Afghanistan - What are we doing there?

[dune]

It's a futile waste of lives, money and time us being there. It really is utterly ridiculous when what we should have been doing is bribing the elders from the start. That is how we'd have dealt with such a situation in colonial times, but off we go following the stupid Americans who have not got a clue how to rule the world.

[alpine_saint]

Compounded by a series of ridiculous procurement/deployment decisions, like Gordon "Tw*t" Brown withdrawing our own sovereign air cover for our soldiers.

 

Wonder if the Army will ever get the upgraded warriors with attitudes like Jock Stirrups, when 4 soliders killed in a Warrior in 2007 he put it down to "bad luck". Probably the worst Chief of Defence Staff the nation has ever been lumbered with.

[Sheaf Saint]

I'm assuming this is a response to yesterday's news about 6 British soldiers killed by a Taliban bomb, as it got me thinking as well: Just what have we actually achieved in Afghanistan? I can't think of a single positive answer to that.

 

10 years

£billions spent

Over 400 soldiers now killed

 

What do we have to show for it exactly?

 

The invasion was ostensibly about making the streets of Britain safe from the threat of Al-Qaeda and other fundamentalist terror groups. A seemingly noble objective until you put it into perspective. Since the turn of the century there have been 52 UK citizens killed as a result of terrorism (all on 7/7). More people die every day in road accidents. That there haven't been any more than that is down to our intelligence services, but to suggest that our occupation of Afghanistan is in some way reducing the threat is absurd. If anything our presence there is only likely to create more Jihadists, not less.

 

Whichever way you look at it, the justification given for our involvement does not stack up with the facts and figures. Clearly there is some hidden agenda with it (without going into the obvious conspiracy theories about the oil pipeline etc..) and the reasons given by this government and the previous one are just a smokescreen.

 

I wonder if the families of the 400 dead soldiers think the sacrifice of their loved ones is worth it?

[alpine_saint]

I'm assuming this is a response to yesterday's news about 6 British soldiers killed by a Taliban bomb, as it got me thinking as well: Just what have we actually achieved in Afghanistan? I can't think of a single positive answer to that.

 

10 years

£billions spent

Over 400 soldiers now killed

 

What do we have to show for it exactly?

 

The invasion was ostensibly about making the streets of Britain safe from the threat of Al-Qaeda and other fundamentalist terror groups. A seemingly noble objective until you put it into perspective. Since the turn of the century there have been 52 UK citizens killed as a result of terrorism (all on 7/7). More people die every day in road accidents. That there haven't been any more than that is down to our intelligence services, but to suggest that our occupation of Afghanistan is in some way reducing the threat is absurd. If anything our presence there is only likely to create more Jihadists, not less.

 

Whichever way you look at it, the justification given for our involvement does not stack up with the facts and figures. Clearly there is some hidden agenda with it (without going into the obvious conspiracy theories about the oil pipeline etc..) and the reasons given by this government and the previous one are just a smokescreen.

 

I wonder if the families of the 400 dead soldiers think the sacrifice of their loved ones is worth it?

 

What about the 67 killed during 9/11 ?

 

Very easy to say it isnt worth it when its impossible to estimate how many lives have been saved by the interruption in lanning by terrorist groups based in Afghanistan.

[Window Cleaner]

Roughly the same as we did in Iraq....playing by the rules as the general public deems them and not by the dirty tricks rules of the opposition. If we want success then we have to hit the Taliban and their offshoots hard and often and stick two fingers up to

prissy home counties ladies when they start whingeing that it's not "fair play".

 

As John Lyly said back in the 16 the century "The rules of fair play do not apply in love and war".

[Sheaf Saint]

What about the 67 killed during 9/11 ?

 

Very easy to say it isnt worth it when its impossible to estimate how many lives have been saved by the interruption in lanning by terrorist groups based in Afghanistan.

 

Sorry, the figures I was looking at referred to deaths on British soil. Even so, when you add the 67 it still works out at only just over a quarter of the amount of soldiers killed.

 

Serious question Alps, do you believe that our presence in Afghanistan has reduced the threat of terrorism?

[alpine_saint]

Sorry, the figures I was looking at referred to deaths on British soil. Even so, when you add the 67 it still works out at only just over a quarter of the amount of soldiers killed.

 

Serious question Alps, do you believe that our presence in Afghanistan has reduced the threat of terrorism?

