Discussion
El Guapo said:
jshell said:
The blame goes much farther back than that to western foreign policy.
I take your point, but the boots currently on the ground in Afghanistan were put there by the aforementioned duo, ostensibly as a reaction to 9/11.Kaelic said:
Been pondering this for a while now
If the Soviets with shed loads more men/helicopters/tanks/APC's etc couldn't get Afghanistan under some sort of control, what hope have we?
This is before the media are there to watch over the shoulder of our troops and human rights tossers getting involved.
The Soviets had a free hand to do what they wanted and still couldn't subdue the place, we haven't a hope in hell of getting close. (yes the CIA helped the Mujahadeen etc) The soviets in the end gave up and went home.
I think we will be doing the same one day, the sooner the better to be honest.
+1 - if the Russians in far greater numbers can't do itIf the Soviets with shed loads more men/helicopters/tanks/APC's etc couldn't get Afghanistan under some sort of control, what hope have we?
This is before the media are there to watch over the shoulder of our troops and human rights tossers getting involved.
The Soviets had a free hand to do what they wanted and still couldn't subdue the place, we haven't a hope in hell of getting close. (yes the CIA helped the Mujahadeen etc) The soviets in the end gave up and went home.
I think we will be doing the same one day, the sooner the better to be honest.
in ten years, then the USA and UK certainly can't do it
in eight years and so are wasting their time, money
and soldiers.
The USA and UK have also tried to import all sorts of fancy
Western ideas like freedom and democracy to the lightly organised
chaos that is Afghanistan.
I think it is interesting to note that all other non-UK and non-US
foreign forces have declared end dates to their Afghan activities.
It would therefore appear that politicians of other countries
are more skilled at limiting the problems posed by Afghanistan.
So long as troops are needed to protect our economic interests, the 'war' will not end.
said:
Are US troops dying to keep in power a government dominated by drug-trafficking warlords? Will more be killed in the coming month to protect another fraudulent election aimed at lending a façade of legitimacy to this regime?
So it would seem. But the Karzais and their warlord allies are puppets of US policy, used by Washington as merely a means to an end.
The end itself is patently not the furthering of “democracy.” Nor are 100,000 US and NATO troops fighting terrorism in Afghanistan, where military officials admit there are no more than 100 Al Qaeda members.
The real objectives of this war were spelled out in fairly candid terms in an article published last year in the magazine of the US Army War College by Dr. Stephen Blank, the college’s professor of National Security Studies.
Entitled “The Strategic Importance of Central Asia: An American View,” the article wastes little time on the pretexts of combating Al Qaeda or building democracy in Afghanistan.
Blank argues that the US is pursuing an “open door” policy in Central Asia “for American firms seeking energy exploration, refining, and marketing.” US policy, he says, is aimed at “the prevention of a Russian energy monopoly” in Central Asia or the region’s domination by China. It also seeks to isolate Iran, another potential regional rival.
“Not surprisingly,” Blank continues “the leitmotif of US energy policy has been focused on fostering the development of multiple pipelines and links to foreign consumers and producers of energy” that bypass the control of these regional rivals. Among the most important of these, he writes, is the proposed Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-pakistan (TAP) pipeline, which would pump oil and natural gas out of Central Asia across the territory now occupied by US troops.
It would appear from this paper that, while soldiers and Marines are told that they are fighting and dying for democracy or to end terrorism, at least the US Army’s rising senior officers are being given a more concrete objective.
The American military is fighting in Afghanistan as part of a 21st century version of the “Great Game,” in which US imperialism is seeking to dominate Central Asia and its energy resources at the expense of its strategic rivals.
There is no doubt that the Obama administration will continue to pursue these aims through an escalation of the Afghan war.
The costs of this war, now pegged at $3.6 billion a month, will rise even higher with the deployment of more troops, and will be paid by working people in the US through attacks on their living standards and basic social benefits. The death and maiming of American soldiers and Marines will escalate, along with the slaughter of both Afghan and pakistani civilians.
So it would seem. But the Karzais and their warlord allies are puppets of US policy, used by Washington as merely a means to an end.
