The British in Afganistan [Archive]

English assassin

07-06-2006, 10:47

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,1813676,00.html

Forget Iraq, this is going to be the story. We are in the soup chaps.

This mission makes absolutely no sense, and yet I bet no one is ever held to account for this. A small number of troops are expected to (1) end poppy growing, in a region where that is the staple crop, thereby cutting off the incme to 90% of the population and (2) enable all sorts of wonderful infrastructure projects to take place,in (3) a region where every adult male is an armed lunatic and the Taliban have free rein.

And they are up for a fight aren't they, ambushing the paras in broad daylight, these boys don't give a monkeys.

Mark my words, this one is going to hell in a handbasket, as any fool could have told from the outset. 3000 troops? You'd struggle with 30,000. Has anyone in government heard of the 1842 retreat from Kabul I wonder. Basic lesson in Afghan history: they are all armed, they are all mad, and they live in thousands and thousands of square miles of prime bandit country. Avoid.

doc_bean

07-06-2006, 10:51

I don't know about history but I've seen Rambo III. The Afghan are bad****.

Okay and this mission once again shows the utter retardness of military command these days...

King Ragnar

07-06-2006, 10:56

Sad to say but alot of those of those soldiers are not going to come out alive as much as its sickens me, its the truth, still i see no valid reason why the hell we are getting involved in stupid middle eastern conflicts, that we should play no part in.

caravel

07-06-2006, 10:59

Boohugh

07-06-2006, 11:15

It needs to be stabilised for the sake of the trans-Afghanistan pipeline, otherwise they wouldn't give a hoot about the place. All the rebuilding, peacekeeping and stopping of poppy growing is just their usual, laughable cover story.

Well, stopping the poppy growing would also have a massive effect on the heroin trade, so there is an interest there too seeing as large quantities of it ends up in Europe.

doc_bean

07-06-2006, 11:17

Well, stopping the poppy growing would also have a massive effect on the heroin trade, so there is an interest there too seeing as large quantities of it ends up in Europe.

Because more expensive heroin would mean less crime ? :dizzy2:

caravel

07-06-2006, 11:22

Well, stopping the poppy growing would also have a massive effect on the heroin trade, so there is an interest there too seeing as large quantities of it ends up in Europe.

Stopping the heroin trade in that manner is like mopping the floor to fix a leaky pipe.

Banquo's Ghost

07-06-2006, 11:25

Mark my words, this one is going to hell in a handbasket, as any fool could have told from the outset. 3000 troops? You'd struggle with 30,000. Has anyone in government heard of the 1842 retreat from Kabul I wonder. Basic lesson in Afghan history: they are all armed, they are all mad, and they live in thousands and thousands of square miles of prime bandit country. Avoid.

Agreed.

It is what our charmingly eloquent American colleagues would term a 'cluster ****'.

Louis VI the Fat

07-06-2006, 11:44

There is a clear, legitimate and necessary reason why we went there. It was to end the Taliban regime, destroy AQ's base, avenge 9/11 and prevent further acts of terrorism. These should remain the objectives.

Maybe we've become too ambitious along the way. I'm all for building schools, promoting woman's rights and stopping the heroin trade. But maybe at some point we should accept that we're not going to turn Afghanistan into a kind of Switzerland any time soon and start to think of a way out.

We believe that man should live in a peaceful, stable society, they believe that live is about herding a few goats and wives while wielding a Kalashnikov and a long beard. Fine.

I think we should just settle for any sort of workable regime there that will not harbour terrorists and that respects elementary human rights. And then gradually pull out.

King Ragnar

07-06-2006, 11:49

Still cant understand why you would care about peoples human rights on the other side of the world, its not exactly affecting your life is it?

Let them live the way they want to and the way we want to, i honestly dont care if they beat their wifes and have guns, as long as their doing it on their land and not here.

caravel

07-06-2006, 11:54

I think we should just settle for any sort of workable regime there that will not harbour terrorists and that respects elementary human rights. And then gradually pull out.

I think that we simply shouldn't interfere in other cultures, trying to make them conform to our ideals, standards and human rights policies. This whole world police thing has gone too far.

