Do You Support The War In Afghanistan??

SharpshooterTom

Do you support the war in Afghanistan currently going on supported by NATO forces??

The initial goal was invade and overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan who were provding a safe haven for Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. Its worth noting that the Taliban did not cause 9/11, nor did they have anything to do with it. The main objective as I say was to capture Bin Laden and destroy Al Qaeda. That objective is now done, so can someone please tell me why NATO are still in Afghanistan for? With over 100,000 ground troops still deployed?

American intelligence estimates there are less than 50 Al Qaeda members in Afghanistan, most them have left and are elsewhere in the world, which makes the "war" more astonishing IMO.

To suggest that if troops pull out of Afghanistan means another 9/11 is one of the most ridiculous arguments I've heard. Given that majority of the planning for 9/11 was actually done in places like Spain, Germany, the UK, and even yes the US (where they learned to fly/land), proves Afghanistan wasn't really that relevant in 9/11 tbh. Heck 15 out of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, we could have made an argument to invade them if we wanted. :eek:

I'm under the assumption the war and its supporters are backed by people who support invading Afghanistan by providing freedom and democracy and allowing to live a more westernised lifestyle. Reading the story regarding the Taliban beheading is disturbing, but can anything be actually done about it? Invading these countries by force engaging in war only accumulates the death toll even more. I mean think about the amount of children killed by US drone strikes and other aerial attacks?

NATO are looking for an end to the war with the vast majority of troops being withdrawn by 2014 (although there's now rumours that special American forces will stay till 2024).

Anyway clearly I'm not a supporter of the Afghanistan war so I just want to know if anyone supports it and what are your reasons for supporting it.

Ghandee

I support my legs, cos they support me.

Jarren

No

Sappa

They have no business being there,either way the country is fuked.
You can't change them and they don't want to be changed.

Tombi!

I don't really understand it but I thought the basic idea was "Bin Laden makes a video claiming he was responsible; logically America invades to get him. He's dead now." Is it a sort of "pride" thing or something that they're still trying to root out the last members?

Augmerson

It might have something to do with the fact that Afghanistan has massive oil and mineral reserves and it also borders one of the only "free" countries left in Asia/Middle East - Iran. When I say "free" what I mean is a country that is not (yet) either occupied by US forces or friendly and suppliant to US interests. Only Syria, China and Russia remain "free" in the eastern hemisphere.

Afghanistan is not a western country. Trying to stamp, with a bloody jackboot, western values onto a third-world, incredily poverty stricken and deeply devout Muslim country will not work. When the US finally do pull out, the puppet government they install will eventually be toppled by the Taliban, just like the Soviets puppet government eventually crumbled.

I am all for democracy, women's rights and peace, but the tactics and strategy employed by the US and NATO or "Coalition of the Willing" will never work in Afghanistan. And truly, it's not something that ultimately the Pentagon or the White House cares about. They wanted those resource rich former Soviet and Soviet sphere central Asian countries to be on their side of the table, all those countries that are hard to spell like Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Krygistan. They have bases in all these countries and "friendly" governments there too.

Fratton Fred

There is no oil or gas in Afghanistan and the mineral deposits are limited to gem stones.

Grayson

Where's the No but the troops should stay option.

I'm against it. But I think as long as they're there they should try to do some good and bring some stability to the place.

I'd like an option of 'No but they're there now so it's their responsibility to get the country back on its legs'.

crazy cabbage

The way i see it Afghanistan can make a perfectly good case for invading America, Built on much stronger logic than that used be america to invade them in the first place.
However if they done that there would be a worldwide public outcry and they would be labled as terrorist (presuming that they would be able to which they wouldn't).
My question then is why isn't the American troops in Afghanistan labled as terrorist? I dont see much difference between the american troops in Afghanistan and 'terrorists cells' except that American troops tend to have alot more support from polititions and the public.

Fromthetrees

I didn't vote.
I was dead against the war all along, as I was against the Iraq war, but now I feel they should stay until the country is made safe, they made the mess, they clean it up.
I fear though, that whatever is done there that Afghanistan is doomed to live in the stone age for a long time to come.

Well, anyway,
I'm off to have a big mad fry up and plan tonights drinking.

fran17

no not anymore.it was justified after 9/11 and they succeeded in breaking up the terrorist network and training camps in the country,but they simply moved on to other countries.its high time now for a complete withdrawl before any more young men are maimed or killed needlessly

Augmerson

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There is no oil or gas in Afghanistan and the mineral deposits are limited to gem stones.

