Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
Â鶹ԼÅÄ:Our War: 10 years in Afghanistan
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Wednesday, 8th June 2011
whats the point of it all
Link to this forum: Â鶹ԼÅÄ:Our War: 10 years in Afghanistan
-
Message 2
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Wednesday, 8th June 2011
To prevent another 9/11.
Link to this forum: Â鶹ԼÅÄ:Our War: 10 years in Afghanistan
-
Message 3
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Wednesday, 8th June 2011
I suspect it might be more likely to create another one.
Link to this forum: Â鶹ԼÅÄ:Our War: 10 years in Afghanistan
-
Message 4
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Thursday, 9th June 2011
On 9/11 there were no Westerners in Afghanistan. There hasn't been another 9/11 the Westerners went in.
Link to this forum: Â鶹ԼÅÄ:Our War: 10 years in Afghanistan
-
Message 5
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Thursday, 9th June 2011
On 9/11 there were no Westerners in Afghanistan. There hasn't been another 9/11 the Westerners went in.Ìý
Plenty of 9/11 death counts in aFGHANISTAN AND iRAQ SINCE 2001 though...Link to this forum: Â鶹ԼÅÄ:Our War: 10 years in Afghanistan
-
Message 6
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Thursday, 9th June 2011
Plenty of 9/11 death counts in aFGHANISTAN AND iRAQ SINCE 2001 though...Ìý
Moreover, there had been plenty of deaths in both places well before 2001. This thread is rapidly turning into a Deep Thoughts by Jack Handy series - presumably by design.Link to this forum: Â鶹ԼÅÄ:Our War: 10 years in Afghanistan
-
Message 7
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Thursday, 9th June 2011
It won't be '10 years' in Afghanistan until 7th October. That's 4 months away.
For some reason the Beeb seems impatient to mark the 10th anniversary of the illegal invasion.Link to this forum: Â鶹ԼÅÄ:Our War: 10 years in Afghanistan
-
Message 8
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Friday, 10th June 2011
For some reason the Beeb seems impatient to mark the 10th anniversary of the illegal invasion. Ìý
Can it be illegal when we were there with the permission of (and as allies of) the internationally recognized government of Afghanistan?Link to this forum: Â鶹ԼÅÄ:Our War: 10 years in Afghanistan
-
Message 9
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 10th June 2011
As well as a Security Council Resolution that was passed in the wake of 9/11. The left are doing their old Humpty Dumpty trick of "words mean what I say they mean". "Illegal" in this context means "a military action of which I disapprove".
The left's attitude to the United Nations is that it should be regarded as the highest forum of international law if it fails to endorse an action such as the Coalition's removal of Saddam Hussain but if it approves the removal of the Taliban from power in Afghanistan or military action against the Gaddafi regime in Libya or the foundation of a Jewish state in Israel it should be dismissed as a tool of western imperialism.Link to this forum: Â鶹ԼÅÄ:Our War: 10 years in Afghanistan
-
Message 10
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 11th June 2011
It’s not clear what the word ‘Westerners’ means in the context of this thread. Does the word ‘Westerners’ have a definition in terms of international and contemporary history?
And although it may well be true that there hasn’t been another ‘9/11’ since 2001 - there has certainly been an 11/3 in Madrid in 2004 and also a 7/7 in London in 2005. The 7/7 London bombings, for example, took place more than 3 and a half years after the UK invaded Afghanistan and so the suggestion that the occupation of Afghanistan in 2001 somehow made England a safer place was patently disproved. This was particularly so considering that no such atrocities (such as the 7/7 bombings) had occurred in England before the invasion.
Also - the United Nations Security Council Resolution wasn't passed ‘in the wake of 9/11’. It was passed following the illegal invasion of Afghanistan. The invasion (which was without the permission of the Afghan government) took place on 7 October 2001. Security Council Resolution 1386, which established the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), however, was only adopted on 20 December - more than 2 months later.