Banquo's Ghost

07-06-2006, 11:57

Louis, you make some good points but nation-building is way more complex than the politicians think. The mission was accomplished, though if the Taleban are resurgent, we may need to go back.

Still cant understand why you would care about peoples human rights on the other side of the world, its not exactly affecting your life is it?

What about the human rights of the 3,000 killed in the World Trade Center? Afghanistan's collapse provided a base for that to happen. Seemed to affect their lives a tad.

King Ragnar

07-06-2006, 12:03

Banquo's Ghost

07-06-2006, 12:05

Thats american Buisness, wasnt an attack at Britain, the only reason the 7/7 attacks really took place was due to the fact we followed American in to Iraq and tried to be hero's, and most likley more attacks will happen now becaue we have entered another country, trying to give them democracy when they clearly dont want it.

Well, I guess you're consistent. :smile:

What about the British citizens that were killed on 9/11?

King Ragnar

07-06-2006, 12:09

Well thats just pure bad luck for them to be there, look i could understand us wanting to kill the likes of osama bin laden and other people connected in the chain of command in the terrorist organisations, but does is it really neccesarry to invade two countries to get the job done?

Al Khalifah

07-06-2006, 12:12

Thats american Buisness, wasnt an attack at Britain, the only reason the 7/7 attacks really took place was due to the fact we followed American in to Iraq and tried to be hero's, and most likley more attacks will happen now becaue we have entered another country, trying to give them democracy when they clearly dont want it.
It's that kind of isolationism that leads to wars, if no nation is willing to stick behind its allies. Britain supports its allies - heck we even joined in their war from the beginning.

Idaho

07-06-2006, 12:21

There was a powerful group that ran Afghanistan. They cut poppy cultivation right down and they had American support too.. now what were they called again?

rory_20_uk

07-06-2006, 12:55

America has many other allies that havn't sent troops to get killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. To say that we need to go as we have an alliance is fitting of Tony Blair - as though once there is an alliance all rational thought goes out of the window.

If Afghanistan the first country to harbour people linked with crimes that are wanted in other countries? No.

So they attacked to get the people that they thought helped plan 9/11. The ones that definitely did were all dead, and mainly from Saudi Arabia!

Aghanistan is an area whose borders are defined as those of land no one else wants. Even in Northern Pakistan it's almost the same tribal lawnessness.

We join in for those in 9/11?? What about the ones that the IRA killed? Or the lockerbie terrorist attack? We didn't attack Lybia or Ireland in either of those cases.

British troops need to get out. And if the poppies are such a problem as they might support crime, we should legalise it and get an import agreement with them.

~:smoking:

caravel

07-06-2006, 12:57

There was a powerful group that ran Afghanistan. They cut poppy cultivation right down and they had American support too.. now what were they called again?

That was back in the days when that particular group came under the "Friendly Fanatical Islamic Fundamentalist Regimes, Warlords and Dictators" classifaction.

Avicenna

07-06-2006, 15:11

Amusing, Ragnar.

The UK are America's best buddies, and they want to remain so. So much of your country depends on the USA, such as nuclear technology, any kind of major international influence (admit it, you're not a superpower) and trade.

You went into Afghanistan to show your support. Why do you think Mongolia sent a hundred men to support the USA in the Middle East? Just a show of their support and hoping to get into America's good books. You already are in their good books, and want to stay there. You also want to benefit from the oil which was supposed to make you all rich if the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq went smoothly, which obviously hasn't happened.

As for the human rights issue you've raised up. It is the moral thing to do, is that so difficult to understand? The talk of not valuing any human being's life apart from those of your allies and your country's is, frankly, disgusting. They are humans as well, and as such deserve equal rights.

King Ragnar

07-06-2006, 15:19

As for the human rights issue you've raised up. It is the moral thing to do, is that so difficult to understand? The talk of not valuing any human being's life apart from those of your allies and your country's is, frankly, disgusting. They are humans as well, and as such deserve equal rights.

Well then i have a black heart im afraid i couldnt care less about people being killed on the other side of the world miles and miles away for no reason none of my buisness, if your gona be like that then we might as well invade India or somewhere else that has things like arranged marriages because thats terrible think of the poor women who are marrying men they have never met:dizzy2:.

