British deaths in Afghanistan

[Johnny Canuck3]

They are being killed in a civil war started by NATO.

The war started when the taliban wouldn't hand over bin Laden.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Woman being helped by the taliban:

We've probably all seen that picture.

Nobody here is arguing that the Taliban are a good thing. But invading and bombing the country to smithereens isn't the way to help Afghanis rid themselves of such a regime.

 

[butchersapron]

All because i git him on one little post.

 

[Pickman's model]

The war started when the taliban wouldn't hand over bin Laden.

not that they were really given much of a chance to

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I fucking love the taliban we all do, but let's talk sensibly.

I'm trying to. One of the questions is, what would happen in Afghanistan, were NATO to unilaterally pull out in the next month or so.

 

[butchersapron]

The war started when the taliban wouldn't hand over bin Laden.

jesus christ -

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

invading and bombing the country to smithereens .

That isn't quite what's happening there.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Ask an afghani female.

Afghanistan has a long way to go regarding women's rights - and I don't mean just the Taliban. Best thing for female emancipation would have been a Soviet victory in the 80s.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

not that they were really given much of a chance to

We've been over this a thousand times. Yes, they were.

 

[8ball]

He doesn't, he does really believe this.

Well in a sense he's right.

It's just that he's glossing over nuance.

And he knows it, I reckon.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Best thing for female emancipation would have been a Soviet victory in the 80s.

Maybe so. But given that that was a failure, here's another chance to get it right.

 

[8ball]

Best thing for female emancipation would have been a Soviet victory in the 80s.

<grits teeth>

Again, I'm not sure you're wrong . . .

[dammit]

 

[butchersapron]

I'm trying to. One of the questions is, what would happen in Afghanistan, were NATO to unilaterally pull out in the next month or so.

No you're not. You've made an argument that ignores history and that justifies eternal intervertion but with the added proviso of it being impossible to ever withdraw - a sort of JC2 doctine you may call it.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The war started when the taliban wouldn't hand over bin Laden.

That is an extraordinary statement. Are you saying that if one country refuses to hand an individual within its borders to another country, that the other country then has the right to start a war?

 

[butchersapron]

Well in a sense he's right.

It's just that he's glossing over nuance.

And he knows it, I reckon.

The only sense in which he's right is tbnat taliban are cunts. That's not the issue though is it? esp not to taliban lovers like me.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

No you're not. You've made an argument that ignores history and that justifies eternal intervertion but with the added proviso of it being impossible to ever withdraw - a sort of JC2 doctine you may call it.

The taliban were created when the Russians were defeated in afghanistan, and then the US and others who had financed these mujahedin groups, just took off, and did nothing to help the country get back on its feet.

Now here we are a few decades later, and you're advocating a replay of that particular historical mistake.

 

[butchersapron]

That is an extraordinary statement. Are you saying that if one country refuses to hand an individual within its borders to another country, that the other country then has the right to start a war?

Apart from being factual bollocks

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

That is an extraordinary statement. Are you saying that if one country refuses to hand an individual within its borders to another country, that the other country then has the right to start a war?

I'm saying nothing so simplistic, of such wide application.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Apart from being factual bollocks

If I'm wrong, tell us how the war actually started.

The floor is yours.

 

[butchersapron]

The taliban were created when the Russians were defeated in afghanistan, and then the US and others who had financed these mujahedin groups, just took off, and did nothing to help the country get back on its feet.

Now here we are a few decades later, and you're advocating a replay of that particular historical mistake.

No, you are - you're making the young orphans and the refugees that feed the taliban. In what way am i advocating "a replay of that particular historical mistake"?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

<grits teeth>

Again, I'm not sure you're wrong . . .

[dammit]

It's a bold statement to make, certainly. I'm not saying the Soviets meant freedom, but the propaganda they used with their own people over Afghanistan is interesting. They made a very big deal about the fact that women in Afghanistan would have the chance of an education under the Soviets. All in all the Soviet record on female enrollment in education was a good one, so I have no reason to disbelieve this particular piece of propaganda.

 

[butchersapron]

If I'm wrong, tell us how the war actually started.

The floor is yours.

WW2 started when Hitler gobbed at chamberlein - the floor is yours. Be serious or fuck off.

 

[EddyBlack]

The taliban were created when the Russians were defeated in afghanistan, and then the US and others who had financed these mujahedin groups, just took off, and did nothing to help the country get back on its feet.

Now here we are a few decades later, and you're advocating a replay of that particular historical mistake.

You are talking shit there J. Like you have been throughout this thread. Go away YOU FUCKING BORING IDIOTIC CUNT.

 

[butchersapron]

JC2 think the russians should have stayed, i get it now.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

No, you are - you're making the young orphans and the refugees that feed the taliban. In what way am i advocating "a replay of that particular historical mistake"?

You're advocating that the US, NATO etc leave the country unilaterally, forthwith, leaving the afghanis yet again, to their own devices, in a wartorn devastated place.

 

[8ball]

It's a bold statement to make, certainly. I'm not saying the Soviets meant freedom, but the propaganda they used with their own people over Afghanistan is interesting. They made a very big deal about the fact that women in Afghanistan would have the chance of an education under the Soviets. All in all the Soviet record on female enrollment in education was a good one, so I have no reason to disbelieve this particular piece of propaganda.

Certainly in terms of female education in the old Soviet Union, (and education for both sexes) this stands up.

I do numbers and logistics and chemicals and biological systems - when it comes to history I have to defer to you lot, frankly.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

WW2 started when Hitler gobbed at chamberlein - the floor is yours. Be serious or fuck off.

I see.

 

[butchersapron]

You're advocating that the US, NATO etc leave the country unilaterally, forthwith, leaving the afghanis yet again, to their own devices, in a wartorn devastated place.

Yes the USSR shoud have stayed.

Wartorn - i wonder how?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The Russians staying would have been no solution either, of course. It would simply be a different kind of mess like Chechnya (which is no less bloody – about 20 per cent of the popluation of Chechnya has been killed so far).

But the doctrine of the US in the Cold War – that no regime or movement was too nasty not to support it if it was fighting communism – left a bloody legacy right around the world, and not least in Afghanistan. Not only the Taliban emerged from the ruins of the US-backed Mujahadeen. Al Quaida did too.

 

[8ball]

Yes the USSR shoud have stayed.

That's not the same as 'to their own devices' . . .