Neither is there anything particularly ‘left’ in wishing to respect and uphold international law. In fact the ‘left’ has been particularly contemptuous of international law over the decades as evidenced by the Soviet invasion of Georgia in 1920, Stalin’s later aggression against Poland and Finland in 1939 and against Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania the following year, Kim Il-sung’s invasion of South Korea in 1950 and Mao’s aggression against Tibet later that same year and North Vietnam’s invasion of South Vietnam in 1973 etc.Link to this forum: Â鶹ԼÅÄ:Our War: 10 years in Afghanistan
-
Message 11
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Saturday, 11th June 2011
the United Nations Security Council Resolution wasn't passed ‘in the wake of 9/11’. It was passed following the illegal invasion of Afghanistan. The invasion (which was without the permission of the Afghan government) took place on 7 October 2001. Security Council Resolution 1386, which established the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), however, was only adopted on 20 December - more than 2 months later.Ìý
Err, no. As early as 30 July 2001, 7 weeks before 9/11 UNSCR 1363 had declared that the situation in Afghanistan
constitutes a threat to international peace and security in the regionÌý
UNSCR 1368 which was passed on 12 September 2001, the day after 9/11, called
on all states to work together to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacksÌý
It also recognised
the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence under the charter of the UNÌý
UNSCR 1373 passed on 28 September 2001 reaffirmed that the 9/11 terrorist attacks constituted
a threat to international peace and securityÌý
as well as reaffirming the right of member states to individual and collective self-defence. It went on to mandate member states to deny terrorist groups finance and safe havens.
UNSCR 1378 passed on 14 November 2001 condemned the Taliban
for allowing Afghanistan to be used as a base for the export of terrorism by the Al-Qaida network and other terrorist groups and for providing safe haven to Usama Bin Laden, Al Qaida and others associated with themÌý
It went on to support
the efforts of the Afghan people to replace the Taliban regimeÌý
UNSCR 1383, passed on 6 December 2001, endorsed the setting-up of the provisional government in Afghanistan following the removal of the Taliban.Link to this forum: Â鶹ԼÅÄ:Our War: 10 years in Afghanistan
-
Message 12
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 11th June 2011
None of the United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1267, 1333, 1363, 1368, 1373, 1378 or 1383 authorised the UK to invade Afghanistan.
Resolution 1378, for example, (which was adopted on 14 November more than a month after the illegal invasion) only encouraged ‘Member States to support efforts to ensure the safety and security of areas of Afghanistan no longer under Taliban control, and in particular to ensure respect for Kabul as the capital for all the Afghan people, and especially to protect civilians, transitional authorities, United Nations and associated personnel, as well as personnel of humanitarian organizations’. To ‘support efforts’, however, is not an authorisation to invade. Supporting efforts could come in the form of providing funds and weapons for non-Taleban elements in Afghanistan for example.
It was only Resolution 1386 adopted, on 20 December, which sanctioned the presence of UK forces in Afghanistan. Resolution 1386 called upon ‘Member States to contribute personnel, equipment and other resources to the International Security Assistance Force, and invites those Member States to inform the leadership of the Force and the Secretary-General and also authorised ‘the Member States participating in the International Security Assistance Force to take all necessary measures to fulfil its mandate’.
Blair’s invasion of Afghanistan on 7 October 2001 was illegal.Link to this forum: Â鶹ԼÅÄ:Our War: 10 years in Afghanistan
-
Message 13
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Saturday, 11th June 2011
How could they "ensure the safety and security of areas no longer under Taliban control" if they weren't there legitimately already?
