Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Our mistakes in going to war
Why are we not ready to admit that our war participation in Iraq and Afghanistan has been total failure?
Just like Iraq we are now handing operations over to the US where they have more troops and can carry out a surge in the area where we could not. Our pussyfooting trying to get the Afghan population on side has met with failure. If you are fighting a war you don't hand sweets out with one hand and using the rifle to kill in the other!
The relatives of the dead must all be asking "was it worth the sacrifice"?
Just like Iraq we are now handing operations over to the US where they have more troops and can carry out a surge in the area where we could not. Our pussyfooting trying to get the Afghan population on side has met with failure. If you are fighting a war you don't hand sweets out with one hand and using the rifle to kill in the other!
The relatives of the dead must all be asking "was it worth the sacrifice"?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rov1200. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
''if you are fighting a war you do not give sweets out in one hand and using a rifle to kill in the other'' its called propaganda rov1200..winning over the local people,it does not work all the time of course but its called building a trust..i wouldnt say its been a failure on the armed forces part,you are going to get casulties in any theatre of war but the politicians could have handled it better...
If the idea to enforce democracy was the plan (was there a plan?) then that has singularly failed.
If the Taliban can wait out the might of the Russian militia, then they have no problem waiting for the Allies to give up and go home - as soon as they can cobble together something that justifies their endless claim to 'get the job done'.
After all, it doesn't matter how many foreign soldiers you send to fight and die, they will always eventually return home.
Not a problem for the Taliban - they are already home, waiting for the visitors to go,
If the Taliban can wait out the might of the Russian militia, then they have no problem waiting for the Allies to give up and go home - as soon as they can cobble together something that justifies their endless claim to 'get the job done'.
After all, it doesn't matter how many foreign soldiers you send to fight and die, they will always eventually return home.
Not a problem for the Taliban - they are already home, waiting for the visitors to go,
the "Taliban" and the "Afghans" aren't the same thing. We were fighting the first, and trying not to fight the second. Our assumption was that most Afghans would see the Talibans as brutal hardliners and would be happy to see them removed.. Maybe the Taliban have more support than we thought; or maybe they have enough power not to need the support. Whatever, they sponsored terror attacks against the west, and it seemed like a good idea to try to remove them.
The reasons behind invading Iraq were much murkier and, I think, always more likely to fail. We might have won in Afghanistan if Bush and Blair hadn't taken their eye off the ball and decided to invade Iraq as well (but that's only a guess, obviously).
The reasons behind invading Iraq were much murkier and, I think, always more likely to fail. We might have won in Afghanistan if Bush and Blair hadn't taken their eye off the ball and decided to invade Iraq as well (but that's only a guess, obviously).
History teaches us where we have been, and shows us where we are going -
the chaos left after the Russians left, combined with a power vacum, was sorted out by The Taliban, and a lot of tribes look up to them for leadership. I don;t think the average Afghan looks to America and Britain to understand their customs and politics - even if they are forced on them, however pointlessly.
the chaos left after the Russians left, combined with a power vacum, was sorted out by The Taliban, and a lot of tribes look up to them for leadership. I don;t think the average Afghan looks to America and Britain to understand their customs and politics - even if they are forced on them, however pointlessly.
steg - do you really swallow the government's proposition that invading Afghanistan has kept terrorists so busy over there that they simply don;t have the time to pop over here and plant the odd bomb, or hijack the occasional plane now and again?
It only takes one disaffected British Muslim, radicalised by the invasion of the country of his ancestors, to decide to enter heaven as a martyr, and your entire premise is destroyed.
Every day, I hope that this will not happen, but I know it is only a matter of time.
What price your 'total success' then?
It only takes one disaffected British Muslim, radicalised by the invasion of the country of his ancestors, to decide to enter heaven as a martyr, and your entire premise is destroyed.
Every day, I hope that this will not happen, but I know it is only a matter of time.
What price your 'total success' then?
“These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s founding fathers.” — Ronald Regan while introducing the Mujahideen leaders to media on the White house lawns (1985).
http://inquirer.files...2007/12/c12820-32.jpg
The Mujahideen are the precursors to al qaeda (the database) Muslim fighters that were recruited by the CIA to fight in Serbia and Croatia. The west created them for their own ends, they no longer need them, but the west needs an enemy.
http://inquirer.files...2007/12/c12820-32.jpg
The Mujahideen are the precursors to al qaeda (the database) Muslim fighters that were recruited by the CIA to fight in Serbia and Croatia. The west created them for their own ends, they no longer need them, but the west needs an enemy.
