Afghanistan, Do we stay or do we leave?
- Thread starter Bermshot
- Start date
thecat
NSWMTB, Central Tableland MBC
We started it... we can just up and leave now. We need to see it through
cleeshoy
Eats Squid
What exactly is our mission? I must be living under a rock or something because I have never really had that question answered. Also, what is defined as "completing this mission"? It all seems rather open ended, which appear to be giving a nice "reason" to stay "to get the job done" (whatever that job even is!)
Completing the mission would be to unearth and detain every person who intends or has at least support sthese crazy terrorist groups. That will never be completed, hence the fact the troops must stay and try to control it as best as possible.
Nerf Herder
Wheel size expert
Johnny will set it straight.
downhillar
Likes Dirt
that was really well said and i agree 100%.
may all those young soldiers who paid for this war with their lives rest in peace.
Ham
Likes Bikes and Dirt
If they leave Afghanistan now then yes they will share the sentiment with the vietnam vets hence why they want progress so they can say "look the afghanis have a better life thanks to us". 10 billion dollars a month is a lot of money to spend to not win.
PINT of Stella. mate!
Many, many Scotches
Afghanistan has been a lost cause for every nation that has sent troops there. From the height of the British Empire to the modern day. I think it's time to leave the place alone and just hope that it's own people will eventually find peace.
We left Vietnam to sort itself out and it's now a popular holiday destination for people the world over. Here's hoping that eventually Afghanistan will find it's own way.
As for the security issues and it's status as a breeding ground for terrorism and drug manufacturing, we'll just have to take that in our stride. Islamic extremism is a sad fact of life these days and it thrives not only in Afghanistan but also in places as widespread as North Africa, the Arabian peninsula and Indonesia. We can't win by military means. Lets just hope that the subversive forces of globalisation and commerce can do a better job. It's worked elsewhere in the world...
We left Vietnam to sort itself out and it's now a popular holiday destination for people the world over. Here's hoping that eventually Afghanistan will find it's own way.
As for the security issues and it's status as a breeding ground for terrorism and drug manufacturing, we'll just have to take that in our stride. Islamic extremism is a sad fact of life these days and it thrives not only in Afghanistan but also in places as widespread as North Africa, the Arabian peninsula and Indonesia. We can't win by military means. Lets just hope that the subversive forces of globalisation and commerce can do a better job. It's worked elsewhere in the world...
scuba05
Likes Dirt
A very, VERY good point. All we hear about from Afghanistan on the news is when another soldier gets killed, or other such bad news. We never hear any of the good news, like a town bazaar getting back up & running due to it being a safer town, or a family successfully running a business, or new construction projects being undertaken, or farmers converting from poppies over to something different (poppies & subsequent opium is basically what keeps the Taliban afloat). All we ever hear is this soldier has been killed in a roadside bomb/ ambush/ gunfight/ aircraft crash.
This brings the point of, how can we ever see something in a positive light if all we hear is negatives? We can thank our 'tell-all' media for this, who think it is more important about which brand of peanut butter is best for peanuts (read absolutely contradictory story), or how old love the retiree got overcharged $5 on her power bill. Yes, im looking straight at you Today Tonight and A Current Affair. The chaser had every right to rip strips off you on a weekly basis. You are about as useful as a magazine full of blanks at an execution.
thecat
NSWMTB, Central Tableland MBC
Pffft. the opium poppies are where the money is.
What right have we got to be there?
Some of their people have different ideas than us? Their right.
Terror, come on, the US government are the worst violence mongers this century has seen.
Lets leave them to sort their own way of life as they choose.
I read all these bla bla replies here,
Some of their people have different ideas than us? Their right.
Terror, come on, the US government are the worst violence mongers this century has seen.
Lets leave them to sort their own way of life as they choose.
I read all these bla bla replies here,
They WERE lost in vain!
What is "it"????
It again, but wtf is IT????
I used to know an ex Vice Admiral of the Aussie navy who told me the whole thing was only about oil. But what would he know?????
Last edited:
Ham
Likes Bikes and Dirt
I love these types of arguments, how does oil have anything to do with afghanistan?
Bermshot
Banned
I quickly found this, a bit of an insight anyway.