The Security Council acknowledged the right of individual and collective self-defence under the UN Charter which gives the right to member states to respond when attacked. The NATO Charter states that an attack on one member should be regarded as an atttavck on all. it was not the US or UK who "invaded" Afghanistan but NATO, in response to the 9/11 attacks, who intervened in a continuing civil war in Afghanistan to remove the Taliban regime, an aim explicitly approved of by UNSCR 1368 and UNSCR 1378.Link to this forum: Â鶹ԼÅÄ:Our War: 10 years in Afghanistan
-
Message 14
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Saturday, 11th June 2011
it doesnt matter about un resolutions
we are there and they dont want us there
we ave imposed yet another corrupt government on a country that cant sustain democracy and doesnt want it
they have been ruled tribally for hundreds of years and are happy to be so
we have named an exit date and the taliban knows this date and also knows that as soon as we leave they will take back the reins of power
every day british troops are getting killed for no reason - whats the point
and they are getting killed by IEDs so there is little risk to themselves (hread the bbc site on casualties
al queda does not need afghanistan - its global and espactive in pakistan
lets get out and save lives
stLink to this forum: Â鶹ԼÅÄ:Our War: 10 years in Afghanistan
-
Message 15
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Sunday, 12th June 2011
it doesnt matter about un resolutionsÌý
So much for "international law"! It was ignoring Afghanistan after the Soviets left in 1989 that resulted in the Taliban and Al-Qaeda taking over in the first place.Link to this forum: Â鶹ԼÅÄ:Our War: 10 years in Afghanistan
-
Message 16
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Monday, 13th June 2011
stalti,
al queda does not need afghanistan - its global and espactive in pakistan
lets get out and save lives Ìý
Hear, hear! And coupled with the promise that we'll return to Afghanistan if al-Qaeda does.Link to this forum: Â鶹ԼÅÄ:Our War: 10 years in Afghanistan
-
Message 17
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Monday, 13th June 2011
Allan D,
So much for "international law"! It was ignoring Afghanistan after the Soviets left in 1989 that resulted in the Taliban and Al-Qaeda taking over in the first place.Ìý
When will you learn that there is no international law but only international politics; i.e., the Law of the Jungle dressed in suits and decorated with flags? If there was international law then wars wouldn't happen.Link to this forum: Â鶹ԼÅÄ:Our War: 10 years in Afghanistan
-
Message 18
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Monday, 13th June 2011
The invasion (which was without the permission of the Afghan government) took place on 7 October 2001. Ìý
On 7th October 2001, Operation Enduring Freedom was launched as a combined operation of the internationally recognized Afghan Government (the Northern Alliance to the media), the USA and others. We were certainly there with their permission.
The Taliban were not the legitimate government of Afghanistan. Their permission was not necessary.Link to this forum: Â鶹ԼÅÄ:Our War: 10 years in Afghanistan
-
Message 19
Posted by Harpo (U14643022) on Monday, 13th June 2011
This is not a reply to anyone in particular:
The end result of this war will see the Taliban back in power in a strained coalition with the current government or its representative successors.Link to this forum: Â鶹ԼÅÄ:Our War: 10 years in Afghanistan
-
Message 20
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Monday, 13th June 2011
If international law doesn't exist then one wonders why anyone else got involved when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 or when Germany invaded Belgium in 1914.
Link to this forum: Â鶹ԼÅÄ:Our War: 10 years in Afghanistan
-
Message 21
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Tuesday, 14th June 2011
Viz,
If international law doesn't exist then one wonders why anyone else got involved when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 or when Germany invaded Belgium in 1914.Ìý
As Clausewitz pointed out, war is politics by other means.Link to this forum: Â鶹ԼÅÄ:Our War: 10 years in Afghanistan
-
Message 22
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Tuesday, 14th June 2011
If international law doesn't exist then one wonders why anyone else got involved when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 or when Germany invaded Belgium in 1914.
Ìý
Your 1914 example is interesting since both Britain and Germany (as successor to Prussia) were nominally bound by the Treaty of London to uphold Belgium neutrality. Germany found it convenient to make excuses (IIRC about the Prussia's commitment not being binding on Germany) and break the treaty, whilst Britain found it a convenient excuse to cite Iinternational law and declare war.
Britain's involvement was almost certain even without a treaty obligation to Belgium to uphold. More tellingly, Britain was very quick to breach international treaties to attack Germany in Africa and China.Link to this forum: Â鶹ԼÅÄ:Our War: 10 years in Afghanistan
-
Message 23
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Wednesday, 15th June 2011
I'm not sure what the last sentence means since after 4 August 1914 Britain was at war with Germany and both sides launched attacks against their opponent at various points of the world. The idea of international law and commonly-respected boundaries of nation states goes back to the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 which was reinforced by the Congress of Vienna from 1814-15 and the Congress of Berlin in 1878.
The change after 1914 was to institute a permanent international congress in order to prevent conflict rather than have irregularly convened ones once major conflict had occurred. The idea that one nation's territory should not be used as a haven for dissident groups to launch attacks on another has also been long accepted, for example in the Webster-Ashburton Treaty between Britain and the US in 1842.
It was this notion that provided the premiss for Austria-Hungary's ultimatum to Serbia, which Serbia largely accepted, following the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in June 1914. However this issue was largely blotted out by Germany's declarations of war on both Russia and France at the beginning of August for other reasons.Link to this forum: Â鶹ԼÅÄ:Our War: 10 years in Afghanistan
-
Message 24
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Wednesday, 15th June 2011
This is not a reply to anyone in particular:
The end result of this war will see the Taliban back in power in a strained coalition with the current government or its representative successors.
