Jump to content

Afghanistan


whelk
 Share

Recommended Posts

Are all the pacifists who never want any interference in other countries sparing a thought the poor Afghanis left to be terrified by brutal religious rule?

Personally I think disgraceful pulling out so abruptly. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's despairing for the people of Afghanistan. 

It's also an incredible waste of life and money (stats below) - all that loss and for what? Imagine the problems that could have been solved with all that cash. 

2,312 - The number of US personnel killed

20,660 - The number of US personnel injured

$776bn - The official estimated cost of US operations since 2001

456 - The number of British deaths in Afghanistan since 2001

64,100 - The estimated number of Afghan military and police killed, 2001-19 (Source: Brown University)

111,000 - Number of civilians killed or injured (Source: UN)

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, whelk said:

Are all the pacifists who never want any interference in other countries sparing a thought the poor Afghanis left to be terrified by brutal religious rule?

Personally I think disgraceful pulling out so abruptly. 

There was no 'pulling out abruptly'.

In 2010, NATO signed a declaration agreeing to hand over full responsitbility for security in Afghanistan to Afghan forces by the end of 2014.  It still took another six and a half years to achieve that goal, not sure how that can be considered 'abrupt'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Weston Super Saint said:

There was no 'pulling out abruptly'.

In 2010, NATO signed a declaration agreeing to hand over full responsitbility for security in Afghanistan to Afghan forces by the end of 2014.  It still took another six and a half years to achieve that goal, not sure how that can be considered 'abrupt'.

Yeah all gone to plan has it?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Barak Obama told the international community that the war in Afghanistan "had been won"

🤔

It’s reasonable to say the war was won, sadly as so often the peace was lost aka WW1 / WW2, Iraq, and many more.  Trump pulled out for political gain not for a safer world, the US led coalition started it but sadly as in so many cases they were unable to complete it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, moonraker said:

It’s reasonable to say the war was won, sadly as so often the peace was lost aka WW1 / WW2, Iraq, and many more.  Trump pulled out for political gain not for a safer world, the US led coalition started it but sadly as in so many cases they were unable to complete it.

The war was won, in respect that the US/UK needed to remain for another generation.  Very strange victory, don't you think?

 

 

Edited by AlexLaw76
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Nope.

Although what that's got to do with your claim that it was abrupt, I have no idea.

Abruptly in that the poor fuckers haven’t a chance. against the Taliban, They were obviously not wanting to be there for ever but have just chosen for political reasons to leave.  No need to Google UN resolutions for me,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The taliban are running riot. It would also appear that the uk government are also making it difficult for the poor translators that helped British forces to gain entry to to uk after assuring them they would. 
 

Bang out of order, theirs and their families blood will be everywhere and they’ll be singled out for special treatment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

32 minutes ago, Raging Bull said:

The taliban are running riot. It would also appear that the uk government are also making it difficult for the poor translators that helped British forces to gain entry to to uk after assuring them they would. 
 

Bang out of order, theirs and their families blood will be everywhere and they’ll be singled out for special treatment. 

Echos of Vietnam when the US fled...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, whelk said:

Abruptly in that the poor fuckers haven’t a chance. against the Taliban, They were obviously not wanting to be there for ever but have just chosen for political reasons to leave.  No need to Google UN resolutions for me,

Not sure you really understand what the word 'abruptly' means!

The withdrawal has been over 10 years in the making with billions of dollars / pounds spent training the local security forces to give them the skills needed to fend for themelves.  At some point we were always going to be leaving Afghanistan to look after itself.

Maybe there is a wider question around whether or not we should have been meddling in how Afghanistan is run in the first place?

Who knows, maybe the history books (probably in the next year or so!), will declare the 'occupation' of Afghanistan by predominantly white / Western countries as a Racist suppression and reparations will be demanded to compensate for the Western forces being there in the first place!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is weird how the Yanks seem happy to let the country go back to how it was after so much has been invested in it, but I guess in the current situation it's politically toxic to be throwing money and lives away on such a cause. The very least they should have done is left it in a situation where it can adequately defend itself but it appears this is not the case.

Occupying the country is never going to be a long-term solution so I guess this is something that was always going to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Historically Afghanistan has been a country run by tribal warlords, and only superficially governed centrally. It has also been the graveyard of just about every armed intervention. ( There was a British army that marched in, and 1 man got back).

