Afghanistan

Quote:

---

The Independent: Prime Minister Gordon Brown defended Britain's military mission in Afghanistan today, insisting "we cannot, must not and will not walk away".

In a high-profile speech in London, hastily arranged following a series of British deaths in Afghanistan this week, Mr Brown said the military action in the country was "our first line of defence" against terror attacks at home.

---

I never believed in this war, but at least it's not my native country fighting.
I certainly did not support the USSR going there either, but at least there was a certain degree of logic in wanting order and a friendly regime at ones own national border. But Afghanistan is nowhere near the UK or US.

How is this war going to "stop terrorism in the UK and the US"?
If Afghanistan itself was the problem, then a solution would have been a full entry-ban and rejection of all visa applications from Afghans... Then let the MI5 investigate British citizens who travel there for anything other than strictly legit business.. Why the need to go to war?

If anything, this war seems to have radicalised the extremists further, and no real link with 9/11 has been found. Two rights don't make a wrong, and the civilian population of Afganistan were not responsible for 9/11. Yet, each year of the conflict thousands more civilians have died than people in 9/11.

Most of the population of continental Europe was horrified and did not support the Afghanistan war at all.

The man who shot and killed 13 people at a US army base apparently did it to protest the war and his deployment to Afghanistan.

Why, in your opinion are the US and UK fighting in Afghanistan?

As far as I know there was a chain of Anglo-Afghan wars alternated with civil wars and putsches. Whichever goal Americans & Co are pursuing there, I don't think they will end up with a success.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johanna

Why, in your opinion are the US and UK fighting in Afghanistan?

---

Afghanistan is a world's top heroin manufacturer. Bush did not pick it at random when they pondered about where to wage war on terrorism. Apparently they weren't satisfied with the production level the unsophisticated Talibs were providing. CIA managed to triple the heroin production since it had taked control over it in Afghanistan.
Really, now they can do so many wondrous and noble things with the revenues: blackops, political murders, media spin, military coups, high-ranking corruption and so on.

Heroin - that's the main reason for war in Afghanistan. They has tripled the production. It's huge, enormous amounts of money. And with the army there to secure the drug routes they cut down the transportation and smuggling costs.

War -> Heroin -> Profit! :twisted:

Omg - I never thought of that! :oops:


All I thought was
1) They MUST have known from the British and Soviet experience that it's impossible to win a war in Afganistan...
2) There is no oil there, and no Communists (anymore) - also no particular important water passage or similar. It's no longer bordering arch enemy number one..

Actually Britain seriously tries to give the impression that a major reason to be there is becuase of the ill-treatment of women by the Taliban! Oh please!!! I don't even want to mention what a load of hypocritical tosh that is.

But I HAVE read that the Talibans reduced the heroin production to almost nothing.

But isn't America fighting a battle AGAINST drugs.... If they in fact wanted the trade in heroin to resume, then that would be exactly what's suggested in the film "Canadian Bacon" which makes the argument that America actually WANTS plenty of trouble and enemies....

This is very confusing......

Rememberence Day (a day for British war veterans) is on 11 Nov....)
So Afghanistan and Iraq is on TV nonstop and everybody is wearing red poppies on their clothes to support the soldiers... There are posters of widows and orphaned kids, and people everywhere collecting money for the veterans... SIGH I don't even support the war in the first place....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johanna

1) They MUST have known from the British and Soviet experience that it's impossible to win a war in Afganistan...

---

Nobody wants to win a war. Actually, everyone wants the war to continue. With the possible exception of the Afghans. But who cares about them anyway?

Quote:

---

2) There is no oil there, and no Communists (anymore) - also no particular important water passage or similar. It's no longer bordering arch enemy number one..

---

It's just barren rock and heroin. Add the army around it. Perfect place!

Quote:

---

But I HAVE read that the Talibans reduced the heroin production to almost nothing.

