[internetguru]

(Original post by thunder_chunky)
Yeah we can't just say "mission accomplished" and leave right now. Actually between now and the arranged date of leaving there will be a lot more training of the Afghan army and police.

Between now and 2014 there will be a lot more training of the Taliban too. We have no strategy to deal with them and there is no planned acceleration of the training programme. You are clearly misinformed on Afghanistan and just seem to be 5 years out of date on the whole matter.

[thunder_chunky]

(Original post by internetguru)
Between now and 2014 there will be a lot more training of the Taliban too.

Well yeah that's obvious.

We have no strategy to deal with them and there is no planned acceleration of the training programme. You are clearly misinformed on Afghanistan and just seem to be 5 years out of date on the whole matter.

Misinformed, Whereas you're an expert I assume. The forces probably have targets with their training and numbers of recruits as well as standards etc etc. All I have done thus far is pretty much stated facts and the obvious which doesn't exactly make me misinformed or five years out of date.
But if you really want to know what happens with a quick withdrawl, think about how much more territory will be uncovered, think about how much training might be unfinished and think about how unstable the country might be. To pull out right away would be reckless because it would leave the country and it's people vunreable and it'll be a terrible reputation to have.

It's a sad fact that during the rest of the UK's time there more of our servicemen (and perhaps women) will die, however that is the nature of the beast. If it means a measure of success with their goals then maybe just maybe we will one day be able to say it was worth it.

[internetguru]

(Original post by thunder_chunky)
Well yeah that's obvious.



Misinformed, Whereas you're an expert I assume. The forces probably have targets with their training and numbers of recruits as well as standards etc etc. All I have done thus far is pretty much stated facts and the obvious which doesn't exactly make me misinformed or five years out of date.
But if you really want to know what happens with a quick withdrawl, think about how much more territory will be uncovered, think about how much training might be unfinished and think about how unstable the country might be. To pull out right away would be reckless because it would leave the country and it's people vunreable and it'll be a terrible reputation to have.

It's a sad fact that during the rest of the UK's time there more of our servicemen (and perhaps women) will die, however that is the nature of the beast. If it means a measure of success with their goals then maybe just maybe we will one day be able to say it was worth it.

The Taliban WILL take it back whether it is today or in 2014 it is a simple mater of time.

[thunder_chunky]

(Original post by internetguru)
The Taliban WILL take it back whether it is today or in 2014 it is a simple mater of time.

Maybe, maybe not. However a way to ensure they don't is to ensure the neccesary local forces are as well trained as possible, which is difficult to do if we leave right now.

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by Birchington)
The notion that you can establish democracy by stealth bomber is simply naive. Afghanistan is never going to be an outpost of liberal western democracy, despite the dreams of various neo-liberals. Corruption is rife, and Hamid Karzai's rigging of the 2009 election undermines all the rhetoric of Afghan democracy remaining in place after we leave. The country is still heavily dominated by tribal factions and loyalties, and it is impossible to create long lasting democracy in a country whose value system is about 500 years behind our own.

Can the death of 11,864 civilians since 2007, or hundreds of our servicemen be justified. I would argue not. The constant death of civilians acts as a potent recruitment tool for Al Qaeda - young Muslim men who lose their family will often be so enraged by the presence of Western forces that they turn to terrorism, and I can understand why this would be the case.

Britain would be far less at risk of enraging Islamic fundamentalists and far less a target for terrorism, if it wasn't engaged in reckless and pointless military adventures in the Muslim world.

It was not a pointless military adventure that satisfied the American desire for revenge. No new atrocities have yet occurred in the US, in part because Al Qaeda was forced to change its strategy and the information and personnel rounded up in Afghanistan has prevented such attacks. Training camps that had once provided more than 20,000 fighters, according to the IISS, are now closed. Was this a traditional war that can be won? Yes. Against whom? The Taliban in part, but mainly against a terrorist group, and in light of the elections and the campaign to protect civilians that is ongoing as I write, it is a war against terror itself, or more specifically the use of terror to cow an entire population into accepting the rule of intimidation. Most Afghans, you may be surprised to know, do not accept the 500 year-old 'morality' of the Taliban.

The reason for the growth of radical Islamic terrorist organisations is not US occupation of Muslim lands, but is the changing nature of the state system itself and the growth of the modern market state and the accompanying global reach of the Islamist ideology - rule by terror. Groups like Al Qaeda attempt to replicate this terror through their actions. For them, terror can be an end in itself and not always just a means to an end. This, again, differentiates them from nation state terror groups like the ETA who would carry out bombings to make people pay attention to them and to ensure self-governance for themselves. In Europe and the Middle East, Al Qaeda seek terror as an end in itself. That is precisely where their actions will take us if they are not defeated: societies where women cannot be equal, where girls can't attend school, where religion rules the public sphere, and where free speech is severely restricted - all backed up with the threat of violence. States in the twenty-first century should actively oppose any effort made by global, networked terror groups to implement their goals - goals ranging from the creation of an Islamic Caliphate to instilling an attitude of fear amongst civilians of Western democracies. If a group such as Al Qaeda can instill fear to such an extent that civilians of free democracies feel they cannot perform their legal rights (whether it be voting or simply eating in a restaurant) then the state has failed in its duty to protect.

I assume when you talk of "democracy by stealth bomber" that you are referring to the use of unmanned drones to eradicate terrorist outposts. NATO figures show that there was a 9% reduction in violence throughout the country and in areas where the fighting increased, NATO had gone on the offensive. Civilian deaths in the last 4 months have dropped 21%. There was a 2011 UN report which suggested a significant rise but their figures included arrests, searches and "intimidation" as "security incidents." The loss of civilian life is regrettable, but it does not make the campaign illegitimate.

