Shocking

[tooner 243]

 

i guess take your victories where you can get them eh? since you've been shown up in the rest of the thread....

 

oh, I don't think so.

 

 

which is what makes you so amusing..

[LeazesMag 0]

 

i guess take your victories where you can get them eh? since you've been shown up in the rest of the thread....

 

oh, I don't think so.

 

 

which is what makes you so amusing..

 

Sadly for you, I am right though.

 

You will realise this when you are older.

[tooner 243]

how old do you think i am?....genuine question

[manc-mag 1]

He didn't take the bait...

[Guest]

What (if anything) do you read, Leazes? Perhaps you could provide us pinko lefties

 

not you too

 

I'm surprised you thought that highly of me, to be honest. Care to answer the question?

 

what sort of books do I read ? Not left wing politically-slanted books ..... ditto left wing politically-slanted newspapers either. I've made a few posts in the "what are you reading" thread...politically, you could just say I have my views and reading a book by someone out of touch with reality isn't going to change them.

 

What sort of books do you read ? I'm surprised some people on here actually have time for anything, the time they spend on here. They can't be reading too much, or working, that's for sure.

 

 

why not? bit of an ivory tower way of going about things no? at least if you read view points contrary to your own it would give you a better understanding of the whole picture of things. I've read lots of books/articles/newspapers with views that i feel fall outside of my personal views/opinions.

 

knowledge is power. read everything IMO.

 

Well. Let's put it this way. I did once. But now, I don't.

 

thats it? one time? ...to each thier own.

 

you mean, each to their own

 

you don't read the right material, obviously

 

 

Correcting a spelling mistake and using minging grammar to do so

 

"minging grammar"

 

 

 

 

What's funny about that?

 

my 15 year old daughter saying "minging".

 

 

Oh right then Your point being?

[LeazesMag 0]

What (if anything) do you read, Leazes? Perhaps you could provide us pinko lefties

 

not you too

 

I'm surprised you thought that highly of me, to be honest. Care to answer the question?

 

what sort of books do I read ? Not left wing politically-slanted books ..... ditto left wing politically-slanted newspapers either. I've made a few posts in the "what are you reading" thread...politically, you could just say I have my views and reading a book by someone out of touch with reality isn't going to change them.

 

What sort of books do you read ? I'm surprised some people on here actually have time for anything, the time they spend on here. They can't be reading too much, or working, that's for sure.

 

 

why not? bit of an ivory tower way of going about things no? at least if you read view points contrary to your own it would give you a better understanding of the whole picture of things. I've read lots of books/articles/newspapers with views that i feel fall outside of my personal views/opinions.

 

knowledge is power. read everything IMO.

 

Well. Let's put it this way. I did once. But now, I don't.

 

thats it? one time? ...to each thier own.

 

you mean, each to their own

 

you don't read the right material, obviously

 

 

Correcting a spelling mistake and using minging grammar to do so

 

"minging grammar"

 

 

 

 

What's funny about that?

 

my 15 year old daughter saying "minging".

 

 

Oh right then Your point being?

 

I'm just wondering if you are the same age

[Guest]

What (if anything) do you read, Leazes? Perhaps you could provide us pinko lefties

 

not you too

 

I'm surprised you thought that highly of me, to be honest. Care to answer the question?

 

what sort of books do I read ? Not left wing politically-slanted books ..... ditto left wing politically-slanted newspapers either. I've made a few posts in the "what are you reading" thread...politically, you could just say I have my views and reading a book by someone out of touch with reality isn't going to change them.

 

What sort of books do you read ? I'm surprised some people on here actually have time for anything, the time they spend on here. They can't be reading too much, or working, that's for sure.

 

 

why not? bit of an ivory tower way of going about things no? at least if you read view points contrary to your own it would give you a better understanding of the whole picture of things. I've read lots of books/articles/newspapers with views that i feel fall outside of my personal views/opinions.

 

knowledge is power. read everything IMO.

 

Well. Let's put it this way. I did once. But now, I don't.

 

thats it? one time? ...to each thier own.

 

you mean, each to their own

 

you don't read the right material, obviously

 

 

Correcting a spelling mistake and using minging grammar to do so

 

"minging grammar"

 

 

 

 

What's funny about that?

 

my 15 year old daughter saying "minging".

 

 

Oh right then Your point being?

 

I'm just wondering if you are the same age

 

 

No, I'm not 15. Your grammar would suggest you are around that age, younger anyway, but then I already gathered that your mental age and actual age vary somewhat.