Honestly if you want to help them join a charity because i sure as hell dont want to waste my tax money on them.

Red Peasant

07-06-2006, 15:28

Ahh, it's good to see all the do-gooder liberals ~;) in the UK here bleating about a handful of casualties. Serving men despise whining civilians wringing their hands over what they are doing, because they know that they don't really care.

The only thing wrong with this operation is that it is not focused, as EA has pointed out. They can't do everything. Hell, the Americans pulled out, telling us it was 'pacified' and that we would only be involved in a police operation. Nice to be lied to by your allies, isn't it? The mission needs to be re-assessed, very quickly, and I'm sure that's what is being done by those on the ground. The problem then is how long it will take for the politicos to act upon recommendations. Too long probably, that is a lesson that history keeps on telling the British Army.

Avicenna

07-06-2006, 15:32

King Ragnar

07-06-2006, 15:41

By the way, Ragnar. Take a look on the globe, and the USA are more 'on the other side of the world' than the Middle East are to a Brit. In saying this, do you mean that the USA should not have intervened in WWI and WWII, and hence therefore abandon Britain to German rule? I mean, you were 'on the other side of the world and miles and miles away'. But of course it's a special case, isn't it, because you live there. Oh dear. Too bad.

Yes but We created the USA, without us you would not exsist, so in reality you owe us, and ww2 was completely different as allaince had been made between the us and the uk, and the US was attacked by Japan, an ally of germany, seems like your saying what alot of americans say ' we wont he war no one else helped we saved the world!!!!!11' Wrong. The russians defeated germany not the us they helped yes but the russians contributed alot more than america, so be quiet about WW2.

This is a different matter this is one country nothing like te scale of WW2.:no:

AntiochusIII

07-06-2006, 15:56

This is one of those times when you can actually blame Bush and be quite righteously right in yourself.

The manpower, focus, and resources were there to actually pacify the damn country and establish some semblance of modernity until somebody decides that Saddam annoys him more and drives that way instead, so yeah. The dead Taliban's back from his grave, alive and kicking, because apparently the corpse was left to be necro-ed back to fight instead of proper burial. :dizzy2:

And did the US troops really pulled out en mass?

Well then i have a black heart im afraid i couldnt care less about people being killed on the other side of the world miles and miles away for no reason none of my buisness, if your gona be like that then we might as well invade India or somewhere else that has things like arranged marriages because thats terrible think of the poor women who are marrying men they have never met.Your business - what?

You might believe it doesn't affect your life whatsoever but that's a blind eye looking for the comfort from a lie. What do you think the cheap, mass-produced goods we in the West use everyday come from? Slave-empire Capitalist China. What you think the heroin those druggies use came from? Burma ("Myanmar", yeah right), Afghanistan, Columbia perhaps, and several other hellholes on Earth that "is not your business to care." What do you think those angry, vengeful, fanatical, suicidal souls that declared war on "the West" and want you dead came from? The closed, stark, oppressive societies that comprise of much of the Middle East and a few other places; not your business?

This is one world. Human societies simply make up one human society nowadays. Since the Coalition forces are already in there they could at least get some good out of it all instead of leaving a worse mess than what they started with, eh? "Purifying" the world might seem a titanic task but if little chances give then little chances must be taken to improve the lot of humanity. It's only fair that governments actually do something more useful to the governed than oppress and feed off in an unfair exchange. I'm certain your tax money is better used turning Afghanistan into a decent place (titanic task?) than buying a new private jet for the thousandth MP.

Avicenna

07-06-2006, 16:02

Yes but We created the USA, without us you would not exsist, so in reality you owe us, and ww2 was completely different as allaince had been made between the us and the uk, and the US was attacked by Japan, an ally of germany, seems like your saying what alot of americans say ' we wont he war no one else helped we saved the world!!!!!11' Wrong. The russians defeated germany not the us they helped yes but the russians contributed alot more than america, so be quiet about WW2.

This is a different matter this is one country nothing like te scale of WW2.:no:

If the Germans didn't attack the USSR and the USA didn't intervene, you guys would have been mincemeat.

Oh, by the way, I'm not an American. But I'll keep in mind to tell any I meet that they should let the Brits save their own skins next time they're threatened. Okay?