 

Yes.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

It's a futile waste of lives, money and time us being there. It really is utterly ridiculous when what we should have been doing is bribing the elders from the start. That is how we'd have dealt with such a situation in colonial times, but off we go following the stupid Americans who have not got a clue how to rule the world.

 

For once I fully agree with Dune. In a few years time once us and the Yanks have pulled back the Taliban will be firmly back in control. It's been a huge waste of money and waste of both UK military and Afghan civilian lives and we'll be soon back to square one. Except this time the incentive for "revenge" for the Taliban will probably make the terrorism threat even greater. Not to mention the destabilising effect this war has had on Pakistan.

[Seaford Saint]

Its fairly obvious to me.....the US is a military industrial country. It manufactures vast amounts of military hardware and weopons. It has to fire the weopons and use the hardware so it can make more to replace it all. In order to do this it needs to have wars. Coupled to this is the West's need for energy security.

 

This is a convenient marriage but we have to have a pretext so we use a war on terror to justify it. What exactly is a war on terror?

 

For how many years since the end of the second world war have the US been involved in a major war?

 

As for why we are in there, well we are their ally.

 

We have lost 400 of our brave servicemen and women to further the aims of the US war machine - we bring a bit of respectability to it all.

 

Iran is next.....

 

And all the time the US is going bust

[Sheaf Saint]

Yes.

 

And do you also think that the lives of 400 servicemen and £billions of public money spent was worth it to prevent the possibility of a handful of deaths?

 

Like I said, I think it needs to be put into perspective...

 

In 2009 there were 190 recorded deaths in the UK as a direct result of obesity, with a further 757 where it was a contributing factor (link)

In 2010 there were 1,850 fatalities in road accidents in the UK (link)

 

Would those resources not be better spent elsewhere?

[alpine_saint]

Its fairly obvious to me.....the US is a military industrial country. It manufactures vast amounts of military hardware and weopons. It has to fire the weopons and use the hardware so it can make more to replace it all. In order to do this it needs to have wars. Coupled to this is the West's need for energy security.

 

This is a convenient marriage but we have to have a pretext so we use a war on terror to justify it. What exactly is a war on terror?

 

For how many years since the end of the second world war have the US been involved in a major war?

 

As for why we are in there, well we are their ally.

 

We have lost 400 of our brave servicemen and women to further the aims of the US war machine - we bring a bit of respectability to it all.

 

Iran is next.....

 

And all the time the US is going bust

 

So what energy / natural resources has Uncle Sam secured in Afghanistan ?

 

Ok there is a unsubstantiated rumour about Lithium deposits, but that hasnt been proven.

 

Sorry, I know its not very PC, but the US, UK and other nations genuinely went into Afghanistan to ensure our security.

[alpine_saint]

And do you also think that the lives of 400 servicemen and £billions of public money spent was worth it to prevent the possibility of a handful of deaths?

 

Like I said, I think it needs to be put into perspective...

 

In 2009 there were 190 recorded deaths in the UK as a direct result of obesity, with a further 757 where it was a contributing factor (link)

In 2010 there were 1,850 fatalities in road accidents in the UK (link)

 

Would those resources not be better spent elsewhere?

 

how do you know it would only have been a handful ?

 

Al Qaida (or however you f**king spell it) killed over 3000 (and it could have been worse) on one day in New York when given the chance, and over 200 in Bali.

[dune]

For once I fully agree with Dune. In a few years time once us and the Yanks have pulled back the Taliban will be firmly back in control. It's been a huge waste of money and waste of both UK military and Afghan civilian lives and we'll be soon back to square one. Except this time the incentive for "revenge" for the Taliban will probably make the terrorism threat even greater. Not to mention the destabilising effect this war has had on Pakistan.

 

Nah, the Taliban are now being bought. We might not be hearing about but from the tone of recent political manoeverings you can see that is what is happening. What we've got to now accept is that they are gonna be in charge, they are going to run their affairs pretty much how they want to run them, BUT and this is the crux, because we are bribing them they will reign in elements that are looking outside of their borders. That is what could and what should have happened all along. This may sound harsh but i could not give a f/ck about womens rights etc over there - it's not our problem, all we need to worry about is us, and once we accept this we can deal with the Taliban and reach a situation that we can live with.

[View From The Top]

We went in for the right reasons. We stayed for the wrong reasons.

 

Once AQ were nullified we should have been out.

