Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
Afghanistan - Britain's Longest War?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Tuesday, 12th June 2007
As of today (12 June 2007) the war in Afghanistan has lasted for 5 years, 8 months and 5 days since it began on 7 October 2001.
This is exactly the same length of time as was Britain's involvement in the Second World War in Europe which began on 3 September 1939 and ended on 8 May 1945 (5 years, 8 months and 5 days). Tomorrow this timescale will have been overtaken by the Afghanistan War.
Am I right in believing that this is now Britain's longest war since the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 or has there another war since then which lasted longer?
U_numbers -
Message 2
Posted by Stepney Boy (U1760040) on Tuesday, 12th June 2007
Hi,
Would you include Northern Ireland?
Slainte
Spike -
Message 3
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Wednesday, 13th June 2007
The war in Afghanistan began in 1979 and it was unleashed by the Russian invasion , Pilot. Britishers had nothing to do with the roots of that war.Before 1979 none even had a guess that Al Quade could ever to be born on this soil. At first there was Masud who , although only twenty-eight years old , was the best known and most effective of the Afghan guerrillas....then he was murdered ...to make a room for such persons as B.L. ...who prefers to conduct his 'operations' not against Russians but against the West....simultaneously blaming in all sins which exists the both of sides. Why? An enigma.
-
Message 4
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Wednesday, 13th June 2007
Would you include Northern Ireland?Ìý
Interesting question Spike. The short answer is no. There are 2 main reasons for this.
The first is that Northern Ireland is a province of the UK and this fundamental status has not been altered. This differs, say, with the French experience in Algeria where an integral part of metropolitan France (the Algerian departements) did leave France and became independent.
Secondly (and perhaps more importantly) is the fact the that 'the Troubles' in Northern Ireland were not a war. It was a case of sectional civil strife frequently exacerbated by bigotted violence, sectarian murder and terrorist outrages. There was no equivalent of Algeria's Front de Liberation National (FLN) in Northern Ireland.
Similar to the Northern Ireland troubles, is another candidate for the title of Britain's Longest War which was, the Malay States Emergency (1948-1960). As with Northern Ireland, however, this can also be rejected as it too was not a war. Admittedly there was a brief period from 1948-1951, in the first phase of the Emergency, when it seemed that the Malayan National Liberation Army (MNLA) was indeed engaging in a conventional guerilla war although even during those early years there was the occasional act of terrorism.
It soon became evident, however, that a power struggle was going on within the MNLA between the guerillas and the terrorists. And (as has so often happened in these cases) it was the terrorists who won out. From 1951 onwards the MNLA was an out-and-out terrorist group. Moreover it was increasingly seen by the Malay people and by the wider world to be a sectional murder gang. It was, therefore, increasingly easy in Malaya (as was later the case with the various sectional murder gangs in Northern Ireland) for the security forces to counter the terrorists' activities. -
Message 5
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Wednesday, 13th June 2007
'And (as has so often happened in these cases) it was the terrorists who won out. From 1951 onwards the MNLA was an out-and-out terrorist group.'-exactly how it did happen in Afghanistan to 2000.That's why officially Britishers in 2001 were involved in the Operation (not war) against terrorists.To 2001 the real leaders of guerillas ,with whom it was possible to wage a war, were dead already....Spike is right.
-
Message 6
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Wednesday, 27th June 2007
Although it's correct OUNUPA that the British involvement in Afghanistan (along with the rest of NATO) is not officially described as a war. It has to be appreciated, however, that that description is given by the governments involved.
The reality is that NATO troops invaded Afghanistan in 2001. That was an act of war. The opponents whom NATO is fighting in Afghanistan, to this day, (the Taliban), is essentially the same as was in 2001.
Admittedly the Taliban (and others) have employed terroristic methods over the last 6 years. There is, however, also a definite guerilla element to the forces opposing NATO in Afghanistan as has been recently evidenced by skirmishes with British forces in Helmand province for example.