About the creation as well: the British was only one of multiple European countries to establish colonies in the USA, and these eventually rebelled against you and defeated you. So, you didn't create the USA. In fact, you fought for the USA not to be created. Learn your history, kiddo.

English assassin

07-06-2006, 16:11

Yes but We created the USA, without us you would not exsist, so in reality you owe us,

Yes, its a little known fact that the west was settled and all major American cutural directions determined by the British?

Ragnar this is embarrassing, matey.

rory_20_uk

07-06-2006, 16:26

Amusing, Ragnar.

The UK are America's best buddies, and they want to remain so. So much of your country depends on the USA, such as nuclear technology, any kind of major international influence (admit it, you're not a superpower) and trade.

We're the USA's best buddies. Israel gets far more help - where are its troops? America does as it likes internationally. As can be seen the only "influence" we get is a pathetic "me too". We;d have more making our own minds up. Nukes... Great! We've used so many in the UK :laugh4:

You went into Afghanistan to show your support. Why do you think Mongolia sent a hundred men to support the USA in the Middle East? Just a show of their support and hoping to get into America's good books. You already are in their good books, and want to stay there. You also want to benefit from the oil which was supposed to make you all rich if the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq went smoothly, which obviously hasn't happened.

The price of oil has increased since America's attacks. Most if not all contracts in Iraq went to American firms. And frankly it'd be cheaper to give UK companies subsidies than think getting tehse contracts is an end in itself. Make us all rich? Erm, how?

As for the human rights issue you've raised up. It is the moral thing to do, is that so difficult to understand? The talk of not valuing any human being's life apart from those of your allies and your country's is, frankly, disgusting. They are humans as well, and as such deserve equal rights.

ROFLMAO!!! :laugh4: You dare to try the moral card? America does NOTHING in conflicts in so many countries all over the world, then attacks Afghanistan that was working better than it had been for ages and says that it's helping the people? Expressing my feelings on such bare faced hipocracy would probably get me banned, so I'll leave it there. :furious3:

Ahh, it's good to see all the do-gooder liberals ~;) in the UK here bleating about a handful of casualties. Serving men despise whining civilians wringing their hands over what they are doing, because they know that they don't really care.

[Gasp] Red Pesant making sarcy points!!

I don't give a damn for their lives. Happy now? The Army are our hired killers, and occasionally they get killed. But yes, a clear mission would be nice. Are they part of America's search and destroy (in the name of human rights) or are we building things so the warlords can have something to shoot at when we leave?

~:smoking:

Avicenna

07-06-2006, 16:32

....how much does it take to make the point that I'm not American?

You were supposed to get rich. The plans failed though, and now it's costing a lot more than you bargained for.

Not just nukes, nuclear technology. While you're not using as much as France you are still using them. Anyway, nukes are more of a deterrent than a weapon. I don't see them being used unless another major war occurs.

rory_20_uk

07-06-2006, 16:34

If the Germans didn't attack the USSR and the USA didn't intervene, you guys would have been mincemeat.

The masses in the USA didn't want to go to war. And indeed Germany declard war on the USA. Intervene??? :inquisitive:

The bottom line is that the UK should never have got into WW2 in the first place.

About the creation as well: the British was only one of multiple European countries to establish colonies in the USA, and these eventually rebelled against you and defeated you. So, you didn't create the USA. In fact, you fought for the USA not to be created. Learn your history, kiddo.

The Americans didn't so much as beat Britian as make Britain decide that fighting was too costly.

Ragnar, nothing wrong with bieng a patriot. Lots wrong with bieng an ignorant patriot.

"Best be silent and people think you know nothing than to speak and for people to know it"

~:smoking:

rory_20_uk

07-06-2006, 16:38

You were supposed to get rich. The plans failed though, and now it's costing a lot more than you bargained for.

Not just nukes, nuclear technology. While you're not using as much as France you are still using them. Anyway, nukes are more of a deterrent than a weapon. I don't see them being used unless another major war occurs.

Oh, we were supposed to get rich... How exactly?

Nuclear tech? Erm, America didn't help the British get their first nukes. The Uk built their own nuclear reactor. India make nuclear reactors. How much help were they again?