 

Now, 15 year old daughter That you've never spoken of before on here. Fictional, it's a fucking certainty that you've never been anywhere near a woman. Not with her consent anyway.

[Gemmill 35460]

In response to what does Leazes read, I'd guess at McNab and Ryan. In his camouflage jarmies.

[manc-mag 1]

In response to what does Leazes read, I'd guess at McNab and Ryan. In his camouflage jarmies.

 

 

"As Jonno let rip with the stolen Kalashnikov and Squarehead fired off a round of monkey puzzler,

I looked at the towel-head I'd slotted...I didn't stop to think about it long. We all get slotted sometime."

 

Thanks, Keith. Scorpio Patrol, Real Life Behind Enemy Lines. One of my brother's favourites.

[Gemmill 35460]

[ChezGiven 0]

So answer the questions basically.

 

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.

 

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?

[Park Life 71]

Cause the history of Afg is littered with stable governments. The whole thing now is well within the realms of fiction.

[Kitman 2188]

Controlling Afghanistan was beyond the British and Soviet empires at their zenith. Typical of the meathead American military to think they could roll in and sort it out where others failed, probably without any planning at all to speak of. And typical of Britain to row in behind the Americans regardless.

 

What I don't really get is how they expected to eliminate terrorism in that part of the world without the ability to sort Pakistani state support for terrorist organisations. Weren't the 7/7 bombers funded and trained from Pakistan (I may have got that wrong)? It all seems a bit pointless when the focus of support for Al-Quaeda and related terrorist organisations has just switched to Pakistan. Is the world a safer place for invading Afghanistan, I'm sceptical based on what I've read in the papers.

[LeazesMag 0]

In response to what does Leazes read, I'd guess at McNab and Ryan. In his camouflage jarmies.

 

 

Congratulations Gemma, in your chosen profession, you also showed a complete incompetent judgement ie your 100% backing towards the football club in their financial backing of Souness.

 

 

I notice you stay out of these sort of debates nowadays

Edited October 20, 2010 by LeazesMag

[LeazesMag 0]

What (if anything) do you read, Leazes? Perhaps you could provide us pinko lefties

 

not you too

 

I'm surprised you thought that highly of me, to be honest. Care to answer the question?

 

what sort of books do I read ? Not left wing politically-slanted books ..... ditto left wing politically-slanted newspapers either. I've made a few posts in the "what are you reading" thread...politically, you could just say I have my views and reading a book by someone out of touch with reality isn't going to change them.

 

What sort of books do you read ? I'm surprised some people on here actually have time for anything, the time they spend on here. They can't be reading too much, or working, that's for sure.

 

 

why not? bit of an ivory tower way of going about things no? at least if you read view points contrary to your own it would give you a better understanding of the whole picture of things. I've read lots of books/articles/newspapers with views that i feel fall outside of my personal views/opinions.

 

knowledge is power. read everything IMO.

 

Well. Let's put it this way. I did once. But now, I don't.

 

thats it? one time? ...to each thier own.

 

you mean, each to their own

 

you don't read the right material, obviously

 

 

Correcting a spelling mistake and using minging grammar to do so

 

"minging grammar"

 

 

 

 

What's funny about that?

 

my 15 year old daughter saying "minging".

 

 

Oh right then Your point being?

 

I'm just wondering if you are the same age

 

 

No, I'm not 15. Your grammar would suggest you are around that age, younger anyway, but then I already gathered that your mental age and actual age vary somewhat.

 

Now, 15 year old daughter That you've never spoken of before on here. Fictional, it's a fucking certainty that you've never been anywhere near a woman. Not with her consent anyway.

 

oh dear.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

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.

 

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?

 

Where did I say the bit in bold? I have stated absolutely nothing even resembling this, a pure contortion on your part. Cite direct quotes where I have claimed that women had only been subjected to tyranny in Afghanistan and nowhere else. If you can't do that, then stop being an divvy and misconstruing my words, as I have asked you to do several times now. Wind your fucking neck in with that shite, or'pipe down' as Stevie would say.

I was highlighting the difference between crimes against women in the U.K vs under a Taliban rule when I responded to HF, as he had brought up cases of acid attacks and so on in Britain. I haven't even read the Mail article, I glanced over the pics to see if the chick was bangable: she passes the test just about, good for her.

 

"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. 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."

 

You talk as though this article in the Mail is somehow evidence that the campaign in Afghanistan has failed. That's rediculous hyperbole, similar to the brand that the paper in question produces. If this is the sort of logic you apply in life, good luck with the macaroni-economics, you'll need it. If the conflict had been a military and moral failure as you claim, the Taliban would still be in charge. The two goals I stated have been achieved to some degree, the first one we can safely call a success.

