|
|
Post by serpico on Jun 9, 2008 21:17:09 GMT
3 more soldiers dead, taking the over all death toll to 100, Time to get out imo, we have already lost, the Taliban in one form or another will once again return to power, the government we put in doesn't even rule any further than Kabul, hence president Karzai's nickname - "mayor of Kabul", quite what we're still doing there is beyond me, it's been 7 years now, it's a waste of money, blood and a waste of time, we should be spending the money here at home. We tried occupying Afghanistan once before and it ended it defeat, the soviets tried occupying it in the 80's and got whooped, we're fighting a losing battle.
We tried our best, and I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that it was with good intentions we went in there in the first place, it's now time to get out and cut our loses.
|
|
|
|
Post by caine on Jun 9, 2008 21:22:36 GMT
Tbh mate all true but if uve been there like i have then you know that wont happen for 20 yrs atleast! Not even close to establishing a half decent local police/army force out there. The most flithy country i will ever stumble across and i cant see it changeing! Look how long it took us to get out of Iraq!!  |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Jun 9, 2008 21:25:34 GMT
serps,
there was an interesting piece on 5 live this morning.
if the rest of the euro/nato forces started fighting the enemy instead of boredom it would make the job easier
|
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Jun 9, 2008 21:33:35 GMT
serps, there was an interesting piece on 5 live this morning. if the rest of the euro/nato forces started fighting the enemy instead of boredom it would make the job easier we might kill a few more hundred of them but many empires have tried and failed to occupy Afghanistan, each and every time has been given a bloody nose, we're not going to win there, the government are just trying to save face by staying. TBH Afghanistan and the Taliban have never been a problem, they didn't attack on 9/11, it was the saudis, Bin Laden and co, Bin Laden just happened to be in that country at the time of 9/11, the mission seemed to change somewhere down the line, it went from going after Bin laden, then when that failed, to an occupation nation building and some kind of humanitarian mission. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthurdollar on Jun 10, 2008 7:45:38 GMT
Look how long it took us to get out of Iraq! ¨quote Caine¨
I think you will find we are still there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2008 7:56:23 GMT
The loss of 3 British soldiers, as sad as the event is, is not a reason to leave.
I’m sympathetic to the families and friends but it’s not a reason to leave IMO.
There is still a job to be finished.
|
|
|
|
Post by ben88 on Jun 10, 2008 8:07:26 GMT
im not being funny or anything, and i know its sad and all,
but 100 dead over the space of 5 years is not actually that many, considering they are at war,
is it?
|
|
|
|
Post by ben88 on Jun 10, 2008 8:07:53 GMT
not even five is it, more like 6 and a half
|
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Jun 10, 2008 12:31:40 GMT
We have lost Afghanistan, it's now a choice of staying and losing men every so often fighting in a losing battle, or get out, same situation in Iraq. We should never have got involved in an occupation, we should have gone in, made a REAL effort to get Bin laden, then hanged him by his neck until dead like he deserves and got out.
|
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jun 10, 2008 12:59:05 GMT
the lessons of Vietnam are many.
One (from a govt.s point of view,any govt.) is to seriously restrict TV images of the war.
the almost complete lack of news from Afghanistan is a clear reflection of our supposed 'free' country.
why are we in Afghanistan?
anyone know?
|
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Jun 10, 2008 13:19:29 GMT
the lessons of Vietnam are many. One (from a govt.s point of view,any govt.) is to seriously restrict TV images of the war. the almost complete lack of news from Afghanistan is a clear reflection of our supposed 'free' country. why are we in Afghanistan? anyone know? "But, confronted with Taliban's refusal to accept U.S. conditions, "this rationale of energy security changed into a military one", the authors claim.
"At one moment during the negotiations, the U.S. representatives told the Taliban, 'either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs,'" Brisard said in an interview in Paris. [This threat was made before September 11th.]"
|
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Jun 14, 2008 10:21:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Stafford-Stokie on Jun 14, 2008 10:29:41 GMT
We cant just come out! The Ruskies did that and look where we are now.
|
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Jun 14, 2008 10:35:08 GMT
We cant just come out! The Ruskies did that and look where we are now. The soviet union fell, amongst other things, because they stayed to long and spent to much money on it. |
|
|
|
Post by jpm64 on Jun 14, 2008 14:31:52 GMT
We cant just come out! The Ruskies did that and look where we are now. The soviet union fell, amongst other things, because they stayed to long and spent to much money on it. That and the support the West gave to Bin Laden and the Taliban  |
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Jun 14, 2008 14:47:57 GMT
The soviet union fell, amongst other things, because they stayed to long and spent to much money on it. That and the support the West gave to Bin Laden and the Taliban Not only did the west support Bin laden and the Mujadeen during the war with the Russians, the US actually helped provoke the invasion of the Russians, so as to bog russian down in the "afghan trap" and to give them "there own vietnam", in the words of Zbigniew Brzezinski, the then United States national security advisor to Jimmy Carter, it's all in his book "the grand chess board" he openly admits he helped start that war. |
|
