Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why dont 'Common sense campaigners' protest against politically correct militarism? Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheJudge)
    You are in no place to talk about what the average Afghan wants, i am sure the average Afghan does not want a foreign army on their soil and that is why they are resisitng these people.

    You have no right to talk about the innocent people, the people of Afghanistan have had their innocense taken from them by war mongerers like you. Its funny how you support this war yet you're talking to me on a computer in probably a middle class home. Go out and fight rather than talking about other peoples deaths.
    (Original post by MrFroggy)
    /\

    TBH he makes a good point. Most who are pro-war argue under the pretext that it is what the Afghan people want, but there is no nationwide opinion, yes many Afghans voted in the Election, but voting the coalition off their land wasn't an option they do not have a choice. There is no faith among the Afghan population in the coalition or the Karzais government.

    This was an article by Simon Jenkins in the Gaurdian the other day, i think it portrays modern day Afghanistan and the failure of the coalition quite well.

    Fact is at last fighting fantasy in Afghanistan. Fact is that Tony Blair's vainglorious jihad against the Pashtun insurgency is not succeeding, and British commanders, diplomats and politicians know it. After three years of "inkspots", hearts-and-minds and take-hold-and-build, that battle-weary siren of defeat, talking to the enemy, is back onstage.

    While on Monday the prime minister was greeting Operation Panther's Claw with a parody of Lady Thatcher's triumphalism, "Rejoice, just rejoice", the deputy chief of the defence staff, Lieutenant-General Simon Mayall, was bizarrely declaring that the current Afghan war was "not against the Taliban".

    Other British ministers suddenly went anthropological. The foreign secretary, David Miliband, professes to detect not just good Taliban and bad Taliban but "three tiers" of Taliban. His colleague, the development secretary, Douglas Alexander, has newfound friends in the "moderate Pashtun", allegedly eager to do something called "renunciate violence". The defence minister, Bill Rammell, wants to "peel away the footsoldiers" and rebuild trust in government institutions.

    This awayday at the school of oriental studies cannot conceal the fact that we have been here for years. The one thing you know (and the enemy knows) about a named military operation is that it ends, which is one thing counter-insurgency can never do. All talk of talking to the Taliban forgets that Americans were talking to the Taliban before 9/11. Indeed, they spent a fortune training and arming them against Russia. Britain's first Helmand offensive in 2006 concluded that the Taliban would not be beaten and was followed by talking and a "cessation of hostilities", involving a series of local deals with (good) Taliban and a joint withdrawal agreement. It was later regarded as a disaster.

    Advocates of such a strategy are scrupulous to plead cases where it seems to have worked. The first British commander in Helmand, General Sir David Richards, insisted that he was merely repeating the Malayan inkspot strategy, apparently unaware that Pashtun were no more akin to Malays than they were to Geordies.

    Now we are told by Miliband "the lessons of Northern Ireland" should be applied to Helmand. For years, Ulster secretaries refused to talk to Sinn Féin "until the men of violence lay down their guns". Yet eventually there were talks and they duly laid down their guns. Now that Johnny Taliban has had a right drubbing, the Foreign Office implies, if he promises to stop shooting at us he should be offered a loya jirga a dozen cows and honorary membership of the Travellers Club. Then we can go home.

    The comparison is false. Sinn Féin never laid down its guns before talking. Had it done so, it would have split and continued to be worsted at the ballot box by the government's preferred Catholic party, the non-violent SDLP. Sinn Féin fought on and, though it did not win a united Ireland, its use of violence was effective. The SDLP was all but wiped out and Sinn Féin emerged as the voice of nationalist Northern Ireland. Sinn Féin leaders were in government and enjoying a de facto veto over its decisions. Whitehall can rewrite history, but Northern Ireland showed violence works.

    Anyway, Afghanistan is not Ireland. Britain is not the sovereign power in Kabul, nor is the Taliban a single political entity. Its disparate warlords and commanders owe allegiance to different factions under the Pashtunwali umbrella. The one thing that unites them is anger at the British ending their tolerated domination of southern Afghanistan in 2006 and a desire to rid the country of westerners. That is not negotiable.

    Any reader of Ahmed Rashid's study of the Taliban will attest that the movement is little more than a religious banditry, motivated by tribe, war, pride, money and Allah, roughly in that order. After Mullah Omar took power in Kabul in the mid-1990s, the one moderating force was the exigences of that power. Taliban leaders were forced to co-operate with the Northern Alliance, treat with the CIA on drugs, and appease its Pakistani and Saudi sponsors. Younger bloods were also unhappy at hosting Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida Arabs.

    All scope to manipulate that leverage after 9/11 was swept away by the foolish 2001 invasion. Lines that might have been put out to "moderates", even after the invasion, were abandoned in favour of what amounted to an Anglo-American war of eternal occupation. The drone bombing of Pashtun villages is said by intelligence reports to have wiped out roughly half the established Taliban leadership, mostly those with whom the west might now be "talking".

    Each assassination brings a hothead to command, eager to prove his anti-Nato spurs and less inclined to negotiate. Each recruits dozens of fighters and provokes a furious revenge. The drone killings are directly counter-productive to Miliband's stated policy, yet he supports them. It makes no more sense than Gordon Brown's belief they have something to do with "terror on Britain's streets".

