"Nato-led alliance is "getting pretty close" to losing control of Afghanistan"

[littlebabyjesus]

But that's not my argument at all is it? I've not said we should've invaded Afghanistan so we can liberate the population from a tyranical regime, I said we should've invaded Afghanistan for our own security concerns. so your question is irrelevant...

Ok, well that's an easy one to deal with. NATO's invasion of Afghanistan has made the world a more dangerous place.

 

[CyberRose]

Don't be so touchy. I don't see the problem with those words. OK - Why do you want to put more troops into a state that has little economic or political cohesiveness and which therefore would require western military stiffening for quite some time to come?

Because, as far as I can see, the major problem that is preventing "economic or political cohesiveness", is the constant reemergence of the Taliban. You might say that is because there is an endless supply of support for them, maybe. However, military/political analysts say this is because there are not enough troops to deal with the Taliban threat completely, and that forms the basis for my opinion that more troops should be sent there

 

[CyberRose]

Ok, well that's an easy one to deal with. NATO's invasion of Afghanistan has made the world a more dangerous place.

I disagree, I think you're confusing it with Iraq...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I disagree, I think you're confusing it with Iraq...

Nope. The invasion of Afghanistan took place 2 years earlier than the invasion of Iraq.

Within those two years, there is plenty of evidence that opinions in the Muslim world turned against the West, and a great many people saw the invasion as an occupation of Muslim land and an affront.

 

[Spion]

Because, as far as I can see, the major problem that is preventing "economic or political cohesiveness", is the constant reemergence of the Taliban. You might say that is because there is an endless supply of support for them, maybe. However, military/political analysts say this is because there are not enough troops to deal with the Taliban threat completely, and that forms the basis for my opinion that more troops should be sent there

but as we've noted the Taliban are not the onyl extra-governmental armed force. And also I don't see what kind of *national* economy is going to emerge no matter how many troops are keeping order

 

[CyberRose]

but as we've noted the Taliban are not the onyl extra-governmental armed force. And also I don't see what kind of *national* economy is going to emerge no matter how many troops are keeping order

And as I've continously asked, when you say the Taliban are not the only extra-governmental armed force, do you mean that are fighting against NATO, or do you mean the various tribes of the Northern Alliance or the drug barrons?

 

[CyberRose]

Nope. The invasion of Afghanistan took place 2 years earlier than the invasion of Iraq.

Within those two years, there is plenty of evidence that opinions in the Muslim world turned against the West, and a great many people saw the invasion as an occupation of Muslim land and an affront.

While I don't disagree that "a great many people" will have seen the invasion of Afghanistan as an affront to Islam, I don't think it's as significant as you seem to believe. For a start, the Afghan War had widespread international support (the same cannot be said for Iraq). I would say that vast majority of people, Muslim or otherwise, saw the war as a reaction to 9/11 and probably thought that was fair enough. However, I'm willing to listen to any sources you might have that claim the Afghan war turned the Muslim world against the West (to the extent you are trying to make out)

 

[Grandma Death]

It's got problems in two regions of Afghanistan - Helmand and Kandahar. The problems, as pointed out are due to a LACK of troops to hold the ground once the Taliban are cleared. .

Sure lack of troops is difficult for the existing western forces trying to fight the taliban. Its a bit more than that however. The taliban regrouping is a problem but the lack of infrastructure, weak government;womens rights progressively moving backwards and bumper heroin crops are some of the many reasons why the Afghanistan offensive is failing. If you think more troops will solve these problems then you're seriously deluded. Troop levels in Iraq have increased quite dramatically and sure its had an effect on the level of deaths but the underlying problems are still there.

The real problem is, as I see it, enforced 'democracy' dished out through the barrel of a gun. In decades to come Iraq and Afghanistan will IMO be examples of how NOT to do deal with the problem.

 

[teqniq]

You can call the Taliban on: +93 077 581 0513 Maybe it's best though to initially pretend you're a mobile phone company rep.

But seriously, interesting article.

source

 

[littlebabyjesus]

While I don't disagree that "a great many people" will have seen the invasion of Afghanistan as an affront to Islam, I don't think it's as significant as you seem to believe. For a start, the Afghan War had widespread international support (the same cannot be said for Iraq). I would say that vast majority of people, Muslim or otherwise, saw the war as a reaction to 9/11 and probably thought that was fair enough. However, I'm willing to listen to any sources you might have that claim the Afghan war turned the Muslim world against the West (to the extent you are trying to make out)

I think you can probably do your own searches regarding a certain detention camp set up on a Caribbean island in January 2002, long before the invasion of Iraq. The kidnapping, detention without trial and torture of men taken from the streets of Afghanistan and Pakistan was an affront to human rights that turned already hostile populations right against the US. 'Either you are with us or you are against us,' Bush told the rest of the world, the words of a tyrant that mean to say 'do as we say or face the consequences'. There are many around the world - not just Muslims - who rail against such injustices.

