ChezGiven

Exciting stuff.

Ok then Chez, here we go, I'll keep it brief: "What exactly are we doing there and why? So what was the justification for going to war in Afghanistan then KSA?" 1. What exactly are we doing? - The most pertinent goal of the intervention was: to disrupt terrorist networks in Afghanistan to degrade their ability to launch international terrorist attacks. Why? - 9-11 2. What exactly are we doing? - Establishing a stable government in Afghanistan. Why? - The Taliban government that had established itself over the 96-01 period coalesced with Al Quaeda forces. Bin Laden's funds allowed them to build extensive training camp facilities; most of the 9-11 hijackers passed through such camps in Afghanistan. Not only did the Taliban have majority control over Afghanistan, by 2001 any resistance to them was on its last legs: shortly before the intervention some of the most senior figures of the United Front were killed by suicide bombers. Without intervention, it is clear that the Taliban/Al Quaeda forces would have established 100% control of the country. Osama Bin Laden roamed freely with his brigade in the country, regularly massacring people and filling mass graves. It was more than a mere 'terrorist safe haven'. Given that the chief interests of the jihadist is to reestablish a Caliphate and kill infidels (ie us), allowing them to establish such control in a key region was unacceptable in the eyes of most Western governments. Afghanistan shares a border with Pakistan - a country with a nuclear arsenal - and the Taliban/Al Quaeda forces had a desire to take over that country; they would have had a real chance of doing so had the intervention not taken place. To me it seems the prospect and potential result of inaction in this case was not a route that could be justified. If you feel we should have given the Taliban/Al Quaeda coalition the benefit of the doubt in this instance so be it, it's not something I am capable of doing personally. I'll leave it at that for now, but with regard to your other points: Although an improvement in the human rights situation in Afghanistan was inevitable given the unprecedented brutality of the Taliban, I have never stated that that was the motivation of the intervention or part of the just-cause, merely it has been a by-product of the NATO mission. Given that this thread cited an instance of brutality towards a woman, I thought it would be a relevant time to bring that up. You're a smarter person than me and you study cheesy-economics so I would appreciate it if you wouldn't continue to misconstrue my posts when I've made it clear that that wasn't related to the motivations for the action in Afghanistan. Good answers, I certainly agree the threat was big enough to justify acting. This exchange comes off you quoting HF in response LM about an ongoing debate they have had regarding Islam and specifically the OP in this thread. The OP is the Daily Mail flagging human rights abuses against women but its clearly propaganda that is being used 'post hoc' to give moral legitimacy to a war which has lost its morality. Its a senseless, counter-productive exercise now. It wasnt 9 years ago but now it is. You come into this thread to highlight specifically the plight of women under Taliban rule as though this is the only country in the world with women being subjected to tyranny. Its not. This is propaganda to maintain the appearance of a moral cause. If it had not been a military failure and a moral disaster then we would not have the daily mail printing pictures of Islamic plastic surgery disasters. This is a whole new debate, the mission creep, the immoral acts of dangerously stupid american soldiers, the collateral damage, the ineffectual campaign, the lack of resources, the lack of manpower, the lack of vision, the stupid attempt at imposing western political processes, the list goes on. Whether all that i just said is right or just some of it is irrelevant, the 'shocking' picture in the daily mail isnt 'shocking' at all, its depressingly predictable. I asked what we are doing there as i wanted to guage the success off your own barometer, so how is the stable government / reduced terrorist threat going? With the evidence clearly pointing to the war increasing the terrorist threat, what value a stable government when one arrives?

Not today, some nice JM Westons with matching belt. Look like the dogs bollocks.

Picking up on alex's point about the deficit being the fault of the crisis. This is an economic fact, it was at manageable levels until the astronomical levels of spending required to keep the economy afloat. One thing to think through a bit further though, why is France scaling back its public sector at the same time as the UK and Spain and Greece and Italy and... every fucker else apart from the Chinese? Did they all have labour government pumping too much money into quangos and the NHS? Also, another thing thats worth further thought, where is the pressure coming from to cut back public expenditure? Why would Sarkozy with the lowest ratings of a president in history choose now to implement pension reform? I suspect because the European Central bank, the IMF and the bond market Kings are telling him unless he does so, they wont buy any more french govt bonds. Like they did to Greece earlier this year. Think about it, the banks have fucked us over by getting us to bail them out then these same powerful insitutions (including central and federal banks) are saying that they wont buy bonds anymore until the money they gave to the banks is seen to be coming off their debt liabilities via deeply aggressive and socially divisive public sector spending cuts. If you dont think thats wrong, you're fucked in the head.