    Any dispassionate observer returning from Afghanistan reports the same message. This is not working. People do not want their hearts and minds bribed or their infrastructure rebuilt. The money just gets stolen. They want their poppy crop left in peace and they want to know which sheikh or Taliban warlord will rule their lives a year from now. After years of being bombed, bankrupted and betrayed, they wonder who can offer them security. The answer is neither the British nor the regime in Kabul.

    When Britain ruled the adjacent Punjab, its power was based on a large land army and the belief that it would never leave. It sent out its brightest and best. They stayed, and those who collaborated with them prospered. Today those who collaborate are murdered and night letters are pinned to their doors.

    Everyone knows that the British will go but the Taliban will stay. That is why the strategy of take, hold and build is mere pastiche imperialism. It relies on the palpable nonsense that the Afghan army, a drugged militia of little competence and less loyalty, will fight and defeat its Pashtun cousins. It will not.

    All wars end in talking, even if the conversation is usually brief and one-sided. Such will be any deal with the Taliban, good or bad. As the Canadians and most Europeans have realised, Afghanistan is essentially a war of American vendetta, and the more stupid for it. Yes, it will end in talk, but how many more must die first?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    I do not think this will stop a civil war. Personally i think that American bases are a bad idea. It would be obvious they would support the shi'ite majority, creating alot of negative feelings among the Sunni's. This is an issue that is thousands of years old and something we need to let Iraq sort our of itself.




    It would have also created massive outrage throughout the Muslim world, and given Osama an absolute colossal propaganda opportunity. We would have legitimised his reasons given for attacking the west.



    But how can you support the reasons our Government are in Afghanistan when they are blatantley contradicting themselves in Saudi. All we would have to do would be to remove our support and funding, there would be a coup or a civil war, who knows maybe even a democracy. But we will not stop supporting them, no matter what the human rights violations commited, no matter how many women stoned to death. Regardless of your personal views on Saudi, how can you have faith that the reasons given to us by the Government for our occupation of Afghanistan are genuine?



    We are doing more harm than good, we fail day after day to understand the irrationality of Afghan politics and tribal tradition. Despite political, military, and financial support from the United States, a myriad of problems remain. The Afghan Transitional Administration has been slow to gain credibility in Afghanistan, in part because many Afghans believe this government to have been externally imposed by the Americans without a natural constituency in Afghanistan. Weaknesses of the Afghan government are blamed on the United States; for example, the United States has received criticism over the ethnic composition of the Karzai government, since ethnic Tajiks dominate major cabinet positions, alienating the Pushtun tribes. Human rights groups have cited widespread extortion, lawlessness, and kidnapping by Afghan
    police and intelligence officials. These groups accuse the United States of supporting some of the worst offenders and for not doing more to stop the abuses. U.S. involvement in Afghanistan is also complicated by Afghanistan's large opium production. Afghanistan grows more than 70 percent of the world's opium, and the U.S. - backed government has had little success in stopping its cultivation or halting its illegal smuggling to neighboring countries.

    U.S. military efforts in Afghanistan also have faced problems. In attempting to capture or kill alQaʿida or Taliban forces, the U.S. military inadvertently has caused a number of civilian deaths and dropped bombs on the wrong targets, including as a Red Cross warehouse and a United Nations mine-removal office. It is estimated that as many as 20,000 Afghans have died as the direct or indirect results of U.S. bombing, creating animosity toward the U.S. presence. The U.S. military also has been inadvertently involved in regional conflicts between contentious warlords, some of whom have induced the U.S. military to attack rival warlords by claiming that they are Taliban members.

    After several years, the U.S. military has largely failed to accomplish its major goals: The United States has been unable to pacify or bring security to much of Afghanistan; it has been unable to find bin Ladin or Muhammad (Mullah) Omar, head of the Taliban; it has been unable to eliminate the Taliban, which is regrouping; and it has alienated a growing number of Afghans, who are becoming impatient with the U.S. military presence. U.S. reconstruction efforts also have come under criticism. Despite some progress, poverty remains, many children are still not able to go to school, and women still find their lives constrained and must veil when they are in public.
    With the exception of genocide the only way that iraq can sort the problems between sunnis and shiites would be sharing power equally according to poulation and fighting anyone who opposes that. That is the current situation and we should support the iraqi government.

    I see what you mean and no I have no faith that the government is telling the truth all the time but things could only be far worse if the west withdrew from afghanistan.

    You say the afghans don't like their new government because of its ethnic composition and they don't like the corruption etc well things could only get worse if western troops left. The arguments you mention are in favour of more western intervention not less. The allies have not yet succeeded in their objectives of liberalising and reconstructing afghanistan which means they need more time. The west has made many mistakes which will extend the amount of time needed to bring order and respect for human rights to afghanistan but it is inevitable that we will succeed if we stay for as long as neccessary.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheJudge)
    Many people have died on the railways.