-- answer removed --
steg - if you really believe that there have been no terrorist attacks because we are fighting in their homeland, then I suggest you think carefully about that scenario.
If and when - and it's when - any terrorists decide to take some revenge on the UK mainland, do you seriously think that every single terrorist will be in Afghanistan with his hands full fighting our troops? Do you?
If and when - and it's when - any terrorists decide to take some revenge on the UK mainland, do you seriously think that every single terrorist will be in Afghanistan with his hands full fighting our troops? Do you?
One more example why Liberal/Lefty methods do not work.
We have seen these namby pandy methods ruin this country ie 'spare the rod and spoil the child', soft policing in case we upset certain communities, more protection for the perpetrators of crime than the victim, sticking steadfastly to EU rules wereas other member states bend the rules to suit themselves, giving in too much to the wishes of our immigrants at a cost to the indigenous population.
Yes, rightly or wrongly, if one takes the decision to go to war, then one should use all the power one possessors to gain the swiftest victory possible.
'RIGHT' ways are the best, that is why they are called 'Right'.
We have seen these namby pandy methods ruin this country ie 'spare the rod and spoil the child', soft policing in case we upset certain communities, more protection for the perpetrators of crime than the victim, sticking steadfastly to EU rules wereas other member states bend the rules to suit themselves, giving in too much to the wishes of our immigrants at a cost to the indigenous population.
Yes, rightly or wrongly, if one takes the decision to go to war, then one should use all the power one possessors to gain the swiftest victory possible.
'RIGHT' ways are the best, that is why they are called 'Right'.
That presumes AOG, that this is in fact a 'war', and that a 'victory' is possible and can be envisaged and achieved.
I don't believe that either of those two factors are in place here.
Of course, George Bush coined the wonderfully hawkish, but meaningless phrase 'war on terror' - which has about as much practical meaning as a 'war on sunshine'.
The reality is - exactly as in Viet Nam - America presumed its superior military hardware and aggressive stance would win against a guerilla force living in, and supported by the native population.
As I mentioned earlier - all the Taliban has to do is wait out their time until America gets sick of plaiting fog and moves out, taking its auxilliary support (UN and British troops) with it, leaving things much as they were, apart from a deal of destruction, a lot of dead people, and an even greater hatred of the West than before.
If the politicos can wrangle that into something that agrees with their intent on 'victory', and the tragic / laughable 'get the job done', then that will be the end of it.
For now. Then the revenge starts ...
I don't believe that either of those two factors are in place here.
Of course, George Bush coined the wonderfully hawkish, but meaningless phrase 'war on terror' - which has about as much practical meaning as a 'war on sunshine'.
The reality is - exactly as in Viet Nam - America presumed its superior military hardware and aggressive stance would win against a guerilla force living in, and supported by the native population.
As I mentioned earlier - all the Taliban has to do is wait out their time until America gets sick of plaiting fog and moves out, taking its auxilliary support (UN and British troops) with it, leaving things much as they were, apart from a deal of destruction, a lot of dead people, and an even greater hatred of the West than before.
If the politicos can wrangle that into something that agrees with their intent on 'victory', and the tragic / laughable 'get the job done', then that will be the end of it.
For now. Then the revenge starts ...
"steg - if you really believe that there have been no terrorist attacks because we are fighting in their homeland, then I suggest you think carefully about that scenario. "
i have, that's why i gave my answer, you are the person that doesn't seem to be able to think for your self. You seem to be clouded by your own political view and not facts.
i have, that's why i gave my answer, you are the person that doesn't seem to be able to think for your self. You seem to be clouded by your own political view and not facts.
OK steg - we must agree to differ.
I concede that there have been no terrorist attacks on the UK mainland recently, but to ascribe our invasion as the only reason why is, in my view, optimistic in the extreme. I think that is a matter of coincidence, rather than a result. Time will tell.
Believe me, I wish i was wrong here - but I do doubt it.
I concede that there have been no terrorist attacks on the UK mainland recently, but to ascribe our invasion as the only reason why is, in my view, optimistic in the extreme. I think that is a matter of coincidence, rather than a result. Time will tell.
Believe me, I wish i was wrong here - but I do doubt it.
Absolutely - I am a great believer that people can debate and discuss without ever fundamentally changing the other person's position - however desireable one party may feel a change to be.
If you expand that to the Afghan situation, it's easy to see that there didn't need to be an invasion in the first place!
If you expand that to the Afghan situation, it's easy to see that there didn't need to be an invasion in the first place!
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.