opinions4u Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 What is the purpose of our troops being there? I don't think I've ever quite understood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevie_J Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 What is the purpose of our troops being there? I don't think I've ever quite understood. To satisfy the Yanks' desire to fight back against someone, anyone, post 9/11? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted March 11, 2012 Author Share Posted March 11, 2012 To satisfy the Yanks' desire to fight back against someone, anyone, post 9/11? Yeah and apparently it makes things safer in Britain having troops in Afghanistan. How? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lukers1 Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 What is the purpose of our troops being there? I don't think I've ever quite understood. I agree, what a waste... Bring the lads home... NOW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Yeah and apparently it makes things safer in Britain having troops in Afghanistan. How? The theory peddled by the Yanks and our Leaders is that we're fighting potential Terrorist before they can reach us. In reality it's a continuation of the Military Industrial Complex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 It was probably credible to say that their were terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and that various terrorist attrocities had links to the camps there. This at least was something that Putin agreed with. The plan was to get rid of terrorist and Taliban influence there to stop such training from going on, this has probably suceeded to a certain extent and now they are trying to stop this from ever happening again by providing stability to the region. This of course is a lot harder to achieve. The other side of the coin is that there seems to be other areas where Al Quaida/Muslim Extremists seem to have taken hold which perhaps has made the situation worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted March 12, 2012 Author Share Posted March 12, 2012 In reality it's a continuation of the Military Industrial Complex. "The best way to revitalize the economy is war, and the U.S. has grown stronger with war." While my politics are probably somewhere to the right (albeit overlaid with huge doses of cynicism), that is a pathetic philosophy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 (edited) "The best way to revitalize the economy is war, and the U.S. has grown stronger with war." While my politics are probably somewhere to the right (albeit overlaid with huge doses of cynicism), that is a pathetic philosophy. In a nutshell... At the conclusion of WWII there was only one winner, Europe was bankrupt and destroyed, America was booming through supplying most of the heavy industry, weapons, vehicles, shipping, food etc that helped the Allies win. Most of Europe and parts of Asia would need to borrow money from America to rebuild and be in debt for decades to come. (As long as they didn't turn Red of course…) Similar is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, a war is fought, get rid of the 'baddy' terrorist hoarding regime you don't want - trash the infrastructure (Shock and Awe), secure the natural resources (Gas and Oil pipelines) and help 'rebuild' the countries with lucrative contracts awarded to Western construction companies for roads, bridges, pipelines, utility, telecommunications, security consultancies, pharmaceutical companies building hospitals… all worth billions of $$$$$$ to the highest bidder, and if you're to believe Michael Moore (I take him with a pinch of salt) one or two companies that old Dubya's linked to has made some of those Billions to pour into his retirement pot. War over the last 80 years or so has been pretty lucrative for Uncle Sam. Edited March 12, 2012 by oafcprozac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 But just get our lads out now, when lads of 19 and 20 are dying or getting horribly maimed and no-one can give you a definitive reason why or what they are fighting for, then as everyone knows, this war is wrong. The Soviet machine left with its tail between its legs bankrupt, no one has ever completely tamed Afghanistan the history is there to be read. The whole damn war is futile, and creating more fundamentalists than it is nullifying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 What is the purpose of our troops being there? Politics. And I'm not just pointing out a von Clausewitz quote either. He was nuts. The ISAF website will tell you that the 'international effort' is making Afghanistan a safer Afghanistan, and I quote: 'In support of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, ISAF conducts operations in Afghanistan to reduce the capability and will of the insurgency, support the growth in capacity and capability of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), and facilitate improvements in governance and socio-economic development in order to provide a secure environment for sustainable stability that is observable to the population.' Which is great on paper, however try telling that to the families who were slaughtered by the rogue US soldier; a difficult policy to implement under those circumstances. I'll get the thread started now for Iran, we might as well get a head start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 The fact that they had to invent (and still go on about) this mythical Al Queda thing shows that it was all false pretences. 