"The country's natural resources include: coal, copper, iron ore, lithium, uranium, rare earth elements, chromite, gold, zinc, talc, barites, sulfur, lead, marble, precious and semi-precious stones, natural gas, and petroleum among other things. In 2010, US and Afghan government officials estimated that untapped mineral deposits located in 2007 by the US Geological Survey are worth between $900 bn and $3 trillion" - taken from Wikipedia. I've also read a few articles in papers like the Guardian about it but a quick search of the site wasn't enough to bring up the relevant article, sorry.

fran17

Augmerson wrote: »

"The country's natural resources include: coal, copper, iron ore, lithium, uranium, rare earth elements, chromite, gold, zinc, talc, barites, sulfur, lead, marble, precious and semi-precious stones, natural gas, and petroleum among other things. In 2010, US and Afghan government officials estimated that untapped mineral deposits located in 2007 by the US Geological Survey are worth between $900 bn and $3 trillion" - taken from Wikipedia. I've also read a few articles in papers like the Guardian about it but a quick search of the site wasn't enough to bring up the relevant article, sorry.

looks like the yanks will stick around then

Grayson

crazy cabbage wrote: »

The way i see it Afghanistan can make a perfectly good case for invading America, .

It's been done already. Some terrorist woman organised it
http://zerode.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/mousethatroared09.jpg


Am I right in thinking the soviet invasion was partly because of an oil pipline dispute?

czx

Augmerson wrote: »

"The country's natural resources include: coal, copper, iron ore, lithium, uranium, rare earth elements, chromite, gold, zinc, talc, barites, sulfur, lead, marble, precious and semi-precious stones, natural gas, and petroleum among other things. In 2010, US and Afghan government officials estimated that untapped mineral deposits located in 2007 by the US Geological Survey are worth between $900 bn and $3 trillion" - taken from Wikipedia. I've also read a few articles in papers like the Guardian about it but a quick search of the site wasn't enough to bring up the relevant article, sorry.

'The U.S.’s total combined resource value is $45 trillion.'

http://247wallst.com/2012/04/18/the-worlds-most-resource-rich-countries/

xDramaxQueenx

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyTPFyyA-mA

Boombastic

Yes I hope the Goodies rescue those heroin producers from the Taliban

megafan

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There is no oil or gas in Afghanistan and the mineral deposits are limited to gem stones.

But whats important to us & the rest of the West (or oil & gas users) are the piplines travelling through the country carrying gas & oil from (X) easten block countries....

dsmythy

Nobody cares what you think. Or what I think.

steddyeddy

What amazes me is that America spends billions on their military but fail in providing basic healthcare for the poorest of their citizens.

Augmerson

czx wrote: »

'The U.S.’s total combined resource value is $45 trillion.'

http://247wallst.com/2012/04/18/the-worlds-most-resource-rich-countries/

Am I right in believing the point you are trying to make here is that the US doesn't need any more fossil fuels or other resources because it has so much of it's own?

Well, if so, it's a very valid point, but I'd put this out there. How much resources does the US consume? If the following figure is anything to go by, it's ALOT.

"The United States consumed a total of 7.0 billion barrels (19.18 million barrels per day) of refined petroleum products and biofuels in 2010 and 6.87 billion barrels (18.83 million barrels per day) in 2011. For both years, this was about 22% of total world petroleum consumption." - taken from EIA.Gov.

Old statistics yes, but if anything, those figures have grown since 2011. Energy security is a major part of US planning and strategy. They might have huge resources of their own now, but they are finite. Access and control of other resources is definitely needed. The next part is taken from Wikipedia but is reliable -

"Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution explains that if Afghanistan generates about $10 bn per year from its mineral deposits, its gross national product would double and provide long-term funding for Afghan security forces and other critical needs.The United States Geological Survey (USGS) estimated in 2006 that northern Afghanistan has an average 2.9 billion (bn) barrels (bbl) of crude oil, 15.7 trillion cubic feet (440 bn m3) of natural gas, and 562 million bbl of natural gas liquids."

Even if the US doesn't begin to take these resources out of Afghanistan for it's own needs, it's an incredible amount of resources to be effectively in control of. Now, there are major costs as to how to extract the oil and gas, and there are already major security costs due to the war, but if Afghanistan could be turned into a resource producer, it would be extremely wealthy.

czx

Augmerson wrote: »

Am I right in believing the point you are trying to make here is that the US doesn't need any more fossil fuels or other resources because it has so much of it's own?