    Define evil? I consider Tony Blair evil, he should be arrested and hung. You have no right to push your customs on muslim people, you are the type of person who crys when people say they want Sharia law here. You are just the same as them.

    You are in no place to talk about what the average Afghan wants, i am sure the average Afghan does not want a foreign army on their soil and that is why they are resisitng these people.

    You have no right to talk about the innocent people, the people of Afghanistan have had their innocense taken from them by war mongerers like you. Its funny how you support this war yet you're talking to me on a computer in probably a middle class home. Go out and fight rather than talking about other peoples deaths.
    People have died in offices.

    Why? What has tony blair done to warrant a hanging? His attacks on saddam and the taliban were both done in the name of justice to remove mass murderers from power.

    No I am the same as them in that I am confident that my morality is the correct one I know what is right and wrong. You might look at murders, beatings and other oppression and not be sure if its right to prevent such things in the world, I know it is. If you have no fixed morality and say ah well thats the way things work over their then thats your problem.

    Taken from the BBC website:
    What view do ordinary Afghan civilians take of Isaf?

    A poll commissioned by the BBC in December 2007 across all of Afghanistan's 34 provinces revealed that most Afghans supported the presence of overseas troops, and opposed the Taleban.

    Around 71% of respondents said they supported or strongly supported the presence of US military forces in Afghanistan, with 67% supporting or strongly supporting the Isaf peacekeeping mission.

    Overall, the figures indicated that the peaceful north of Afghanistan was significantly more satisfied than the troubled south. Most dissatisfaction was found in the south-west, where the Taliban are most active.

    The poll suggested that despite another year of conflict, confidence and hope in the future were only slightly dented.


    From that it seems that foreign armies are wanted in afghanistan and you are talking crap. The only ones who resist ISAF are the nutters who support the taliban and some people who see it as being in their personal interest in terms of power/money that international troops leave. The majority of people who are dissatisfied with foreign troops seem to be ones who think they aren't doing enough as shown by the fact that many negative responses come from places where ISAF has been less successful.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    TBH he makes a very good point. Most who are pro-war argue under the pretext that it is what the Afghan people want, but there is no nationwide opinion, yes many Afghans voted in the Election, but voting the coalition off their land wasn't an option they do not have a choice. There is no faith among the Afghan population in the coalition or the Karzais government.

    This was an article by Simon Jenkins in the Gaurdian the other day, i think it portrays modern day Afghanistan and the failure of the coalition quite well.

    Fact is at last fighting fantasy in Afghanistan. Fact is that Tony Blair's vainglorious jihad against the Pashtun insurgency is not succeeding,
    The Guardian is notorious for being anti war it opposed the falklands war where actual British territory was invaded by a foreign enemy and it opposed the 1st gulf war for most of the time then afterwards claimed it had been manipulated into the small amount of support it showed the war. "vainglorious jihad", come on, we both know that destroying the taliban is a good and honourable objective this paper has in my opinion a seriously warped view of the world. After the july 5th bombings it printed a piece by an islamist member of hizb ut tahrir group which aims to create an islamic state in the UK. I have no idea what the guardian writers believe in in ideological terms I just know I don't like them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrFroggy)
    With the exception of genocide the only way that iraq can sort the problems between sunnis and shiites would be sharing power equally according to poulation and fighting anyone who opposes that. That is the current situation and we should support the iraqi government.
    This is a situation we have imposed upon the shiites and the sunni's. They have been sorting out their problems for over a thousand years. What makes you think occupying their country and forcing them to work together is going to make the slightest difference. It didn't work when the British tried it, and it's not going to work now. We cannot begin to understand the technicalities and feelings behind this rivalry and conflict. By imposing our western will upon these two factions we are hindering the process that they should be developing together.

    I see what you mean and no I have no faith that the government is telling the truth all the time but things could only be far worse if the west withdrew from afghanistan.
    How do you think they would be worse. Bearing in mind the Afghan people are just as fed up of the Taliban and Al Qaeda as they are of the Coalition and Karzai. There is actually not much chance the Afghanis will stand for a minority group like the Taliban who are now mostly foreign taking hardline control of the country. Heck, they didn't even have full control at the height of their power and that was when their forces were in the majority, they still had a hard time fending off the Northern tribes and the alliance.

    You say the afghans don't like their new government because of its ethnic composition and they don't like the corruption etc well things could only get worse if western troops left.
    Like i said above how so? There is little chance of the Taliban taking control again. At the moment there is a chronic shortage of medical heroin in the West, in the UK farmers have been licensed to grow it. Why don't we let the Afghans grow it for us rather than burning their crop, it would give an incredible boost to their economy it could be the financial kickstart it needs. As well as reducing the amount of illegal heroin on the streets, it would also remove the influence of the Taliban over the poppy farmers, as the market would pay many times more what the Taliban currently pays them. The Gov we have installed at the moment would also be given an aura of credibility among it's people if it could genuinely improve the economic situation of the nation. It would be far more logical to solve the problem of fundamentalism in Afghanistan with trade and diplomacy rather than guns and bombs.