9/11 was planned in Germany and carried out by Saudis. And the Taliban never had any interests outside their borders, they were all set to hand Bin Laden over to the Saudis until Clinton bombed them. Hope the troops are back asap and the Afghans can get on with killing each other instead of killing them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted March 12, 2012 Author Share Posted March 12, 2012 Hope the troops are back asap and the Afghans can get on with killing each other instead of killing them. I remember some hack once writing "the only thing the Afghans enjoy more than killing each other is killing foreigners ...". I'm still trying to work out the strategic relevance of Afghanistan. I suppose it's a potentially decent place for a gas / oil pipeline. I can't really get much further than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 I'm still trying to work out the strategic relevance of Afghanistan. I suppose it's a potentially decent place for a gas / oil pipeline. I can't really get much further than that. Historically the main point of getting involved there was to deny it to Russia. The British Empirt used it both as a buffer preventing Russia threatening India and against them gaining influence in Iran, which we were also trying to get our hands on. It was access to Iran that was behind the Russians more recent attempt there. Nowadays there is talk that the country may have a shot load of resources itself. But I honestly feel that the US drive behind this mission was that SOMEBODY was going to get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beag_teeets Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Much like your grandad on his birthday, I'm not for pulling out till the job is done. I'd written a long piece this morning about how the west gave Bin Laden his grievance by putting troops in Saudi before the first Iraq conflict and then failed to read the signs of the nebulous Al-Qaeda grouping until the USS Cole was hit. I don't like being a conspiracy nut so I don't really believe that Sept 11th 2001 was an inside job, incompetence, too much self belief and a misguided foreign policy geared around the wrong set of people of arabic origin allowed Sept 11th to happen. But LL has pretty much nailed what I wanted to say in a few lines. I did add that the job that has been done changing the fear from the reds under the bed to "terrorists" would make Saachi proud. The threat is from Islamic fundamentalists who just like the IRA and other groups use terrorist methods, the threat isn't from terrorists it is from people willing to use these terrorist methods. In the same way as the nutjobs who send devices to people who work in abortion clinics are terrorists but they are also Christian fundamentalists, or fanatics. We got our ass whooped in Afghanistan, as did the Russians and as are the American led coalition currently there, one of the reasons for this is we no longer have the stomach for losses, we used to bury our dead in the lands where they fell, I think this policy changed during the Suez conflict but I could be mistaken, the sight of coffins is always a game changer. The only way a favourable outcome for the US-led coalition could be achieved is if they drastically ramp up the troops numbers and scale up the operation. This won't happen as it increases the cost and the numbers of losses, it would also require expanding the mission into Pakistan, major scope-creep. But what is the mission? What is a favourable outcome? Like it or not and I don't think I actually do, it is the establishment of a west-leaning, democratically elected government based on capitalism. There isn't an alternative, a workers co-op or an Islamic state will not be tolerated by the US regardless of what the candidates say in November's election. However, it is unlikely that this is achievable. The current plan is to pull out by 2014, if troop levels are maintained at their current level until then then I think we are looking at a few hundred more western deaths, several thousands or Afghani and foreign fighters deaths and the establishment of a rogue state sponsoring anti-western movements for the next 50 or so years or until the west decides to act again and have another pop at the godforsaken place. We went into Afghanistan for the wrong reasons, mostly revenge and the desire to be seen to do something and we are going to pull out for the wrong reasons, we're losing, lack of ambition, lack of a plan(s) (pre, during and post invasion). I believe it would be a mistake to leave without a proper endgame, it would be wrong for those who already have died and it would be wrong for the Afghan people who we would be cutting a drift. This is a far from ideal world, all too often easy answers are sought and required action baulked at as it is a bit difficult, the short term gain of ending the trickle of coffins is far outweighed by what would come next if we took the easy option here. One thing we have also failed to do is deal with the heroin trade, we should have bought the farmers off whilst we are there, either buying