---

WHERE? :shock: :D :"": Actually, you wouldn't be far away from truth if you think just the opposite the media tells you.

Quote:

---

But isn't America fighting a battle AGAINST drugs...

---

Yeah, they simply want the monopoly. :D

Quote:

---

America actually WANTS plenty of trouble and enemies....

---

Indeed! And plenty of terrorists. Otherwise the generals in the Pentagon and the CIA would have to find honest jobs for a change, something like bank robbing or car theft. :D

Quote:

---

This is very confusing......

---

This is quite simple actually.

You (Deleted. L.).

Its not like we just decided to invade one day after scratching out nuts. The fuсking towlyban wanted a war and they got it. We bombed their rag head camel jockey asses back into the stone age, as if they weren't already there. So the great white patriotic christian Bush (Best president ever) decided to invade a few other countries and support a few other bullshiт regimes *cough* Georgia *cough*. So the fuсk what.

You're not American (Deleted. L.). You don't know what service is, Its not your war. Do something for your own (Deleted. L.) for a change. (Deleted. L.)

Personal insullt are deleted. (Generally we do not edit our oldtimers). He'll wake up and going to be embarrassed, hopefully. :mosking:

Oh that was beautiful Dogboy! I wish I could have said that. I guess she had no real male figures in her childhood left back in Sweden to slap any sense into her.

Пиндосы нажрались паленого вискаря?

Оххоххох..... срач начался :)

(побежал за попкорном)

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/f...u2/14j9dt5.gif

Quote:

---

He'll wake up and going to be embarrassed, hopefully. :mosking:

---

Ты такая наивная...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lampada

I am not going to edit anything this time.

---

Мне кажется, стоит представить, насколько "приятно" это читать человеку, в чей адрес это все написано. Особенно ддтэшный комментарий.

Она девушка сильная, умная и не примет всерьёз пьяную трепню.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lampada

Она девушка сильная, умная и не примет всерьёз пьяную трепню.

---

Лампада, ты представь, что это в твой адрес написали.
В любом случае, "пьяной трепне" не место на этом форуме, и уж по крайней мере в этой теме. В данном случае это не просто трепня, а очень грубый персональный наезд (как там по-английски, "private attack"?)
Как бы там ни было, я, как не сильная и не умная, прошу, чтобы оскорбление в мой адрес в другой ветке было удалено.

Why is Ramil not right? I think he saied true.
I am beginner, follow, I did'n understand all, that saied Dogboy182(exception is his mat :oops: ) . Translate his idea for me, please, without mat, shortly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Airin

Why is Ramil not right? I think he saied true.
I am beginner, follow, I did'n understood all, that saied Dogboy182(exception is his mat :oops: ) . Translate his idea for me, please, without mat, shortly.

---

In two words: lousy liqueur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Airin

Why is Ramil not right? I think he saied true.
I am beginner, follow, I did'n understood all, that saied Dogboy182(exception is his mat :oops: ) . Translate his idea for me, please, without mat, shortly.

---

Там наезд не на Рамиля, а на Джоанну.

I have never been called a c___t or anything similar by anyone before. I feel pretty shocked.

I am not interested in entering into any kind of pointless slagging match with either of these two, so I will not respond.

If I was the administrator I'd ban them two for using foul language in this thread and elsewhere on the forum. It's offensive. Most of the time they are just rude or aggressive or both. They don't contribute in creating a friendly forum for learning or discussing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johanna

I have never been called a c___t or anything similar by anyone before. I feel pretty shocked.

I am not interested in entering into any kind of pointless slagging match with either of these two, so I will not respond.

If I was the administrator I'd ban them two for using foul language in this thread and elsewhere on the forum. It's offensive. Most of the time they are just rude or aggressive or both. They don't contribute in creating a friendly forum for learning or discussing.

