The Corinthian
I will not take Mad Winger's name in vain
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2020
- Messages
- 12,107
- Supports
- A Free Palestine
So who are the US/DEA protecting it from?I wasn't referring to the Taliban.
So who are the US/DEA protecting it from?I wasn't referring to the Taliban.
The US/DEASo who are the US/DEA protecting it from?
That's a really interesting article. (There are so many areas of the world I should know more about!)
It's also interesting that Biden used the 'graveyard of empires' trope. It underlines the neocolonialist angle of American foreign policy - which I think they would usually rather hide in diplomatic language.
Far right cnuts demonstrating at a refugee center here chanting ‘our own people first’ with and I kid you not fireworks after they just fled a warzone. Scumbags, lowest of the low, makes me absolutely sick. Miserable miserable miserable cnuts.
That's quite sick. Even if you think like that go protest infront of a government office who signed the policy why the people ?
Did you actually read the article? Cause it points out that the term is less than 20 years old, and that Afghanistan was not at all a 'difficult' place before the late 1970s. Throughout its many centuries of history before that, it has been both a productive part and powerful heart of many actual empires. So it is most definitely a myth.Graveyard of empires is no neocolonist phrase even local Afghans have a similar phrase for their land
I think analysts like showing off as being smart by "debunking" stuff like graveyard of empires but there is merit to the statement. If you're gonna think of it as Afghanistan as a region being a place that simply can't be conquered then yeah it's not that but fact is many a strong empire has found it very difficult to fully control the region.
The terrain and lack of central power has often been proved an issue. The fact that also has been in a unique geographic location close to competing empires several times in its history adds to that. It's a tough nut to crack especially the rougher parts of it.
There's an old book I read that talked about how in the 80s mujahideen would require flipflops, dried bread and a bag of tea leaves compared to the Russian invaders who needed all sorts of military equipment to compete in the same terrain. Even U.S army upkeep costs is eventually what didn't make it worth it.
Personally I think "debunking" graveyard of empires and the "myth" that the Taliban has nothing to do with the mujahideen who were funded by CIA/ISI sounds like weird history revisionism to me. No one from the area or involved in the issue would think as such.
Did you actually read the article? Cause it points out that the term is less than 20 years old, and that Afghanistan was not at all a 'difficult' place before the late 1970s. Throughout its many centuries of history before that, it has been both a productive part and powerful heart of many actual empires. So it is most definitely a myth.
As for the neocolonialist angle that I mentioned: if the US use the 'graveyard of empires' trope as one of their reasons to leave Afghanistan, then the implication is that the US is an empire that doesn't want to find its grave there. Not an empire in the traditional sense, that conquers and then governs territories; but in the modern, indirect sense, where a country intentionally controls (more or less) another country's economic and/or politics - just like European countries did in Africa.
(In case it helps, Wikipedia defines neocolonialism as 'the practice of using economic imperialism, globalisation, cultural imperialism and conditional aid to influence a country instead of the previous colonial methods of imperialism or indirect political control (hegemony). Neocolonialism differs from standard globalisation and development aid in that it typically results in a relationship of dependence, subservience, or financial obligation towards the neocolonialist nation. This may result in an undue degree of political control or spiraling debt obligations, functionally imitating the relationship of traditional Colonialism.')
The US sent DEA people to Afghanistan in the early days to deal with the drug issue. If there was any protecting of fields it would’ve been to preserve the ability of Afghan farmers to plant other crops and steer them away from the drug trade. Not a very effective strategy in the end given the lopsided profit disparities between poppy and conventional crops.
'All the way back to the British' is really not very far back; Afghanistan's history stretches way further back. I can tell you still haven't read the article, which in fact states this about the Brits:I know where these articles come from and my previous post still applies.
In summary it's not that there have hardly been conqueres of Afghanistan but the fact that there have been several upsets throughout history is what coined the term.
Compare it to the ease of operations in Iraq Afghanistan for it's terrain and warrior like ideology has always been a tough nut to crack even all the way back to the British.
But go on then, where did this article 'come from', as you put it? And what has happened in history that makes Afghanistan truly a graveyard of empires (not just geographically complex; a graveyard!), in a way that makes it stands out across the world In the last three or four millennia?The first Anglo-Afghan War (1839–42) ended in disaster for the British, but they enjoyed markedly more success in the second one (1878–80). They did not remain to occupy the country, but they did install their chosen candidate as amir, annex territory, and reduce Afghanistan to a client state whose existence was beholden to British interests until it gained independence in 1919.
I think/hope it's just a scare tactic so people don't crowd the airport.Imminent terrorist threat in Kabul according to the MOD. Makes for grim listening.
There are pockets of ISIS and certain local elements who are anti-Taliban who would want to cause issues.They are indeed sitting ducks there. The coalition forces have control within the confines of the airport. Everything outside is manned by Taliban checkpoints. Some terrorist group could just fire a missile at a departing aircraft or even the Taliban might want to shoot at the last exiting folk to say they drove them out with force.
Yeah I thought the same and hope so too.I think/hope is just a scare tactic so people don't crowd the airport.
It's not the Taliban though, it's an IS Khorasan threat, isn't it? The Taliban would be foolish to commit a terrorist attack at this moment, just a few days away from all Americans leaving and having the country for themselves.
Possibly related:
What's to make of that - laying low until the world's eyes are not fixed on Afghanistan anymore, or preparing for something big and imminent?
An attack on the airport right now would be heartbreaking. Imagine being so desperate that you still go to a place which is being marked as a potential target for a terrorist attack
Some analysis further down the thread:
I have heard from good sources the majority causing chaos are just those seeking a lottery ticket to the West if a flight can be boarded. The Taliban are trying to guard the perimeters outside of the airport are trying to stop those not supposed to be at the airport as the first line of defence.Yeah I thought the same and hope so too.
They’ve obviously not gone into any detail on the intelligence but the commentators I’ve seen discussing it are suggesting that it could be Al Quida, ISIS or it could even be members of the Taliban as things are so chaotic there right now and there isn’t really any real centralised control yet. It doesn’t really matter who it is though I guess, a terrorist attack at Kabul airport now would be heartbreaking considering the desperation already of the people camping there praying for a flight out.
The US still has a significant edge in projecting power, where it counts.
Just been hearing the government are now advising people to go to the borders. This means more chaos on the borders and giving a green light for more seeking unjustified asylum abroad.
Any Afghan seeking to flee the Taliban would have justifiable claims of asylum.
Very noble, Raoul. Respect.Any Afghan seeking to flee the Taliban would have justifiable claims of asylum.
Explosion outside Kabul airport. Casualties unknown at this time.
All these Americans that are leaving Kabul - are these all diplomats? Or is there a significant chunk of people out their making serious $$$$s?
Seems to be a hell of a lot of non-combat personnel
All these Americans that are leaving Kabul - are these all diplomats? Or is there a significant chunk of people out their making serious $$$$s?
Seems to be a hell of a lot of non-combat personnel
Do the US/UK have a choice ? If they want to get people out safelyIf ISIS-K do kick off with the Taliban, which they obvs will, then what a bizarre situation we will find ourselves in, with the US/UK helping the Taliban to beat them