I also take the point that the war in Afghanistan long predates the arrival of NATO troops in 2001 and that that country can be said to have been in a virtually state of some form of war since 1979 (with the Soviet invasion) or possibly even earlier.
The point of this thread, however, is to highlight that the war in Afghanistan is (from a British point of view) the longest war since the Napoleonic era. From a British military history angle this is significant.
Furthermore not only is Afghanistan the longest war in British history, over the last 200 years, but it is also concurrent with another war which is also breaking records in terms of British military history - namely the war in Iraq.
In a bizarre coincidence, today (27 June 2007), sees the Iraq War surpass the length of duration of Britain's involvement in the First World War - (4 years, 3 months and 7 days). This is a bizarre coincidence because today also marks the resignation from office of British prime minister Anthony Blair who is so closely identified with the Iraq War.
The fact is that 2 of the longest wars in British history are currently taking place at the same time. Here's a list of the longest wars in which Britain took part since 1803:
Napoleonic War – 18 May 1803-11 April 1814 (10 years, 10 months, 24 days)
Second World War (Total) – 3 September 1939-15 August 1945 (5 years, 11 months, 12 days)
Afghanistan War - 7 October 2001 - present (5 years, 9 months, 20 days)
Second World War (In Europe) – 3 September 1939-8 May 1945 (5 years, 8 months, 5 days)
Iraq War – 20 March 2003 - present (4 years, 3 months, 7 days)
First World War – 4 August 1914-11 November 1918 (4 years, 3 months, 7 days)
Second World War (With Japan) – 8 December 1941-15 August 1945 (3 years, 8 months, 7 days)
Korean War – 27 June 1950-27 July 1953 (3 years, 1 month)
Second Boer War – 11 October 1899-31 May 1902 (2 years, 7 months, 20 days)
Crimean War - 28 March 1854-30 March 1856 (2 years, 2 days)
First Boer War – 16 December 1880-23 March 1881 (3 months, 7 days)
A remarkable list by any reckoning.
regards
U_numbers -
Message 7
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Wednesday, 27th June 2007
and we won all but the ones were still fighting!
god save england! cheers!
not entirely sure why youve given multiples of the second wolrd war-as it was one war on a series of fronts, rather than 5 or 6 contiguous wars. (not sure on the number of theaters. to my mind 5 or 6 but there may be more or less.) -
Message 8
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Thursday, 28th June 2007
'here is, however, also a definite guerilla element to the forces opposing NATO in Afghanistan as has been recently evidenced by skirmishes with British forces in Helmand province for example.'-I can hardly call the Taliban (a sect!!!) as a guerilla element,Pilot.
The strength of the guerilla armies derives from their close ties with the village : this enable 'em to carry out the guerrilla-type operations which so confounded the Soviet commanders in 1980-88.With the support of the LOCAL POPULATION the armies were scarcely vulnerable , extraordinary invisible , and so to speak ubiquitous.They were organized on a partizan basis with each village responsible for mobilizing , feeding and equipping its own troops. Peasants could become soldiers , and soldiers peasants.The villages were the ears and eyes of the mujahideens- women , children , even beggars served as spies-and everywhere the Russians were vulnarable to ambush.The Babrak's Afghan Army and Ministry of Defence were riddled with mujihideen agents -nothing the Russians told their puppets was secret. It was immediately leaked to the Resistance.
+Masud could set up mobile groups, each of one hundred and fifty men. Each group had three platoons of thirty men, armed with Kalashnikovs, Kalakovs, light machine guns (PKs) and RPG7s , a small headquarters unit and a heavy weapons squad of fifty men , armed with mortars , artillery , heavy machine guns and AGS 17 grenade launchers. He conducted a mobile war against the big Russian bases in the north and north-east leaving his stronghold in Panjsher. -
Message 9
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Thursday, 28th June 2007
+There were 45 million Muslims in the southern states of the USSR-Turkmenistan , Uzbekistan and Tadjikistan...many of 'em were Soviet soldiers...and many of 'em deserted to the mujahideen when they realized a lie of political commissars...those who told 'em the Americans and Brits were there.