The invasion of Afghanistan is certainly a campaign against terrorism," wrote author George Monbiot in the Oct. 22, 2001, piece, "but it may also be a late colonial adventure."
He wrote that the U.S. oil company Unocal Corp. had been negotiating with the Taliban since 1995 to build "oil and gas pipelines from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan and into Pakistani ports on the Arabian sea." He cited Ahmed Rashid's authoritative book "Taliban, Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia" as a source for this information.
Rashid, who has reported on Afghan wars for more than 20 years as a correspondent for the Eastern Economic Review and the Daily Telegraph, carefully documents in his book how the U.S. and Pakistan helped install the Taliban in hopes of bringing stability to the war- ravaged region and making it safer for the pipeline project. Unocal pulled out of the deal after the 1998 terrorist attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were linked to terrorists based in Afghanistan.
"The war against terrorism is a fraud," exclaimed John Pilger in an Oct. 29 commentary in the British-based Mirror. Pilger, the publication's former chief foreign correspondent, wrote, "Bush's concealed agenda is to exploit the oil and gas reserves in the Caspian basin, the greatest source of untapped fossil fuel on earth."
The invasion of Afghanistan is certainly a campaign against terrorism," wrote author George Monbiot in the Oct. 22, 2001, piece, "but it may also be a late colonial adventure."
He wrote that the U.S. oil company Unocal Corp. had been negotiating with the Taliban since 1995 to build "oil and gas pipelines from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan and into Pakistani ports on the Arabian sea." He cited Ahmed Rashid's authoritative book "Taliban, Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia" as a source for this information.
Rashid, who has reported on Afghan wars for more than 20 years as a correspondent for the Eastern Economic Review and the Daily Telegraph, carefully documents in his book how the U.S. and Pakistan helped install the Taliban in hopes of bringing stability to the war- ravaged region and making it safer for the pipeline project. Unocal pulled out of the deal after the 1998 terrorist attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were linked to terrorists based in Afghanistan.
"The war against terrorism is a fraud," exclaimed John Pilger in an Oct. 29 commentary in the British-based Mirror. Pilger, the publication's former chief foreign correspondent, wrote, "Bush's concealed agenda is to exploit the oil and gas reserves in the Caspian basin, the greatest source of untapped fossil fuel on earth."
Ham
Likes Bikes and Dirt
Would the amount of money spent justify the pipeline if it is built?
wespelarno
Likes Dirt
True, assuming a fair and just leadership. But under the Taliban regime nobody had any right to their own idea. Speaking out was a fast way to have you and your family shot. Just because nobody complained didn't mean everybody was enjoying their rights-it just meant nobody was able to complain.
You assume people are in a position to sort it out. A large portion of the middle east has just undergone rebellion and overthrown dictators after a generation of suffering, deprivation and corruption. It took a generation because again, people speak out and the same people just vanish.
American foreign policy is terrible and has been for a long time, but I look at Afghanistan now and how it was, and to me it now looks to be a better place, or at least less bad. The USA doesn't intentionally kill their own with bombs strapped to civilians. They don't deliberately attack hospitals and market bazaars, indiscriminately killing. Basically, that comparison is long worn out.
The lives are only lost in vein if nothing is achieved. If progress has been made in the country, and that progress is long term, the lives lost have been lost with benefit to someone-infact an entire population. If we pull out of Afghanistan now, Afghanistan will descend into the chaos it was before we arrived, making the loss of life futile as nothing has been achieved. That comment is borderline insulting to the soldiers who are now died doing their job.
It has been used in a few contexts, generally if you read the sentence IT makes sense.
Taken way out of context there. I'm talking about a group of people who interpret the Qur'an exactly as they please, call it a true "fundamental" interpretation and use it to subjugate an entire country by denying them what most the first world calls human rights.
Like I said before, I don't think we should have gone to Afghanistan in the first place, but now that we are there, we need to stay and fix the country properly so that when we leave, afghanistan won't revert to Taliban/dictator contorl
Last edited:
Ham
Likes Bikes and Dirt
Yeah many afghanis rely on the farming of it to survive, the taliban destroyed the crops. Pre taliban it was historically a big producer.