 

to disrupt terrorist networks in Afghanistan to degrade their ability to launch international terrorist attacks. - Success. The Al Quaeda forces have been absolutely decimated. The international terrorist threat from Afghanistan has been reduced.

 

RE stable government, Karzai is there till 2014. Given the difficulties in establishing a government in a failed state, compromises have had to be made. One of these compromises is putting up with the corruption within the Karzai government, or at least proceeding with a government that had significant elements of corruption. He won't be publicly criticized for diplomatic reasons, but efforts are being made to deal with the corruption in its various forms. It's a start, and while the Afghan people are naturally fed up of conflict, the vast majority do not want to return to Taliban rule. Certain things are hard to measure because the concurrent war in Iraq has had such an affect on the Mid-East region, though I would happily speculate that Afghanistan/Pakistan are more stable now than they would have been had the situation been left alone.

As for the effectiveness of the campaign, this is prone to constant fluctuations in any war; it is inevitable in one where the strategy has had to change from dealing with an initial crisis situation to a prolonged counter-insurgency battle. There have been many problems: anyone who spoke Arabic languages was treated with suspicion in the CIA, and there has been a lack of translators as a result; the British had forgotten the lessons learned from Northern Ireland about counter-insurgency, and they had well publicized problems with equipment and funding; the terrain has historically presented severe problems in all the Afghan wars; IEDs were poorly dealt with to begin with; the Iraq invasion had negative effects on the mission in several areas. The conflict has presented a constant barrage of ever-evolving problems, we intervened in a desperate mess and this was always going to be the case. I would say this basic axiom holds true with regard to war: you don't achieve anything if you give up at the first sign of struggle. If we had done so it would have been a great victory for the jihadists.

The mission is now to provide stability in Afghanistan and this means training the Afghan army and police force. Does this represent the moral failure you speak of? What would have been more palatable for you, if we had pulled out after the first civilian casualty and left the country to be gripped by Taliban forces once again?

Given your highly emotional responses to this topic, I wonder if your opposition to the NATO mission was a blind one based on a severe mistrust of Bush/Blair, and a squeamish attitude towards the inevitable atrocities that occur in war. That goes for the rest of you too. I have yet to see a compelling or even remotely plausible case be made for inaction. For those of you who agree that intervention was necessary but it has ultimately failed, I have yet to see any of you make a case as to why you believe this, and what you would have done differently.

I have to say my feeling is that the lack of public support for the conflict now is mostly because people are so uninformed about it. The 'I don't know why we even went in the first place' crowd appear to be the largest in numbers, certainly the loudest.

 

Here's an interview with Gen. Jack Keane from the 19th, he has worked with Gen. Patraeus and is close to him: http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11252

 

Slate also have a journo embedded in Afghanistan at the moment and he's doing multiple articles during his stay:

 

Here's the latest - http://www.slate.com/id/2270855/

Here's a list containing the other ones so far - http://www.slate.com/?id=3944&qp=44788

Edited October 21, 2010 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[Gemmill 35460]

In response to what does Leazes read, I'd guess at McNab and Ryan. In his camouflage jarmies.

 

 

Congratulations Gemma, in your chosen profession, you also showed a complete incompetent judgement ie your 100% backing towards the football club in their financial backing of Souness.

 

 

I notice you stay out of these sort of debates nowadays

 

 

Your post response decision tree is once again fucked.

[LeazesMag 0]

In response to what does Leazes read, I'd guess at McNab and Ryan. In his camouflage jarmies.

 

 

Congratulations Gemma, in your chosen profession, you also showed a complete incompetent judgement ie your 100% backing towards the football club in their financial backing of Souness.

 

 

I notice you stay out of these sort of debates nowadays

 

 

Your post response decision tree is once again fucked.

 

I reckon your lack of sleep is playing havoc with you

 

[ChezGiven 0]

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.

 

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?

 

Where did I say the bit in bold? I have stated absolutely nothing even resembling this, a pure contortion on your part. Cite direct quotes where I have claimed that women had only been subjected to tyranny in Afghanistan and nowhere else. If you can't do that, then stop being an divvy and misconstruing my words, as I have asked you to do several times now. Wind your fucking neck in with that shite, or'pipe down' as Stevie would say.

I was highlighting the difference between crimes against women in the U.K vs under a Taliban rule when I responded to HF, as he had brought up cases of acid attacks and so on in Britain. I haven't even read the Mail article, I glanced over the pics to see if the chick was bangable: she passes the test just about, good for her.