[Verbal]

Al Qaeda was driven out of Afghanistan almost a decade ago. The British and the coalition have been fighting the Taliban, who have never been a direct threat to the West, and who have never mounted any kind of attack outside of Afghanistan. (The Pakistani Taliban is different).

[dune]

Roughly the same as we did in Iraq....playing by the rules as the general public deems them and not by the dirty tricks rules of the opposition. If we want success then we have to hit the Taliban and their offshoots hard and often and stick two fingers up to

prissy home counties ladies when they start whingeing that it's not "fair play".

 

As John Lyly said back in the 16 the century "The rules of fair play do not apply in love and war".

 

If this was a fight with a simple objective to conquer then yeah, of course you must dish out some ruthless examples, but it isn't. This is a wishy washy campaign with a vague objective and that's why it is so bloody idiotic. This should not be a millitary campaign at all. All it needed was money in the pockets of certain elders and to make these elders reliant on this money to maintain their hold (and their lives). Divide and rule, divide and conquer - the British way that stood us in such good stead for years before the bloody Yanks got involved in global affairs. This would have cost peanuts and this is exactly what is going to happen now.

[Sheaf Saint]

how do you know it would only have been a handful ?

 

Al Qaida (or however you f**king spell it) killed over 3000 (and it could have been worse) on one day in New York when given the chance, and over 200 in Bali.

 

Well it's obviously impossible to quantify. But, I really do think the threat from AQ is, and always has been, overstated. Look at the events of 7/7 here... The guys who were (allegedly) responsible for it were just a bunch of disaffected British Pakistanis with no proven links to AQ. As we saw with the August riots last year, young people with very little future prospects are easily swayed into violent action, and it is my opinion that the continued presence of UK/US troops in Afghanistan is only going to generate further anger amongst the younger generation of Muslims and increase the likelihood of something like 7/7 happening again.

[Seaford Saint]

So what energy / natural resources has Uncle Sam secured in Afghanistan ?

 

Ok there is a unsubstantiated rumour about Lithium deposits, but that hasnt been proven.

 

Sorry, I know its not very PC, but the US, UK and other nations genuinely went into Afghanistan to ensure our security.

 

The two main reasons for the invasion of Afghanistan were the Caspian Sea oil/gas reserves and the supply of opium.

[alpine_saint]

The two main reasons for the invasion of Afghanistan were the Caspian Sea oil/gas reserves and the supply of opium.

 

Rubbish.

[alpine_saint]

If this was a fight with a simple objective to conquer then yeah, of course you must dish out some ruthless examples, but it isn't. This is a wishy washy campaign with a vague objective and that's why it is so bloody idiotic. This should not be a millitary campaign at all. All it needed was money in the pockets of certain elders and to make these elders reliant on this money to maintain their hold (and their lives). Divide and rule, divide and conquer - the British way that stood us in such good stead for years before the bloody Yanks got involved in global affairs. This would have cost peanuts and this is exactly what is going to happen now.

 

Either that or remove the women and children and nuke/anthrax the place so that it stops being the pimple-on-the-arse of the world once-and-for-all.

[dune]

Either that or remove the women and children and nuke/anthrax the place so that it stops being the pimple-on-the-arse of the world once-and-for-all.

 

Do you ever engage your brain before you type?

[Seaford Saint]

Rubbish.

 

OK you got me...why do you think we spent billions on this war then.....I need some amusement

 

As an intersting aside - why are people asking these questions now?

 

As another aside, do you know whether the US was planning an invasion of Afghanistan prior to 9 11?

[Window Cleaner]

Do you ever engage your brain before you type?

 

Not one of the hawks of the right wing then Dune, I thought it was quite a good idea :rolleyes:along with carpet mining the track to Waziristan

[Chez]

Yes.

haven't all the training camps just moved across into Pakistan?

[Viking Warrior]

I am deeply saddened at the loss of life yesterday, being ex service and knowing someone who is currently out in Afhan serving with the Yorkshire Regiment it was particularly worring . But I have now spoken to his wife and he is ok even though he is in a state of shock like the rest of our forces over there. but it is still hard to accept 6 guys have lost their lifes.

 

Alpine please engage your brain re the "Wonder if the Army will ever get the upgraded warriors"

 

This was a massive taliban bomb that went off under the vehicle . And whether it was state of the art it would have resulted in carnage and death.

 

I could say a lot more about your utter stupidity but whats the point . Your as bad as the taliban with your crass and insensitive comments.