their crops for medical purposes like we did with Turkish poppy farmers or subsidised them to grow corn or bio-fuels or something. The war on drugs has been as successful as the war on terror, dealing with the heroin problem at source is the only way to deal with it, the cost wouldn't have been prohibitive, not when you take into account the savings from the police and medical budgets. As for Iran, Ahmadinejad is as big a nutjob as they come, sooner or later a response will be needed, the longer we leave it the bigger the response required will be. The best we can hope for is a popular uprising toppling him but as Asad is showing, not everywhere in the middle east took part in "The Arab Spring" successfully. There are no easy answers to the issues this planet has, peace love and everything will be groovy doesn't work as sooner or later someone isn't groovy. Charging round like a bull in a china shop doesn't work either as a bigger bull isn't too far away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Historically the main point of getting involved there was to deny it to Russia. The British Empirt used it both as a buffer preventing Russia threatening India and against them gaining influence in Iran, which we were also trying to get our hands on. It was access to Iran that was behind the Russians more recent attempt there. Nowadays there is talk that the country may have a shot load of resources itself. But I honestly feel that the US drive behind this mission was that SOMEBODY was going to get it. It's strategic (Afghanistan) diminished somewhat when the Central (Eur)Asian Republics gained their independence in the early 90s, but the pipelines are as good a reason as any as well as trying to wave their Yankee cocks at the pesky Ruskies to say, you couldn't do it, but we can…..erm….make a bugger :censored:ing mess than you did! Perhaps they should have just sent Rambo in…. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 It's strategic (Afghanistan) diminished somewhat when the Central (Eur)Asian Republics gained their independence in the early 90s, but the pipelines are as good a reason as any as well as trying to wave their Yankee cocks at the pesky Ruskies to say, you couldn't do it, but we can…..erm….make a bugger :censored:ing mess than you did! Perhaps they should have just sent Rambo in…. Completely different ideal I know, and much more money, power and influence at stake than in Vietnam, but you'd think the Yanks would have learned their lesson about waging unwinnable wars. As for us, we should have been out years ago…... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crusoe Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 On the Russian misadventure in Afghanistan, I can recommend Rodric Braithwaite's Afgantsy. The long and short of it was that they knew it would end badly, knew they'd end up being the bad guys regardless of what they did, and wanted to steer well clear, but were suckered in when the incumbent embarrassed them and started making waves. He killed the Soviets' preferred choice as leader, was giving communism a bad name (yep, they were worried about that kind of thing) and generally flicking V's at Brezhnev et al. They thought, wrongly, that they could get him out, hand power back over to a safe candidate, settle things down, then bugger off again. Sounds familiar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 (edited) Much like your grandad on his birthday, I'm not for pulling out till the job is done. I'd written a long piece this morning about how the west gave Bin Laden his grievance by putting troops in Saudi before the first Iraq conflict and then failed to read the signs of the nebulous Al-Qaeda grouping until the USS Cole was hit. I don't like being a conspiracy nut so I don't really believe that Sept 11th 2001 was an inside job, incompetence, too much self belief and a misguided foreign policy geared around the wrong set of people of arabic origin allowed Sept 11th to happen. But LL has pretty much nailed what I wanted to say in a few lines. Bin Laden, offered the Kuwaitis all the resources they needed to help the effort against the Iraqi invasion, sensibly they decided to ask the West for help, Bin Laden was pissed off at Allied forces being stationed on sacred Saudi land, he swore Jihad against the west. Bin Laden was always on the periphery but Clinton could have taken him out on numerous occasions, instead he chose the softly, softly approach, preferring to tackle the Northern Irish question. As for 9/11, there's too many unanswered questions, such as the buildings coming towards the end of their useful lives, the fat insurance policies taken out not long before and despite what the counter-conspiracists say, it looked like a demolition job. The owner of WTC Larry Silverstein is as dodgy as they come. He's made a fortune on top of his vast wealth off the perceived atrocity. I did add that the job that has been done changing the fear from the reds under the bed to "terrorists" would make Saachi proud. The threat is from Islamic fundamentalists who just like the IRA and other groups use terrorist methods, the threat isn't from terrorists it is from people willing to use these terrorist methods. In the same way as the nutjobs who send devices to people who work in abortion clinics are terrorists