-
Message 10
Posted by IrHist (U4245554) on Thursday, 28th June 2007
'There was no equivalent of Algeria's Front de Liberation National (FLN) in Northern Ireland.'
Really? I would have thought the IRA were the exact eqiuvalent of the FLN... -
Message 11
Posted by boabbie (U6156662) on Friday, 29th June 2007
What about all the Welsh Irish and Scots.
-
Message 12
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Friday, 6th March 2009
The Iraq War has now surpassed the length of duration of the UK's involvement in the Second World War (5 years, 11 months, 12 days). The Afghanistan War has lasted even longer. Here's the updated list of the longest wars in which the UK has taken part since 1815:
Afghanistan War - 7 October 2001 - present (7 years, 4 months, 29 days)
Iraq War – 20 March 2003 - present (5 years, 11 months, 13 days)
Second World War (Total) – 3 September 1939-15 August 1945 (5 years, 11 months, 12 days)
Second World War (In Europe) – 3 September 1939-8 May 1945 (5 years, 8 months, 5 days)
First World War – 4 August 1914-11 November 1918 (4 years, 3 months, 7 days)
Second World War (With Japan) – 8 December 1941-15 August 1945 (3 years, 8 months, 7 days)
Korean War – 27 June 1950-27 July 1953 (3 years, 1 month)
Second Boer War – 11 October 1899-31 May 1902 (2 years, 7 months, 20 days)
Crimean War - 28 March 1854-30 March 1856 (2 years, 2 days)
First Boer War – 16 December 1880-23 March 1881 (3 months, 7 days)
The Iraq War, however, is (scheduled) to end next year. Will the Afghanistan War last longer than the Napoleonic War (10 years, 10 months, 24 days) and become the longest war in UK history? -
Message 13
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Friday, 6th March 2009
The 100 year war still rates highly, or if you count all our wars with the French as one war with breaks!!! about a thousand years.
-
Message 14
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Saturday, 7th March 2009
Neither the Afghanistan or Iraqi operations should be treated as ongoing "wars" - since the object of both - the downfall of the incumbent regime - was achieved relatiively swiftly within a matter of weeks and UK (and all other Allied) forces currently operate in those countries at the invitation of the present governments against rebel forces seeking to displace them.
Rather they should be seen as anti-insurgency operations in aid of the civil power. By this definition even the Afghanistan operation still falls some way short of the Malayan Emergency which lasted from 1948 to 1960 and the "troubles" in Northern Ireland which lasted from British troops being deployed by the Wilson Government in August 1969 (to stop Protestant rioting) to the signature of the Good Friday Agreement in April 1999. -
Message 15
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Saturday, 7th March 2009
Sorry, VaU, I did not see your message before writing mine above. I would agree that the Malay and Northern Ireland military operations were not "wars" in the conventional sense as they both involved the use of military power in aid of the civil power (which was an independent native Malay Government after 1957) against insurgents who directed their violence against civilians as much as they did against the military forces but I would also classify the current Afghan and Iraqi conflicts (at least since the overthrow of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein) in that category also.
However the Malay Emergency incvolved conventional military engagements too with firefights as did the Bornoeo Campaign (1961-66) which some count separately from the Malay operation as it involved infiltration by Indonesian communists but it resulted from the failure of the first. At least 2 VCs were awarded in that campaign so there is at least an official recognition that an anti-insurgency campaign shares some characteristics with a conventional war at least regarding meritorious behaviour in the field.
The Second Boer War (1899-1902) had the characteristics of both - a conventional war until the two Boer Republics were overrun in the autumn of 1900 and then an insurgency campaign until a peace treaty was signed in May 1902 and it is treated as a war throughout.
