We should send the old bill over there then.
Taliban continue holy war on human rights in Afghan
- Thread starter TomUS
- Start date
We should send the old bill over there then.
Would that that megalomaniac cunt Tony Blair had listened when countless people were saying that back in 2001...
How dare you lecture "Europe" about doing more!
I have friends serving in Afganistan at the moment, and my husband is due to go out in early 2010 having already done a tour in Iraq.
If any of your family are out there then OK, have your rant, otherwise
Wind Your Neck In!
My niece's husband is out there at the moment as is a mate's son.
Neither wanted to go but they will do their duty as they believe they should.
There is little argument that the Taliban are a bunch of fanatical pillocks but I really don't think they will be beaten by military action.
Too many have tried and got their arses kicked.
Any fault in the war is down to the political masters not the troops out there.
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
You've got to love an American preaching to Europe from moral high ground after the past 8 years. Do me a fucking favour pal:
No you do me a fucking favor pal. Take a look at who's doing the fighting against the Taliban in Afghan. It sure as hell isn't (mainland) Europeans for the most part. They pretty much have orders from their governments to do the minimum possible. Their main job is to keep their heads down & avoid getting hurt.
You've got to love an American preaching to Europe from moral high ground after the past 8 years. Do me a fucking favour pal:
My post excepting daft bints as in the photo and the few that did things of that nature and worse.
Maybe someone can divide these numbers by the population of the countries concerned. I've done it for US, UK, Germany, Italy, Canada, France, Poland, Turkey, Australia and Afghanistan itself so far...
Albania – 140
Belgium – 500
Bulgaria – 610
Canada – 2,830 >> pop. 33,616,000 >> 8.4 troops per 100k capita
Croatia – 530
Czech Republic – 415
Denmark – 700
Estonia – 90
France – 2,780 >> pop. 65,073,482 >> 4.3 troops per 100k capita
Germany – 3,460 >> pop. 82,062,200 >> 4.2 troops per 100k capita
Greece – 140
Hungary – 360
Iceland – 8
Italy – 2,850 >> pop. 60,090,400 >> 4.7 troops per 100k capita
Latvia – 160
Lithuania – 200
Luxembourg – 9
Netherlands – 1,770 >> pop. 16,507,024 >> 10.7 troops per 100k capita
Norway – 598
Poland – 1,600 >> pop. 38,130,300 >> 4.2 troops per 100k capita
Portugal – 162
Romania – 900
Slovakia – 120
Slovenia – 70
Spain – 790
Turkey – 1,300 >> pop. 71,517,100 >> 1.8 troops per 100k capita
United Kingdom – 8,300 >> pop. 61,612,300 >> 13.5 troops per 100k capita
United States – 54,515 >> pop. 306,214,000 >> 17.8 troops per 100k capita
Austria – 1
Azerbaijan – 92
Bosnia and Herzegovina - 5 to 10
Finland – 110
Georgia – 1
Macedonia – 170
Ireland – 7
Serbia - 5
Sweden – 375
Ukraine – 10
Australia – 1,090 >> pop. 21,730,255 >> 5.0 troops per 100k capita
New Zealand – 150
United Arab Emirates - 170 (?)
Colombia - 100 (planned)
(overall ISAF & US troops: 86,690)
also:
Afghan National Army: 82,780 >> pop. 28,150,000 >> 294 troops per 100k capita
troop figures: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)
population figures: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population
The obvious point is that ultimately the Afghan National Army is the force that will protect Afghanistan in the long term, and the sooner it is trained, equiped and operating under the control of a democratic government the better.
Afghanistan has a population of 28m cf. Pakistan 166m (with a military of 1.4m = 843/100k) and Iran 70m (with a military of 1m = 1429/100k) so if it has a similar-sized military per capita as these two neighbouring countries it's army would increase from its current 82,780 to around 300,000 strong (just as a comparison - not saying this is actually a good idea).
