[BISHI]

Originally Posted by Rasczak

I would humbly suggest that the Taliban doesn't really need to attack now as, in all effective purposes, they have won. They have now been formally recognised with an Office in Qatar and, according to a recent NATO report, are popular in Afghanistan. They only need wait until Western troops depart in huge numbers in 2013/14 to re-establish control. Maybe by the mid-2020s we will have a Taliban Government in Afghanistan again.

Thats what I believe will happen, yet Sonic has persitently insisted they are finished and all this military expenditure and effort are having results...! Now he is saying it is part of the democratic process that the Taliban are being 'invited' to participate in............he can't have it both ways. If the Taliban take back even a fraction of the power it had before then the whole enterprise will have been the waste of time I always have said it would be..

[BISHI]

Originally Posted by Sonic67

Bishi millions of people weren’t on the protest marches why not Google the figures or would you like me to do it? Besides ‘The Stop The War’ stuff was about Iraq (why are you confusing the two?). We are out of Iraq and still in Afghanistan. Where are the protest marches now?

Not everyone who disagreed could get to the march, it doesn't mean that the majority of the population NOT there were for the war..!

Why don't you google to find out whether islamo terrorism in the UK was as prevalent before the Afghan war as it became after..!!

[Sonic67]

If there is a Taliban government in the 2020's it will be because the public wants them. The surveys of the people by the BBC has them as being unpopular. If there were popular why are they bombing and fighting?

One of the things about democracy is that everyone should be included. They need to be included in talks like anyone else. If they are popular and it's what the people want then that is democracy. If they aren't popular then they we will see. The Taliban as well would have to be become more mainstream to get elected.

Neither is the country being abandoned. Troops are expected to remain there for years to come. The Afghans will be doing the security as they have been doing an increasing role for years as they have been trained up by ISAF.

Bishi so the people who all stayed at home all count as being against the war as well? Interesting accounting.

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by BISHI

Thats what I believe will happen, yet Sonic has persitently insisted they are finished and all this military expenditure and effort are having results...!

Sonic obviously has his view, to which he is perfectly entitled. But I think we should wait and see how things pan out - I think a decade or so hence we will look back and see Afghanistan as a failure inspired by opportunist politicans keen to posture on the world stage and a hawkish military leadership who were desperate to 'use assets or lose them'.

[BISHI]

Originally Posted by Sonic67

If there is a Taliban government in the 2020's it will be because the public wants them. The surveys of the people by the BBC has them as being unpopular. If there were popular why are they bombing and fighting?

One of the things about democracy is that everyone should be included. They need to be included in talks like anyone else. If they are popular and it's what the people want then that is democracy. If they aren't popular then they we will see. The Taliban as well would have to be become more mainstream to get elected.

Neither is the country being abandoned. Troops are expected to remain there for years to come. The Afghans will be doing the security as they have been doing an increasing role for years as they have been trained up by ISAF.

Bishi so the people who all stayed at home all count as being against the war as well? Interesting accounting.

One of the things about 'democracy' in poorer countries is that it is open to corruption either by intimidation or bribery - both of which are endemic in Afghanistan. It will never ever be a functioning democracy - in the same vein as Zimbabwe and Russia it will simply be a veil used to justify its popularity to a bewildered, misinformed and disenfranchised population.

[Sonic67]

Originally Posted by BISHI

One of the things about 'democracy' in poorer countries is that it is open to corruption either by intimidation or bribery - both of which are endemic in Afghanistan. It will never ever be a functioning democracy - in the same vein as Zimbabwe and Russia it will simply be a veil used to justify its popularity to a bewildered, misinformed and disenfranchised population.

This country has had its fair share of corruption regarding democracy. Want links? Regarding democracy once it has been introduced then usually what happens is a certain amount of corruption happens and then eventually if people believe they are being screwed over by those in power they eventually start protesting and rebelling. Has anything similar to that happened in Zimbabwe or Russia?

[BISHI]

Originally Posted by Sonic67

How can it be aggressive occupation when the largest contingent of ISAF is the Afghan people? How come surveys of Afghan people back ISAF? The national government was elected not removed by force. Are you yet another person full of student politics as to how 'we' invaded? You do know it was UN lead don't you? Sure you aren't getting mixed up with Iraq?