---

Dogboy is in the US Military, that you seem to so much hate, and you just gave him the opportunity to give you a taste of the "old Days" at MR. Just grow a thick skin and you will survive. You can't please every one, and we have all types here at MR, including man-haters like you. Stop the holier than thou stuff and lighten up, have a sense of humor! It's the Internet.

Nice "style" you've got there, you f_____g A______n F_____t p__g! (Well you are such a "thick-skinned" big guy so you won't mind being called that, do you? Or maybe you'd consider it almost a badge of honour?)

First you and your buddy really insult someone and use disgusting language. Then when they mention they didn't enjoy it, you just tell them to stop being "holier than though" and to lighten up. Classic schoolyard bullyboy tactics...

Perhaps those Afghan mothers who lost their children in air attacks recently should just "lighten up" too..? Spoilsport crybabies huh? Have Bigmac and a Coke and move on.. Toast the "liberdy".

Speaking about coke, is that what Dogboy and you did yesterday? Or was it just bad moonshine and old weed?

PS -Rockzmom, absolutely no insult in the first sentence intended towards you at all.

У меня отец воевал в Афганистане. Война шла за высоту. Для тех кто не понимает, коротко объясню... Если разместить в Афганских горах ракету класса земля - земля, даже средней дальности, то ею можно будет поразить любую точку СССР. Когда пошёл политический раскол в Афганистане, там тут же оказалась Армия США, даже ни столько армия, сколько помощь в оснащении террористов (Экипировка, транспорт, медикаменты, продовольствие). Цель их была в том, чтоб вытеснить Советскую армию и оснавать свою военную базу на "высоте". Это бы поставило наши судьбы под угрозу. А вообще я считаю, что каждая война - это ни что инное, как созтязание двух политиков, стоимостью в тысячи невинных жизней. Память павшим :rose: R.I.P.

Russia has been benefiting from the NATO's presence in Afghanistan because they contain Taliban from expanding into the Middle Eastern states which Russia considers (don't know whether rightfully) it's sphere of influence.

At the same time, Russia has been loosing due to the heroin trafficing. Taliban in fact decreased the drugs production when it was in power (due to their religious views, I suppose).

It looks like the NATO forces control very little of the situation. The numbers of troops stationed there is ridiculously small. A mountaionous area cannot be easily isolated so I doubt there is an alternative to the occupation.

I personally see no way out. And the US governmeent doesn't see it either, I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ленивец

Russia has been benefiting from the NATO's presence in Afghanistan because they contain Taliban from expanding into the Middle Eastern states which Russia considers (don't know whether rightfully) it's sphere of influence.

At the same time, Russia has been loosing due to the heroin trafficing. Taliban in fact decreased the drugs production when it was in power (due to their religious views, I suppose).

It looks like the NATO forces control very little of the situation. The numbers of troops stationed there is ridiculously small. A mountaionous area cannot be easily isolated so I doubt there is an alternative to the occupation.

I personally see no way out. And the US governmeent doesn't see it either, I think.

---

Good explanation. I agree with this.

They should never have gone there in the first place. At least during the Soviet war there, there was SOME kind of reasonably understandable justification; a problem directly on the border. But I do not agree with that war either...

I read about British soldiers killed there almost every day. Yesterday a female soldier was blown up in her truck.

The USSR expected NATO's military presence in Afghanistan if they didn't enter the country first. Of course, now we can speculate only about this. Afghanistan has been really a terrorists harbour but President Bush didn't estimate right what the war would have been. That's not a 'push-button war' like one can wage on a urban country. It's like colonial wars of the past. I think that modern Europeans are unprepared to take up '"the white man's burden' like it's depicted in the famous Kipling's verse. Moreover a genocide is reequired to win such wars.

It is short sighted to think that this is Bush's war or even America's war. This war was started by those who control the world's economies and they are international and have no allegiance to any country. Why do you think that Obama is continuing the war? The war was never meant to end.

DDT that may be true.