but they are also Christian fundamentalists, or fanatics. It's the old bogeyman, what you can't see scares you, let's play on people's fears and in the process marginalise half the world in one swipe. The 'wars' in Iraq and Afghanistan have helped helped radicalise more Muslims than Bin Laden, Al Queada and The Talibian could have dreamed of. The mad yank who shot 16 innocent Afghans this weekend again provides more reasoning for those taking up arms against Western forces We got our ass whooped in Afghanistan, as did the Russians and as are the American led coalition currently there, one of the reasons for this is we no longer have the stomach for losses, we used to bury our dead in the lands where they fell, I think this policy changed during the Suez conflict but I could be mistaken, the sight of coffins is always a game changer. The only way a favourable outcome for the US-led coalition could be achieved is if they drastically ramp up the troops numbers and scale up the operation. This won't happen as it increases the cost and the numbers of losses, it would also require expanding the mission into Pakistan, major scope-creep. [i ]As Pakistan is seen as friendly to the West it gets off lightly, but areas of it are a hot bed for terrorism, the country has become increasingly unstable and personally if the West did want tackle Islamic Fundamentalism head on then Pakistan should have been targeted first. However, Britain and America with large Pakistani populations would see heavy civil unrest[/i] But what is the mission? What is a favourable outcome? Like it or not and I don't think I actually do, it is the establishment of a west-leaning, democratically elected government based on capitalism. There isn't an alternative, a workers co-op or an Islamic state will not be tolerated by the US regardless of what the candidates say in November's election. However, it is unlikely that this is achievable. The current plan is to pull out by 2014, if troop levels are maintained at their current level until then then I think we are looking at a few hundred more western deaths, several thousands or Afghani and foreign fighters deaths and the establishment of a rogue state sponsoring anti-western movements for the next 50 or so years or until the west decides to act again and have another pop at the godforsaken place. We went into Afghanistan for the wrong reasons, mostly revenge and the desire to be seen to do something and we are going to pull out for the wrong reasons, we're losing, lack of ambition, lack of a plan(s) (pre, during and post invasion). I believe it would be a mistake to leave without a proper endgame, it would be wrong for those who already have died and it would be wrong for the Afghan people who we would be cutting a drift. This is a far from ideal world, all too often easy answers are sought and required action baulked at as it is a bit difficult, the short term gain of ending the trickle of coffins is far outweighed by what would come next if we took the easy option here. I agree with then notion of revenge but the West also saw an opportunity to gain the upper hand in the fight for ever diminishing natural resources, America is thirsty for oil, so is Britain and Europe. With China buying up South America's resources piece by piece there's very little of the world left to exploit with ready to seize Black Gold. I can only guess why Blair decided to go in, I think he wanted a legacy, he wanted his Thatcher moment, instead he's seen as a :censored:ing idiot! Not the man that ordered the rebuilding of Britain's crumbling Health and Education infrastructure (Ok the kids know :censored: all when they leave school (Not my fault, we do what we can, but half the time you just look at the parents and know the kid's are fooked!), and patients are still left to rot but at least they are warm and dry! One thing we have also failed to do is deal with the heroin trade, we should have bought the farmers off whilst we are there, either buying their crops for medical purposes like we did with Turkish poppy farmers or subsidised them to grow corn or bio-fuels or something. The war on drugs has been as successful as the war on terror, dealing with the heroin problem at source is the only way to deal with it, the cost wouldn't have been prohibitive, not when you take into account the savings from the police and medical budgets. The problem is the same as it is in South America, the borders are pretty much unpatrollable and the drugs mules are able to get into Pakistan where it is sent on to Europe and the rest of the World. The farmers like in South America have little choice to grow the poppies as its their only income. If the West cannot provide Afghanis other crops that will grow and make enough to feed their families, then it'll never end. Education will work to a certain extent, but people that literally live hand to mouth need to feed their families As for Iran, Ahmadinejad is as big a nutjob as they come, sooner or later a response will be needed, the longer we leave it the bigger the response required will be. The best we can hope for is a popular uprising toppling him but as Asad is showing, not everywhere in the middle east took part in "The Arab Spring" successfully. Ahmadinejad is a proper head the ball, but Iran are no mugs and a powerful state, with