Ìý As long as the Taliban renounce violence and give up all links with Al-Qaeda what's wrong with that? The end of thirty years' of conflict in Northern Ireland saw Sinn Fein in a strained coalition with the DUP. As Churchill once said, jaw-jaw is better than war-war.Link to this forum: Â鶹ԼÅÄ:Our War: 10 years in Afghanistan
-
Message 25
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 15th June 2011
I'm not sure what the last sentence means since after 4 August 1914 Britain was at war with Germany and both sides launched attacks against their opponent at various points of the world.Ìý
Here's three British violations of neutrality:
In 1914 British troops violated Chinese neutrality during the campaign to capture German Tsingtao.
British troops invaded German Cameroon which under the Congo Act had the right to declare neutrality regardless of the state of war between Britain and Germany.
In 1915 British forces violated Greek neutrality by landing in Salonika.Link to this forum: Â鶹ԼÅÄ:Our War: 10 years in Afghanistan
-
Message 26
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Wednesday, 15th June 2011
"If international law doesn't exist then one wonders why anyone else got involved when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 or when Germany invaded Belgium in 1914. "
its nothing to do with international law - in kuwait 1990 a major oil producer was invaded by an anti west nation - the major world power could never allow this so the war began - driven by the usa
in 1914 how could the worlds 2 superpowers let germany invade the state of belgium and stand by
stLink to this forum: Â鶹ԼÅÄ:Our War: 10 years in Afghanistan
-
Message 27
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Thursday, 16th June 2011
its nothing to do with international law - in kuwait 1990 a major oil producer was invaded by an anti west nation - the major world power could never allow this so the war began - driven by the usa Ìý
And it was quite right that they didn't allowed it. Or are you suggesting that it's acceptable to breach international law if you annoy America?
in 1914 how could the worlds 2 superpowers let germany invade the state of belgium and stand by Ìý
Which was the second?
Link to this forum: Â鶹ԼÅÄ:Our War: 10 years in Afghanistan
-
Message 28
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Friday, 17th June 2011
hi cloudyj
no - im suggesting that its ok to breach international law if u DONT annoy america
you tease - u know as well as i do that the 2nd world superpower at that time was France - it had the largest army in the world at the time - had a superb martial history - and as a neighbour of belgium it was understandable that war was in the offing
stLink to this forum: Â鶹ԼÅÄ:Our War: 10 years in Afghanistan
-
Message 29
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Saturday, 18th June 2011
If there was international law then wars wouldn't happen.Ìý
International law doesn't prevent aggression any more than domestic law prevents criminality. You are guilty of the same fallacy that affected those who thought that setting-up the League of Nations after WWI would prevent all future wars. Just like domestic law international law is only effective if there is an enforcement mechanism for transgressors otherwise, like the League of Nations, it is a dead letter.Link to this forum: Â鶹ԼÅÄ:Our War: 10 years in Afghanistan
-
Message 30
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Saturday, 18th June 2011
Law without enforcement is no law at all.
Enforcement of international law needs the agreement of all (or almost all) nations, which is rarely, if ever, possible. Even when someone is big enough to threaten/cajole/bribe the UN to vote for enforcement, it is usually too late, and is opposed by some of the major players.
Nations do not vote for action because it is 'the right thing to do', they do it because it suits their interest, or the US has promised them something, or because someone they do not like are opposed to it, etc.
Even when we agree to 'do something' we have to lie about it! We are 'only in Libya to prevent civilian casualties' - we bomb Gadaffi forces who are shelling rebels, but do we bomb rebels who are shelling Gaddafi-held towns? Can we guarantee those Katyusha rockets (noted for their pin-point accuracy!!) they are seen to be firing will hit only Gadaffi's troops?
International LAW??
Don't make me laugh!Link to this forum: Â鶹ԼÅÄ:Our War: 10 years in Afghanistan
-
Message 31
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011
libya
nows theres a point
why are we there - what makes opposition against ghaddaffi legitimate
if it was al queda against him would we help
its estimated that in september we will have spent 1 billion
money well spent - old peoples homes are shutting down - where is our priority
stLink to this forum: Â鶹ԼÅÄ:Our War: 10 years in Afghanistan
-
Message 32
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Saturday, 2nd July 2011
This is not a reply to anyone in particular:
The end result of this war will see the Taliban back in power in a strained coalition with the current government or its representative successors.
Ìý
Correct.
I think what it did show was the impotence of the "Allies", who trew their might against a few farmers and assorted third world guerrillas and have run away with their tails between their legs (at least the Brits have so far).
The Yanks have been more potent than the European "Allies", but to what end I would be quite sceptical (does it show
); they seem to have retained their old Vietnam policy of destroying the village...to 'save' the village. Saw them employing this "winning" strategy in Britains old 'stomping ground' of Helmand trying to avoid the real winning weapon - the two dollar IED - a great contrast to their multi-billion dollar weapons, which in any honest cost/benefit analysis, will be shown to have failed. I wonder can the US tax-payer sue the arms manufacturers...just an idea!Link to this forum: Â鶹ԼÅÄ:Our War: 10 years in Afghanistan
-
Message 33
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 2nd July 2011
The Â鶹ԼÅÄ broadcast 'Afghanistan:War without End?' the other day:
Presented by John Ware it provided more evidence that America and the UK are preparing to pull out.
The Soviet occupation of Afghanistan lasted for 9 years, 1 month and 22 days.
The NATO occupation of Afghanistan has lasted 9 years, 9 months & 25 days...Link to this forum: Â鶹ԼÅÄ:Our War: 10 years in Afghanistan
-
Message 34
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Saturday, 2nd July 2011
and both occupations resulted in the same thing - nothing
they still go back to the original afghanistan - they will fight to the death to defeat foreign invaders - and they are a trbal society -why do they want democracy
stLink to this forum: Â鶹ԼÅÄ:Our War: 10 years in Afghanistan
-
Message 35
Posted by hotmousemat (U2388917) on Monday, 4th July 2011
I think what it did show was the impotence of the "Allies", who trew their might against a few farmers and assorted third world guerrillas and have run away with their tails between their legs (at least the Brits have so far). Ìý
Yes. There seems to be a national conspiracy not to mention the fact that in both Iraq and Afghanistan our armed forces have not done well.Link to this forum: Â鶹ԼÅÄ:Our War: 10 years in Afghanistan
-
Message 36
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 4th July 2011
hothousemat
Not unrelated- I would suggest- to a lack of general sense of a real National Mission..
Field Marshall Montgomery, whose father after all was a missionary-bishop, wrote in his Memoirs just how important it was during the Second World War for front line troops to feel that everyone was behind them in support of a conflict in which the Hell of killing and being killed was accepted as the ultimate sacrifice by the Few for the greater good of humanity.
It is typical of the state of modern Britain that it has to be repeatedly stated that these wars are being fought in the narrow national interest - the kind of small-mindedness that we would like the world to share- so that we can just get on with the individual "pursuit of happiness" in culture of short-termism.
CassLink to this forum: Â鶹ԼÅÄ:Our War: 10 years in Afghanistan
-
Message 37
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Monday, 4th July 2011
I think what it did show was the impotence of the "Allies", who trew their might against a few farmers and assorted third world guerrillas and have run away with their tails between their legs (at least the Brits have so far). Ìý
Yes. There seems to be a national conspiracy not to mention the fact that in both Iraq and Afghanistan our armed forces have not done well.Ìý On the contrary, the conspiracy is to present the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan as "quagmires" for which there is no solution but full-scale retreat. In fact, Al-Qaeda was effectively defeated in Iraq following the 2006 surge and the Sunni Awakening and the Maliki government remains firmly in control.
The Taliban's main source for both supplies and new recruits since the surge Obama announced in 2009 remains through the porous Pakistan border. Both Al-Qaeda and the Taliban have resorrted to terrorist bombings, including marketplaces and hospitals, killing those they claim to represent, rather than choosing to confront Coalition troops on the battlefield.Link to this forum: Â鶹ԼÅÄ:Our War: 10 years in Afghanistan
-
Message 38
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Monday, 4th July 2011
On the contrary, the conspiracy is to present the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan as "quagmires" for which there is no solution but full-scale retreat.Ìý
There also seems to be a national myth building that the Taliban are somehow representative of the Afghan people. In reality they're just a bunch of warlords with very limited regional control forced onto the people by far more violence than anything the Afghan government's allies are using.