In Afghanistan the death toll is not quite as high as many think. At the high end, the figure is 14,700 and the low end is 12,500. And again – every single report, every single statistic notes that almost all of these are killed by the Taliban or its allies. Civilian deaths caused by pro-government forces decreased by 24% from 2009-2010, making them responsible for 15% of civilian casualties. UN figures show that only 9% of the civilians killed in 2012 were attributable to coalition forces.

[Moleman1996]

We withdraw now and risk losing all we've worked towards? We might as well stay and finish the job even if you don't agree with the war. If we go now we potentially leave the country to return to what it was. We need to finish training the Afghan Police and Army. Gradual withdrawal is the only way in a war of this conflict's type.

[Birchington]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
QFA

I respect your enlightened comments, but remain in disagreement with your stance.

[internetguru]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
It was not a pointless military adventure that satisfied the American desire for revenge. No new atrocities have yet occurred in the US, in part because Al Qaeda was forced to change its strategy and the information and personnel rounded up in Afghanistan has prevented such attacks. Training camps that had once provided more than 20,000 fighters, according to the IISS, are now closed. Was this a traditional war that can be won? Yes. Against whom? The Taliban in part, but mainly against a terrorist group, and in light of the elections and the campaign to protect civilians that is ongoing as I write, it is a war against terror itself, or more specifically the use of terror to cow an entire population into accepting the rule of intimidation. Most Afghans, you may be surprised to know, do not accept the 500 year-old 'morality' of the Taliban.

The reason for the growth of radical Islamic terrorist organisations is not US occupation of Muslim lands, but is the changing nature of the state system itself and the growth of the modern market state and the accompanying global reach of the Islamist ideology - rule by terror. Groups like Al Qaeda attempt to replicate this terror through their actions. For them, terror can be an end in itself and not always just a means to an end. This, again, differentiates them from nation state terror groups like the ETA who would carry out bombings to make people pay attention to them and to ensure self-governance for themselves. In Europe and the Middle East, Al Qaeda seek terror as an end in itself. That is precisely where their actions will take us if they are not defeated: societies where women cannot be equal, where girls can't attend school, where religion rules the public sphere, and where free speech is severely restricted - all backed up with the threat of violence. States in the twenty-first century should actively oppose any effort made by global, networked terror groups to implement their goals - goals ranging from the creation of an Islamic Caliphate to instilling an attitude of fear amongst civilians of Western democracies. If a group such as Al Qaeda can instill fear to such an extent that civilians of free democracies feel they cannot perform their legal rights (whether it be voting or simply eating in a restaurant) then the state has failed in its duty to protect.

I assume when you talk of "democracy by stealth bomber" that you are referring to the use of unmanned drones to eradicate terrorist outposts. NATO figures show that there was a 9% reduction in violence throughout the country and in areas where the fighting increased, NATO had gone on the offensive. Civilian deaths in the last 4 months have dropped 21%. There was a 2011 UN report which suggested a significant rise but their figures included arrests, searches and "intimidation" as "security incidents." The loss of civilian life is regrettable, but it does not make the campaign illegitimate.

In Afghanistan the death toll is not quite as high as many think. At the high end, the figure is 14,700 and the low end is 12,500. And again – every single report, every single statistic notes that almost all of these are killed by the Taliban or its allies. Civilian deaths caused by pro-government forces decreased by 24% from 2009-2010, making them responsible for 15% of civilian casualties. UN figures show that only 9% of the civilians killed in 2012 were attributable to coalition forces.

You aren't a libertarian then.

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by internetguru)
You aren't a libertarian then.

What a load of nonsense. I do not believe that freedom ends at national borders.

[internetguru]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
What a load of nonsense. I do not believe that freedom ends at national borders.

People voted for the libertarian party because of their anti war stance on TSR. Tell them you are pro war and your vote total would be a lot lower I'm thinking Lib Dem levels.

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by internetguru)
People voted for the libertarian party because of their anti war stance on TSR. Tell them you are pro war and your vote total would be a lot lower I'm thinking Lib Dem levels.

Our 'anti-war stance' is a lot less vocal than that of most real life libertarians and I've rarely seen it mentioned in our manifestos. You do not speak for our voters so I'd suggest not pursuing this particular line of argumentation. Regardless, I am not a Libertarian MP, merely a party member who disagrees with doctrinaire libertarianism on many fronts (much like jesusandtequilla disagrees with traditional libertarian views on land ownership). I happen to believe that my interventionist stance is not incompatible with libertarianism and that I can back it up rather well.

[internetguru]

(Original post by Rhadamanthus)
Our 'anti-war stance' is a lot less vocal than that of most real life libertarians and I've rarely seen it mentioned in our manifestos. You do not speak for our voters so I'd suggest not pursuing this particular line of argumentation. Regardless, I am not a Libertarian MP, merely a party member who disagrees with doctrinaire libertarianism on many fronts (much like jesusandtequilla disagrees with traditional libertarian views on land ownership). I happen to believe that my interventionist stance is not incompatible with libertarianism and that I can back it up rather well.

So your party is just a bunch of hippy liberals wanting to do drugs and think calling yourself libertarian will get you the votes you need. I've seen your party's economic policies etc they are left leaning and now I find that your war stance is also not libertarian. Your party is the biggest fraud in TSR MHoC history.

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by internetguru)
So your party is just a bunch of hippy liberals wanting to do drugs and think calling yourself libertarian will get you the votes you need. I've seen your party's economic policies etc they are left leaning and now I find that your war stance is also not libertarian. Your party is the biggest fraud in TSR MHoC history.

Yes, because all our members are completely unidentifiable because we all hold the same views on everything. If you want to continue this ridiculous discussion you can do it on the Ask a Liber thread.

[Metrobeans]

This is in cessation.

[Metrobeans]

This has been withdrawn.