 

 

Rst in Peace the Latest Casualities of OP Herrick. Gone but not forgotten

[This Charming Man]

Al Qaeda was driven out of Afghanistan almost a decade ago. The British and the coalition have been fighting the Taliban, who have never been a direct threat to the West, and who have never mounted any kind of attack outside of Afghanistan. (The Pakistani Taliban is different).

 

The only reason they're still out is because we're still there. Once we leave they'll be straight back in.

 

As someone else has stated, we went in for the right reasons and stayed for the wrong reasons. I've read a fair few books recently on the campaign in Afghan and the bit that seems the most absurd is our troops go off into villages, risk their lives (and lose their lives) to clear them of Taliban, then our troops go home at night and the Taliban walk back in and they repeat it all again the next day. All because of insufficient troop numbers to cover the ground (I'm aware that Helmand let alone Afghan is a massive area). What an utterly pointless exercise and proof if ever was needed that this is a 'war' that can never be won.

[This Charming Man]

haven't all the training camps just moved across into Pakistan?

 

Assume so, hence why the Yanks made the Pakistani Army invade the Swat Valley.

[alpine_saint]

I am deeply saddened at the loss of life yesterday, being ex service and knowing someone who is currently out in Afhan serving with the Yorkshire Regiment it was particularly worring . But I have now spoken to his wife and he is ok even though he is in a state of shock like the rest of our forces over there. but it is still hard to accept 6 guys have lost their lifes.

 

Alpine please engage your brain re the "Wonder if the Army will ever get the upgraded warriors"

 

This was a massive taliban bomb that went off under the vehicle . And whether it was state of the art it would have resulted in carnage and death.

 

I could say a lot more about your utter stupidity but whats the point . Your as bad as the taliban with your crass and insensitive comments.

 

 

Rst in Peace the Latest Casualities of OP Herrick. Gone but not forgotten

 

 

And in the case of smaller bombs, not so optimally positioned ? Are you saying the Warrior improvement project isnt going to save anyones life ? Ever ?

 

I dont believe you.

 

I am glad your friend/acquaintance is OK, and I feel for him that he has probably lost dear colleagues.

 

But give it a rest with the "engage brain" and "crass and insensitive comments" routine. You are trying to twist my words (just like you did last night trying to make out I slagged off RAF maintenance technicians and the quality of their work) and make out I am saying something tasteless when I am actually furious at the penpushers and politicians for letting our men down.

 

You may well be ex-service (curious as to where you have served on the front line though), but I am getting fed up with you trying to distort what I am saying with this "I know it all because I've been there, you know nothing" emotive b*ll*cks.

Edited 8 March, 2012 by alpine_saint

[alpine_saint]

haven't all the training camps just moved across into Pakistan?

 

Yes, but the US getting Bin Laden makes it clear that even if this is the case, its still open-season.

[norwaysaint]

The sad thing is, if it lives within its means, the west just doesn't have the resources to police the world any more. Over the next hundred years I wouldn't be surprised if the west is forced to take a less active role and the international policies of other countries start to dominate world politics more. You never know though, the west might keep living on credit to inflate its world position for years to come. Is the west the Portsmouth of world politics? Living on credit to keep in the big leagues?

 

What do I mean by "the west"? Frankly, I have no idea, but but the future world will probably be led by the Sino-Norwegian Empire.

[Saintandy666]

I see and agree with the reason we went in, to dismantle Al Qaeda as a force and organisation in the area. The government isn't much interested in telling us how we are getting on with it though. In fact, there has been barely any debate of it in the HoC.

 

It'll probably fall to pieces once we leave though. Like many areas in that region, you have governments trying to rule over 'nations' where tribal loyalty is more important.

[alpine_saint]

The sad thing is, if it lives within its means, the west just doesn't have the resources to police the world any more. Over the next hundred years I wouldn't be surprised if the west is forced to take a less active role and the international policies of other countries start to dominate world politics more. You never know though, the west might keep living on credit to inflate its world position for years to come. Is the west the Portsmouth of world politics? Living on credit to keep in the big leagues?

 

What do I mean by "the west"? Frankly, I have no idea, but but the future world will probably be led by the Sino-Norwegian Empire.

 

The problem is, who else is going to police the world ?

 

The UN and EU have never had the power and gravitas to do so. Any attempt to build international consensus is undermined out of sheer spite towards the US or from national interest in resources and influence. Take Syria as an example. The leaders of China and Russia are not interested in anything except wealth and power in an Orwellian way; they dont even give a sh*t about their own populations, so its hard seeing them taking up the mantle of benevolent world policeman.

