The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Afghanistan: why a withdrawal of troops > Comments

Afghanistan: why a withdrawal of troops : Comments

By Marlene Obeid, published 6/6/2008

The anti-war movement must step up its campaign for the immediate withdrawal of all troops from Afghanistan.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Ms Obeid's piece claims that the "Taliban nearly wiped out opium production" yet I seem to recall hearing that the Taliban did not discourage production since they had no other form of foreign exchange (aside from "jihad money", one assumes).

Since ms Obeid is so enamoured of the Taliban perhaps she can explain their treatment of the Hazara?
Posted by viking13, Saturday, 7 June 2008 3:03:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tell me Paul

Why did the Soviets invade and leave Afghanistan? Thought they could control the place but failled? Even with their censorship and military might.

Why didn't the yanks just keep bombing the hell out of Afghanistan?

That would have saved many US, European and Aussie lives, would have been cheaper, just as effective (Al qaeida would have moved outta there) and billions wouldn't have been wasted in 'reconstruction', there'd be less drugs emanating from the region and the Taliban would be concentrating their efforts in killing and suppressing their own.

Look at what's happening in the region.
Al Qaeida is in Pakistan and is ... err planning,
Iran is going nuclear,
Israel is telling the world it's going to start a nuclear war.

I say let them go that'll absolutely cleanse all three problem nutjob nations.

The Israeli's are the biggest nutjobs. They think they can launch a nuclear strike against Iran and think Pakistan won't respond to an attack on a fellow Islamic nation. They think the rest of the world will sit idle and watch and they think the average Islamist in the region won't attack Israel (As you continually tell us there are millions of them). They think after a nuclear attack the US public and politicians will still support them.

... Nutjobs...

Didn't they learn their lessons from their rout and failure in Lebanon recently. Naaaaah they are just the world's biggest nutjobs.

PaulL go ahead support and encourage them to launch a nuclear strike ... it's in everyones best interests.
Posted by keith, Saturday, 7 June 2008 4:46:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tell me Keith,

How do you jump from a topic about Afganistan to Israeli Nuclear weapons?

You say >>” Why didn't the yanks just keep bombing the hell out of Afghanistan?”

Why would they? It’s counterproductive. You can’t hold ground from the air. You can’t separate insurgents from the population, which is what you need to do to win a guerrilla war, using bombs. It won’t work. Al Qaeda are currently attempting a comeback, after reorganising and rearming in Pakistans’ tribal regions. American efforts in Iraq have unfortunately used up resources which should have been committed to Afghanistan. Bombing or spraying the opium plantations won’t help us either. It will just push the farmers into the Talibans corner because the poppy is all that is keeping their heads above water. We need to buy the poppy from the farmers ourselves and either use it for medicine, or destroy it.

You say >>” The Israeli's are the biggest nutjobs. They think they can launch a nuclear strike against Iran and think Pakistan won't respond to an attack on a fellow Islamic nation.”

Where did you get these ridiculous ideas from? Are you just making them up or did you read it somewhere? I don’t think you understand the different dynamics between the Muslim countries. Iran is mainly Shia, whereas Pakistanis are mostly Sunnis. There is not much of an alliance between Iran and Pakistan. Israel hasn’t even openly admitted having nuclear weapons, let alone threatened anyone with them.

The real nutjobs are those who refuse to hold the uncivilised Middle East to the same standards they expect of Israel, a country under threat for the last 60 years.
Posted by Paul.L, Sunday, 8 June 2008 11:32:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul

Your basic assumption is idiotic.

Why would anyone sane want to hold Afghanistan?

Continually bombing any al qaeida set up or camp in Afghanistan would be enough control. Who do you want to pay for the poppy crops?

The US?
Shortly with their deepening recession they won't have enough funds to even support Israel.