 

"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. 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."

 

You talk as though this article in the Mail is somehow evidence that the campaign in Afghanistan has failed. That's rediculous hyperbole, similar to the brand that the paper in question produces. If this is the sort of logic you apply in life, good luck with the macaroni-economics, you'll need it. If the conflict had been a military and moral failure as you claim, the Taliban would still be in charge. The two goals I stated have been achieved to some degree, the first one we can safely call a success.

 

to disrupt terrorist networks in Afghanistan to degrade their ability to launch international terrorist attacks. - Success. The Al Quaeda forces have been absolutely decimated. The international terrorist threat from Afghanistan has been reduced.

 

RE stable government, Karzai is there till 2014. Given the difficulties in establishing a government in a failed state, compromises have had to be made. One of these compromises is putting up with the corruption within the Karzai government, or at least proceeding with a government that had significant elements of corruption. He won't be publicly criticized for diplomatic reasons, but efforts are being made to deal with the corruption in its various forms. It's a start, and while the Afghan people are naturally fed up of conflict, the vast majority do not want to return to Taliban rule. Certain things are hard to measure because the concurrent war in Iraq has had such an affect on the Mid-East region, though I would happily speculate that Afghanistan/Pakistan are more stable now than they would have been had the situation been left alone.

As for the effectiveness of the campaign, this is prone to constant fluctuations in any war; it is inevitable in one where the strategy has had to change from dealing with an initial crisis situation to a prolonged counter-insurgency battle. There have been many problems: anyone who spoke Arabic languages was treated with suspicion in the CIA, and there has been a lack of translators as a result; the British had forgotten the lessons learned from Northern Ireland about counter-insurgency, and they had well publicized problems with equipment and funding; the terrain has historically presented severe problems in all the Afghan wars; IEDs were poorly dealt with to begin with; the Iraq invasion had negative effects on the mission in several areas. The conflict has presented a constant barrage of ever-evolving problems, we intervened in a desperate mess and this was always going to be the case. I would say this basic axiom holds true with regard to war: you don't achieve anything if you give up at the first sign of struggle. If we had done so it would have been a great victory for the jihadists.

The mission is now to provide stability in Afghanistan and this means training the Afghan army and police force. Does this represent the moral failure you speak of? What would have been more palatable for you, if we had pulled out after the first civilian casualty and left the country to be gripped by Taliban forces once again?

Given your highly emotional responses to this topic, I wonder if your opposition to the NATO mission was a blind one based on a severe mistrust of Bush/Blair, and a squeamish attitude towards the inevitable atrocities that occur in war. That goes for the rest of you too. I have yet to see a compelling or even remotely plausible case be made for inaction. For those of you who agree that intervention was necessary but it has ultimately failed, I have yet to see any of you make a case as to why you believe this, and what you would have done differently.

I have to say my feeling is that the lack of public support for the conflict now is mostly because people are so uninformed about it. The 'I don't know why we even went in the first place' crowd appear to be the largest in numbers, certainly the loudest.

 

Here's an interview with Gen. Jack Keane from the 19th, he has worked with Gen. Patraeus and is close to him: http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11252

 

Slate also have a journo embedded in Afghanistan at the moment and he's doing multiple articles during his stay:

 

Here's the latest - http://www.slate.com/id/2270855/

Here's a list containing the other ones so far - http://www.slate.com/?id=3944&qp=44788

 

I said 'as though this is the only country in the world', not that you said it but that it could be inferred. Thats my judgement and its a shame for you that it incites such anger. I can infer what i like and pass comment on it, get used to it.

 

My point about the article is that we would not see these sorts of articles if the mission had been successful, thats a counter-factual argument and as such just an opinion. I consider it propaganda aimed at appeasing the Mail's readership.

 

I agreed action was justified, my point was that the shocking pictures would not be in our newspapers if that action had been deemed a success. Thats a matter of opinion only the editor of the Mail can truly answer, not you.

Edited October 21, 2010 by ChezGiven

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

I think your 'point' is a facile one with little basis tbh.

[Park Life 71]

Controlling Afghanistan was beyond the British and Soviet empires at their zenith. Typical of the meathead American military to think they could roll in and sort it out where others failed, probably without any planning at all to speak of. And typical of Britain to row in behind the Americans regardless.