Albania – 140
Belgium – 500
Bulgaria – 610
Canada – 2,830 >> pop. 33,616,000 >> 8.4 troops per 100k capita
Croatia – 530
Czech Republic – 415
Denmark – 700
Estonia – 90
France – 2,780 >> pop. 65,073,482 >> 4.3 troops per 100k capita
Germany – 3,460 >> pop. 82,062,200 >> 4.2 troops per 100k capita
Greece – 140
Hungary – 360
Iceland – 8
Italy – 2,850 >> pop. 60,090,400 >> 4.7 troops per 100k capita
Latvia – 160
Lithuania – 200
Luxembourg – 9
Netherlands – 1,770 >> pop. 16,507,024 >> 10.7 troops per 100k capita
Norway – 598
Poland – 1,600 >> pop. 38,130,300 >> 4.2 troops per 100k capita
Portugal – 162
Romania – 900
Slovakia – 120
Slovenia – 70
Spain – 790
Turkey – 1,300 >> pop. 71,517,100 >> 1.8 troops per 100k capita
United Kingdom – 8,300 >> pop. 61,612,300 >> 13.5 troops per 100k capita
United States – 54,515 >> pop. 306,214,000 >> 17.8 troops per 100k capita
Austria – 1
Azerbaijan – 92
Bosnia and Herzegovina - 5 to 10
Finland – 110
Georgia – 1
Macedonia – 170
Ireland – 7
Serbia - 5
Sweden – 375
Ukraine – 10
Australia – 1,090 >> pop. 21,730,255 >> 5.0 troops per 100k capita
New Zealand – 150
United Arab Emirates - 170 (?)
Colombia - 100 (planned)
(overall ISAF & US troops: 86,690)
also:
Afghan National Army: 82,780 >> pop. 28,150,000 >> 294 troops per 100k capita
troop figures: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)
population figures: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population
The obvious point is that ultimately the Afghan National Army is the force that will protect Afghanistan in the long term, and the sooner it is trained, equiped and operating under the control of a democratic government the better.
Afghanistan has a population of 28m cf. Pakistan 166m (with a military of 1.4m = 843/100k) and Iran 70m (with a military of 1m = 1429/100k) so if it has a similar-sized military per capita as these two neighbouring countries it's army would increase from its current 82,780 to around 300,000 strong (just as a comparison - not saying this is actually a good idea).
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
The Taliban are a direct product of USA foreign policy, namely the abandonment of Afghanistan after the Mujahedin had served their purpose for the CIA in the Soviet-Afghan War.
Al-Queda are a direct product of USA foreign policy, namely a reaction to the empire imposing itself on behalf of capitalist interests across the world.
It was your empire. Good luck with that train wreck.
spring-peeper
Well-Known Member
.
My empire? You should say our empire. Good luck to to us both with the train wreck the US & the UK helped bring on ourselves.
Actually I agree that brutality, arrogance & empire building played a large part in creating the mess in Afghan. But, the question is....what is to be done now? Just abandon it yet again & let the Taliban take over once more? It's a complicated problem but I don't think that would be in the interests of the US, UK, or the rest of the world, especially the Afghans.
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
No one in the US administration gives a flying fuck about what the Taliban do in terms of western human rights, what the US administration cares about is the Taliban hosting Al-Queda and likeminded anti-imperialists. If it wasn’t for that, Afghanistan could go to hell - there's no votes in the country.
The issue, therefore, isn’t the Taliban and its terribly lack of western morality, it’s what the west is doing that so pisses people off they want to wrap bombs around their bodies and blow up themselves and a lot of other random people.
spring-peeper
Well-Known Member
I think that Obama is talking sense with his three-prong approach to Afganistan.
I remember when he was unveiling it. All the Canadian papers were basically saying, "we've been saying this for years. about time the Americans figured it out."
spring-peeper
Well-Known Member
You make it sound like the West is the only place that the Taliban is disliked.
Recently, there were protests against the Taliban in Pakistan. Some video of a woman/girl allegedly being flogged in Swat made it onto youtube and now the government is being forced to rethink it's decision to allow the Taliban free range in that area.
Also, are you sure that it's the Taliban that is doing the suicide bombings?
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
For a couple of hundred dollars you can have a protest about anything you like in developing countries - hand out the cash, supply some accessories and make sure a film crew turns up.
And no, I'm not talking only about Taliban suicide bombers.
And no, I'm not talking only about Taliban suicide bombers.
spring-peeper
Well-Known Member
You have no idea about the protests in Pakistan, do you?
Keeping your idea that all protesters are probably being paid to protest, how much do you figure that those 300 women in Afganistan got paid?