a good army, decent navy and all the trimmings. If the West attacked Iran, Israel would be razed to the ground, so yes regime change from within is the likely solution. Personally if the Nuclear Plants are for energy then good luck to them, but Israel do not want to take the risk. I'd be just as worried at Pakistan already having the nukes, i'm not worried about North Korea, their infrastructure died with the USSR. So the way to go in Iran is increasing sanctions, make the innocent suffer and hopefully they'll rise against Ahmadinejad, but its risky as you are again creating resentment towards the West. There are no easy answers to the issues this planet has, peace love and everything will be groovy doesn't work as sooner or later someone isn't groovy. Charging round like a bull in a china shop doesn't work either as a bigger bull isn't too far away. Send Chuck Norris in, he'll sort it Edited March 13, 2012 by oafcprozac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Ritchie Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Oil = power = money Making people act funny. Making American's act Gunny Gunny. Just finished reading a book about the Soviet's war in Afghanistan and the American involvment behind the scenes in that. We need to take the Brits out of Afghanistan. We need to Walk out of Iraq. America need to stop pushing their beliefs on others. We need to stop following America around like a bunch of Groupies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Burns Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Unwinnable war. Theyve never lost. Get out now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Will the lads and lasses want to come home, if it means that they have no job at the end? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Oil = power = money There's not much oil in Afghanistan. An oil pipeline has some strategic significance, however I don't think it has any wells of yield or any areas of worthy expedition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 The way I see it we really are there for two valid reasons: The first and most obvious one is terrorism. The view points being expressed back in 2001 are very different than the popular truth which put forward today. We really couldn't sit back while terrorist groups coordinated attacks against the "west" from a terrorist utopia. We really are there because of the terrorist threat. Admittedly that threat has wained now and we will pull out and the country will go to :censored: again. But who gives a :censored: (I do actually but I don't think most people really do), the Taliban aren't terrorists, they are just :censored:. And the evidence would suggest the majority of afghans are happy to be ruled by them. The second is of course power and control in the region. Its all about controlling and interfering with the balance of power in the whole region, which the yanks, Russia and Us have always played games over. There is a popular truth that its all for nothing but that is bollocks. It is for something.. It really is to fight terrorist... But its stupid to ignore that terrorism comes out because of the second point. But without the second point the stature of America, Britain and the whole of europe is damaged. What we really should do is stabilise Afghanistan and :censored: of out of the region and leave it to itself. But we won't... and I am not sure the majority of the UK actually want that either. Oh of course when we see dead bodies coming home, and the nightly news stories of x number of civilians killed we do... But the reality is this countries wealth has been propped up the state sanctioned murder of people in a far off land and control of their countries for a very long time. Sitting back and letting the likes of Iran become the superpower they could well be will be at the expense of our country. The control of oil, the billions we make from arms deals and so on and so forth... Blah... its all :censored:ed up... but its keeps a lot of use in jobs and the expense of others... Inconvenient truth... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 (edited) There's not much oil in Afghanistan. An oil pipeline has some strategic significance, however I don't think it has any wells of yield or any areas of worthy expedition. I was about to say that... Its kind of a mute point though... While I believe our primary focus was terrorism when we went in, the bigger and older issue of controlling and influencing the region is directly related to oil, and its that which has partly fuelled the terrorism. So its always comes back to oil in some round about way... But I wish people would stop being so naive though... In the future, as that black stuff runs out, you might thank past governments for making sure our supply of it doesn't run out has other countries taps are turned off... Edited March 13, 2012 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 (edited) Unwinnable war. Theyve never lost. Get out now. I would say the Wests control of that region has actually been very good so far... Iran and Iraq would have WMDs by now and be beyond the wests control if we hadn't played the games we have been playing over the last 200 years... The long term plan was never to stay there... Edited March 13, 2012 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.