Israel? hahahaha

You need to read more of what the corrupt PM of Israel and his Deputy (Aspirant PM after Olmert goes to jail) are saying.
They are using threats of war to defend or boost their respective positions within the Israeli electorate. That pretty well sums up what Israel is all about.

Oh btw Israel isn't the same as it's neighbours. It is nuclear armed and has on more than one occassion threatened their use. Notable was during the war when they were losing to the Egyptins ... remember. The Soviets threatened to intervene and the world was on the edge of a nuclear war. The US told Israel to back off and they meekly towed the US line ... as they will again. Even now they still cannot afford not to do as the Yanks want. Their neighbours don't toady to the US and don't have to have the same standards.

Simple Paul if you are funded by someone you have to accept the standards they apply.

That was one of the lessons from Lebanon. Remember the outrage in the US and the rest off the world?

Start a nuclear war, forget petty and longterm hatreds, everyone will be your enemy ... doh.
Posted by keith, Sunday, 8 June 2008 1:00:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith

>>” Why would anyone sane want to hold Afghanistan?”

What I said was that you could not hold ground from the air. You cannot help reconstruct the country by bombing it. And if we don’t reconstruct the country and fight the Taliban, they will retake the country by force and we will have to go through this again.

>>”Who do you want to pay …?”

I don’t think you have any idea how LITTLE money the farmers actually get for the raw opium. We are not even talking billions of dollars. And considering the current investment in Afghanistan the cost would be insignificant

>>” The Soviets threatened to intervene and….. The US told Israel to back off …”

Egypt and Syria attacked Israel in a sneak attack on a religious holiday, Yom Kippur, 1973. European nations, under threat of an Arab oil embargo had stopped supplying Israel with munitions.

Whilst Israel suffered some initial setbacks, by the time the ceasefire was declared on October 23rd , Israel had reversed all of the Egyptians gains and trapped their entire 3rd army. On the 24th the Russians threatened the US and Israel with entering the war on Egypt’s side. The US countered that they would join Israel and there the matter ended, the Russians not wanting to start WW3. If Israel had threatened the Soviets with nukes if they invaded they would have been well within their rights. There is no evidence that they did however

The US did demand that the Israelis desist from destroying the trapped Egyptian Army. Certainly the Israelis did not strike pre-emptively to begin the war for fear of losing Washingtons support. But then again, Britain, France and Israel were pulled into line by the US over the Suez crisis in 1956.

>>” … one of the lessons from Lebanon. Remember the outrage … ?”

WTF?, governments of the US, UK, Germany, Australia, and Canada, asserted Israel's right to self-defense. The US further responded by authorizing Israel's request for shipment of precision-guided bombs. Bush declared the conflict to be a part of the War on Terror
Posted by Paul.L, Sunday, 8 June 2008 2:20:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Baghdad's like a walk in the park compared to Afghanistan! It's mainly gun battles, fierce fire fighting from leaving camp to getting back into camp, it's like the Alamo."
Now the strategy of the insurgents appears to be changing, with fewer fights and more bombs being left by the side of the road - Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) - booby traps detonated by home-made pressure pads or by wire hundreds of metres away
Now 100 British troops have died fighting an insurgency war with no end in sight

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7296516.stm

Reasons for conflict
Some 63% thought it was to help the Afghans fight the Taleban and 71% saw UK operations as part of the international fight against al-Qaeda.
Some 44% of those surveyed believed troops were sent to the country to stop the flow of drugs.
Many people worldwide believe this war is for the Central Asian-Caspian gas and oil.
Personally I believe it was one more big mistake from Bush. It is much more difficult to win in Afghanistan than in Iraq.
We could fight Talibans with the other ways.
Thousands Afghans have visited the graves of Muslim foreigners because they believe the dead Muslim fighters was martyrs and can heal them!
For most Afghans this is a religious war! How can we win them?
Westerns must learn to use their brain, in other case they will lose even when really they have right.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide
Posted by ASymeonakis, Monday, 9 June 2008 9:03:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy