And considering your death toll of late there are quite a lot of "the enemy" i.e. you are not very popular in Afghanistan.

So if the amount of people killed in Afghanistan is a reflection on the popularity, could it be argued that the Taliban, now headquarterd in Pakistan, are similarly unpopular?

Lol. After 8 years you have decided to get aggressive. What, were you playing before now?

A rather timid holding action, I'm afraid. Fortunately, that is changing of late.

Buy a dictionary and look up the meaning of prejudice. I am against both sides in this war so unless you are suggesting that I am prejudiced towards peace (and that is a compliment) then how on Earth can I be prejudiced.

Now you are confusing 'a lack of prejudice' with 'neutrality' or 'even-handedness'. It's quite possible to be equally prejudiced against two different groups.

And now we go to the lowest stoop of imperialist propaganda i.e. they need us, they dont really want to run their own country, they need us. What a load of crap.

It is a bit of a novel concept for them, they've not had a hell of a lot of say in how things are run since the 1970s. They have much to re-learn.

Ha ha, it gets better. The opposition are only 100 and yet it has taken 8 years and you have not even come close to beating them. That is hysterical.

Just a reflection of the difficulties we're facing.

You are clearly not well up on anything that is going on out there. You are just coming on here spinning your propaganda and lies. It is sad really.

Again, I do question how you can possibly know what is going on around me better than I do.

Ask yourself, realistically, if the Brits and Americans were winning like they, and this moran poster, try to pretend,

You will forgive me for pointing this out, but the word I've used in another post was, I believe, 'Stalemate'

NTM

nesf

This thread is just going to go around in circles and has gotten far too personal for my tastes.


Locked.