The insurgents in both Northern Ireland also had access to funding, weapons and training from outside (the IRA had weapons from Libya and Eastern Europe as well as funds from the USA and training in the Middle East, the Malay insurgents from China). The other distinguishing factor in Malaya was that, as in Northern Ireland, the majority popoulation made up of Malays remained loyal to the British whilst the insurgents found their recruits and supporters among the native Chinese population. Both conflicts were as much intercommunal in character as directed against the external power. Other insurgency campaigns such as the so-called Mau-Mau Uprising in Kenya (1952-57) were also more intercommunal in nature and involved literally internecine conflict within the same tribe. -
Message 16
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Monday, 9th March 2009
vizzer
Wasnt the Mahdist rising in Sudan longer at least 1881 to 1886 some sources says that it wasnt really put down until 1890 or 91.
Hasse -
Message 17
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Thursday, 26th March 2009
Good point Hasse. The Sudanese-British War should indeed be included in the list and there are certainly parallels between the war in Afghanistan today and the wars in the Sudan in the 1880s and 1890s.
There were, however, 2 separate events which took place in the Sudan in those 20 years between 1880-1900. The first was the Sudanese Mahdist Revolt in the 1880s and the second was the Sudanese British War of the 1890s.
The first of these (the Mahdist Revolt) wasn’t against the British as such but was against Ottoman Egypt. It lasted from 1881-85. The only reason the Britain got involved in the latter part of the revolt (the Nile Expedition in the winter of 1884-5) was as part of the evacuation plan for its subjects. The need for British intervention at that time has largely been attributed to the overconfidence and subsequent besiegement at Khartoum of the Egyptian officer (but British subject) Charles Gordon who was the Egyptian Governor of Sudan.
The second event took place over 10 years later. This was the Sudanese-British War or the Sudanese Campaign which was led by Herbert Kitchener and lasted from 18 March 1896 until 24 November 1899. This certainly deserves to go on the list as the Sudanese-British War at 3 years, 8 months and 6 days actually lasted longer than the Second Boer War which immediately followed it and which also involved Kitchener.
Thanks for pointing it out. The Sudanese-British War is one of those often overlooked episodes in world history. -
Message 18
Posted by theoldnat (U13888544) on Thursday, 26th March 2009
The thread is about Britain's wars. If we have to deal with the activities of Britain's precursors then that is a very different point.
-
Message 19
Posted by justalexander (U13884823) on Wednesday, 1st April 2009
Its fare to say that Afghanistan hasnt been anyones longest war.
But throughout history it has been the most inwinable. Only Alexander has been credited with winning it.But in reality he didnt nor will anyone else. As The Russians and now the Coalition are learning.
How can a a coalition win in Afghanistan where it can offer no real alternative than the oipium trade.Where trides have warred for centuries. -
Message 20
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Friday, 3rd April 2009
Over
Tamerlan did take and ocupied Afghanistan.
Hasse -
Message 21
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Wednesday, 7th October 2009
Today marks the 8th anniversary of the start of the Afghanistan War and with no end in sight. Here's the updated list of the longest wars in which the UK has taken part since 1815:
Afghanistan War - 7 October 2001 - present (8 years)
Iraq War – 20 March 2003 - 30 April 2009 (6 years, 1 month, 10 days)
Second World War (Total) – 3 September 1939-15 August 1945 (5 years, 11 months, 12 days)
Second World War (In Europe) – 3 September 1939-8 May 1945 (5 years, 8 months, 5 days)
First World War – 4 August 1914-11 November 1918 (4 years, 3 months, 7 days)
Second World War (With Japan) – 8 December 1941-15 August 1945 (3 years, 8 months, 7 days)
Sudano-British War - 18 March 1896-24 November 1899 (3 years, 8 months and 6 days)
Korean War – 27 June 1950-27 July 1953 (3 years, 1 month)
Second Boer War – 11 October 1899-31 May 1902 (2 years, 7 months, 20 days)
Crimean War - 28 March 1854-30 March 1856 (2 years, 2 days)
First Boer War – 16 December 1880-23 March 1881 (3 months, 7 days)
The Closing Ceremony of the London Summer Paralympic Games is scheduled for 9 September 2012. If the Afghanistan War is still ongoing at that time then it will have surpassed the duration of the Napoleonic War (10 years, 10 months, 24 days) to have become the longest war in UK history. That milestone will have been passed the previous week (during the games) on 1st September. Will this unwelcome record be reached? -
Message 22
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Wednesday, 7th October 2009
Malayan Insurgenncy - 1948-60?