Are you completely sure -
The United Nations Charter, to which all the Coalition countries are signatories, provides that all UN member states must settle their international disputes peacefully and no member nation can use military force except in self-defense. The United States Constitution states that international treaties, such as the United Nations Charter, that are ratified by the U.S. are part of the law of the land in the U.S., though subject to effective repeal by any subsequent act of Congress (i.e., the "leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant" or "last in time" canon of statutory interpretation)[99] The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) did not authorize the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom).
Defenders of the legitimacy of the U.S.-led invasion argue that U.N. Security Council authorization was not required since the invasion was an act of collective self-defense provided for under Article 51 of the UN Charter, and therefore was not a war of aggression.[99][100] Critics maintain that the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan were not legitimate self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter because the 9/11 attacks were not “armed attacks” by another state, but rather were perpetrated by groups of individuals or non-state actors, and that these attackers had no proven connection to Afghanistan. Further, it is their opinion that even if a state had perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, no bombing campaign would constitute self-defense; the necessity for self-defense must be “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.”.[101]
President George W. Bush was authorized by Congress on September 14, 2001, by legislation titled Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists which was passed and signed on September 18, 2001, by both President Bush and congress. This legislation authorized the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11 attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The Bush administration, for its part, did not seek a declaration of war by the U.S. Senate, and labeled Taliban troops as supporters of terrorists rather than soldiers, denying them the protections of the Geneva Convention and due process of law. This position was successfully challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court[102] and questioned even by military lawyers responsible for prosecuting affected prisoners.[103] On December 20, 2001, more than two months after the U.S.-led attack began, the UNSC authorized the creation of an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to take all measures necessary to fulfill its mandate of assisting the Afghan Interim Authority in maintaining security.[104] Command of the ISAF passed to NATO on August 11, 2003.[

From here-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)#Legal_ba sis_for_war

It would seem the initial 'aggressive invasion' was not UN led at all but a US led action completely contrary to UNSC directives..!

[BISHI]

Originally Posted by Sonic67

This country has had its fair share of corruption regarding democracy. Want links? Regarding democracy once it has been introduced then usually what happens is a certain amount of corruption happens and then eventually if people believe they are being screwed over by those in power they eventually start protesting and rebelling. Has anything similar to that happened in Zimbabwe or Russia?

This country is rich, it can afford democracy - all enduring democracies exist in the developed world -Off hand I cannot think of any that have persisted beyond 1 or 2 sequential elections before the military/ oligarchs/ theocrats have taken over...................can you..?
People in Russia or Zimbabwe don't get chance to protest, they get intimidated or killed before the rigged results come in. How anyone can expect one of the poorest, corrupt and backwards states on the planet to reach a condition where democracy might succeed is beyond me. Rasczak is right and we are just going to have to sit this one out and see - I commend your optimism Sonic .!!

[Sonic67]

Originally Posted by BISHI

Are you completely sure -

1998 - Taliban massacres thousands as it extends its reach north. UN Security Council imposes economic sanctions against the Taliban for refusing to turn over Osama Bin Laden who is wanted for attacks on US embassies.

2000 - UN Security Council imposes a ban on arms sales to the Taliban.

2001 - US hold Osama directly responsible for attacks on World Trade centre.

December 2001 - Bonn conference.

January 2002 - Tokyo conference. 50 plus countries pledge international assistance.

etc.

For more:

http://www.un.org/news/dh/latest/afg...-history.shtml

Read through that lot and then you decide where you think it all started with the UN.

[Sonic67]

Originally Posted by BISHI

This country is rich, it can afford democracy - all enduring democracies exist in the developed world -Off hand I cannot think of any that have persisted beyond 1 or 2 sequential elections before the military/ oligarchs/ theocrats have taken over...................can you..?
People in Russia or Zimbabwe don't get chance to protest, they get intimidated or killed before the rigged results come in. How anyone can expect one of the poorest, corrupt and backwards states on the planet to reach a condition where democracy might succeed is beyond me. Rasczak is right and we are just going to have to sit this one out and see - I commend your optimism Sonic .!!

I figure that the US will never want to see a repeat of 9/11. What do you think? The UN and the US has been involved in Afghanistan for many years. So I'm not convinced the US are ever going to totally turn their backs on a country that they have been involved in for so long but I'm all for seeing if it will happen Bishi!!

[BISHI]

Originally Posted by Sonic67

1998 - Taliban massacres thousands as it extends its reach north. UN Security Council imposes economic sanctions against the Taliban for refusing to turn over Osama Bin Laden who is wanted for attacks on US embassies.

2000 - UN Security Council imposes a ban on arms sales to the Taliban.

2001 - US hold Osama directly responsible for attacks on World Trade centre.

December 2001 - Bonn conference.

January 2002 - Tokyo conference. 50 plus countries pledge international assistance.

etc.

For more:

United Nations and Afghanistan

Read through that lot and then you decide where you think it all started with the UN.