    The west has made many mistakes which will extend the amount of time needed to bring order and respect for human rights to afghanistan but it is inevitable that we will succeed if we stay for as long as neccessary.
    All we are doing is generating more support for the allies and losing credibility in the eyes of the Afghan people, no matter what way it is painted we are not winning the ground war, there is an infinite supply of young fundamentalists from neighbouring Islamic nations, outraged at what is happening in Afghan and willing to give their lives fighting the west. The majority of the Taliban aren't even Afghans anymore for christ sake!. In the 80's the Russians had three times the amount of men on the ground that the current allies have, and after 10 years they were thoroughly beaten by the Afghans and had to withdraw. The Allies have the most powerful military arsenal that the world has ever seen; spy planes, satellites, drone aircraft, daisy cutter bombs, cave busting missiles, fighter bombers, Apache helicopters, cruise missiles, tanks and so much more. In World War Two, it took 4 years for the Allies to beat the Japanese all across the Pacific. At the same time they defeated the might of the Germans throughout the whole of Europe and North Africa. Yet after 8 years we are still fighting these fundamentalists whose military outfit is loose fitting cotton clothing and AK47 rifles and all we can say is that we control Kabul and a handful of provinces. We need to let Afghanistan sort this out itself and assisting by free trade and diplomacy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrFroggy)
    The Guardian is notorious for being anti war it opposed the falklands war where actual British territory was invaded by a foreign enemy and it opposed the 1st gulf war for most of the time then afterwards claimed it had been manipulated into the small amount of support it showed the war. "vainglorious jihad", come on, we both know that destroying the taliban is a good and honourable objective this paper has in my opinion a seriously warped view of the world. After the july 5th bombings it printed a piece by an islamist member of hizb ut tahrir group which aims to create an islamic state in the UK. I have no idea what the guardian writers believe in in ideological terms I just know I don't like them.
    I agree it is biased, but you cannot repute the facts bought up in the article, and there are many other articles and publications which have been reporting the same stories. Here is one from Global Security.org which is anything but anti-war.

    Afghan Government Says It's Ready to Negotiate with Taliban
    By Ravi Khanna

    Washington

    14 October 2008

    As insurgents continue their attacks in Afghanistan, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said Washington could "ultimately" accept the idea of Afghanistan's government negotiating with the Taliban. VOA's Ravi Khanna spoke to Washington experts about what this might mean for the U. S. strategy in Afghanistan.

    Clashes between Taliban forces and NATO troops have been continuing, with casualties mounting.

    Last week, there were reports that a new US intelligence estimate shows the war in Afghanistan in a downward spiral.

    Speaking recently in Kabul, Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai said his government is encouraging militants, including Taliban chief Mullah Mohamed Omar, to lay down their arms.

    "As I have called upon Mullah Omar Taliban leader many times, I call upon the others, Taliban members too, that they should come back to their country, rebuild their country, they are welcome," President Karzai said.

    U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said the US will support Afghan talks with the Taliban, but not with al-Qaida.

    A former Afghanistan expert at the State Department, John Gastright, is not surprised.

    "It has always been the policy of the United States to get all Afghans to buy into the political process, to take part in the political decisions the country is making and participate in what is now a new democracy," Gastright said.

    The comments by Gates coincided with reports of the new and pessimistic National Intelligence Estimate on Afghanistan.

    "The fact that the National Intelligence Estimate says that the war isn't going as well as we would like just highlights the need to re-energize the key parts of the strategy to get those fighters to buy into a better system, a democratic system," Gastright said.

    Mr. Karzai has said he is seeking help from Saudi King Abdullah. He wants the Saudis to facilitate peace talks with the Taliban.

    There have been reports that King Abdullah is trying to bring Taliban leaders and Afghan officials to Mecca for peace talks.

    Marvin Weinbaum at the Middle East Institute is optimistic. "The Taliban have a real incentive to enter negotiations and not to reach an agreement, that is to enter negotiations and be treated as an equal, to be treated as a state to get the legitimacy that they get from sitting down at the same table," Weinbaum said. "So that they are certainly not a guerrilla organization or a terrorist organization."

    Haider Mullick is a senior fellow at the Joint Special Operations University, run by the U.S. Defense Department. He says the Taliban may think they are negotiating from a position of strength, but in two to three years they are bound to lose their grip on the population and they will not be able to deliver on promises to provide essential services.

    "Sometimes their finances run out. Other times there are motivational issues," Mullick said. "I think they will reach that saturation point. So if they are smart they will try to cut a deal now and get the best outcome."

    Mullick says al-Qaida could be the loser if there are talks between the Taliban and the Kabul government. The talks could separate the Taliban from al-Qaida, even if they do not spark an agreement.


    If this happens (which looks likely) What would all the death and all the destruction have been for? You yourself sadi you believe that removing the Taliban is necesary, but the they will now be implemented into the democratic system (which i believe is the right way to go about it, i mean we are preaching democracy but wont let the Taliban or any party associated field a candidate. It's rather hypocritical if you ask me).