 

India ? Maybe, but at the moment I would categorise them with Russia and China.

 

Nature abhors a vacuum, so until someone else comes forward, its going to be dwindling imperial / capitalist nations like the US, UK and France.

Edited 8 March, 2012 by alpine_saint

[alpine_saint]

I see and agree with the reason we went in, to dismantle Al Qaeda as a force and organisation in the area. The government isn't much interested in telling us how we are getting on with it though. In fact, there has been barely any debate of it in the HoC.

 

It'll probably fall to pieces once we leave though. Like many areas in that region, you have governments trying to rule over 'nations' where tribal loyalty is more important.

 

Definitely the inital cause was just, but it was just sweeping the problem under the carpet for a while. Afghanistan is ungovernable, and as soon as we all leave, matters will probably be worse than in 2001.

[Window Cleaner]

Afghanistan is ungovernable, and as soon as we all leave, matters will probably be worse than in 2001.

 

There's a NATO enquiry about to be opened concerning Afghan Air Force involvement in drug and arms smuggling.

[Verbal]

The only reason they're still out is because we're still there. Once we leave they'll be straight back in.

 

As someone else has stated, we went in for the right reasons and stayed for the wrong reasons. I've read a fair few books recently on the campaign in Afghan and the bit that seems the most absurd is our troops go off into villages, risk their lives (and lose their lives) to clear them of Taliban, then our troops go home at night and the Taliban walk back in and they repeat it all again the next day. All because of insufficient troop numbers to cover the ground (I'm aware that Helmand let alone Afghan is a massive area). What an utterly pointless exercise and proof if ever was needed that this is a 'war' that can never be won.

 

If by 'they' you mean Al Qaeda, there's good reason to think not, at least in Afghanistan. If by they you mean the Taliban, much of their support derives from a fiercely nationalistic, anti-outsider sentiment, especially among the majority Pashtuns. The West's presence as an occupying force undoubtedly strengthens the Taliban.

[SuperMikey]

Al Qaeda was driven out of Afghanistan almost a decade ago. The British and the coalition have been fighting the Taliban, who have never been a direct threat to the West, and who have never mounted any kind of attack outside of Afghanistan. (The Pakistani Taliban is different).

 

This.

[Viking Warrior]

Alpine Im not trying to twist what you are saying it the manner in which you say it.

 

Last night You appeared to have a right old dig about unserviceable aircraft. If they were that unsafe they would have been

removed from service especially after the Nimrod accident.

 

I dont know if you get BBC 3 where you are but there was an excellent programme the other night of quinteq totally rebuilding the Chinnok helicopeters to make them ready for deployment to Afghan. Total re wiring etc.

 

Its easy to blame the people in power but while some equipment is antiquated it is still serviceable, You can still get shot in the head despite body armour at the latest headwear, Likewise you can still suffer catostrophic injuries from alsort of devices.

 

I more than willing to send you a PM re my military career. Its spanned many years 24.5 years with the regulars and 18 with the TA when I retired two years ago. I was a medic for although years and have served on the front line . I was in Cyprus at the time of the troubles Three tours of NI , plus Oman and Iraq. While I am not a foot soldier I had on too many occassions had to deal with serious trauma , injuries and illness oh and death , I was 17th when I first had to give medical support on my own following a military vehicle accident on the way to an exercise in the South of france 3 dead soldiers one decapitated and one seriously injured. So please do not doubt my pedigree as a medic

 

I will try in future to try and understand what you are trying to communicate

 

AsI said I will PM you my full military experience if you require it

Edited 8 March, 2012 by Viking Warrior

[dune]

In fact, there has been barely any debate of it in the HoC.

 

Has it been discussed on Question Time?

[Verbal]

Alpine Im not trying to twist what you are saying it the manner in which you say it.

 

Last night You appeared to have a right old dig about unserviceable aircraft. If they were that unsafe they would have been

removed from service especially after the Nimrod accident.

 

I dont know if you get BBC 3 where you are but there was an excellent programme the other night of quinteq totally rebuilding the Chinnok helicopeters to make them ready for deployment to Afghan. Total re wiring etc.

 

Its easy to blame the people in power but while some equipment is antiquated it is still serviceable, You can still get shot in the head despite body armour at the latest headwear, Likewise you can still suffer catostrophic injuries from alsort of devices.