.................the point was the initial invasion happened WITHOUT UNSC sanction and therefore was an aggressive invasion....and IMO led directly to 7/7 in our country. From the offset it was an American war that we enthusiastically jumped on board and the UN tagged along after the horse had bolted .................to use another metaphor...!!
My point about the UN is that it is not whiter than white and is not the impartial organisation it was set up to be..

[BISHI]

Originally Posted by Sonic67

I figure that the US will never want to see a repeat of 9/11. What do you think? The UN and the US has been involved in Afghanistan for many years. So I'm not convinced the US are ever going to totally turn their backs on a country that they have been involved in for so long but I'm all for seeing if it will happen Bishi!!

I figure that US foreign policy will not really change in the short term, and therefore the Islamicist backlash much of it has provoked will continue. Interesting to see how the 'Arab Spring' will play out over this same short term and if it makes any difference to either..

[Sonic67]

News on ISAF:

DVIDS - News - Confidence in ANP among Afghans grows

Lucky for the children/future of the country that the level of confidence is rising—the people trust the police. According to a survey administered by United Nations Development Program, UNDP, and conducted by Afghan Center for Socioeconomic and Opinion Research, a non-governmental organization founded in 2003, 74 percent of Afghanis have confidence in ANP abilities. That figure has grown since 2010 by three points.

More on the survey on that site.

[icstm]

Originally Posted by Sonic67

I figure that the US will never want to see a repeat of 9/11. What do you think? The UN and the US has been involved in Afghanistan for many years. So I'm not convinced the US are ever going to totally turn their backs on a country that they have been involved in for so long but I'm all for seeing if it will happen Bishi!!

the only way to ensure that a 9/11 does not happen again is to basically completely change our way of life and to give up our freedoms.

In other words, to stop the terrorist event you actually need to allow them to win, ie change what we do.

As for the OP, the size of the Army will correlate with what we can afford, so will grow again in future.

As for the type of operations, it is interesting that our dir. of force development used to state that we can support 1 large and 1 small, or 2 medium delopyments. The US, with a budget over 10x ours says the same now.
So there much clearly be a lack of consistency with what a large conflict is!

[Sonic67]

Originally Posted by icstm

the only way to ensure that a 9/11 does not happen again is to basically completely change our way of life and to give up our freedoms.

In other words, to stop the terrorist event you actually need to allow them to win, ie change what we do.

What 9/11 style event have we had in the last ten years?

[BISHI]

Originally Posted by Sonic67

What 9/11 style event have we had in the last ten years?

7/7 and the Spanish train bomb happened post 9/11. Many possible ones have been claimed to have bee foiled. The people really suffering post 9/11 are the Muslims themselves as there have been countless terror atrocities between the various factions right across the region. Lets not forget what happened in India and the Australian tourists in Bali. I would suggest the world is far more unsafe for many more people across a wider geographic region post 9/11 than before.

[Sonic67]

Al Qaeda pre 9/11.

1992 - Three bombings - in Aden, Yemen
1993 - Attack on US helicopters and servicemen in Somalia
1998 - Bombing of US embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, Dar es Salem, Tanzania - 300 killed, 5000 injured.
2000 - Attack on USS Cole. 17 killed 39 injured.

Also 1994 plot to assassinate Pope John Paul II
1995 plot to assassinate Clinton and bomb trans Pacific flights
1999 attempt to bomb Los Angeles airport, attempt to attack tourists visiting Jordan.

Yeah fairly quiet.

[BISHI]

Most on your list are directed against US military targets - if your foreign policy deems in necessary to put military bases all over the world you can expect to upset a few people. The events post 9/11 made every and any westerner an 'acceptable' target in the minds of the terrorists.

[Sonic67]

Sorry missed 1993 bombing of World Trade centre. Six dead a thousand injured.

I don't think embassies count as military either.

[BISHI]

If you are directing your anger at a militaristic state that is influencing your nations policies to your detriment then an embassy, representative of that state, is an obvious and accessible target. You might not think it a military target but the terrorists clearly do.

[Sonic67]

Terrorists by definition use terror to achieve their aims. I would call those limiting themselves to military targets freedom fighters.

The IRA used to target shopping centres. Set the bomb to explode at three in the morning and you destroy the shop and it's goods and maybe the eardrums of a night watchman. Set it to explode at three in the afternoon and you kill what are probably going to be women and children as well. Hence terrorists using terror to achieve their aims.

