1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Why are the UK forces going into Afghanistan?

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Samtheman1k, 11 Jul 2006.

  1. Borris

    Caporegime

    Joined: 25 Oct 2002

    Posts: 30,409

    Nope - Another Afghaistan. They've been at it for years over there, for one reason or other.
     
  2. Stolly

    Mobster

    Joined: 11 Mar 2004

    Posts: 4,999

    As for the specific issue of the troops who will integrate into the existing force that we have there, British troops will fit that bill the best.

    As for a wider question as to why British troops are taking the lead there and not some other nations, well we do have the second largest defense budget in the world according to report i saw recently. With that would be some expectation that we'd be putting that to practical use. Other nations are contributing, but not as much as us. Most of them just don't have as much to contribute.
     
  3. Shackley

    Banned

    Joined: 4 Aug 2003

    Posts: 3,054

    That's what you pay taxes for. :D
     
  4. Stolly

    Mobster

    Joined: 11 Mar 2004

    Posts: 4,999

    I'd rather pay for a functional military over a disfunctional NHS. I wonder which one costs the most.
     
  5. Stolly

    Mobster

    Joined: 11 Mar 2004

    Posts: 4,999

    No we went to war with Germany because of our treaty obligation with Poland. There was no viable short / medium term threat to Britain or our overseas interests, although the argument that there would have been eventually is strong.
     
  6. Shackley

    Banned

    Joined: 4 Aug 2003

    Posts: 3,054

    I am happy to pay for the NHS, I wish that it didn't have the many problems that it has. I would rather not pay for a military, functional or not.

    For some strange reason, there are many examples in Europe of countries that don't feel the need to spend a fortune on their armed forces - Sweden, Belgium, Holland, Switzerland, Denmark, etc., etc.
     
  7. willd58

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 25 May 2004

    Posts: 5,797

    Location: Bristol England

    Of course itll make us safer in the long run, thats definately a benefit and the reason we went. Its a start to ridding evil, after all, weve gotta start somewhere.
     
  8. starscream

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 8 Mar 2003

    Posts: 4,055

    Location: Looking at the internet

    How?

    I'd be more impressed with this "ridding the world of evil" if we did it somewhere without oil pipelines.
     
  9. anarchist

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 2 Dec 2004

    Posts: 9,702

    Location: Midlands

    But we are creating more "evil", not less.
     
  10. anarchist

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 2 Dec 2004

    Posts: 9,702

    Location: Midlands

    Churchill wasn't always pro-Jewish. I've read a few quotes of his where he talks about jews "conspiring to overthrow civilisation".

    Germans on the whole knew about the camps long before WW2. They were widely reported in the media. So given that, I very much doubt that the outside world was totally unaware of them. Like all such things though, unless it affects us directly we can quite happily turn a blind eye.

    As for the IBM thing, there are numerous matches on google ("IBM holocaust") from lots of different sources so have a look and decide for yourself.
     
  11. Stolly

    Mobster

    Joined: 11 Mar 2004

    Posts: 4,999

    No, actually some if not all of those spend a similar amount on their militaries as a percentage of GDP. Sweden has a military that is comparable to ours, and Switzerland issues assault rifles to most males of military age. They therefore can in fact be regarded as more militaristic than us, not less.
     
  12. Fop

    Gangster

    Joined: 5 Sep 2005

    Posts: 345

    IBM was certainly culpable (towards the end if not the beginning), GM and Ford less so (although they likely had Nazi sympathisers in their management) in a direct holocaust sense (Ford also had factories in Japan come to think of it).

    By the time you are talking about forced labour in Ford factories (although I believe only very small numbers of concentration camp labour was ever used, Nazi’s of course took advantage of more than just directly Jewish populations for such things) and such they were largely in trusteeship and mostly German controlled and probably no more or less at fault than the big German manufactures of the day and now.

    I don’t think you create evil, at worst you just give it an excuse.