Keeps me awake at night. I saw your 'just-for-laughs' adidas trainers in selfridges the other day-hundred and thirty folds (or thereabouts). That shit would keep me awake at night! FYI - alex was very complimentary towards my deck-shoe-cum trainer get up. He did make passing reference to a mental breakdown, i admit but in my world thats as good as a Michael Jordan endorsement.

Keeps me awake at night.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...bour-blame-game This is the truth, the Conservatives are liars and cunts. Any response from the Tory voters? One that addresses the state of the economy pre and post-crisis and the Tory/Redwood recommendations?

I dont have the time to follow even all the threads on here, i've just had a kid and my job is quite demanding of my time. I would position myself as an interested observer on the conflicts, i dedicate my spare time / online research to macroeconomics, the current situation in France driving off the back of that. I'd love to do more research on this but have not had 3 years at university where i can follow these things through coursework and have large amounts of spare time to back that up with research. So answer the questions basically. I ask again as you'll probably find me agreeing with a lot of what you say. Dont be afraid. Also, unless you can provide me documented proof that the plight of women in Afghanistan was part of the mission's objectives, stated before the mission started, then discussing the outcomes for women now in Afghan society as part of ana assessment of the \rights and wrongs' of the war is, i'm afraid to say, very much post-hoc moralising. Its not objectionable at all but should not be part of an argument that clarifies what the 'just cause' was.

So what was the justification for going to war in Afghanistan then KSA? What exactly are we doing there and why? From a personal perspective, when Cameron said that British soldiers had not died in vain, i was not clear if he meant that somehow it had been a success or had been morally justified from the outset. The post-hoc moralising in your posts is evidently full of shit btw.

Lovenkrands is shit.

So you insist he was to blame for both goals then? Fair enough, i reckon Williamson and Barton were at fault. Thats all i have said as well. I wont respond to anything else as i never argued anything you suggest i did.

3 pages in the Sunday Times who broke the story, now all over the web. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/oc...ld-cup-bid-vote

Williamson and Barton at fault, anyone saying otherwise is a simpleton.

Williamson at fault for the first, its a lobbed ball into the 6 yard box and was his ball. Him being in an advanced position on the second was due to Barton giving the ball away. Therefore, neither goal can be blamed on him. He doesnt do very well in either case as he isnt a good player, that doesnt make him to blame. 'In acres of space on his own' thats what you're meant to do when your team is in possession.

I take it back, that wasn't a slating, it was an incoherent dribble.

agreed. Could possibly merge this thread into the "shocking" one now.... Or the thread on Germany which i bumped hours before on this topic and copied this article in. Fucking idiots

I'll get slated for saying this but fuck it, Perch wasnt to blame for either goal yesterday and if he was out of position on the 2nd its because he was not expecting Barton to give the ball away stupidly. Although Happy Face is right about the influence of Guthrie on putting a positionally suspect player under more pressure but that didnt lead to either goal and neither can be blamed on him. Funny the mentality of the fans blaming everything on Nolan one week and Perch the next. When the facts of the match and the overall performance yesterday prove neither to be true. We were just as insipid without Nolan. I do get a bit exasperated by some opinions, read that people in the Gallowgate were getting on Tiote's back during the game yesterday Well, i suppose the law of averages tells us half our fans are below average intelligence.

Wigan first half and Stoke second half have been poor performances. Excluding Man U away, the rest of the time we've played as well as the opposition. Thats a testament to the manager. After what he did for us last season, given what he had to spend over the summer and an objective assessment of the teams performances over 8 prem games, i reckon anyone giving him shit this season is basically a thick cunt. Far too aggressive language i know but thats how i feel.

Leazes's spiritual home begining to reassert itself, need to keep an eye on this lot. 'I'm just really into the uniforms' is no longer an acceptable excuse.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11559451 "Attempts to build a multicultural society in Germany have "utterly failed", Chancellor Angela Merkel says."

you patronising prick. Off to see The Social Network. Hopefully it's easy and entertaining enough for me. Just in case mate, its about Facebook! I reckon Gemmill spends most of his time in the cinema whispering 'who's that? is he one of the good guys' to his lass.

Sweet justice! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11559750

There is quite expensive signal blocking technology which the Israelis use, i suspect that Ashley has installed it to prevent people from hearing first hand experiences from 'inside' SJP. What he fails to realise is that even in Iran when the elections were being rigged, the images and messages of the despotic reign inside the country still filtered out. Like King Canute (sp?), Ashley cant stop the tide of modernity.

Breaking the waves. Quirky film, some nice chebs.