For terrorists there is no military target. Everything is fair game. I don't think there is any way to stop the confrontation either. The attacks started pre Iraq/Afghanistan. There's no reason to suppose we'd all be living in peace now. Afghanistan did though remove the training camps and there has been an attempt by the world to try to stop Afghanistan being such a failed state. Something the UN has set out to do with a coalition of nations.

[BISHI]

You see, terrorism is a matter of opinion. To anyone innocent who is killed their deaths could be considered an act of terrorism..................to those with all the power it is re-labelled collateral damage. Death from a a car bomb or from a remotely controlled missile or a laser designated, helicopter mounted, Gatling gun results in an act of terror if those who die or are maimed are not combatants. Plenty more innocent people have died in both Afghanistan and Iraq at the hands of western weaponry than those who died in all the post or pre 9/11 terror acts. What we have ended up with is a wheel of self justifiable violence where terror act begats collateral damage which provokes further acts of terror. It will, in all probability, continue for many years to come.

[Sonic67]

So we are terrorists?

[stanga]

Originally Posted by BISHI

You see, terrorism is a matter of opinion. To anyone innocent who is killed their deaths could be considered an act of terrorism..................to those with all the power it is re-labelled collateral damage. Death from a a car bomb or from a remotely controlled missile or a laser designated, helicopter mounted, Gatling gun results in an act of terror if those who die or are maimed are not combatants. Plenty more innocent people have died in both Afghanistan and Iraq at the hands of western weaponry than those who died in all the post or pre 9/11 terror acts. What we have ended up with is a wheel of self justifiable violence where terror act begats collateral damage which provokes further acts of terror. It will, in all probability, continue for many years to come.

Sources please.

Specifically the part about Western weaponry in Afghanistan and Iraq accounting for more deaths than pre- or post-911 attacks.

You are implying US/UK forces killed more civilians than car bombs and suicide attacks - I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt before I call a media brain-washed imbecile.

[BISHI]

Originally Posted by Sonic67

So we are terrorists?

Again......that's a matter of opinion. Do you expect all those innocent victims families are going to accept the label of ' collateral damage.' If your family had been splattered against the pavement by an apache gunship or a car bomb wouldn't you consider either an act of terror..?

[BISHI]

Originally Posted by stanga

Sources please.

Specifically the part about Western weaponry in Afghanistan and Iraq accounting for more deaths than pre- or post-911 attacks.

You are implying US/UK forces killed more civilians than car bombs and suicide attacks - I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt before I call a media brain-washed imbecile.

Do a basic internet search yourself and you'll find plenty.
I'll start you of with this -
Civilian Victims of United States' Aerial Bombing of Afghanistan

In a 6 month period alone US air attacks killed more people in Afghanistan than people who died in 9/11. Read some of the 'official' statements and tell me these people are not more heartless and cold than the terrorists they were trying to get at through people they killed from the air.
You clearly have a fundamental misunderstanding of how a modern war fought by the USA plays out and I would suggest if you believe the 'official numbers' the imbecilic brainwashing has not been done to me..!

[BISHI]

This taken from WIKIPEDIA-
According to Jonathan Steele of The Guardian, up to 20,000 Afghans may have died as a consequence of the first four months of U.S. airstrikes on Afghanistan.[34]

Civilian casualties in the War in Afghanistan (2001

[BISHI]

Originally Posted by BISHI

This taken from WIKIPEDIA-
According to Jonathan Steele of The Guardian, up to 20,000 Afghans may have died as a consequence of the first four months of U.S. airstrikes on Afghanistan.[34]

Civilian casualties in the War in Afghanistan (2001

Wikileaks brought many more events to light - commentry here-

Afghanistan war logs: Secret CIA paramilitaries' role in civilian deaths | World news | The Guardian

Check out the Poles who bombed a wedding party in retaliation for one of theirs becoming an IED victim.... and this isn't terrorism..!!!

[Sonic67]

Originally Posted by BISHI

Again......that's a matter of opinion. Do you expect all those innocent victims families are going to accept the label of ' collateral damage.' If your family had been splattered against the pavement by an apache gunship or a car bomb wouldn't you consider either an act of terror..?

My experience of Iraq and Afghanistan was of great pains being taken to avoid any civilian casualties.

I don't consider what we do to be an act of terror or that UN/Nato armed forces are terrorists.

Also I'm not aware of Apaches splattering civilians for that matter. Only time I saw them in action was to secure LZs for MERTs.

[BISHI]

1- I would not paint British command with the same degree of callousness as the USA.
2-I guess you missed the WIKILEAKS video of the Reuters photographer being splattered against the wall by an over eager Apache gunner - and the subsequent murder of a family who stopped their car to help..?
3-Have you actually read any of the links below..?