~:smoking:

econ21

07-06-2006, 16:45

And did the US troops really pulled out en mass?

IIRC, US troops were never in Afghanistan en masse. The Northern Alliance took Kabul assisted by US airpower and apparently CIA briefcases of dollars to buy off local warlords on the road to power. There were some US special forces etc. but they were not "en masse". I guess some did come after the fact and were then replaced by other NATO forces, but I am not sure it was a very large deployment.

The manpower, focus, and resources were there to actually pacify the damn country and establish some semblance of modernity until somebody decides that Saddam annoys him more and drives that way instead, so yeah.

Again, I think Afghanistan was always done on a budget. I don't think there ever was the manpower, focus - remember the controversy over Tora-Bora and letting OBL slip away - or resources.

The dead Taliban's back from his grave, alive and kicking, because apparently the corpse was left to be necro-ed back to fight instead of proper burial.

With a country like Afganistan (or most other failed states), it is fairly easy for a foreign power or their proxy to seize the capital. But pacifying the countryside is quite another matter. Was it said of them, an Afghan's loyalty can never be bought, only rented?

Unlike Iraq - where the Coalition was widely criticised for going in too "light" and a bigger footprint initially might have stopped the insurgency gaining strength - I think this strategy of relying on proxy forces made sense in Afghanistan. The Afghans are a notoriously fierce and independent people. I can't see 3000 British troops doing much good. And they risk stirring up the kind of hornets nest that drove off the Red Army.

I also thinking burning poppy fields is a futile and deluded policy.

Afghanistan does need infrastructure but it is not obvious why the British army should be the one to provide it. With a country so poor, domestic labour - and indeed security - should be cheap.

Joker85

07-06-2006, 17:04

The masses in the USA didn't want to go to war. And indeed Germany declard war on the USA. Intervene??? :inquisitive:

The bottom line is that the UK should never have got into WW2 in the first place.

The Americans didn't so much as beat Britian as make Britain decide that fighting was too costly.

Ragnar, nothing wrong with bieng a patriot. Lots wrong with bieng an ignorant patriot.

"Best be silent and people think you know nothing than to speak and for people to know it"

~:smoking:

You might want to learn your history. We forced two british armies to surrender. Ever hear of Burgoyne? Yorktown?

You're entitled to your own opinions. Not your own facts.

If tommorow half the Americans in Iraq were forced to surrender by the insurgents, you wouldn't be saying "no big deal we just wanted to leave anyway". Especially not if it happened twice.:laugh4:

rory_20_uk

07-06-2006, 17:27

Louis VI the Fat

07-06-2006, 17:31

Heheh, this thread has lost focus and direction quicker than the mission in Afghanistan. :balloon2:

Redleg

07-06-2006, 17:47

Heheh, this thread has lost focus and direction quicker than the mission in Afghanistan. :balloon2:

Very much so.

By the way I believe that there is currently still American Forces in Afganstan.

The reduction would bring U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan to about 16,500.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/20/terror/main1143289.shtml

ShadesWolf

07-06-2006, 19:46

If the British army in is prime couldnt conquer the Afgans. What are a few thousand peace-keepers, or whatever Bliar is calling them now, expected to do.

Yes so we take a few drugs off the streets, by destroying the poppy crops, which are by-the-way the consequence of the Taliban being overthrown.

If Bliar is trying to re-kindle the empire maybe he is going about it the wrong way.

Red Peasant

07-06-2006, 19:59

Yorktown: 7,000 British soldiers were captured by a combined French and American force. 1/4 of the men in America at the time. So, something like 21,000 troops in America.

How many in the British Army at that period? 100,000 or thereabout?

America didn't break the back of the British. They showed that winning the war was not profitable. The area of land was fairly small, and not amazingly profitable. There were more impartant things in the world than fighting the Americans.
To America this might have been an historic event, but apart from causing a government to fall in the UK, nothing else really changed.

~:smoking:

The colonies were huge compared to Britain, and they were a vital part of Britain's mercantilist trading system of the time. To give some perspective, Philadelphia was the second largest English-speaking city in the world at the time after London and you can see the scale of Britain's loss at the time. She may have recovered but the loss was significant.