Afghanistan - Why ?

[lilelvis2000]

They obviously had no idea about the terrain and the people.

GWB was convinced by the evangelicals and the military industry (and the oil barons) that it was a good idea. Taliban had nothing to do with it. We haven't got OSB and AQ's ability to manage anything now is pretty small.

Iraq...payback for the gulf war I reckon. Plus saddam had pretty damning stuff on GB and predesessors.

Tony just thought is was good idea and that he was on a mission from God.

[Joe Bloque]

Why bother getting involved in a Local conflict under the guise of 'saving the world'. I suspect we won't move out unless US decides to call it quits as it would do in Iraq by 2010/11. We simply don't have the shoes for this deep tulip.

[DSW]

I always thought Afghanistan was patriotic vengeance by the US/Bush for 9/11. They basically found a country that absolutely nobody cared about, with a government that they didn't acknowledge existed and went to war, flags flying and trumpets playing. All this had the added advantage of taking the emphasis off the 9/11 thing. I guess you could also argue that it worked as Bush got another term in office.

as for what we the British are doing there? ummm urr... dunno really, just following our mates around I guess?

I think they. like pretty much everyone else in the history of the country, underestimated the Taliban though.

[swamp]

Have you ever watched the channel 4 programme about the RAF in Afghanistan? It's inspiring stuff and makes me want to get out there on the first plane and pick up a weapon and support the cowards that attack using these IED's

The Taliban certainly aren't cowards!

Whatever the reasons this war started are not the same for it continuing, one way or another this war will end and it's going to be a boot belonging to the black watch firmly placed over the neck of Mr taliban

an IED

[minestrone]

Dear God, what is going on there, 8 deaths in one day?

I wonder if they had just left them on their own would the taliban have killed 180 British people by now?

[EternalOptimist]

Dear God, what is going on there, 8 deaths in one day?

I wonder if they had just left them on their own would the taliban have killed 180 British people by now?

The casualty rate has increased because we are taking the fight to them. We are on the attack rather than being in containment mode and increased foot patrols means increased exposure to mines or IED.

Why are we there ? One thing is for sure, the reasons for the invasion of Iraq, the reasons for the invasion of Afghanistan, the reasons for the Russian invasion of Afghanistan are all different. In my mind, the invasion of Afghanistan was a war on terror. An attempt to make sure there were no more planes flying into prominent buildings in the west, and an attempt to stamp out the breeding grounds of terrorism and possibly to capture the leaders. If you can draw all of the taliban from all over the world into one spot, you might have a chance of eliminating them, a sort of honeypot.

How it has turned out is another story, and there is a risk.
From the moslem point of view is this the free world in a war on terror, or the free world versus Islamic law and culture?
Sadaam Hussein's reign showed that we can have a secular government in an Islamic nation and , possibly, democracy in Iraq, possibly, democracy in Afghanistan. That's irony

[minestrone]

"taking the fight to them" is just British Army buzzword bingo.

I was trying to say that "talking the fight to them" just results in more British deaths.

A foreign force in an occupied land is always "bringing a fight to them" and I do not think they would have brought the fight to us to the extent where they would have cost 180 lives.

Apart from Burma I cannot think of another time where a occupying force has actually pacified a country. Maybe the English pacified Scotland but it took 500 years.

[EternalOptimist]

"taking the fight to them" is just British Army buzzword bingo.

I was trying to say that "talking the fight to them" just results in more British deaths.

A foreign force in an occupied land is always "bringing a fight to them" and I do not think they would have brought the fight to us to the extent where they would have cost 180 lives.

Apart from Burma I cannot think of another time where a occupying force has actually pacified a country. Maybe the English pacified Scotland but it took 500 years.

We are on the attack, so are the US. Our attack started a fortnight ago, theirs a couple of days ago.

you can only think of one instance where an occupying force pacified a country ?
I can think of over a thousand and I am not even trying

[minestrone]

We are on the attack, so are the US. Our attack started a fortnight ago, theirs a couple of days ago.

you can only think of one instance where an occupying force pacified a country ?
I can think of over a thousand and I am not even trying

We are apparently on the attack to stop them being on the attack but us being on the attack kills more of our side than them being on the attack. Can you not see the stupidity of that?

And if you can think of "over a thousand" you obviously do not understand the meaning of "occupying force".

[EternalOptimist]

We are apparently on the attack to stop them being on the attack but us being on the attack kills more of our side than them being on the attack. Can you not see the stupidity of that?

And if you can think of "over a thousand" you obviously do not understand the meaning of "occupying force".

I understand very well the difference between being on the defensive, containment (with agressive patrols) and being on the offensive.
At the moment we have switched from the second to the third, in an operation that is designed to control the major river in the area.

Give me your definition then of an occupying force. If Burma and Scotland are your examples, then I could easily list over a thousand. would you like them alphabetically or chronologically?