 

What I don't really get is how they expected to eliminate terrorism in that part of the world without the ability to sort Pakistani state support for terrorist organisations. Weren't the 7/7 bombers funded and trained from Pakistan (I may have got that wrong)? It all seems a bit pointless when the focus of support for Al-Quaeda and related terrorist organisations has just switched to Pakistan. Is the world a safer place for invading Afghanistan, I'm sceptical based on what I've read in the papers.

 

Huge sums of money for madrassas and terror come from Saudi and the US does fuk all about it. I wonder why.

[Park Life 71]

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.

 

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?

 

Where did I say the bit in bold? I have stated absolutely nothing even resembling this, a pure contortion on your part. Cite direct quotes where I have claimed that women had only been subjected to tyranny in Afghanistan and nowhere else. If you can't do that, then stop being an divvy and misconstruing my words, as I have asked you to do several times now. Wind your fucking neck in with that shite, or'pipe down' as Stevie would say.

I was highlighting the difference between crimes against women in the U.K vs under a Taliban rule when I responded to HF, as he had brought up cases of acid attacks and so on in Britain. I haven't even read the Mail article, I glanced over the pics to see if the chick was bangable: she passes the test just about, good for her.

 

"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. 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."

 

You talk as though this article in the Mail is somehow evidence that the campaign in Afghanistan has failed. That's rediculous hyperbole, similar to the brand that the paper in question produces. If this is the sort of logic you apply in life, good luck with the macaroni-economics, you'll need it. If the conflict had been a military and moral failure as you claim, the Taliban would still be in charge. The two goals I stated have been achieved to some degree, the first one we can safely call a success.

 

to disrupt terrorist networks in Afghanistan to degrade their ability to launch international terrorist attacks. - Success. The Al Quaeda forces have been absolutely decimated. The international terrorist threat from Afghanistan has been reduced.

 

RE stable government, Karzai is there till 2014. Given the difficulties in establishing a government in a failed state, compromises have had to be made. One of these compromises is putting up with the corruption within the Karzai government, or at least proceeding with a government that had significant elements of corruption. He won't be publicly criticized for diplomatic reasons, but efforts are being made to deal with the corruption in its various forms. It's a start, and while the Afghan people are naturally fed up of conflict, the vast majority do not want to return to Taliban rule. Certain things are hard to measure because the concurrent war in Iraq has had such an affect on the Mid-East region, though I would happily speculate that Afghanistan/Pakistan are more stable now than they would have been had the situation been left alone.

As for the effectiveness of the campaign, this is prone to constant fluctuations in any war; it is inevitable in one where the strategy has had to change from dealing with an initial crisis situation to a prolonged counter-insurgency battle. There have been many problems: anyone who spoke Arabic languages was treated with suspicion in the CIA, and there has been a lack of translators as a result; the British had forgotten the lessons learned from Northern Ireland about counter-insurgency, and they had well publicized problems with equipment and funding; the terrain has historically presented severe problems in all the Afghan wars; IEDs were poorly dealt with to begin with; the Iraq invasion had negative effects on the mission in several areas. The conflict has presented a constant barrage of ever-evolving problems, we intervened in a desperate mess and this was always going to be the case. I would say this basic axiom holds true with regard to war: you don't achieve anything if you give up at the first sign of struggle. If we had done so it would have been a great victory for the jihadists.

The mission is now to provide stability in Afghanistan and this means training the Afghan army and police force. Does this represent the moral failure you speak of? What would have been more palatable for you, if we had pulled out after the first civilian casualty and left the country to be gripped by Taliban forces once again?

Given your highly emotional responses to this topic, I wonder if your opposition to the NATO mission was a blind one based on a severe mistrust of Bush/Blair, and a squeamish attitude towards the inevitable atrocities that occur in war. That goes for the rest of you too. I have yet to see a compelling or even remotely plausible case be made for inaction. For those of you who agree that intervention was necessary but it has ultimately failed, I have yet to see any of you make a case as to why you believe this, and what you would have done differently.

I have to say my feeling is that the lack of public support for the conflict now is mostly because people are so uninformed about it. The 'I don't know why we even went in the first place' crowd appear to be the largest in numbers, certainly the loudest.

 

Here's an interview with Gen. Jack Keane from the 19th, he has worked with Gen. Patraeus and is close to him: http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11252

 

Slate also have a journo embedded in Afghanistan at the moment and he's doing multiple articles during his stay:

 

Here's the latest - http://www.slate.com/id/2270855/

Here's a list containing the other ones so far - http://www.slate.com/?id=3944&qp=44788

 

Karzai is the most corrupt person in Afg, is this the guy you're hanging your hopes on? Father christmas was your dad btw. You know the one in red.

Edited October 21, 2010 by Park Life