Well, if so, it's a very valid point, but I'd put this out there. How much resources does the US consume? If the following figure is anything to go by, it's ALOT.

"The United States consumed a total of 7.0 billion barrels (19.18 million barrels per day) of refined petroleum products and biofuels in 2010 and 6.87 billion barrels (18.83 million barrels per day) in 2011. For both years, this was about 22% of total world petroleum consumption." - taken from EIA.Gov.

Old statistics yes, but if anything, those figures have grown since 2011. Energy security is a major part of US planning and strategy. They might have huge resources of their own now, but they are finite. Access and control of other resources is definitely needed. The next part is taken from Wikipedia but is reliable -

"Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution explains that if Afghanistan generates about $10 bn per year from its mineral deposits, its gross national product would double and provide long-term funding for Afghan security forces and other critical needs.The United States Geological Survey (USGS) estimated in 2006 that northern Afghanistan has an average 2.9 billion (bn) barrels (bbl) of crude oil, 15.7 trillion cubic feet (440 bn m3) of natural gas, and 562 million bbl of natural gas liquids."

Even if the US doesn't begin to take these resources out of Afghanistan for it's own needs, it's an incredible amount of resources to be effectively in control of. Now, there are major costs as to how to extract the oil and gas, and there are already major security costs due to the war, but if Afghanistan could be turned into a resource producer, it would be extremely wealthy.

Enough for Afghanistan to yield a poor ROI. Northern Afghanistan has enough crude to last the US half a year at current consumption levels?!

starbelgrade

ThomasFlynn wrote: »

The initial goal was invade and overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan who were provding a safe haven for Al Qaeda and Bin Laden.

The used that as a way of getting the country behind them, but in reality, Bin Laden, Al Qaeda or 9/11 had very little to do with it.

Augmerson

czx wrote: »

Enough for Afghanistan to yield a poor ROI. Northern Afghanistan has enough crude to last the US half a year at current consumption levels?!

That's not how things work.

The Master of Disaster

Grayson wrote: »

Am I right in thinking the soviet invasion was partly because of an oil pipline dispute?

No the Soviets were very reluctant to get involved in Afghanistan. They were repeatedly asked by the Marxist Afghan government throughout late '78 and early '79 to send in troops to help combat the Mujahideen in the north of the country. Initially they sent advisors, then some individual crews but it was only when it looked like Kabul itself might fall did they formulate a large scale intervention, and even then with the agreement of the Afghan regime. It was all political; as the Communist nation(s) the Soviets couldn't be seen to abandon a fellow ideologue in need right on their doorstep.

Colmustard

In Osama's last interview with Robert Fisk he said the war will bankrupt america like the Afghanistan war bankrupted the Soviet Empire.

I don't know how I feel about the war, it has destabilised Pakistan who are a nuclear power with the means to deploy them anywhere on the planet.

I think now that they are in the war, they can't walk away because of Pakistan, but the Taliban have probably won this already.

It's one of those wars that the retard Bush shouldn't have started.

frag420

No!!

Spurs all the way!

im invisible

Support it? I do what i can, but i feel like its never enough

Fratton Fred

Colmustard wrote: »

In Osama's last interview with Robert Fisk he said the war will bankrupt america like the Afghanistan war bankrupted the Soviet Empire.

I don't know how I feel about the war, it has destabilised Pakistan who are a nuclear power with the means to deploy them anywhere on the planet.

I think now that they are in the war, they can't walk away because of Pakistan, but the Taliban have probably won this already.

It's one of those wars that the retard Bush shouldn't have started.

Do you really believe that the Taliban and or Al Qeada would have left Pakistan alone?

Fratton Fred

megafan wrote: »

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There is no oil or gas in Afghanistan and the mineral deposits are limited to gem stones.

But whats important to us & the rest of the West (or oil & gas users) are the piplines travelling through the country carrying gas & oil from (X) easten block countries....

That's right, an oil pipeline from Siberia to the US can only possibly go through Afghanistan........

ermahgerd

No, I absolutely do not support it nor the action towards Iraq.

It's hard to call it a "war", also, seeing as it was an invasion by a foreign nation and those who fought back were just defending their own homes and lives from the invaders.