But the fact remains; it is American soldiers who are there (mainly) and the war is funded and run by America! And all the lucrative rebuilding contracts and oil contracts are awarded to US and British firms. The war is the perfect excuse to build Nato (US) bases in the area.

If there is an international consipiracy etc behind it, like you say, then why is America doing its' dirty business for it, and why do American people put up with this state of affairs?

(We know the answer to that question -- good 'propaganda' on TV and general lack of involvement and interest by the public. )

This is Vietnam II, just as meaningless, just as sad...! But this time people are too jaded to really care. Back in the 1970s there was some idealism and people were not addicted to Playstation and Facebook and reality TV... or working/studying such insane hours that they had no energy to care about anything.

For what great purpose did these young British and American men (and even women) die? Nobody can really answer that question and none of the answers they can muster up are even remotely convincing. I doubt the soldiers themselves could answer even the most basic historical or cultural question about the area. Yet they die there.

When this war broke out I was pulling 12 hour days in the City (financial district of London) I had no energy to get involved or to care, although it seemed quite insane Britain to be part of an invasion of Afghanistan because some Saudi-Arabian and Egyptian lunatics committed an act of terrorism in America! Plus, getting involved in such causes can lead to failing security clearances which I was dependent upon passing. I remember a holiday to France and Italy around that time. People were out on the streets protesting the war, but nothing like hat happened in in England, people just accepted it.

Just a few of the Brits who died there last year. This year has already exceeded last years death toll.
http://forum.globaltimes.cn/forum/at...1&d=1260322180

Some interesting quotes about Soviet invasion into Afganistan in comparison to modern NATO's one that I'v found:

The Russians had been invited in by the Amin government and so they claimed that they were not invading the country. They claimed that their task was to support a legitimate government and that the Mujahideen were no more than terrorists.

Exact data is hard to come by, but during their nine years in Afghanistan the Soviets sent tens of thousands of Afghans to colleges and universities in major Soviet cities. They built schools, roads, hospitals, and they brought in professionals to staff them.
The United States will soon surpass the Soviet tenure in Afghanistan. This is our ninth year of conflict. One has to wonder what our legacy will look like 20 years from now.

Najibullah's goverment remained in power for another three years after the Soviet pull-out.. ..I bet modern Karzai's one wouldn't make it for several hours without NATO troops beeing there.

Also keep in mind that Mujahideen, or душманы, as Soviets soldiers called them, the opposition to the Soviet forces, had a very strong support of the world's most powerful country. Just compare the way "those bloody commies" had done it with the modern "brave and free" ones, who are afraid to pull out their nose from their moving fortresses and are shooting any moving thing on sight, even if it's a peacful wedding or funeral ceremony. I'm not trying to say that the Soviet invasion was a "good" one and the modern NATO invasion is a "bad" one. I think that any invasion is a bad thing. But still, I strongly doubt that many Afganians will think about NATO troops with nostalgia 20 years from now as many of them think today about "shuravi" times.

Interesting. I was vaguely aware that there were some mitigating circumstances for the USSR going there. I remember hearing some criticism about the Soviet presence there as a child, but nothing remotely as strong as the comments regarding America's little invasions here and there.

The Talibans probably consider communism and American style democracy to be about equally bad, so for them there is probably no great distinction... ! Some of the same fighters are still around, apparently -- They are using the same old caves and the weapons they got from CIA to fight the USSR! They have been at it for 30 years now! How ironic the whole thing is. Allegedly the war was supposed to stop terrorism. Yes, right.. !

I knew that the USSR educated people from around the world and helped countless 3rd world countries and I think that was a great thing. I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with wanting to support 3rd world countries like the USSR did -- they got a lot out of it.

But as you know, popular opinion made a U-turn in the 1990s and it became totally unacceptable to talk about the USSR with anything but regret and condemnation. I haven't heard a nice thing said about it since circa 1991...

It's sad that media and people can't take a more nuanced perspective and appreciate the good things and learn from the bad things.

YouTube - ‪A Year at War‬‏