 

[CyberRose]

I think you can probably do your own searches regarding a certain detention camp set up on a Caribbean island in January 2002, long before the invasion of Iraq. The kidnapping, detention without trial and torture of men taken from the streets of Afghanistan and Pakistan was an affront to human rights that turned already hostile populations right against the US. 'Either you are with us or you are against us,' Bush told the rest of the world, the words of a tyrant that mean to say 'do as we say or face the consequences'. There are many around the world - not just Muslims - who rail against such injustices.

Guantamo is an American policy, but how many times have they been attacked since 2001? None. But we're talking about "the West" - UK, France, Malta, Canada, etc. For example, this article, from the end of 2002 says that altho Arab opinion is extremely anti-America, it is also highly respectful of France and Canada - both of whom took a major role in the Afghanistan war. US (and perceived UK) support for Israel is the main reason for negative attitudes towards these countries (plus presently the Iraq war also).

I don't think you're very accurate to say the Afghan war "turned Arab opinion against the West" because opinion polls show that three of the main NATO nations taking part in major operations in Afghanistan are ranked in the top 5 favourite countries in the list given to them by the opinion poll (Germany, France, Canada).

I'm not even sure how much effect Guantanamo has had on Arab opinion towards America, let alone the West. America has always been looked on unfavourably by the Muslim world because of Israel, are you really trying to tell me that Guantanamo and Afghanistan specifically have had much baring on that attitude when it hasn't effected opinion on any other country operating there?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Guantamo is an American policy, but how many times have they been attacked since 2001? None. But we're talking about "the West" - UK, France, Malta, Canada, etc. For example, this article, from the end of 2002 says that altho Arab opinion is extremely anti-America, it is also highly respectful of France and Canada - both of whom took a major role in the Afghanistan war. US (and perceived UK) support for Israel is the main reason for negative attitudes towards these countries (plus presently the Iraq war also).

I don't think you're very accurate to say the Afghan war "turned Arab opinion against the West" because opinion polls show that three of the main NATO nations taking part in major operations in Afghanistan are ranked in the top 5 favourite countries in the list given to them by the opinion poll (Germany, France, Canada).

I'm not even sure how much effect Guantanamo has had on Arab opinion towards America, let alone the West. America has always been looked on unfavourably by the Muslim world because of Israel, are you really trying to tell me that Guantanamo and Afghanistan specifically have had much baring on that attitude when it hasn't effected opinion on any other country operating there?

It is the small minority that is persuaded to commit acts of violence that is relevant to questions of security.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't think you're very accurate to say the Afghan war "turned Arab opinion against the West"

You are right to correct me. It didn't turn opinion. Opinion was heading that way already.

 

[dylanredefined]

I saw an Afghan man interviewed, I parapharase but he basicallly said 'My great-great(etc) grandfather beat you in 1838–1842, my great grandfather beat you in 1880, my grandfather beat you in 1919, and I will beat you now.

I wonder how many Brits even know about the previous three? There's a quote that's relevant, something about not learning from the mistakes of history....

typical lying afgan shit first war they won second two they got beat badly
and they started the third guess they thought britain having just got over the
first world war they might have a chance .Got their arse handed to them by
terrtorials deemed not good enough to fight the germans .

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Here is an example of Bush losing public support from probably the most pro-US Muslim country of all:

“Kuwaiti citizens experience a mélange of embarrassment, timidity and tenderness upon going through the Guantanamo file,” columnist and researcher Adel Al-Mhaid wrote for Al-Seyassah daily Tuesday.
“Needless to say the United States of America, its former president George Bush and his son, the incumbent president George W. Bush did a lot of things for the sake of Kuwait and as such all Kuwaitis have immense appreciation, respect and gratitude for the incumbent president, his father and the USA at large. “In this context, one may cite how the former president of USA George Bush showed his determination to encounter and end the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait. Such being the case, he is still respected and revered by Kuwait and its people.

“But since Sept 11, 2001, the United States of America motivated by her right to defend herself like any other nation and based on Article 15 of UN Charter’s Chapter Seven, reluctantly went through an ironbound route, which was slammed by all its opponents. “The incumbent President George W. Bush will visit our country soon, given the fact that this man has proved that he is the decision maker for both peace and war, particularly in terms of his decision to liberate Iraq from its former regime and his handling of files of our detainees in Guantanamo in light of Geneva covenant concerning the treatment of captives and detainees. “Our political leadership will discuss the said issue during its upcoming meeting with President Bush. In the meantime, we hope President Bush will issue a directive for closing the said file for good and eventually maintain his trademark transparency in all dealings with Kuwaiti citizens.

From here:

http://www.arabtimesonline.com

 

[CyberRose]

It is the small minority that is persuaded to commit acts of violence that is relevant to questions of security.

