The Forum > Article Comments > War in Afghanistan: Sacrifices in vain? > Comments
War in Afghanistan: Sacrifices in vain? : Comments
By Kellie Tranter, published 6/2/2012Have taxpayers contributions to the war on terrorism been well spent?
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
-
- All
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 6 February 2012 11:16:46 AM
| |
Why is Australia there?
Simply because John Howard wanted to put himself on the world stage as a big leader, up with the big boys. Bush took the US there simply because of the proposed trans Afghanistan pipeline and to rebuild the export of heroin. Has the pipeline been built? No Is there any chance it will be built now? No. Has be heroin trade been rebuilt? Yes. Are the Afghan woman any better off? Not much. Should we be there? No. Posted by sarnian, Monday, 6 February 2012 11:35:10 AM
| |
@ Plantagenet. Well said.
Kellie: That is the wrong question and only half of the answer. The decision to invade Afghanistan was made before 9/11. The reasons were to do with oil/gas and the pipeline; American encircelment of China and Russia as part of the full spectrum dominance ideology; and regaining control of the heroin production that had been slashed by the then Taliban government. The official reason given was the alleged role of bin Laden and the Afghan government in the 9/11 attacks. There was and still is no evidence to support either proposition. But even if it were true as the Americans allege the invasion would still have been contrary to international law. Changing the reasons for doing something, or inventing ex post facto justifications, or claiming to have a "mission" or whatever the latest garbage from the mouths of Smith, Gillard or Rudd or their opposition counterparts, does not change that singular fact. The only possible reason that Australia could advance to justify its presence in Afghanistan is as an insurance policy payment for retaining the support and goodwill of the americans. One has only to state the point to recognise its moral and intellectual bankruptcy. The honourable course of action is to withdraw immediately. Vietnam was all the better for being rid of our presence and I suspect Afghanistan will be the same. Posted by James O'Neill, Monday, 6 February 2012 3:14:07 PM
| |
It is now well documented that the attack was being planned back in Clinton's day, Bin Laden was the excuse.
The Afghan people had to be bombed to bits over the crimes of some Saudis, the truth is the trillion dollar resources mapped out by the Russians. We spend about $1.5 billion keeping a token force in Tarin Kowt and maintain the poppies and illiteracy, the death toll of under 5's is known to be 37% compared to 25% in the rest of the country, we give $120 million per year in aid - $4 per person per annum - which mostly gets stolen by the war lords and drug barons. We then spent $500 million a year jailing a few thousand Afghans while DIAC get their cases wrong most of the time. Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Monday, 6 February 2012 3:28:02 PM
| |
Ideas have consequences. Some time in the 70's it became fashionable to revise the history and knowledge of Islam in the interests of the pollyannaish delusion that all faiths can get along. Following from this came Muslim immigration into the West, followed by Islamic terrorism in the West.
Rather than correct the original error and curb Muslim immigration, we raised the stakes and set about modernising Muslim countries. But two wrongs don't make a right, and now we have outbreaks of Islamic jihad and sharia law all over the West, in addition to our futile efforts to tame Muslim countries. But, whether over here or over there, the problem remains the incorrigible nature of Islam. Watch Sam Harris or What The West Needs To Know for a reality check: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLiku08FlRg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyYoAoHVOFQ We cannot reform Islam and any sizeable Muslim population will exihibit fundamentalist behaviour. So, yes our war in Afghanistan is futile (apart from the very important role of maintaining our alliance with the USA). The only solution is to acknowledge our original error, bring our troops home, and set about limiting our Muslim popluations in the West. The Labor Government admits this in its own 2010 White Paper on terrorism: "The scale of the problem will continue to depend on factors such as the size and make-up of local Muslim populations." But, sadly, our politicians would rather sacrifice the lives of our best young men rather than admit a wrong and curb our Muslim popluation. As former politician Jone Stone said: "If our existing political parties will not address the concerns ... then a new party will surely arise to fill the vacuum. Call it, notionally, the No More Muslims Party. I don’t look forward to its appearance, but appear it will unless the causes that will otherwise give rise to it are addressed—and quickly." Posted by mralstoner, Monday, 6 February 2012 3:51:51 PM
| |
Marilyn,
Colin Powell stated publicly in July 2001 that he expected to have "troops on the ground in Afghanistan by October" - 2 months before 911. This was to placate Unacol investors who were concerned over the stalling of their proposed pipeline through Afghanistan. Within months of the invasion, the pipeline was back on track. Ask anybody why we invaded Afghanistan and most would say that it was because they were training and protecting international terrorists, but the official (now forgotten) reason was because they refused to hand over Bin Laden without proof and then only to an International Court. Despite any self-righteous public window dressing, all wars are contrived and fought on the basis of profit. Therefore any sacrifices made are not totally in vain because somebody somewhere is making money from them. Unfortunately for our troops, it's not us. Posted by rache, Monday, 6 February 2012 7:31:50 PM
|
Why is the US there?
1, to keep China and Russia out of a region rich in oil, gas and Uranium (Kazakhstan).
2. To exert pressure on Pakistan, China, Russia and Iran. All four of these countries remain nervous of large US and NATO forces on or near their borders.
3. Pressure on Pakistan to a degree allays Indian concerns that India alone should handle its volatile neighbour Pakistan. The US is concerned that a renewed conventional war between Pakistan and India would escalate to nuclear war.
4. Afghanistan provides a continuing reason for a proactive NATO led by the US.
5. The US military-industrial complex needs a plausible mission. Afghanistan provides this to a degree - though the focus will shift to Iran, perhaps in the next 12 months.
For more see http://gentleseas.blogspot.com.au/2010/06/afghanistan-differing-indian-and.html
Pete