    Do you think this would be the right path to go down? Plus if we implemented the trade i mentioned in my last post?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    This is a situation we have imposed upon the shiites and the sunni's. They have been sorting out their problems for over a thousand years. What makes you think occupying their country and forcing them to work together is going to make the slightest difference. It didn't work when the British tried it, and it's not going to work now. We cannot begin to understand the technicalities and feelings behind this rivalry and conflict. By imposing our western will upon these two factions we are hindering the process that they should be developing together.
    I wouldn't call killing and abusing each other sorting it out. We tried to leave behind an unpopular monarch its not the same as trying to get equality between sunnis and shiites in a democratic system. How do you think the process would go if we left and allowed iraq to fall into disorder?

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    How do you think they would be worse. Bearing in mind the Afghan people are just as fed up of the Taliban and Al Qaeda as they are of the Coalition and Karzai. There is actually not much chance the Afghanis will stand for a minority group like the Taliban who are now mostly foreign taking hardline control of the country. Heck, they didn't even have full control at the height of their power and that was when their forces were in the majority, they still had a hard time fending off the Northern tribes and the alliance.
    I believe that the coalition moderates the decisions of the afghan government. Now im not saying the taliban would come back to power nation wide but they would still be there, the talibs would still oppress people even without state support and I think we can help the average afghan deal with this problem. We must either destroy or disarm the taliban so they are no longer powerful enough to enforce their will on anyone in afghanistan apart from isolated incidents.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Like i said above how so? There is little chance of the Taliban taking control again. At the moment there is a chronic shortage of medical heroin in the West, in the UK farmers have been licensed to grow it. Why don't we let the Afghans grow it for us rather than burning their crop, it would give an incredible boost to their economy it could be the financial kickstart it needs. As well as reducing the amount of illegal heroin on the streets, it would also remove the influence of the Taliban over the poppy farmers, as the market would pay many times more what the Taliban currently pays them. The Gov we have installed at the moment would also be given an aura of credibility among it's people if it could genuinely improve the economic situation of the nation. It would be far more logical to solve the problem of fundamentalism in Afghanistan with trade and diplomacy rather than guns and bombs.
    Trade idea sounds good I don't know much about heroin uses tbh. I prefer the triple approach of trade, diplomacy and military action. However that said my main problem with diplomacy is what concessions can we make? It can't be anything on sharia law or human rights, maybe there are other things?


    (Original post by Aeolus)
    All we are doing is generating more support for the allies and losing credibility in the eyes of the Afghan people, no matter what way it is painted we are not winning the ground war, there is an infinite supply of young fundamentalists from neighbouring Islamic nations, outraged at what is happening in Afghan and willing to give their lives fighting the west. The majority of the Taliban aren't even Afghans anymore for christ sake!. In the 80's the Russians had three times the amount of men on the ground that the current allies have, and after 10 years they were thoroughly beaten by the Afghans and had to withdraw. The Allies have the most powerful military arsenal that the world has ever seen; spy planes, satellites, drone aircraft, daisy cutter bombs, cave busting missiles, fighter bombers, Apache helicopters, cruise missiles, tanks and so much more. In World War Two, it took 4 years for the Allies to beat the Japanese all across the Pacific. At the same time they defeated the might of the Germans throughout the whole of Europe and North Africa. Yet after 8 years we are still fighting these fundamentalists whose military outfit is loose fitting cotton clothing and AK47 rifles and all we can say is that we control Kabul and a handful of provinces. We need to let Afghanistan sort this out itself and assisting by free trade and diplomacy.
    Theres not an infinite supply they can be stopped, plus is it not our duty to defend the afghans from these foreign muslims? The muj were far better equiped than the taliban our and did much more damage to soviet forces than the taliban has done to the coalition. If we can't sort it out what chance do the afghans have of doing it themselves?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrFroggy)
    I wouldn't call killing and abusing each other sorting it out. We tried to leave behind an unpopular monarch its not the same as trying to get equality between sunnis and shiites in a democratic system. How do you think the process would go if we left and allowed iraq to fall into disorder?


    I believe that the coalition moderates the decisions of the afghan government. Now im not saying the taliban would come back to power nation wide but they would still be there, the talibs would still oppress people even without state support and I think we can help the average afghan deal with this problem. We must either destroy or disarm the taliban so they are no longer powerful enough to enforce their will on anyone in afghanistan apart from isolated incidents.



    Trade idea sounds good I don't know much about heroin uses tbh. I prefer the triple approach of trade, diplomacy and military action. However that said my main problem with diplomacy is what concessions can we make? It can't be anything on sharia law or human rights, maybe there are other things?



    Theres not an infinite supply they can be stopped, plus is it not our duty to defend the afghans from these foreign muslims? The muj were far better equiped than the taliban our and did much more damage to soviet forces than the taliban has done to the coalition. If we can't sort it out what chance do the afghans have of doing it themselves?

    Do you think that the Taliban or taliban friendly parties should be allowed to be represented in this new democracy we have created? If not then why, how would you suggest we maintain crediblity if we march in singing the praises of Democracy and then force upon the Afghans undemocratic principles.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Do you think that the Taliban or taliban friendly parties should be allowed to be represented in this new democracy we have created? If not then why, how would you suggest we maintain crediblity if we march in singing the praises of Democracy and then force upon the Afghans undemocratic principles.
    The ideal solution would be to get a bill of rights passed that cannot be altered then allow anyone to stand for election. But before allowing the taliban to run for election it must first disarm and promise not use violence anymore.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrFroggy)
    The ideal solution would be to get a bill of rights passed that cannot be altered then allow anyone to stand for election. But before allowing the taliban to run for election it must first disarm and promise not use violence anymore.