The Taliban is not a single entity. It is a loose alliance of militias bound by a conservative interpretation of Islam. Once they have control they will start squabbling amongst themselves.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Historically Afghanistan has been a country run by tribal warlords, and only superficially governed centrally. It has also been the graveyard of just about every armed intervention. ( There was a British army that marched in, and 1 man got back).

The Taliban is not a single entity. It is a loose alliance of militias bound by a conservative interpretation of Islam. Once they have control they will start squabbling amongst themselves.

 

Not to mention the Russians!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Around $1 trillion has been spent on war (US + allies costs) 20 years wasted and thousands of people are dead. The entire GDP of Afghanistan is $20 billion.

We could have pumped in $20 billion pa on education and infrastructure for 20 years, saved $600bn and countless lives and probably had a more stable country. .    

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, buctootim said:

Around $1 trillion has been spent on war (US + allies costs) 20 years wasted and thousands of people are dead. The entire GDP of Afghanistan is $20 billion.

We could have pumped in $20 billion pa on education and infrastructure for 20 years, saved $600bn and countless lives and probably had a more stable country. .    

Possibly, but the first step in any US answer to an international problem is to unleash their B-52s and blanket bomb the other side. Remember, the current situation started because the Taliban, or at least one of the factions, were sheltering Bin Laden. ( And of course, who armed the Talibannies and OBL in the first place ? The Yanks because they were fighting the Commies Russians ).

Edited by badgerx16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, whelk said:

4A09C202-5BC3-4F1B-B488-D297C5D55FCF.jpeg

The problem from day one of the international intervention was always going to be how to disengage. Afghanistn is not a "Failed State", it is not possible for it become a Viable State because of the tribalism and factionalism across the country, and conesequently no single person or group can unite to govern and control. In the last few days the current leader of the country has flown to a northern district capital to try to persuade two local warlords to join the national army in opposing the Taliban - two leaders who he had previously deliberately sidelined and ignored, preferring to impose his favourites from elsewhere onto the regional Government, Police, and military leadership.

Many of the people in rural and remote areas are extremely 'conservative' in their beliefs and resent / resist Western influences, which they see as being imnposed by an out of touch cabal in Kabul.

Edited by badgerx16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

28000 US troops remain in South Korea, in a couple of days there will be 0 in Afghanistan.

There are 35,000 US troops in Germany and over 9,000 US troops in the UK.

The argument seems to be that US / UK / NATO troops should remain in Afghanistan because we don't like the current regime running the country / about to take control.  Why is no-one arguing for US troops to invade North Korea or China using the same criteria?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

There are 35,000 US troops in Germany and over 9,000 US troops in the UK.

The argument seems to be that US / UK / NATO troops should remain in Afghanistan because we don't like the current regime running the country / about to take control.  Why is no-one arguing for US troops to invade North Korea or China using the same criteria?

Yeah but we essentially got involved because we didn't like the regime. Ditto Iraq. Ditto Syria. Sadly we'll never stop meddling in other countries internal affairs. 

North Korea will be left alone as the possibly have a nuke, hence the economic sanctions. China are too big to be touched by anyone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, egg said:

Yeah but we essentially got involved because we didn't like the regime. Ditto Iraq. Ditto Syria. Sadly we'll never stop meddling in other countries internal affairs. 

North Korea will be left alone as the possibly have a nuke, hence the economic sanctions. China are too big to be touched by anyone. 

We got involved with Afghanistan because the Taliban were supporters of Al-Qaeda providing them a base for operations following 911, we leant our support to the US as part of NATO.  Iraq was about oil, despite Blair's claims.  Syria, frankly, was none of our business.

If we're not prepared to push North Korea around (because they may have nukes) or China or Russia because they are too big to be touched, we also have no business pushing smaller countries around because we don't like the way they are being run.  It's not the place of the US or UK to dictate how independent countries should be run!  We don't interfere with Qatar, in fact we actively support them, despite their human rights atrocities! (Although I think we both broadly agree on the principle of letting countries Govern themselves!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

We got involved with Afghanistan because the Taliban were supporters of Al-Qaeda providing them a base for operations following 911, we leant our support to the US as part of NATO.  Iraq was about oil, despite Blair's claims.  Syria, frankly, was none of our business.

If we're not prepared to push North Korea around (because they may have nukes) or China or Russia because they are too big to be touched, we also have no business pushing smaller countries around because we don't like the way they are being run.  It's not the place of the US or UK to dictate how independent countries should be run!  We don't interfere with Qatar, in fact we actively support them, despite their human rights atrocities! (Although I think we both broadly agree on the principle of letting countries Govern themselves!).