The end itself is patently not the furthering of “democracy.” Nor are 100,000 US and NATO troops fighting terrorism in Afghanistan, where military officials admit there are no more than 100 Al Qaeda members.
The real objectives of this war were spelled out in fairly candid terms in an article published last year in the magazine of the US Army War College by Dr. Stephen Blank, the college’s professor of National Security Studies.
Entitled “The Strategic Importance of Central Asia: An American View,” the article wastes little time on the pretexts of combating Al Qaeda or building democracy in Afghanistan.
Blank argues that the US is pursuing an “open door” policy in Central Asia “for American firms seeking energy exploration, refining, and marketing.” US policy, he says, is aimed at “the prevention of a Russian energy monopoly” in Central Asia or the region’s domination by China. It also seeks to isolate Iran, another potential regional rival.
“Not surprisingly,” Blank continues “the leitmotif of US energy policy has been focused on fostering the development of multiple pipelines and links to foreign consumers and producers of energy” that bypass the control of these regional rivals. Among the most important of these, he writes, is the proposed Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-pakistan (TAP) pipeline, which would pump oil and natural gas out of Central Asia across the territory now occupied by US troops.
It would appear from this paper that, while soldiers and Marines are told that they are fighting and dying for democracy or to end terrorism, at least the US Army’s rising senior officers are being given a more concrete objective.
The American military is fighting in Afghanistan as part of a 21st century version of the “Great Game,” in which US imperialism is seeking to dominate Central Asia and its energy resources at the expense of its strategic rivals.
There is no doubt that the Obama administration will continue to pursue these aims through an escalation of the Afghan war.
The costs of this war, now pegged at $3.6 billion a month, will rise even higher with the deployment of more troops, and will be paid by working people in the US through attacks on their living standards and basic social benefits. The death and maiming of American soldiers and Marines will escalate, along with the slaughter of both Afghan and pakistani civilians.
Edited by Halb on Friday 6th November 14:35
jshell said:
thatone1967 said:
A bit off topic I know, but I hate the fact this government "does the right thing " (in their opinions) when it suits..
What have we done about Zimbabwe exactly....
It's not a 'bit' off-topic! When did Zimbabwe despatch or train international terrorists to blow up ships, embassies, railway terminus', tube trains or tall buildings??What have we done about Zimbabwe exactly....
Fittster said:
Most conflicts we are involved with have very little to do with protecting the UK:
Palestine
Malayan Emergency
Cyprus
Kenya—the Mau Mau uprising.
Korea
Suez
Aden Emergency
Indonesia-Malaysia
Which ones of those were to protect the country?
kenya, Aden and Cyprus were at least partial colonies of the British Empire Palestine
Malayan Emergency
Cyprus
Kenya—the Mau Mau uprising.
Korea
Suez
Aden Emergency
Indonesia-Malaysia
Which ones of those were to protect the country?
No nation goes to War if there is no payoff.
If we are in Iraq..it was for the oil
If we are in Afghanistan..it is for some sort of Payoff.
If we really wanted to get rid of Al Qaeda...we could have had covert ops for intelligence and clear blanket destruction of thier hideouts.
It is actually cheaper to bomb their camps every 3 months than to be on the ground and establish a state.
If we are in Iraq..it was for the oil
If we are in Afghanistan..it is for some sort of Payoff.
If we really wanted to get rid of Al Qaeda...we could have had covert ops for intelligence and clear blanket destruction of thier hideouts.
It is actually cheaper to bomb their camps every 3 months than to be on the ground and establish a state.
Kaelic said:
Been pondering this for a while now
If the Soviets with shed loads more men/helicopters/tanks/APC's etc couldn't get Afghanistan under some sort of control, what hope have we?
This is before the media are there to watch over the shoulder of our troops and human rights tossers getting involved.
The Soviets had a free hand to do what they wanted and still couldn't subdue the place, we haven't a hope in hell of getting close. (yes the CIA helped the Mujahadeen etc) The soviets in the end gave up and went home.
I think we will be doing the same one day, the sooner the better to be honest.