    But due to the multiparty system of Government used in Afghanistan, the Taliban would have no chance of attaining power alone, to be elected into any kind of office it would first have to form an alliance, and i doubt that it would garner much support from other parties if it was still armed and associated with violence. So surely the logical solution would be to allow the Taliban to be represented in Government and hope that it tries to attain legitimacy by disarming so as to form alliances with other parties and democratically move into a position of power. This to me seems the ideal solution rather than forcing the Taliban to disarm and stop attacks, which as we have seen is proving extremely difficult and costing lives on both sides.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrFroggy)
    People have died in offices.

    Why? What has tony blair done to warrant a hanging? His attacks on saddam and the taliban were both done in the name of justice to remove mass murderers from power.

    No I am the same as them in that I am confident that my morality is the correct one I know what is right and wrong. You might look at murders, beatings and other oppression and not be sure if its right to prevent such things in the world, I know it is. If you have no fixed morality and say ah well thats the way things work over their then thats your problem.

    Taken from the BBC website:
    What view do ordinary Afghan civilians take of Isaf?

    A poll commissioned by the BBC in December 2007 across all of Afghanistan's 34 provinces revealed that most Afghans supported the presence of overseas troops, and opposed the Taleban.

    Around 71% of respondents said they supported or strongly supported the presence of US military forces in Afghanistan, with 67% supporting or strongly supporting the Isaf peacekeeping mission.

    Overall, the figures indicated that the peaceful north of Afghanistan was significantly more satisfied than the troubled south. Most dissatisfaction was found in the south-west, where the Taliban are most active.

    The poll suggested that despite another year of conflict, confidence and hope in the future were only slightly dented.


    From that it seems that foreign armies are wanted in afghanistan and you are talking crap. The only ones who resist ISAF are the nutters who support the taliban and some people who see it as being in their personal interest in terms of power/money that international troops leave. The majority of people who are dissatisfied with foreign troops seem to be ones who think they aren't doing enough as shown by the fact that many negative responses come from places where ISAF has been less successful.
    Your stupidity blows my mind. You cannot see the difference in danger from an office to working on the railway.

    He removed mass murderers from power and became one himself.

    The murders, beatings and oppression committed by allied forces must really offend you then.

    The BBC is very biased. Also we must consdier what sort of number of people they are polling, are they only polling people who would talk to BBC correspondants etc.... A poll like that means very little.

    If everyone wanted foreign troops no one would be fighting them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    But due to the multiparty system of Government used in Afghanistan, the Taliban would have no chance of attaining power alone, to be elected into any kind of office it would first have to form an alliance, and i doubt that it would garner much support from other parties if it was still armed and associated with violence. So surely the logical solution would be to allow the Taliban to be represented in Government and hope that it tries to attain legitimacy by disarming so as to form alliances with other parties and democratically move into a position of power. This to me seems the ideal solution rather than forcing the Taliban to disarm and stop attacks, which as we have seen is proving extremely difficult and costing lives on both sides.
    True but why should the taliban stop killing its opponents if it is allowed to be represented? It would almost certainly continue to remove its rivals, plus it would intimidate voters. If the taliban are strong in one area of afghanistan they will tell the people in that area to vote for them and if they don't they could punish them collectively. Violence is a useful political tool if there is no prize for giving it up then it will stay until either it is destroyed through military action or the taliban somehow return to power.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheJudge)
    Your stupidity blows my mind. You cannot see the difference in danger from an office to working on the railway.

    He removed mass murderers from power and became one himself.

    The murders, beatings and oppression committed by allied forces must really offend you then.

    The BBC is very biased. Also we must consdier what sort of number of people they are polling, are they only polling people who would talk to BBC correspondants etc.... A poll like that means very little.

    If everyone wanted foreign troops no one would be fighting them.
    You have yet to provide any evidence of danger on the railways, not even some figures on how many people have died if any.

    He killed murderers and scum that doesn't make him a murderer. As for the innocent deaths more would have died if he had not intervened that is an undeniable fact.

    The abuses by allied forces are few and they do offend me but the enemy commits such abuses every single day on a much larger scale. So which would you prefer if you were an afghan? An allied army with a few bad apples or a taliban that is made up completely of evil people?

    May I ask what you consider unbiased as a news source? al-jazeera?