I agree with your sentiments, we're not here to police the world, smash countries up, walk away. Afghanistan was about regime change though (the Taliban) but 911 was the catalyst. Our middle east meddling is a mess and all designed to have multiple opponent's to Iran. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Trump signed the withdrawal agreement.

Biden was spouting bollocks about how the Afghan army was strong enough to resist. 
Trump was a clown, Biden knows better.

 

Edited by whelk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, whelk said:

Biden was spouting bollocks about how the Afghan army was strong enough to resist. 
Trump was a clown, Biden knows better.

 

 

16 minutes ago, Picard said:

Biden has done nothing but reverse Trump policies since he got in office!

When Biden became President there were less than 5000 US troops in Afghanistan. What was he supposed to do - send more back in in violation of Trump's agreement ? That would have given the Taliban a green light to break their ceasfire.

Edited by badgerx16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

 

Wen Biden became President there were less than 5000 US troops in Afghanistan. What was he supposed to do - send more back in in violation of Trump's agreement ? That would have given the Taliban a green light to break their ceasfire.

Be some great comfort to the people like the lady below to tell the there was fuck all could do. This makes me sick. We caused it and have just left the poor people to a wretched situation. TBH you and Weston can call up all the apologies and wash your hands and  mention parallels but morality of this is a disgrace.
 

 

Edited by whelk
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, whelk said:

Be some great comfort to the people like the lady below to tell the there was fuck all could do. This makes me sick. We caused it and have just left the poor people to a wretched situation. TBH you and Weston can call up all the apologies and wash your hands and  mention parallels. 
 

 

Where have I shown myself to be an apologist ? Everything I have posted on this thread has been fact rather than opinion. Afghanistan is a non-state due to tribal factionalism. Are you suggesting that we and the US should have continued to send our military to an unwinnable war in perpetuity ?

Edited by badgerx16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Where have I shown myself to be an apologist ? Everything I have posted on this thread has been fact rather than opinion. Afghanistan is a non-state due to tribal factionalism. Are you suggesting that we and the US should have continued to send our military to an unwinnable war in perpetuity ?

He is, because he's a thick cunt that doesn't understand how the region works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Weston Super Saint said:

He is, because he's a thick cunt that doesn't understand how the region works.

Carry on your research sunshine makes you look v bright. Maybe I should stop reading New Yorker and plenty of other respectable analysis and listen to your whataboutery and realise it was inevitable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Where have I shown myself to be an apologist ? Everything I have posted on this thread has been fact rather than opinion. Afghanistan is a non-state due to tribal factionalism. Are you suggesting that we and the US should have continued to send our military to an unwinnable war in perpetuity ?

It is not about winning it is about not leaving people abandoned when we have encouraged and now leave them defenceless. It’s the morality but if you don’t see it you don’t see it. Glory be to the commendable Biden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, whelk said:

It is not about winning it is about not leaving people abandoned when we have encouraged and now leave them defenceless. It’s the morality but if you don’t see it you don’t see it. Glory be to the commendable Biden.

Come on then. Why slate Biden for pulling out 5000 troops when his predecessor pulled out twice as many and signed the agreement with the Taliban. As I asked previously, given the withdrawal agreement had been signed and with public opinion supporting it, what was Biden supposed to do ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

Come on then. Why slate Biden for pulling out 5000 troops when his predecessor pulled out twice as many and signed the agreement with the Taliban. As I asked previously, given the withdrawal agreement had been signed and with public opinion supporting it, what was Biden supposed to do ?

Be better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Correct. Reports that local police, armed forces and politicians welcoming the Taliban with open arms. Sounds like the country has spoken about who it wants to control it....

Including the Taliban sleepers who have infiltrated them. A lot of people are welcoming them back because they see them as being straight dealing, as opposed to the heavily corrupt regime we were propping up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Correct. Reports that local police, armed forces and politicians welcoming the Taliban with open arms. Sounds like the country has spoken about who it wants to control it....

I am sure you will relate to the collaborator spirit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, badgerx16 said:

Including the Taliban sleepers who have infiltrated them. A lot of people are welcoming them back because they see them as being straight dealing, as opposed to the heavily corrupt regime we were propping up.

Ohh so now the Taliban are the good guys. All very planned. Goodo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...