The whole thing disgusts me and I hold it against the countries involved, their leaders all the way down to those who continue to sign up to kill in the name of these brutal, corrupt forces.

crazy cabbage

ermahgerd wrote: »

No, I absolutely do not support it nor the action towards Iraq.

It's hard to call it a "war", also, seeing as it was an invasion by a foreign nation and those who fought back were just defending their own homes and lives from the invaders.

The whole thing disgusts me and I hold it against the countries involved, their leaders all the way down to those who continue to sign up to kill in the name of these brutal, corrupt forces.

Completly agree

American troops with obama/bush at the helm are terrorist. Simple as in my opinion.
The rest of the world should be condemning there actions and putting pressure on them to get out of there

Fratton Fred

ermahgerd wrote: »

No, I absolutely do not support it nor the action towards Iraq.

It's hard to call it a "war", also, seeing as it was an invasion by a foreign nation and those who fought back were just defending their own homes and lives from the invaders.

The whole thing disgusts me and I hold it against the countries involved, their leaders all the way down to those who continue to sign up to kill in the name of these brutal, corrupt forces.

You do realise that Ireland was one of the security council members that voted in favour of the UN resolution and also contributes to ISAF right?

Colmustard

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Do you really believe that the Taliban and or Al Qeada would have left Pakistan alone?

They did for a long time and Pakistan could contain them. Everyone accuses the yanks of arming them and training them in the first place, not entirely true.

When the Yanks supplied them with aid to fight the Russians they did it though Pakistani mediums, they chose to give the most aid to the Pashtun ethnic group because that is the predominant ethnic group along the border with Pakistan its were the Pakistani's had their most contacts.

It just so happens the Pashtun were predominantly the Taliban, so Pakistan made them the most powerful group in Afghanistan. But now the reverse is happening. The Taliban are training, arming and emboldening the Pashtun in Pakistan, hence the mess.

So The US cannot fight a full action in Pakistan, but they do every now and again, they can only contain the Taliban in Afghanistan and try get the Pakistani government to deal with the Taliban in Pakistan and they are half heartening and even that effort is causing the instability, which may draw India into it.

Its a very dangerous part of the world. Its a mess, this is what happens when you put a monkey in the whitehouse, as in bush.

Augmerson

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That's right, an oil pipeline from Siberia to the US can only possibly go through Afghanistan........

There might be a oil pipeline crossing the Bering sea from Russia to Alaska but I doubt the Americans would rely on it. Most of what is going on with pipelines these days is that they want to build them outside of Russian territory. The Russians bully other countries into doing what they want by shutting down oil and gas flow, I think this happened to the Ukraine not too long ago.

Fratton Fred

crazy cabbage wrote: »

ermahgerd wrote: »

No, I absolutely do not support it nor the action towards Iraq.

It's hard to call it a "war", also, seeing as it was an invasion by a foreign nation and those who fought back were just defending their own homes and lives from the invaders.

The whole thing disgusts me and I hold it against the countries involved, their leaders all the way down to those who continue to sign up to kill in the name of these brutal, corrupt forces.

Completly agree

American troops with obama/bush at the helm are terrorist. Simple as in my opinion.
The rest of the world should be condoming there actions and putting pressure on them to get out of there

You mean the US and the other 41 nations (including Ireland) that make up ISAF.

ermahgerd

crazy cabbage wrote: »

Completly agree

American troops with obama/bush at the helm are terrorist. Simple as in my opinion.
The rest of the world should be condoming there actions and putting pressure on them to get out of there

Oh absolutely. The atrocities highlighted by wikileaks were rapidly brushed over and the US remain being seen as some sort of heroes for their actions.

All the while, they continue to not only control countries they have no business in, but have drones flying over other territory launching attacks on people they deem to be enemies and sentencing them to die, without any form of trial.

They are the world's terrorists and yet nobody wants to pip up and say "STOP" to them, for fear of having their eyes turned toward them. The UN are pushing on the US over the drone strikes and the US won't even give them an answer.

This is all public knowledge too and yet, they're STILL seen as some sort of freedom fighters. Hell, they've one of their warships docked off the side of Dublin at the moment!

It's unfortunate that the victor writes the history books, because the future should know what utter scum the US government and those that supported their military invasions were.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You do realise that Ireland was one of the security council members that voted in favour of the UN resolution and also contributes to ISAF right?

Indeed.

elefant

crazy cabbage wrote: »

Completly agree

American troops with obama/bush at the helm are terrorist. Simple as in my opinion.
The rest of the world should be condoming there actions and putting pressure on them to get out of there

Either you don't know what 'condoning' means, or this is some new word play on the word condom...

later12

Pretty sure he means condemning.

