Ok, that place is a bit of a mess and many think the British/western forces should leave
Thing is in the 90's, the western powers did leave them to their own devices, and that was not terribly successful.
So what is the way forward?
User login
Author Information
Poll
Why have you visited this website?
To check for updates
11%
Read posts
39%
Contribute to discussions
6%
Share content
3%
Social media brought me here
6%
Tis fate
35%
Total votes: 634
Active forum topics
Recent blog posts
Who's online
There are currently 0 users online.
i think they should leave because as long as they remain there will never be peace. Afghan fighters wont rest until there out. it will get to the point where a troop will not know the reason for killing and a childs family will not know the reason why that child - also a sign that day of judgement approaching is increase in number of killing.
i think its already got to that point where troops dont know why they are in afghanistan but are just acting upon orders as an amry does. Leaving may not make it perfect or hugely better but it IMO would make a significant difference. Afgani people would not have to conastantly be on guard due to fears of american troops and they could do i dare to say it have a rightly elected president rather than this 'puppet' karzai. People say that afghanistans situation cant get any worse but its hard to say what the wests motives and intentions are know, do they want to slowly retreat which would mean admitting defeat or do they want to remain there and fight a battle they can never win.
but is that not just arrogance on the side of the afghans? and leaving them to their own devices returns us to the 90's where the same thing failed.
Should we not try to help the Afghans have better lives?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Not arrogance on afghans side - its their own country. America are the ones that are too proud to admit defeat, they had no right to stay there, what do they even want apart from afghanistans resources. I actually dont even know what there still doing there fighting a lost battle. Afghanistan would be better off without american troops. Russia warned america not to invade afghanistan coz u can never beat the afghans. America and britian are the reason for the state of iraq,afganistan and pakistan and ...soon iran. They stirred trouble everywhere and may Bush burn in hell for his wrong decisions.
"Afghanistan's resources" ? What have they exported in the recent past that is not terrorism or an opiate?
As for the resource argument, the Taliban were well on their way to becoming an American protectorate a'la Saudi before OBL gummed up the works... they do not need to conquer the place in order to get what they want from there (which at beast is permission to use the plaec for a pipeline and not for its own resources)
The Americans did not want to go to Afghanistan - Donald Rumsfeld when the defence secretary summed it up well when he said there was nothing there to bomb.
But since they did go in, question is, should the afghans be abandoned by the world once again like they were after the soviet invasion? Do the afghans not deserve better than to being used as ping pong balls?
Is providing them with the security, so that thye do not get blown to smithereens, kidnapped or tortured to death on their way to work/shopping not a worthy goal?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Oil pipelines. And americans are just as fond as drugs as any other nation.....if not more.
But the Americans were willing top pay the taliban to protect any required assets... much cheaper.
War is expensive and this is just draining resources.
and then some muppets decided to crash a few planes that required a change of action.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
But then theres a whole theory on the 9/11 attacks and the reasons behind them, same applies to the 7/7 attacks..depends on what you believe. But no matter what i'll always support muslims rather than kaafir.
lets deal with the 7/7 attacks first. we know who did them and why - because the perpetrators left videos behind.
As for 9/11 - there are nut job conspiracy theorists out there and if you start giving them credence, you will believe that earth is ruled by the lizardmen and the moon is made of cheese... just because there are crackpots out there does not make them right (or rather, they are wrong because they are crackpots?)
Either way, that is off topic. Do you consider Afghanistan in the 90's a model of success? Should Afghanistan return to then? Or should we strive for better?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Personally I don't know what would be best, I did take the view that having committed to Afghanistan and shaken it up we're bound to see the thing through but obviously if we're staring failure and mass casualties in the face that argument becomes redundant. Intel that has been made public seems very unclear.
The only pertinent truth you state is that you would always support Muslims over Kaafirs. None of your other points are trustworthy. Presumably since some Muslims support the intervention, and you seem to overlook those, your leanings are radical. I don't know that but it tallied with your conspiracy theory.
Afghans fear troop withdrawals
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Salam
NATO should leave the people of Afghanistan to live as they see fit.
That goes for other places too.
If they dont mess with us, we should not mess with them.
Only the U.N. should decide who messed with whom.
The U.S. is not fit to make that decision anymore. It has been caught lying too many times.
Omrow
Is that not what happened after the end of the Soviet invasion? That worked out swimmingly...
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
No.
They never left Afghans alone to set their own destiny. That was a very bad mistake.
Today we all know C.I.A. and I.S.I. continued to meddle in Afghanistan after the defeated Russian Army left that country.
Taliban were practically the babies of America and Pakistan.
Its difficult to sort out your own naughty children.
There was a whole period of even more chaos before the Taliban were able to unite much of the place and restore some semblance of order...
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Yes.
Today, Western leaders admit that the Afghan chaos after the Russian retreat, as well the order in later years, was organised by Pakistan and U.S.
We meddled in that poor country too much, and for a long time.
Today, we are paying the price, and making the same mistake.
You have to remember that even the Soviets only decided to meddle when the ruler of the country was butchering its citizens... they went in to remove that guy with the hope of replacing him with someone more... civil.
But that was the American game plan, to get them in there and not let them out without heavy casualties.
Point being, this goes way back, even before the soviet invasion.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Yes.
You are right Boss.
Its before me and you were even foetuses.
yes.
Both/all options are messy. Question is which benefits the Afghan population the most. I have no clue.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
erm... the Afghan government of Hamid Karzai is an ally of the UK.
And the forces are trying to help the afghans stand on their own two feet. Problem is that it is not that simple.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Well, it depends on how you phrase it as others will call that government a stooge/puppet government put in to carry out the will of the invaders in a similar to the government that the soviets set up when they went in.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.