Northern Ireland - 1969-99?
To compare Afghanistan with WWI & WWII or even Korea seems a bit ludicrous - 200 soldiers killed in 8 years. At the Somme we lost 20,000 dead in a single day. -
Message 23
Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Thursday, 8th October 2009
Also, as Allan has pointed out before, it's hard to definite the conflict in Afghanistan as a 'war'....
It's more like a counter-insurgency, or something like that. Sporadic fighting in Helmand, and so on. -
Message 24
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Thursday, 8th October 2009
Hello shivfan,
I agree with vizzer in his opinion and see the conflict in Afghanistan as a war. -
Message 25
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Thursday, 8th October 2009
With which state?
-
Message 26
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Thursday, 8th October 2009
Hi Allan,
I think that the dead rates in each military conflict is always an sad thing, but it gives no reason for regarding the Afghanistan conflict not as that what it is, a war.
You know that Mr Blair, then the UK PM, joined the "war against terrorism" on George W. Bush´s side. Nevertheless wether there has been an formally war declaration towards Afghanistan - which has don´t happened - the interference of the NATO troops into internal Afghanistan affaires to fight the Taleban, is nothing else than the by vizzer cited wars of the past. Some single and maybe preventive military operations might do not last over such a long period as those in which the UK and other nations forces are involved.
I think that it is just the attempt to avoid the mentioning of the war there, because it might sound unpopulare. Even the currently German Government, especially the German MoD refused every time to admit, that we with our troops are in an de facto state of war. This because in one hand the troops there help the Afghanistan Government to move forward to democracy, but in the other hand, they have to defend themselves and if necessary take military operations against the Taleban.
What differs from the past time wars is just, that there is no war declaration against an state, but against Terrorists.
The trouble years in NI has always not seen as war by the British Government, because they refused to accept that kind of state on the demand of the IRA. As well as they did not accept to treat those captured IRA Members as war prisoners of even political prisoners. This was concrete in one hand a matter of the British Governments policy and in the other hand to show them, that the NI conflict will and has been treaten as an internal British affaire, or in other words according the British gov. to fight terrorism in NI.
It is more important on which policy such people like the IRA Members had been, or the Taleban will be treaten. Simply for example whether they will be judged as criminals or as war prisoners. There is a big difference. -
Message 27
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Thursday, 8th October 2009
The removal of the Taliban from Afghanistan was authorised by a resolution of the UN Security council in 2001 following the 9/11 attacks. In that sense there was a formal "declaration" of war just as there was in Korea in 1950 and with Iraq in 1991 (all conflicts which were authorised by the UN unlike Kosovo in 1999 and Iraq in 2003 which were not).
However ISAF forces are currently aiding the civil power in Afghanistan in resisting and suppressing internal subversion in which case it is much more like the military conflicts in Malaya or Northern Ireland (which lasted much longer than the current involvement in Afghanistan has done as I have pointed out) or indeed the current multi-force UN involvement in the Congo which has lasted on, off and on, for the best part of the last 40 years but as there are no US, UK or Israeli forces involved it clearly cannot be considered a "war" although as many have lost their lives, from various parts of Africa and various parts of the globe, in the last almost half a century as were killed in WWI in Europe. -
Message 28
Posted by hotmousemat (U2388917) on Friday, 9th October 2009
It is more important on which policy such people like the IRA Members had been, or the Taleban will be treaten. Simply for example whether they will be judged as criminals or as war prisoners.Ìý
Or, in the case of the IRA, to become Ministers, to be given taxpayers money, and to be welcomed at 10 Downing Street. Which may also come true for the Taleban in due course.