    As aeolus says many of the taliban fighters are now foreigners who are attempting to abuse the afghans. We are fighting for the afghans against their enemy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrFroggy)
    True but why should the taliban stop killing its opponents if it is allowed to be represented? It would almost certainly continue to remove its rivals, plus it would intimidate voters. If the taliban are strong in one area of afghanistan they will tell the people in that area to vote for them and if they don't they could punish them collectively. Violence is a useful political tool if there is no prize for giving it up then it will stay until either it is destroyed through military action or the taliban somehow return to power.
    But the Taliban is a foreign minority now, outnumbered many, many times over by the Afghan army and police. This is my point. If they cannot win power by violence, then they will resort to democracy. By using threats and violence they would alienate the other parties as well as the population. The Taliban aren't evil superheroes, at the moment most of the politicians are alot more powerfull than Taliban leaders. What makes you think the Taliban would be able to remove its rivals without its prominent members being removed first. When we think of the Taliban coming to power we think only of a violent coup or a civil war. This is because when they first took power there was no democracy, and war was the only way to take control. Now they have another way, and as we can see by the article i am about to quote again, Karzai is inviting them back to the table, and he is being encouraged by the coalition. I mean if thisworks the war could be over in a few years. Even you who seems to want eternal conflict can see that this is a good thing?

    (Original post by globalsecurity.org)
    Speaking recently in Kabul, Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai said his government is encouraging militants, including Taliban chief Mullah Mohamed Omar, to lay down their arms.

    "As I have called upon Mullah Omar Taliban leader many times, I call upon the others, Taliban members too, that they should come back to their country, rebuild their country, they are welcome," President Karzai said.

    U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said the US will support Afghan talks with the Taliban, but not with al-Qaida.

    A former Afghanistan expert at the State Department, John Gastright, is not surprised.

    "It has always been the policy of the United States to get all Afghans to buy into the political process, to take part in the political decisions the country is making and participate in what is now a new democracy," Gastright said.

    The comments by Gates coincided with reports of the new and pessimistic National Intelligence Estimate on Afghanistan.

    "The fact that the National Intelligence Estimate says that the war isn't going as well as we would like just highlights the need to re-energize the key parts of the strategy to get those fighters to buy into a better system, a democratic system," Gastright said.

    Mr. Karzai has said he is seeking help from Saudi King Abdullah. He wants the Saudis to facilitate peace talks with the Taliban.

    There have been reports that King Abdullah is trying to bring Taliban leaders and Afghan officials to Mecca for peace talks.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    But the Taliban is a foreign minority now, outnumbered many, many times over by the Afghan army and police. This is my point. If they cannot win power by violence, then they will resort to democracy. By using threats and violence they would alienate the other parties as well as the population. The Taliban aren't evil superheroes, at the moment most of the politicians are alot more powerfull than Taliban leaders. What makes you think the Taliban would be able to remove its rivals without its prominent members being removed first. When we think of the Taliban coming to power we think only of a violent coup or a civil war. This is because when they first took power there was no democracy, and war was the only way to take control. Now they have another way, and as we can see by the article i am about to quote again, Karzai is inviting them back to the table, and he is being encouraged by the coalition. I mean if thisworks the war could be over in a few years. Even you who seems to want eternal conflict can see that this is a good thing?
    I don't agree that they will abandon violence for democracy just because they cannot win. The IRA struggled hopelessly on for 80 years they would not have resorted to democracy if we had stopped fighting them in the 70s what would have been the point? No one ever abandons violence for democracy unless they think they can win in democratic elections or they face the threat of destruction by continuing to fight.

    You say we should no longer fight the taliban so if they kill another politician and we don't know which specific taliban member did it how are we meant to retaliate? They could slowly whittle down the other political parties until there are none left. Until they say they will lay down their weapons and renounce violence they must be fought or they will win.

    I do see the negotiations as a good thing but until they are successful and the taliban put down their weapons they must be fought, we cannot allow them to run amok and abuse people. So far your plan seems to be stop fighting them, leave and then hope against all the odds that for some reason the taliban decide to disarm. If they have no chance of gaining power in democratic elections then why would they put down their guns?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrFroggy)
    I don't agree that they will abandon violence for democracy just because they cannot win. The IRA struggled hopelessly on for 80 years they would not have resorted to democracy if we had stopped fighting them in the 70s what would have been the point? No one ever abandons violence for democracy unless they think they can win in democratic elections or they face the threat of destruction by continuing to fight.
    There is no comparison between the IRA and the Taliban, it has been tried countless times. But the irrationality of middle eastern politics and the fundamentalist mindsetare extremely different to the nationalist aims of the IRA, they did not want to sit at the table unless there was a united Ireland which wasn't going to happen, therefore they would not give up their weapons. What is stopping the Taliban being part of the Government apart form us?

    You say we should no longer fight the taliban so if they kill another politician and we don't know which specific taliban member did it how are we meant to retaliate? They could slowly whittle down the other political parties until there are none left. Until they say they will lay down their weapons and renounce violence they must be fought or they will win.
    But how will they slowly whittle down these parties, when these parties are more powerfulll and stronger than them? The government of Afghanistan is just as ruthless as the Taliban. This isn't polite, safe Westminister, this is the wild west of democracy, threats will be met with threats, the Taliban will not be able to intimidate and bully when there are bigger bullies in the playground so to speak.