 

I more than willing to send you a PM re my military career. Its spanned many years 24.5 years with the regulars and 18 with the TA when I retired two years ago. I was a medic for although years and have served on the front line . I was in Cyprus at the time of the troubles Three tours of NI , plus Oman and Iraq. While I am not a foot soldier I had on too many occassions had to deal with serious trauma , injuries and illness oh and death , I was 17th when I first had to give medical support on my own following a military vehicle accident on the way to an exercise in the South of france 3 dead soldiers one decapitated and one seriously injured. So please do not doubt my pedigree as a medic

 

I will try in future to try and understand what you are trying to communicate

 

AsI said I will PM you my full military experience if you require it

 

You have the patience of a saint.

[derry]

I was talking to a relation of my wife's in the summer. He is a Maj Gen, ex SAS commander of special forces under Patreus in Iraq, just turned down the offer of a divisional command in US. Under his last command was the unmanned aircraft in Afghanistan. His view was that it was an unwinnable situation. There is a season and a lot of the opposition on the ground just come in for the season, then if they aren't killed go home and next season another lot come in. Corruption is endemic and the Taliban will take over when the occupation ends.

[Verbal]

Has it been discussed on Question Time?

 

Anyone who walks around with the name of Tristram and flogs cigarettes for a living has little room left to mock.

 

Why don't you stop trying to hijack this thread into another 'look at me' nonsense?

[dune]

Anyone who walks around with the name of Tristram and flogs cigarettes for a living has little room left to mock.

 

Why don't you stop trying to hijack this thread into another 'look at me' nonsense?

 

Are you expecting me to believe you don't take centre stage at your group therapy sessions?

[Viking Warrior]

Derry . That is spot on with what your relation has said . As part of the clinical faculty preparing our doctors and nurses for deployment in afghan we would get the updated intel . There are many hard line Taliban that fight year round but many more appear as the warmer weathers come its almost as if they head to afghan for their summer vacation . So much corruption abounds with the war lords . I could post pictures on here about the war lords escapades but it isn't that sort of site . The war is unwinnable due tho the constant seasonal influx of jihad warriors . We are doing good stuff over there but when we leave I think it will soon descend into an ungovernable country , shame as with out the war it is an amazing country . Oh Iran was behind a lot of the atrocities in Iraq and still are

[sandwichsaint]

I couldn't claim to be any great shakes at history but am i right in thinking that Afghanistan have never been beaten at home?

[Chez]

Yes, but the US getting Bin Laden makes it clear that even if this is the case, its still open-season.

not sure what you mean, but I thought the whole point of us being in Afghanistan was to hunt and destroy Al Qaeda training camps. If they have all moved to Pakistan, haven't we completed our mission?

 

The mission seems to have evolved into fighting the Taliban to `free' the country. Even if we `won' and created a country that would never again be suitable for training camps, what would be the point if they had slide-ruled into Pakistan? Are we going to invade Pakistan to ensure its not a breading ground for Al Qaeda too? Of course not, so I simply do not know why we are still there.

[dune]

I couldn't claim to be any great shakes at history but am i right in thinking that Afghanistan have never been beaten at home?

 

Alexander the Great conquered Afghanistan but never managed to subdue it's people. Sound familiar?

[suewhistle]

I'm not sure we should be there, but if we start to get more refugees from there as a result I hope all of you who are against involvement will support their presence in the UK. A few year ago as an ESOL (English) teacher in the UK I had female Afghani students and from what I learnt I'd rather not have any more.

[Jonnyboy]

Very easy to say it isnt worth it when its impossible to estimate how many lives have been saved by the interruption in lanning by terrorist groups based in Afghanistan.

 

Any evidence for this, any trials? Anyone imprisoned for planning attacks on British soil from their bases in the Afghan wilderness?

 

"It's impossible to estimate how many lives have been saved" (great way to plan foreign policy)

[Jonnyboy]

I'm not sure we should be there, but if we start to get more refugees from there as a result I hope all of you who are against involvement will support their presence in the UK. A few year ago as an ESOL (English) teacher in the UK I had female Afghani students and from what I learnt I'd rather not have any more.

 

The more involvement we have there, the more likely we are to let in more refugees is my impression.

[dune]

For those who like history. Click next at the bottom right to move through the ages.

 

http://www.afghan-web.com/history/chron/index.html