Maybe we should invite the Russians to come back and lend a hand then.... they have experience, shed laods of troops/ vehicles etc... might even scare some of the Taliban into taking up a less controversial career path.If the Soviets with shed loads more men/helicopters/tanks/APC's etc couldn't get Afghanistan under some sort of control, what hope have we?
This is before the media are there to watch over the shoulder of our troops and human rights tossers getting involved.
The Soviets had a free hand to do what they wanted and still couldn't subdue the place, we haven't a hope in hell of getting close. (yes the CIA helped the Mujahadeen etc) The soviets in the end gave up and went home.
I think we will be doing the same one day, the sooner the better to be honest.
NB.. This post should not be taken particularly seriously.
Ayahuasca said:
jshell said:
thatone1967 said:
A bit off topic I know, but I hate the fact this government "does the right thing " (in their opinions) when it suits..
What have we done about Zimbabwe exactly....
It's not a 'bit' off-topic! When did Zimbabwe despatch or train international terrorists to blow up ships, embassies, railway terminus', tube trains or tall buildings??What have we done about Zimbabwe exactly....
jshell said:
Ayahuasca said:
jshell said:
thatone1967 said:
A bit off topic I know, but I hate the fact this government "does the right thing " (in their opinions) when it suits..
What have we done about Zimbabwe exactly....
It's not a 'bit' off-topic! When did Zimbabwe despatch or train international terrorists to blow up ships, embassies, railway terminus', tube trains or tall buildings??What have we done about Zimbabwe exactly....
B Oeuf said:
jshell said:
Ayahuasca said:
jshell said:
thatone1967 said:
A bit off topic I know, but I hate the fact this government "does the right thing " (in their opinions) when it suits..
What have we done about Zimbabwe exactly....
It's not a 'bit' off-topic! When did Zimbabwe despatch or train international terrorists to blow up ships, embassies, railway terminus', tube trains or tall buildings??What have we done about Zimbabwe exactly....
Afghanistan is about imposed cultural change, any textbook on management says this is next to impossible even in a small business, so why on earth the f
kwits thought it would work on an entire country is a bit of a question.Ayahuasca said:
B Oeuf said:
jshell said:
Ayahuasca said:
jshell said:
thatone1967 said:
A bit off topic I know, but I hate the fact this government "does the right thing " (in their opinions) when it suits..
What have we done about Zimbabwe exactly....
It's not a 'bit' off-topic! When did Zimbabwe despatch or train international terrorists to blow up ships, embassies, railway terminus', tube trains or tall buildings??What have we done about Zimbabwe exactly....
Afghanistan is about imposed cultural change, any textbook on management says this is next to impossible even in a small business, so why on earth the f
kwits thought it would work on an entire country is a bit of a question.Afghanistan was in the sights since BL started using it as his training/comms/mobilisation base.
jshell said:
Ayahuasca said:
B Oeuf said:
jshell said:
Ayahuasca said:
jshell said:
thatone1967 said:
A bit off topic I know, but I hate the fact this government "does the right thing " (in their opinions) when it suits..
What have we done about Zimbabwe exactly....
It's not a 'bit' off-topic! When did Zimbabwe despatch or train international terrorists to blow up ships, embassies, railway terminus', tube trains or tall buildings??What have we done about Zimbabwe exactly....
Afghanistan is about imposed cultural change, any textbook on management says this is next to impossible even in a small business, so why on earth the f
kwits thought it would work on an entire country is a bit of a question.Afghanistan was in the sights since BL started using it as his training/comms/mobilisation base.
Oh wait. We did.
We are not fighting AQ in Afganistan anymore, apart from anything else they are mostly in pakistan.
We are fighting 100's of years of Afghan culture.
In your view, what does 'sucess in Afghanistan' look like, anyway??
jshell said:
Thatcher using the lives of UK and Argentinian soldiers to get re-elected being one example.
Regardless of your opinion of the Falklands war, you'd do well to remember that the Falklands were invaded by the Arentinians, are British soil and consisted of British citizns who wished to remain British. A gulf of difference when compared to 'waging aggessive war' against Iraq et al (as defined by international law). Thatcher wasn't conducting an illegal war or turning herself into a war criminal who should stand trial like Bliar has.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff