Afghanistan

[Foxbatt]

Maybe. I was really young back in 2001 and not privy to much, but with the benefit of age and hindsight feel everything ran through Massoud. The US of course wanted to funnel everything through fecking Pakistan.

Actually it's one of the biggest reason for the disaster of Pakistan too. Looks like you are too young to remember the days of Zia Al Haq. He organised a military coup and the US supported him and got him involved in Afghanistan.

 

[golden_blunder]

The area I grew up in and live now saw a lot of Afghan families relocate here since the Afghan war started. I've gotten to know a few and have friends who are Afghani.

The one thing that soon becomes obvious is that Afghani folk can mix quite well with their neighbours generally but not with each other.

I asked and Afghani friend about this and he pointed to the kurdish mosques that had been established by Kurdish folk who came here around the same time because of the war in Iraq. His point was you won't find an Afghani mosque because too many different types of Afghanis, they can get along with everyone except each other based on cultural and political differences, he said.

Religion again the primary reason behind disputes.

 

[nickm]

Very good point. Women's rights are just a narrative to win the PR war to appease and justify going to Afghanistan and its aggression against the country.

That's not the whole story though. The "war on terror" always had a narrative of western values of freedom vs islamist "barbarism", so it's not surprising to see this strand reappear. And truthfully, IMO it is sad to see these small bright light of progress apparently extinguished.

 

[Dante]

Religion again the primary reason behind disputes.

It's race and language in this case.

 

[Raoul]

That's not the whole story though. The "war on terror" always had a narrative of western values of freedom vs islamist "barbarism", so it's not surprising to see this strand reappear. And truthfully, IMO it is sad to see these small bright light of progress apparently extinguished.

I doubt the gains in various freedoms can be reversed. Too many females have gone to school over the past 20 years and are now employed and earning money to support their families. The Taliban (this version of them at least) will have to evolve their views a bit to compensate for this, or else deal with more resistance from the public against a backdrop of knowing their policies will be instensely scrutinized by the world on social media. This applies not only to education, but also women walking around without a male relative, wearing Burcas, media freedoms etc.

 

[Sultan]

The justification was already there due to Bin Ladin and Al-Qaeda using the country as a staging point to plan and execute attacks on the US and Europe. The fact that Taliban 1.0 were medieval, messianic fanatic thugs who causally beheaded opponents, banned girls from school, banned music, and welcomed Al-Qaeda obviously reinforced already overwhelming public support to go in and remove them.

The US simply invaded Afghanistan as a revenge mission.

Chronology of events is evidence it was invaded due to 9/11 and not due to the nastiness of the Taliban or its treatment of LGBT. Just as Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and supporting the war in Yemen it is just either in the line of other massive incompetent decisions by the policymakers or simply a case of the USA wanting to show the world my **** being bigger than yours.

It has again turned out to be another Vietnam Mark 2.

 

[Foxbatt]

I doubt the gains in various freedoms can be reversed. Too many females have gone to school over the past 20 years and are now employed and earning money to support their families. The Taliban (this version of them at least) will have to evolve their views a bit to compensate for this, or else deal with more resistance from the public against a backdrop of knowing their policies will be instensely scrutinized by the world on social media. This applies not only to education, but also women walking around without a male relative, wearing Burcas, media freedoms etc.

If there was no foreign involvement including Pakistan, the Taliban would have been finished most probably.

 

[Lebowski]

Immediately that rules out the invasion and occupation of Nazi Germany and Japan, or in fact any country you are fighting in war, and whose ideologies you are seeking to replace, so I'm not sure that's a useful starting point.

Exactly, it rules out invasion of countries to impose your own ideology and system of government, and reserves invasion only for those rare circumstances where foreign intervention can actually accurately described as assisting the local population.

Whether it would rule out invading Germany is an interesting question - I don't want to derail the thread too far but I don't think it's cut and dry. He only got a third of the vote at the peak of his popularity, and during his rule as a dictator public support was at times incredibly high but at others comparatively low.

It's a good example of the variety of tolerance to foreign intervention though - for example I think most people would consider liberating Vichy France, Japanese held China or declaring war on Germany to liberate Poland as the textbook example of justified force. In a hypothetical other world where Hitler was happy to just run a murderous little third Reich within the borders of 1938 Germany but pose no threat to any other nation, it becomes less clear cut.

 

[Raoul]

The US simply invaded Afghanistan as a revenge mission.

Chronology of events is evidence it was invaded due to 9/11 and not due to the nastiness of the Taliban or its treatment of LGBT. Just as Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and supporting the war in Yemen it is just either in the line of other massive incompetent decisions by the policymakers or simply a case of the USA wanting to show the world my **** being bigger than yours.

It has again turned out to be another Vietnam Mark 2.

Thats pretty much what war is in a way - you do something to us, we do something to you. The US should’ve left after expelling the Taliban (before they reconstituted) and simply moved on, but at the time AQ were still a thing and Bin Laden was still alive watching porn in his Pakistani villa, so the threat of them coming back was still plausible.

 

[Sky1981]

The US simply invaded Afghanistan as a revenge mission.

Chronology of events is evidence it was invaded due to 9/11 and not due to the nastiness of the Taliban or its treatment of LGBT. Just as Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and supporting the war in Yemen it is just either in the line of other massive incompetent decisions by the policymakers or simply a case of the USA wanting to show the world my **** being bigger than yours.

It has again turned out to be another Vietnam Mark 2.

Incompetence is ok, understandable.

This is not incompetence. This is a calculated war to maximise private contractors profit. 20 years of war siphoning tax payer money feeding the war industry, at the same time disturbing the middle east. Every second a soldier is on the ground it takes 5 people to prepare the logistic and god knows how many dollars to keep the whole operation going for 20 years.

 

[Raoul]

If there was no foreign involvement including Pakistan, the Taliban would have been finished most probably.

100%. Without the ability to scamper across the border for refuge, the Taliban wouldn’t have been able to keep their insurgency afloat in Afghanistan. Whether that was with the occasional, tacit support of Pakistani elements or not - the fact that the border was so porous made it much easier to use Pakistan as a staging point.

 

[Sky1981]

Exactly, it rules out invasion of countries to impose your own ideology and system of government, and reserves invasion only for those rare circumstances where foreign intervention can actually accurately described as assisting the local population.

Whether it would rule out invading Germany is an interesting question - I don't want to derail the thread too far but I don't think it's cut and dry. He only got a third of the vote at the peak of his popularity, and during his rule as a dictator public support was at times incredibly high but at others comparatively low.

It's a good example of the variety of tolerance to foreign intervention though - for example I think most people would consider liberating Vichy France, Japanese held China or declaring war on Germany to liberate Poland as the textbook example of justified force. In a hypothetical other world where Hitler was happy to just run a murderous little third Reich within the borders of 1938 Germany but pose no threat to any other nation, it becomes less clear cut.

Justified or no is simply how many percent of the population supports a force.

Works with france because the US is the liberator.

Even an invasion force can be justified if the population majority supports it. History is afterall written by the victor.

In this case nobody wants the US invasion, not the Afghanistan definitely.

And you can always find dissident that takes you as the liberator, prop them up on tv for propaganda, but these last few days clearly shows that the majority dont want the US there.

Taliban can't win if the majority dont side with them, not to mention they got 20 years of US support. Corruption or no corruption the US never win the heart or the nation as a whole.

Maybe it's time for soft approach, let's see how russia and co deals with taliban government. Invest in them perhaps? Maybe we're underestimating the taliban. They love their country more than we ever possibly fathom.

And the atrocities that they bring... what seriously does the west expect? For them to just forgive and forget that for the past 20 years the US afghanistan government have been hunting them down and bomb them and force them to lives in caves?

You cant seriously expect that. But i feel that apart from minor revenge in the grand scheme of things the taliban seems rather looking forward to reconciliation. The situation could be much worse down there but it seems there will be a rather peaceful power transition.

Off course peaceful is a relative terms. We're not expecting hugs and kisses but i think and i hope a full scale violent reprisal is off the boon

 

[Paxi]

 

[Sky1981]

Just what do you expect? The UK or US to accept 20-30 percent of Afghanistan population?

Those that left behind will be forced to fend for themselves. Some high level general and vvip might get the lottery but for the rest of them... adieu...

Happens with vietnam. The reason why pulling out has to be quick is precisely this. If their evacuation is not swift they will have their hands full on people wanting to go along.

Who can blame each side. They have to pick a side. It's either play along or be the enemy. It's not like you can be neutral for 20 years.

 

[Shez]

Not a chance. He's there because he won an election. He had the support of the masses. Visit Pakistan sometime and ask the people on the street.

The army is a convenient bogeyman. In reality in Pakistan the military, judiciary, politicians, journalists, fuedal Lords, media moguls and business tycoons are all cut from the same cloth. They are all from an elite social circle. They're like the brown version of the British Raj.

Imran Khan is a glitch in the matrix. Maybe he'll be our Neo.

I can’t take you seriously

 

[nickm]

Just what do you expect? The UK or US to accept 20-30 percent of Afghanistan population?

Those that left behind will be forced to fend for themselves. Some high level general and vvip might get the lottery but for the rest of them... adieu...

Happens with vietnam. The reason why pulling out has to be quick is precisely this. If their evacuation is not swift they will have their hands full on people wanting to go along.

I don't agree. We have a moral obligation here. The UK just offered passports to 5.4 million Hong Kong Chinese and we took in approx 50k Ugandan asians when Idi Amin expelled them. There is something between those two numbers that would recognise the debt we owe.

 

[Sultan]

That's not the whole story though. The "war on terror" always had a narrative of western values of freedom vs islamist "barbarism", so it's not surprising to see this strand reappear. And truthfully, IMO it is sad to see these small bright light of progress apparently extinguished.

The allies over the last few decades have killed more innocents, maimed and destroyed families and fully functioning nations than the vile ISIS and Al-Qaeda. I would have a problem quantifying who's more barbaric. It's about time the media changed the narrative.

 

[Foxbatt]

I don't agree. We have a moral obligation here. The UK just offered passports to 5.4 million Hong Kong Chinese and we took in approx 50k Ugandan asians when Idi Amin expelled them. There is something between those two numbers that would recognise the debt we owe.

Morality and the British Government should not be in the same sentence.

 

[Foxbatt]

I have a genuine question for the Americans and The British here.
What do you classify the Afghanis who fight against the foreign troops in Afghanistan? Terrorists? Or nationals of Afghanistan fighting against a foreign invaders?

 

[nickm]

Morality and the British Government should not be in the same sentence.

I believe the awful Priti Patel is the daughter of one of those Ugandan asians, but you can be sure she won't make the connection.

 

[owlo]

Actually it's one of the biggest reason for the disaster of Pakistan too. Looks like you are too young to remember the days of Zia Al Haq. He organised a military coup and the US supported him and got him involved in Afghanistan.

Yep, I was like 4 when he died.

If there was no foreign involvement including Pakistan, the Taliban would have been finished most probably.

Absolutely! In an alternate reality where the US intervened in Pakistan and left Massoud's alliance to take Afghanistan, the whole region would be in a far better shape.

100%. Without the ability to scamper across the border for refuge, the Taliban wouldn’t have been able to keep their insurgency afloat in Afghanistan. Whether that was with the occasional, tacit support of Pakistani elements or not - the fact that the border was so porous made it much easier to use Pakistan as a staging point.

The ISI were actively funding and supporting them forever. It wasn't just the ability to scamper over borders. Pakistan propped them up.

Exactly, it rules out invasion of countries to impose your own ideology and system of government, and reserves invasion only for those rare circumstances where foreign intervention can actually accurately described as assisting the local population.

Whether it would rule out invading Germany is an interesting question - I don't want to derail the thread too far but I don't think it's cut and dry. He only got a third of the vote at the peak of his popularity, and during his rule as a dictator public support was at times incredibly high but at others comparatively low.

It's a good example of the variety of tolerance to foreign intervention though - for example I think most people would consider liberating Vichy France, Japanese held China or declaring war on Germany to liberate Poland as the textbook example of justified force. In a hypothetical other world where Hitler was happy to just run a murderous little third Reich within the borders of 1938 Germany but pose no threat to any other nation, it becomes less clear cut.

I think I didn't explain properly before. The actual invasion/initial goals are never (or very rarely?) to impose your form of government or ideology in any conflict. 'Jus post bellum' which I mentioned is basically the theory on post war justice - ranging from getting out immediately, to propping up a new government/structure to make the place 'better.'

The actual invasions are generally less interesting. In the case of Afghanistan, it was never not going to happen after 9/11.

 

[Sultan]

If there was no foreign involvement including Pakistan, the Taliban would have been finished most probably.

If anything, Pakistan was working with the Americans. Musharraf from being a pariah of the West became a key player in the US-led war on terror and supported the invasion of Afghanistan.

 

[Red_toad]

Just what do you expect? The UK or US to accept 20-30 percent of Afghanistan population?

Those that left behind will be forced to fend for themselves. Some high level general and vvip might get the lottery but for the rest of them... adieu...

Happens with vietnam. The reason why pulling out has to be quick is precisely this. If their evacuation is not swift they will have their hands full on people wanting to go along.

Who can blame each side. They have to pick a side. It's either play along or be the enemy. It's not like you can be neutral for 20 years.

I can't believe how quickly the Afgan army have disintegrated, you'd think they'd be very motivated to defend the vulnerable. I believe they outnumbered to Taliban by some margin.

 

[nickm]

Exactly, it rules out invasion of countries to impose your own ideology and system of government, and reserves invasion only for those rare circumstances where foreign intervention can actually accurately described as assisting the local population.

Whether it would rule out invading Germany is an interesting question - I don't want to derail the thread too far but I don't think it's cut and dry. He only got a third of the vote at the peak of his popularity, and during his rule as a dictator public support was at times incredibly high but at others comparatively low.

It's a good example of the variety of tolerance to foreign intervention though - for example I think most people would consider liberating Vichy France, Japanese held China or declaring war on Germany to liberate Poland as the textbook example of justified force. In a hypothetical other world where Hitler was happy to just run a murderous little third Reich within the borders of 1938 Germany but pose no threat to any other nation, it becomes less clear cut.

My point is sometimes invading and occupation is necessary hence the German and Japan examples but yes that should be reserved for the most dangerous instances. Certainly I would prefer a clear frame work for interventions, rather than what we have now, which is isolation. I don't think that will last forever, we can't hide from all the nasty people forever. Events happen.

 

[owlo]

I don't agree. We have a moral obligation here. The UK just offered passports to 5.4 million Hong Kong Chinese and we took in approx 50k Ugandan asians when Idi Amin expelled them. There is something between those two numbers that would recognise the debt we owe.

Strongly agree with this. Agree in caps. We have room. We have responsibility. Take them in. Unfortunately it'd never fly. Immigrants and all that.

 

[Raoul]

I have a genuine question for the Americans and The British here.
What do you classify the Afghanis who fight against the foreign troops in Afghanistan? Terrorists? Or nationals of Afghanistan fighting against a foreign invaders?

If there’s a democratically elected government then these people would by definition be referred to as insurgents.

 

[Foxbatt]

If anything, Pakistan was working with the Americans. Musharraf from being a pariah of the West became a key player in the US-led war on terror and supported the invasion of Afghanistan.

This is the point I am making. Pakistani involvement from the beginning was sponsored by The Americans. From the days of the USSR involvement in Afghanistan.

 

[Wednesday at Stoke]

If you've followed this thread this question has been answered. The so-called Al-Qaeda was invited by the US to fight the Russians and radicalised in the process. They were not then let back to their countries of birth. They made their home in Afghanistan. The terror committed abroad was not by the Afghans.

I am sure not many had ever heard the word Al-Qaida or even ISIS prior to 9/11 or even if these groups existed. These groups were created by a political landscape created over the last 20/25 years. Greed, control of resources, mistakes by policymakers and narrative creators, and those with racist and religious agendas for their political careers or beliefs.

Sure, I’m not saying the west is blameless either. Every conflict in the history of the modern world can be traced back to either colonialism or the Cold War, that is nothing new.

The maligned Al Qaeda of 2001 were the celebrated mujahideen during the Soviet occupation.

 

[Wednesday at Stoke]

If committing terrorism abroad is justification for a military occupation, then there are going to be a lot of capitals that need to be bombed. Do you think we should we start with the biggest offenders like Washington and Riyadh, or start smaller with Jakarta and Tehran and just move our way up?

Sure, if the cost of war is affordable, you can fight anyone. The matter of fact is that most of those battles you mention end up being internecine.

 

[Roane]

Religion again the primary reason behind disputes.

I wouldn't say so. It's politics mainly.

Afghanistan is pretty much divided on political lines. Even the education issue has political leanings mainly due to communism curriculum in some schools.

The point is that Afghanistan population are constantly at loggerheads with each other based in which political spectrum they fall under. In UK the shah Masoud guys don't like some of the others and even in my locality the "hatred" is obvious. They pray at the same mosque (run by Pakistani committees in the main) yet won't sit with each other outside of the mosque. This is what they lack of they want to set up a Afghani mosque. It wouldn't get the numbers.

 

[owlo]

This is the point I am making. Pakistani involvement from the beginning was sponsored by The Americans. From the days of the USSR involvement in Afghanistan.

Nah he doesn't understand the nuance; that Pakistan (well, 'Pakistan government' and 'ISI, army, others within government') were and are playing and funding both sides at once. Or that US funding was basically bribery gone wrong. To him its this simple: Pakistan supported the US invasion and killing off the Taliban.

Probably they'll turn to destabilizing India next.

I have a genuine question for the Americans and The British here.
What do you classify the Afghanis who fight against the foreign troops in Afghanistan? Terrorists? Or nationals of Afghanistan fighting against a foreign invaders?

Pawns, for the most part.

 

[Sky1981]

I don't agree. We have a moral obligation here. The UK just offered passports to 5.4 million Hong Kong Chinese and we took in approx 50k Ugandan asians when Idi Amin expelled them. There is something between those two numbers that would recognise the debt we owe.

You really believe that? read the fine print

 

[nickm]

You really believe that? read the fine print

Yes, I believe it because it's the right thing to do.

 

[Lebowski]

I think I didn't explain properly before. The actual invasion/initial goals are never (or very rarely?) to impose your form of government or ideology in any conflict. 'Jus post bellum' which I mentioned is basically the theory on post war justice - ranging from getting out immediately, to propping up a new government/structure to make the place 'better.'

The actual invasions are generally less interesting. In the case of Afghanistan, it was never not going to happen after 9/11.

It was never not going to happen after 9/11 with neocons in charge, true. There are a lot of other countries who have suffered far more deadly atrocities and not responded with military force though, even in situations where the link between the atrocity and the perpetrator are far more clear cut than 9/11 and Afghanistan.

I do agree that you need to separate the case for war from the case for withdrawal though. The war was completely unjust and demonstrably deleterious for the participants and the region, but that fact alone doesn't mean that withdrawal was justified either. Broadly speaking I was completely against invading Afghanistan, but contrary to a lot of my usual allies on the left I was also against the sort of ceremonial and sudden withdrawal that we've seen in the last few weeks.

On the question of withdrawal I think we may actually agree. Once you've invaded a country there's a responsibility on you to facilitate your withdrawal in a manner which doesn't cause even more misery to the population you're occupying.

 

[Foxbatt]

I believe the awful Priti Patel is the daughter of one of those Ugandan asians, but you can be sure she won't make the connection.

Of course she doesn't. She is more harsh against immigrants than the original English.

 

[Foxbatt]

It was never not going to happen after 9/11 with neocons in charge, true. There are a lot of other countries who have suffered far more deadly atrocities and not responded with military force though, even in situations where the link between the atrocity and the perpetrator are far more clear cut than 9/11 and Afghanistan.

I do agree that you need to separate the case for war from the case for withdrawal though. The war was completely unjust and demonstrably deleterious for the participants and the region, but that fact alone doesn't mean that withdrawal was justified either. Broadly speaking I was completely against invading Afghanistan, but contrary to a lot of my usual allies on the left I was also against the sort of ceremonial and sudden withdrawal that we've seen in the last few weeks.

On the question of withdrawal I think we may actually agree. Once you've invaded a country there's a responsibility on you to facilitate your withdrawal in a manner which doesn't cause even more misery to the population you're occupying.

Once you break it then you own it.

 

[Sky1981]

Yes, I believe it because it's the right thing to do.

*eligible for application
*only if you're wealthy enough and can sport evidence that you can live in UK for the first 6months

As indicated above, adults born after the 1997 cut-off date for acquiring BN(O) status are not independently eligible for the visa. They can only apply if they have a BN(O) parent in their household who also wishes to move to the UK at the same time.

Applicants do not need to have a BN(O) passport or a specified level of English. They will need to show an ability to accommodate and maintain themselves for their first six months in the UK. Successful applicants will be able to work and study but will not automatically be eligible for taxpayer funded benefits defined as public funds. Nor will they be classed as home students for tuition fee purposes immediately upon arrival in the UK.

Doesnt mean any average high school graduate can simply choose to move to UK, but hey, if you're rich you're welcomed.

If your application is unsuccessful
If you’re a British national (overseas) and your application is unsuccessful, your family members’ applications will also be refused. If your application is successful but your family member’s is not, you can still come to the UK.

You’ll get a refund for the healthcare surcharge you paid for each unsuccessful application.

 

[Spoony]

Most Afghans didn't care Najibullah was propped up by the Soviets, they were living their lives as they'd been doing for centuries. They didn't want to fight until the US propagated it was a Jihad..since then it's been an utter disaster, the whole and wider area has been distabilised. Will be interesting to see what the outcome of Chinese interest will do to the region especially since it could be another key to its Belt and Road initiative, also India won't be able to use Afghanistan for proxy attacks (how will it affect them?)and I suspect another large surge of Afghan immigrants to Pakistan which will be problematic. It's been a disaster which ever way you look at it , except for a few girls in Kabul who've been able to go to Uni(They did during Najibullah's time...). I suspect the biggest winners are China.

 

[Spoony]

It's a bit rich some talking about LGBT where conversion therapy is still widely practised in many states of the US.

I suspect it's way down on the list of things to sort out in Afghanistan. I could be wrong.

 

[Sky1981]

Most Afghans didn't care Najibullah was propped up by the Soviets, they were living their lives as they'd been doing for centuries. They didn't want to fight until the US propagated it was a Jihad..since then it's been an utter disaster, the whole and wider area has been distabilised. Will be interesting to see what the outcome of Chinese interest will do to the region especially since it could be another key to its Belt and Road initiative, also India won't be able to use Afghanistan for proxy attacks (how will it affect them?)and I suspect another large surge of Afghan immigrants to Pakistan which will be problematic. It's been a disaster which ever way you look at it , except for a few girls in Kabul who've been able to go to Uni(They did during Najibullah's time...). I suspect the biggest winners are China.

Not out of the goodness of their hearts, but it's better to maintain good relationship, invest, and reap the fruits of their investment later on compared to having an unstable region.

Those tanks and bombs aren't cheap, and they aren't doing a very good job of winning hearts. Maybe it's time for cheap smartphone and railways tracks and jobs. Even the most battle hardened fighter can't resist a good korean drama they say.

Having Afghanistan as an ally worth a lot in the grand scheme of things. Having China as an ally also helps economically, much more than relying on the western pennies. These days only China have the money and manpower to jump in and built your nation, regardless of what they ask in return, at least it's better than guns on your head. Taliban if they're smart knows that the war is already won, it's time to look forward if they want to maintain power.