Some of the Taliban will almost certainly be involved in the final negotiated settlement, but they're not such a monolithic unit as is often presented in the western press, rather they're a loose coalition. Moreover, many of them are politically very far from the Taliban who controlled Afghanistan back in 2000, so they could easily be negotiated and settled with without hypocrisy.Link to this forum: Â鶹ԼÅÄ:Our War: 10 years in Afghanistan
-
Message 39
Posted by hotmousemat (U2388917) on Monday, 4th July 2011
In fact, Al-Qaeda was effectively defeated in Iraq following the 2006 surge and the Sunni Awakening and the Maliki government remains firmly in control. Ìý
We did not invade Iraq in order to fight A-Q. A-Q only took an interest in Iraq when the disorder following the invasion gave it the opportunity.
But I agree that giving the Sunni leaders the power they used to have under Saddam and before, back when Britain was administering Iraq, has made the situation a lot easier. It has taken a long time and many lives to work back to the old status quo, but the USA got there in the end, (touch wood).
Not that this achievement had anything to do with Britain. Our troops being besieged in - and then ejected from - Basra.
The Taliban's main source for both supplies and new recruits since the surge Obama announced in 2009 remains through the porous Pakistan border. Both Al-Qaeda and the Taliban have resorrted to terrorist bombings, including marketplaces and hospitals, killing those they claim to represent, rather than choosing to confront Coalition troops on the battlefieldÌý
Very sensible too. Why fight in the way that suits your enemy?
As for 'Coalition troops', once again we need to distinguish between US forces and the rest, including the British. Britain proved unable to hold onto the territory it was supposed to control, the majority of which had to be taken over by the Americans.
I am as patriotic as the next man, but the fact is that our armed forces are no longer remotely strong enough to undertake a serious role in these foreign adventures.Link to this forum: Â鶹ԼÅÄ:Our War: 10 years in Afghanistan
-
Message 40
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 4th July 2011
Hothousemat
I would say that "a serious role" includes persuading the USA not to just give up on the idea of some kind of global collectivism, which seemed on the cards with George Bush Junior before 9/11..
Since 1945 the USA has picked up "so much of the tab" for the new world order that the "Western Allies" sought to set up after the Second World War. And George Bush who famously seemed to know nothing about world affairs seemed quite capable of taking a "need to know" attitude in justification for a situation in which it seemed more important for the rest of the world to know about the USA than for an American to know about the rest of the world.
There was that crucial time in the early Seventies when the USA decided that it could no longer maintain the dollar as the stable base currency in the world.
Now the situation seems to be that the USA is feeling that perhaps it is bearing an unfair burden of essential military action- both in material investments and in the whole matter of "body-bags"..
But it seems that the current action in Libya- called for by the Arab States- shows just how stretched and limited are the military assets deemed necessary to carry out even an international political will. The Obama regime has made a big point of allowing its NATO allies to take a lead role, but it has been asserted that only the USA has some of the essential military assets, and NATO seems ill-equipped (one way or another) for a real "as long as it takes" approach.
But surely a "lesson from history" is just what happened in the World Economic Chaos of the Thirties, when collectivism and internatiolism collapsed into trade wars-- and a slippery slope.
So I am reminded of something that I quoted recently.. When Harold Nicholson went to meet De Valera in Dublin during the early stages of the Second World War, De Valera commented that it was regrettable that there were US units then stationed in Northern Ireland. The Tommies, he said , had a much better understanding of "our people".. The elders of Iraq and Afghanistan might well feel the same, after Britain's Imperial history. None of these situations is/was amenable to the use of "overwhelming force", and could only ever be solved around the negotiating table.
CassLink to this forum: Â鶹ԼÅÄ:Our War: 10 years in Afghanistan
-
Message 41
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Wednesday, 6th July 2011
Iraq before we invaded was the one place al quaeda couldnt operate - saddaam wouldnt let them - in a few years they will be back and the so called dmocracy we imposed will collapse
a question - we all know how the arms get to the taliban - but where are they originally from - where do rpgs and millions of kalashnikov rounds originate
cant we stop this at source ??
stLink to this forum: Â鶹ԼÅÄ:Our War: 10 years in Afghanistan
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.