"Treason (or terrorism) doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason (or terrorism)." -
Message 29
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Friday, 9th October 2009
Hi Allan,
... but as there are no US, UK or Israeli forces involved it clearly cannot be considered a "war"...Ìý
Sorry, but I can´t get your point, besides your state on whether the UK are involved into a war by troops.
... all conflicts which were authorised by the UN ...Ìý
Where is the difference then to regard that task in Afghanistan not as being involved into a war? To me, the difference according to your above cited sentence is just, that on behalf of the UK Government, the declaration was made by the UN. For that fact that the UK is a member of the UN and there security council, it is just an administraive difference, but not in the state of war, which it is.
I would not stick on the amount of war deads which has always differ in each war in every time. I rather would concider in that case on the circumsdances which gives the conclution to an state of war. -
Message 30
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Friday, 9th October 2009
hotmousemat,
Or, in the case of the IRA, to become Ministers, to be given taxpayers money, and to be welcomed at 10 Downing Street.Ìý
This might be Gerry Adams. Am I right in this assumption? -
Message 31
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 9th October 2009
Thomas
I think you make my point. When is a war not a war? When is it a "military operation"? Were the insurgency in Malaya and the conflict in Northern Ireland, both of which involved British troops and lasted far longer than the present conflict in Afghanistan, not "wars"? Is the conflict in the Congo which has cost millions of lives over almost five decades not a war? Was the massacre of the Tutsis by the Hutus in Rwanda, which cost, by some estimates, 800,000 lives, a war?
I see the UN Security Council has just, by a unanimous vote, reauthorised the ISAF mission in Afghanistan for another 12 months. It seems somewhat inconsistent on the part of those who attacked the military operation in Iraq as being "illegal" on the grounds that it was not authorised by the UN yet attack the current international operation in Afghanistan on the same basis when clearly that scenario does not apply. -
Message 32
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Friday, 9th October 2009
Allan,
I have to get off from the boards for today, but I will come back to your post next week.
By the way, I think I can understand what you mean. This is leading to an difficult question about interpretation of whether a war is going on or not. That is the point about that some people arguing with the interpretations by some politicians.
Till the next time.
Kind Regards
Thomas -
Message 33
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Saturday, 10th October 2009
as a military lightweight - can anyone tell me exactly how we are going to win ths war/conflict
how are we going to leave with our heads held high
last week 8 us soldiers died - they were amongst 70 us soldiers against 200 taliban
they were nearly overrun - but called in apaches - fast jets - artillery and casevac
the taliban had rpgs and aks - they died and bled where they stood
in a month they will do it again
the us evacuated the post
how are we going to get to a military victory against this enemy
st -
Message 34
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Sunday, 11th October 2009
I think this is off the point of these boards as you are straying into the realm of current affairs but we win this conflict or begin to win it, like any other conflict throughout history, by wanting to win it. Sadly, very little evidence of that so far from the powers-that-be.
-
Message 35
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Monday, 12th October 2009
Hi Allan,
When is a war not a war? When is it a "military operation"?Ìý
In my opinion, a military operation is one chage based on a time limit for an particular aim. A war is a long term without time limit military task. May it be on war declaration of as you´ve mentioned based on the UN Mandates.
For NI I would say that it could be described rather "as like a civil war", but even in that case, it was more an act of selfdefense of the British Government on internal affaires in the UK in which the Brit. Gov. stood between two conflict parties.
Sorry, but I don´t know anything about Malaya, so I can´t comment it.