    I do see the negotiations as a good thing but until they are successful and the taliban put down their weapons they must be fought, we cannot allow them to run amok and abuse people. So far your plan seems to be stop fighting them, leave and then hope against all the odds that for some reason the taliban decide to disarm. If they have no chance of gaining power in democratic elections then why would they put down their guns?
    No, my plan is to incorporate the Taliban into the Government, to make them part of Afghanistan again. Because no matter how much we try to remove them, they are a big part of that country, and still have a lot of supporters who would vote for them in elections. To deny these people their vote makes us just as bad as the Taliban surely.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrFroggy)
    You have yet to provide any evidence of danger on the railways, not even some figures on how many people have died if any.

    He killed murderers and scum that doesn't make him a murderer. As for the innocent deaths more would have died if he had not intervened that is an undeniable fact.

    The abuses by allied forces are few and they do offend me but the enemy commits such abuses every single day on a much larger scale. So which would you prefer if you were an afghan? An allied army with a few bad apples or a taliban that is made up completely of evil people?

    May I ask what you consider unbiased as a news source? al-jazeera?

    As aeolus says many of the taliban fighters are now foreigners who are attempting to abuse the afghans. We are fighting for the afghans against their enemy.
    Evidense of danger on the railways? I will give you some evidense... walk to your nearest railway line, wait untill a train passes, when it does imagine how it would feel if you were infront of that train when it passed. There you go evidense.

    How did he kill murderers and scum, he killed soldiers defending their nation, he killed over a million civilians, he killed thousands of children.... Hardly murderers and scum. It is very easy to deny more people would have died if the Iraq and Afghanistan war did not occur. Lets see some evidense.

    The abuses by allied forces are numerous you are probably to dumb to realise how often they happen and to consider for every abuse incident you hear of there are 100 which never get heard about. I bet you don;t even know Obama buried pictures showing American troops torturing and raping Iraqis.

    Allied army with a few bad apples? do you mean rotten to the core.

    They are foreigners attempting to abuse the Afghan people what does that make allied soldiers? Afghan heroes?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    There is no comparison between the IRA and the Taliban, it has been tried countless times. But the irrationality of middle eastern politics and the fundamentalist mindsetare extremely different to the nationalist aims of the IRA, they did not want to sit at the table unless there was a united Ireland which wasn't going to happen, therefore they would not give up their weapons. What is stopping the Taliban being part of the Government apart form us?
    Well they wouldn't gain enough votes to be in the government because as you said before the other parties oppose them. They may well get seats in parliament but they would never become the government. The taliban want an islamic state, if they drop that demand along with many others and renounce violence then there is no problem with them being re-integrated into afghanistan. My point about the IRA is that I cannot think of a single organisation or group who has given up violence to take part in elections where they have no hope of winning.

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    But how will they slowly whittle down these parties, when these parties are more powerfulll and stronger than them? The government of Afghanistan is just as ruthless as the Taliban. This isn't polite, safe Westminister, this is the wild west of democracy, threats will be met with threats, the Taliban will not be able to intimidate and bully when there are bigger bullies in the playground so to speak.
    But you said the taliban should no longer be fought didn't you?

    (Original post by Aeolus)
    No, my plan is to incorporate the Taliban into the Government, to make them part of Afghanistan again. Because no matter how much we try to remove them, they are a big part of that country, and still have a lot of supporters who would vote for them in elections. To deny these people their vote makes us just as bad as the Taliban surely.
    You can't incorporate them into government because they don't have enough votes and the other parties don't like them. All you can do is allow them to stand for election, will they ever be satisfied with that? Human rights come before democracy as far as I am concerned.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheJudge)
    Evidense of danger on the railways? I will give you some evidense... walk to your nearest railway line, wait untill a train passes, when it does imagine how it would feel if you were infront of that train when it passed. There you go evidense.

    How did he kill murderers and scum, he killed soldiers defending their nation, he killed over a million civilians, he killed thousands of children.... Hardly murderers and scum. It is very easy to deny more people would have died if the Iraq and Afghanistan war did not occur. Lets see some evidense.

    The abuses by allied forces are numerous you are probably to dumb to realise how often they happen and to consider for every abuse incident you hear of there are 100 which never get heard about. I bet you don;t even know Obama buried pictures showing American troops torturing and raping Iraqis.

    Allied army with a few bad apples? do you mean rotten to the core.

    They are foreigners attempting to abuse the Afghan people what does that make allied soldiers? Afghan heroes?
    Heres a tip for you: Don't stand in front of trains.

    No the soldiers were not defending their nation or people they defended mullah omar and saddam hussein.
    Casualties:
    In the 80s saddam killed 1,000,000 in the iran-iraq war of aggression.
    In the 90s saddam killed 100,000 in the 1st gulf war and 150,000 in the al-anfal campaign.
    Plus over the course of saddams rule an estimated 200,000 people have been disappeared.
    Violent deaths after the invasion are around 100,000
    Seems probable that saddam and his heirs would have killed many more than 100,000 in the future doesn't it?

    Obama buried the pictures because there could be no advantage to releasing them except a propoganda victory for the enemy.

    The afghans support the presence of foreign troops that is undeniable.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Every poll I have seen shows’ the Afghans want the coalition to leave, however every poll I have seen also says they don’t want the Taliban to return. In which case we must stay the course until the national government is capable of fighting the Taliban themselves.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 10, 2009
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.