I voted for the third option because there was no "No; however a reasonable exit plan should be put in place to ensure political stability survives after they have left" option.

crazy cabbage

elefant wrote: »

Either you don't know what 'condoning' means, or this is some new word play on the word condom...

Sorry. Fixed it. I am a little retarded when if comes to spelling and grammer.

You mean the US and the other 41 nations (including Ireland) that make up ISAF.

Yes...

Colmustard

later12 wrote: »

Pretty sure he means condemning.

I voted for the third option because there was no "No; however a reasonable exit plan should be put in place to ensure political stability survives after they have left" option.

There will never be political stability there, it's not a country its more collection of warring and rival tribes occupying the same place.

later12

Colmustard wrote: »

There will never be political stability there, it's not a country its more collection of warring and rival tribes occupying the same place.

So was Ireland in the early Mediaeval period, and you could argue the same about many African countries today. Starting off with an inherently tribal society is not a permanent obstruction to peace or relative stability in itself/ by definition.

IceFjoem

A suitable strategy for peace would be a healthy dosing of Western consumerism. They need to invest in 24 hour televised commercial advertising, large shopping centers and sensible (but subtle) product placement in popular tv shows like 'Jalalabad Shore' and 'Pashtun Housewives'. The nurturing of their interest in material wealth will allow people to loosen their grip on cultural pursuits and tribal divisions, and become united under one government. Eventually terrorism will be shunned as people grow to accept the compromises they have made in exchange for peace.

Colmustard

later12 wrote: »

So was Ireland in the early Mediaeval period, and you could argue the same about many African countries today. Starting off with an inherently tribal society is not a permanent obstruction to peace or relative stability in itself/ by definition.

Its been like that since the Mongolian bespoilt the place in the 12th century it never recovered, before that it was cultured advanced and stable.

Grimebox

Theres not enough war in the world

sweeney1971

The West needs to stop meddling in other Countries business. No one cares what happens over there except the do gooders.

El Guapo!

sweeney1971 wrote: »

The West needs to stop meddling in other Countries business. No one cares what happens over there except the do gooders.

No one cares??
So the Taliban go around beheading children and you think that's ok? We should leave them to it?
Fúck no.
They were right to deploy in the first place and they're right to stay there for as long as it takes to restore some order to the place.
There's too many people in the world willing to stand by and watch as these atrocities take place all over the world.

IceFjoem

Dean09 wrote: »

No one cares??
So the Taliban go around beheading children and you think that's ok? We should leave them to it?
Fúck no.
They were right to deploy in the first place and they're right to stay there for as long as it takes to restore some order to the place.
There's too many people in the world willing to stand by and watch as these atrocities take place all over the world.

Let the baby have it's bottle...

Fratton Fred

sweeney1971 wrote: »

The West needs to stop meddling in other Countries business. No one cares what happens over there except the do gooders.

Until they train a group of lads to fly 757s into skyscrapers.

Chuck Stone

There was a chance of the Neocon fantasy of 'nation building' working shortly after 9/11. The world was mostly with the US when they invaded Afghanistan but the Bush administration was incompetent and started ****ing up from very early on by not financing winning the peace.

The total value of American reconstruction aid to Afghanistan in the fiscal 2002 budget that the Congress approved amounted to $942.1 million. That was probably $500 million short of what was needed that year, but analysts might have argued that the country could not absorb more money at that time. The initial fiscal 2003 request, however, totaled just $151 million, with foreign military financing reduced to a laughable $1 million.

Bill Taylor, who was coordinating assistance to Afghanistan for the State Department, was outraged. He made his views clear in an unclassified e-mail distributed widely throughout the government: "Our request for FY 03 is $151 million. This is not serious. ... FMF goes from $57 million to $1 million? On this we train the ANA [Afghan National Army] next year?. . . [the] FY 03 OHDACA [overseas humanitarian, disaster, and civic aid-a DOD program] request of $12 million had been reduced to $6 million ... can this be right? ... Zal [Khalilzad] is here and I just showed him the chart[listing the FY 03 request]. His response was the right one: `You're not serious.'"

foreignpolicy.com

There are a number of reasons for the US/Western occupation of Afghanistan.

Full spectrum dominance of the US military.

Neocon nation building experiment.

Encirclement Iran.

Resource/territory control.