Changed your tune haven't ya?! First you tell me the "Muslim world" turned against the "West" because of Afghanistan, now that's shrivelled up to a mere "small minority"!

So anyway, tell me how many terrorist attacks have been inflicted on the "West" as a result of the Afghanistan war...

You are right to correct me. It didn't turn opinion. Opinion was heading that way already.

Eh?! Did you not even read what I said? I wasn't right to correct you because "opinion was heading that way already" I was right to correct you because you were wrong! You seem to have a warped view of what the "West" actually is if you think it consists solely of the US and UK! FYI - France, Germany and Canada are all significant "Western" countries, they are all heavily involved in Afghanistan and, according to the link you didn't bother to read, all are thought of very highly by Arab populations. So Arab opinion hasn't turned against the West because of Afghanistan as you wrongly claim

 

[CyberRose]

Here is an example of Bush losing public support from probably the most pro-US Muslim country of all:

Oh so now it's just "Bush" is it?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So anyway, tell me how many terrorist attacks have been inflicted on the "West" as a result of the Afghanistan war...

I don't know. How many attacks have been prevented as a result of the Afghanistan war?

 

[CyberRose]

I don't know. How many attacks have been prevented as a result of the Afghanistan war?

Your question cannot be answered, mine can: none

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Your question cannot be answered, mine can: none

You know that the London suicide bombings were not influenced by the Afghan war?

 

[CyberRose]

You know that the London suicide bombings were not influenced by the Afghan war?

I think most people, even you if you're honest, would accept that the London suicide bombings (and the Madrid bombings) occured as a reaction to the Iraq war, and not because of the Afghanistan war...

 

[Spion]

I think most people, even you if you're honest, would accept that the London suicide bombings (and the Madrid bombings) occured as a reaction to the Iraq war, and not because of the Afghanistan war...

As far as personal motivation goes, we only have that one bomber's testimony to go on. What did he cite as reasons? But why would it include one and not the other?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think most people, even you if you're honest, would accept that the London suicide bombings (and the Madrid bombings) occured as a reaction to the Iraq war, and not because of the Afghanistan war...

I cannot meaningfully separate the two. There are people who see the presence of infidel troops in 'Muslim lands' as an affront, and who were radicalised first by the invasion of Afghanistan.

 

[CyberRose]

As far as personal motivation goes, we only have that one bomber's testimony to go on. What did he cite as reasons? But why would it include one and not the other?

Afghanistan was included in their reasons!

But if that was what tipped them over the edge, why did the bombings not take place in 2001? Or 2002? Why was it not until 2005 when they occured, 6 years after the start of the Afghanistan war? I think the logical and rational* answer is because it was in fact Iraq that tipped them over the edge (but obviously they will also make references to Afghanistan, why wouldn't they?)

* Altho I am aware 'logic' and 'rational' can be thrown out of the window when one is trying to prove a point

 

[CyberRose]

I cannot meaningfully separate the two. There are people who see the presence of infidel troops in 'Muslim lands' as an affront, and who were radicalised first by the invasion of Afghanistan.

Why no attacks until 6 years later then?

Anyway, you're sidestepping the issue - you claimed the Afghan war turned "the Muslim world" against the West. I'll humour you for a minute and say the 7/7 bombings were done because of Afghanistan - why are France, Canada and Germany thought so highly of in the Arab world if what you say is true?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Why no attacks until 6 years later then?

Anyway, you're sidestepping the issue - you claimed the Afghan war turned "the Muslim world" against the West. I'll humour you for a minute and say the 7/7 bombings were done because of Afghanistan - why are France, Canada and Germany thought so highly of in the Arab world if what you say is true?

You and I are both generalising, of course - there are plenty of individuals with no time for France in the Muslim world, for instance: try asking some Algerians.

Your original point was to do with security. Here the crucial question is: how many people have been radicalised? But I shall leave you here since you misrepresent my points - I'm tired of humouring you, I'm afraid.

 

[CyberRose]

You and I are both generalising, of course - there are plenty of individuals with no time for France in the Muslim world, for instance: try asking some Algerians.

No. You were generalising, I based my views on an opinion poll carried out in the Middle East...

Your original point was to do with security. Here the crucial question is: how many people have been radicalised? But I shall leave you here since you misrepresent my points - I'm tired of humouring you, I'm afraid.

How have I misrepresented your points?

As for how many people have been radicalised because of the Afghan war (rather than the Iraq war) is difficult to tell. In my opinion, the Iraq war has been by far the most damaging to UK security as far as creating a threat. The Afghan war, imo, was necessary in order to disrupt the training camps the groups operating under the protection of the Taliban were using (altho these have likely relocated to Pakistan). I don't think the Afghan war had anywhere near as much effect on Muslims as the Iraq war did because 1) it was likely viewed as a 'natural' response to 9/11 and 2) the opinion poll I linked to suggests that countries fighting in Afghanistan are thought of highly in the Middle East