It seems somewhat inconsistent on the part of those who attacked the military operation in Iraq as being "illegal" on the grounds that it was not authorised by the UN yet attack the current international operation in Afghanistan on the same basis when clearly that scenario does not apply.Ìý
Both things has been setted by the "old mighty G. W. Bush jr." and therefore because Mr Blair joined him to his alliance, he got the blame to being a liar. Others describe both as "war criminal", from what I´ve read. Although the things in Afghanistan are not by all governments recognized as war matters, in fact - with the words of Mr G. W. Bush jr. - there is a war ongoing against Terrorism. But by all reasons, it is just an matter of political interpretation, depending on each government which interpretation fits to the policy of those better. -
Message 36
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Tuesday, 13th October 2009
Sorry, but I don´t know anything about Malaya, so I can´t comment it.Ìý
A "guerilla war" which lasted longer than Afghanistan has. -
Message 37
Posted by oldberk (U7206663) on Wednesday, 14th October 2009
This "War/Conflict", has roots going back to before 1839, our First Afghan War.
A war is a long term without time limit military task.Ìý
Does that qualify?
Confusedoldberk -
Message 38
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Wednesday, 14th October 2009
No, because we and 40 other countries are seeking to support the Afghan people in their bid to govern themselves. It is the terrorist insurgents who are seeking to occupy the country regardless of the wishes of its citizens.
-
Message 39
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Wednesday, 14th October 2009
dont agree there
we are there to support the afghan people to govern themselves with a government that we agree with - ie a western friendly government
what do you think would have been our response if a taliban friendly government was voted in ??
how many people actually voted in the helmand province we are fighting for ??
these people have never had democracy and dont respond well to it - tribalism rules ok
st -
Message 40
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Wednesday, 14th October 2009
I'm always bemused by western liberals who seem to believe that the desire for freedom under the law and accountable government is not shared by the darker races of the earth.
-
Message 41
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Thursday, 15th October 2009
Hello Confusedoldberk,
This "War/Conflict", has roots going back to before 1839, our First Afghan War.
A war is a long term without time limit military task.
Quoted from this message
Does that qualify?
Confusedoldberk
Ìý
There you go, confusing me too. I follow the post of Allan next to yours.
Regards
Thomas -
Message 42
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Thursday, 15th October 2009
these people have never had democracy and dont respond well to it Ìý
Which people? Those with guns who'd seize power in the UN's absence? As for the average Afghan, you're only guessing that they don't want accountable government, just as I'm guessing that they'd love to be able to vote if they weren't being threatened by rebels with guns who fear the people's choice. Without systematically asking everyone, neither of us knows.
But I would say that your comment echoes the regular claims of western european rulers in pre-democratic times who also asserted that the likes of you and I had never had democracy and wouldn't respond well to it.
India has a robust democracy (albeit with flaws). Pakistan, despite the military coups, keeps showing that the people want to revert to democracy. Even Iran (despite its limitations on candidates) proves its citizens yearn to have the choice of rulers. Why not Afghans too?
tribalism rules ok Ìý
Tribalism can have advantages if your only security in llife relies on being part of a tribe, but otherwise it only benefits those heading the tribe - usually at the expense of the rest of the tribe.
No-one in the west would accept having his/her life dictated by an arbitrary feudal lord an his gang of violent minions, so why do so many in the west seem to think afghans enjoy it? -
Message 43
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Friday, 16th October 2009
hi cloudyj
yes maybe those chaps - not just the people with guns though - more the people who are prepared to fight to the death - whatever the cost - to implement their beliefs
unfortunately throughout history it seems to be the people we dont like who win through
vietcong
taliban
communist resistance in ww2 - ie tito
the afghans may love to vote - but after 5 years of bleeding our youth to death there, only 15% bothered to vote in the area we made "safe"
all their history they have been enveloped in a tribal system - nothing wrong with that - saxon and celtic society was the same - and it was a very stable society - very little wrong with it
India is a shining example of a democracy - pakistan is NOT - check out its history
st -
Message 44
Posted by -frederik- (U13721647) on Friday, 16th October 2009
The hundred years war doesnt count?
(just kidding, carry on) -
Message 45
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Saturday, 17th October 2009
of course it doesnt
wars against the French are a way of life - not strictly a war lol
st
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.