    Yup, stabilising Afghanistan and talking about anything but decades is not very realistic.

    The country is still very tribal and I don't think has ever known peace in a modern concept.




    The irony is that Afghanistan has been difficult right from the start; just the media believed the money stories were all in Iraq so it was largely ignored by them and therefore the rest of the world at large.
     
  13. Shackley

    Banned

    Joined: 4 Aug 2003

    Posts: 3,054

    Done that, I'm not convinced. Most references seem to come back to Edwin Black's book. I'm sure that Hitler used IBM Hollerith tabulators - they were after all designed to analyse census statistics. I don't really see how IBM can be blamed for that though. There was a class action against IBM, by Cohen, Milfield, Hausfeld and Toll, the attack dogs of the class action world - it was dropped.
     
  14. Indy500

    Capodecina

    Joined: 7 Mar 2005

    Posts: 17,481

    Afghanistan had a functioning, stable government till the mid 70s.
     
  15. anarchist

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 2 Dec 2004

    Posts: 9,702

    Location: Midlands

    It's hard to know for sure, and very hard to prove I imagine, being over sixty years ago. IBM must have known who they were selling too though, and from what I've read, the sort of machines that the nazis bought needed regular servicing, and hence multiple visits to the concentration camps. I don't know the layout of the camps though. I guess it's vaguely possible that they kept all the computer stuf away from all the death stuff but it seems implausible that IBM had absolutely no idea what the machines were being used for. Plus why would they care? It's not like companies normally care about who buys their stuff or what they use it for - so long as they keep buying it.
     
  16. Fop

    Gangster

    Joined: 5 Sep 2005

    Posts: 345

    I wouldn't say that.

    It had a period of relative stability (for Afghanistan) from 1933 till the 1960's under a king.

    Up until 1973 it was still under the rule of the king, but all through the 1960's internal dissent and faction were growing and becoming increasingly problematic.

    Then a series of power struggles and revolutions ensued with the situation becoming increasingly unstable, until in 1979 the USSR moved in.

    The USSR stayed there till 1988 (causing ~1,000,000 casualties and taking about 15,000 itself during that time).

    1992-1996 there was an attempt at Government from the old mujahedeen, but basically this quickly devolved in tribal civil war (with Iran, Pakistan and other local countries all backing and arming varying factions).

    By 1996 we come to Taliban control, who actually did mostly bring an end to the fighting (although largely through mass butchery of opponents and general use of fear and repression).

    2001 we come to the afghan Northern Alliance forces (aided by Western bombing and air power) driving the Taliban out, and UN backed forces moved in and eventually we have the current Government.

    Who knows about the future, but it is about time Afghanistan got a break from war.
     
  17. Indy500

    Capodecina

    Joined: 7 Mar 2005

    Posts: 17,481

    I understand your point but surely that was better than the current situation?
     
  18. Fop

    Gangster

    Joined: 5 Sep 2005

    Posts: 345

    Well the 1933 to 1960's ish bit yes.

    But I dunno about the 1970's quick change regimes as things got bad pretty quickly.
    The USSR wasn't good at all.
    Neither was the 1992-1996 tribal wars.
    And the Taliban’s rule was pretty horrendous.


    Whilst the current situation there is pretty bad, it's probably is the best chance Afghanistan has had for 40 years or so.
    Even if you just look at the body count per year, it’s not as bad as it has been in Afghanistan.

    Whether or not that chance will work out is a different issue though.
     
  19. anarchist

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 2 Dec 2004

    Posts: 9,702

    Location: Midlands

    A tried and tested technique in so many places :(
     
  20. Indy500

    Capodecina

    Joined: 7 Mar 2005

    Posts: 17,481

    The Taliban were backed by the ISI (Pakistani intelligence services), Islamic political parties in Pakistan and were largely educated in religious schools in Pakistan. The phrase "Taliban" actually means religious students.

    As has been said, they brought stability but at the cost of repressive rule (and RAWA was still banned, incidentally).