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
I'm saying in some societies protesters aren't a partic good reflection of sentiment, it can be all about presentation: Remember Saddam's statue?
spring-peeper
Well-Known Member
The thread in about the Taliban, so you can understand my confusion.
Which suicide bombers are you talking about then?
spring-peeper
Well-Known Member
Yes - it was an American ploy. So.....
hehehe - are the teabaggers in America a "good partic (?) good reflection of sentiment" or just media hype. How much did the GOP and Fox pay those people?
Partly because the US decided to invade Afghanistan more or less on their own.
Ann Tigonie
rabid feminist
It seems to me that RAWA are saying that the US government & the rest of us supporting this ridiculous 'war on terror' have bolstered warlords, criminals & the power crazed by supplying them with weapons & training them in warfare. When we should all have been supporting & bolstering democratic forces and acting in support human rights & democracy. The US & other governments involved have helped to create the very conditions in which terror, torture & oppression can thrive.
All this war has achieved is death & destruction on a grand scale. It's supplied the weapons and armed the criminals & terrorists who are rampaging around torturing & killing anyone who isn't seen to obey to the letter their brutal & oppressive diktats. And to top it all, its costing billions & even more billions.
All this war has achieved is death & destruction on a grand scale. It's supplied the weapons and armed the criminals & terrorists who are rampaging around torturing & killing anyone who isn't seen to obey to the letter their brutal & oppressive diktats. And to top it all, its costing billions & even more billions.
Yes, of course. But the question is what's to be done now. Simply walk away & watch the brutal oppressive theocrats reconquer Afghan & give a welcoming base for AQ again? You really want to leave the Afghan people (especially the women) at the mercy of these psychos? Would that be the moral & practical thing to do? I think it's a complicated & difficult issue. I don't hear many solutions, just criticisms (mostly valid) of past actions.
Ann Tigonie
rabid feminist
You are right it is a complicated & difficult issue & I wouldn't for a moment pretend to have the answers. Although I'm asking similar questions to you, I'm also taking my cue from what the women involved with RAWA are saying. Which in essence is, that getting the troops out means they have one less "enemy" to deal with. And although the forces of democracy are weak at the moment, its a struggle they need to engage in for themselves because democracy can't be imposed from without.
Even though we might think we know what's best, they are saying we are wrong & we should leave. I think we should listen & reconsider whether what we are doing is a help or a hinderance.
You could well be right that we in the west are doing more harm than good. But I just don't see how any human rights group could have any chance in a Taliban ruled Afghan. We saw how they ruled before & what they do in the parts of Afghan & Pak they control now. I think Obama & the west can come up with a strategy to allow RAWA & others to have a chance without militarily conquering the whole place & trying to impose any system at the point of a gun. The Taliban could be kept from taking power militarily while the Afghan police are trained & econ assistance is given. May not work, but I think it's worth a try.
Ann Tigonie
rabid feminist
I agree, however we are looking at it from a different perspective than the people who live there. I think we should pay attention to & respect their views & stop trying to impose a western solution. We should also stop thinking we know what's best for them.
[/QUOTE] The Taliban could be kept from taking power militarily while the Afghan police are trained & econ assistance is given. May not work, but I think it's worth a try.[/QUOTE]
You may think it's worth a try, but they would rather we were not arming & training - what they have described as - murderers & criminals. They don't want the kind of 'help' we've been giving & are politely asking us to leave. Should we ignore their request because we still think we know what's best?
UnderOpenSky
baseline neural therapy
My cousins just back from Helmond and he can't see hope for the situation. They've moved over the border to Pakistan and know that we don't have the will for the long haul. It sounds grim. 
When are you lot going to catch Bin laden?
Europe doesn't want anything to do with Afghanistan because they know it is a disaster. How long you yanks been there now?
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
When are you lot going to catch Bin laden?
Europe doesn't want anything to do with Afghanistan because they know it is a disaster. How long you yanks been there now?
russia, france england-who hasn't had a fuck up in Afghanistan?
The US gov is repeating the same military mistakes.
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
It's a bad, bad time to be a woman living in Afghanistan.
If the Taliban scum manage to convince the warlords, then the entire country is fucked beyond repair - in addition to the kudos of repelling the UK/US military they'll be pushing into Pakistan and no doubt if left alone would be keen to kick it all off with India.
I say arm the women.
Similar threads
