|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:06 pm Post subject: British envoy says mission in Afghanistan is doomed |
 |
|
| Quote: |
Britain�s Ambassador to Afghanistan has stoked opposition to the allied operation there by reportedly saying that the campaign against the Taleban insurgents would fail and that the best hope was to install an acceptable dictator in Kabul.
Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, a Foreign Office heavyweight with a reputation for blunt speaking, delivered his bleak assessment of the seven-year Nato campaign in Afghanistan in a briefing with a French diplomat, according to French leaks. However sources in Whitehall said the account was a parody of the British Ambassador�s remarks.
Fran�ois Fitou, the deputy French Ambassador to Kabul, told President Sarkozy�s office and the Foreign Ministry in a coded cable that Sir Sherard believed that �the current situation is bad; the security situation is getting worse; so is corruption and the Government has lost all trust�.
According to Mr Fitou, Sir Sherard told him on September 2 that the Nato-led military operation was making things worse. �The foreign forces are ensuring the survival of a regime which would collapse without them . . . They are slowing down and complicating an eventual exit from the crisis, which will probably be dramatic,� the Ambassador was quoted as saying.
|
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article4860080.ece
Time to put in a thug and cut'n'run. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
He must be the British version of John Bolton. 
I'd like to hear the assessments of the other NATO allies with troops there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
*Sigh*
Yes, the NATO forces are making it worse. The Americans are the only ones who have their shit together. Its the exact opposite of the situation in Iraq. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It sounds like the exact same situation in Iraq. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
*Sigh*
Yes, the NATO forces are making it worse. The Americans are the only ones who have their shit together. Its the exact opposite of the situation in Iraq. |
Good. Then Canada can leave.
Jesus. What in the hell is Canada doing in Afghanistan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
*Sigh*
Yes, the NATO forces are making it worse. The Americans are the only ones who have their shit together. Its the exact opposite of the situation in Iraq. |
Good. Then Canada can leave.
Jesus. What in the hell is Canada doing in Afghanistan. |
No idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So what? Some Canadians were recently killed in Miami. Should we invade Overtown? Canadians are dropping like flys in Mexico. Should we roll up into the DF? Nonsense.
This war on terror is an American adventure. We have no business being there at all. My vote in this election (Canadian) is 90% based upon this. Go Greens. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kimbop
Joined: 31 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 7:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There have been dozens of threads on this topic. Yes, Canada has a place in the rebuilding process of Afghanistan so that it can once again become a sovereign and peaceful country as it was before the 1970s.
I could tell you about afghanistan having the highest birth rate in the world, or the taliban refusing to educate women, or the millions of afghans who WANT freedom and human rights, but I think these arguments would fall on the deaf ears of a crazy hard leftie who would sacrifice his own freedom, and the freedom of his children, for the sake of a government pention. Sure, let the middle east proliferate madness. I find it ironic that the idiots who say "that's their culture, we have no business meddling in their affairs" don't want to live in any country but a free decmocracy.
Admit that the Taleban are evil; and admit that work needs to be done to restore normalcy on that side of the world. Mises: it's YOUR responsibility to eradicate evil on this planet. Imagine if the whole world lived in peace and freedom; imagine if the whole world had the crime rate of connecticut. We CAN make a difference, and I'm willing to work for it. Are you?
Or would you rather quadruple unemployment in Canada by voting green? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kimbop
Joined: 31 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 7:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There have been dozens of threads on this topic. Yes, Canada has a place in the rebuilding process of Afghanistan so that it can once again become a sovereign and peaceful country as it was before the 1970s.
I could tell you about afghanistan having the highest birth rate in the world, or the taliban refusing to educate women, or the millions of afghans who WANT freedom and human rights, but I think these arguments would fall on the deaf ears of a crazy hard leftie who would sacrifice his own freedom, and the freedom of his children, for the sake of a government pention. Sure, let the middle east proliferate madness. I find it ironic that the idiots who say "that's their culture, we have no business meddling in their affairs" don't want to live in any country but a free decmocracy.
Admit that the Taleban are evil; and admit that work needs to be done to restore normalcy on that side of the world. Mises: it's YOUR responsibility to eradicate evil on this planet. Imagine if the whole world lived in peace and freedom; imagine if the whole world had the crime rate of connecticut. We CAN make a difference, and I'm willing to work for it. Are you?
Or would you rather quadruple unemployment in Canada by voting green? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I could tell you about afghanistan having the highest birth rate in the world, or the taliban refusing to educate women,
|
It isn't just the Taliban who don't want to educate women. This is a belief held by the majority of Afghan men.
| Quote: |
| or the millions of afghans who WANT freedom and human rights, |
.....and they all want us to be there, right?
| Quote: |
but I think these arguments would fall on the deaf ears of a crazy hard leftie who would sacrifice his own freedom, and the freedom of his children, for the sake of a government pention.
|
Explain how pulling out of Afghanistan would be sacrificing our freedom?
| Quote: |
| Sure, let the middle east proliferate madness. I find it ironic that the idiots who say "that's their culture, we have no business meddling in their affairs" don't want to live in any country but a free decmocracy. |
So how did the Iraq war (for example) help end that madness? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Eric Margolis writes:
'While Gates and Canada�s government were pleading for more troops, the commander of the 40,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan, US Gen. Dan McNeill, landed a bombshell of his own. If proper US military counter-insurgency doctrine were followed, said McNeill at a Washington conference, the US and NATO would need 400,000 troops to defeat Pashtun tribal resistance to western occupation of Afghanistan.'
'When the Soviets occupied Afghanistan, they deployed 160,000 troops and about 200,000 Afghan Communist troops � yet failed to crush the mostly Pashtun resistance. Now, the US and NATO are trying the same mission with only 66,000 troops, backed by ragtag local mercenaries grandly styled the Afghan National Army. Of these 66,000 western soldiers, at least half or more are non-combat support troops.'
'Canada�s calls for a 1,000 more NATO troops, and the US decision to send 3,200 Marines, will not alter the course of this war, which is turning increasingly against the western occupiers.'
Read more at: www.ericmargolis.com/archives |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 1:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| catman wrote: |
Eric Margolis writes:
'While Gates and Canada�s government were pleading for more troops, the commander of the 40,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan, US Gen. Dan McNeill, landed a bombshell of his own. If proper US military counter-insurgency doctrine were followed, said McNeill at a Washington conference, the US and NATO would need 400,000 troops to defeat Pashtun tribal resistance to western occupation of Afghanistan.'
'When the Soviets occupied Afghanistan, they deployed 160,000 troops and about 200,000 Afghan Communist troops � yet failed to crush the mostly Pashtun resistance. Now, the US and NATO are trying the same mission with only 66,000 troops, backed by ragtag local mercenaries grandly styled the Afghan National Army. Of these 66,000 western soldiers, at least half or more are non-combat support troops.'
'Canada�s calls for a 1,000 more NATO troops, and the US decision to send 3,200 Marines, will not alter the course of this war, which is turning increasingly against the western occupiers.'
Read more at: www.ericmargolis.com/archives |
Eric Margalois = a Taliban apologist.
U.S.-Russian Crusade Against Osama Bin Laden
by Eric Margolis
NEW YORK -- The United States and Russia may soon launch a joint military assault against Islamic militant, Osama Bin Laden, and against the leadership of Taliban, Afghanistan's de facto ruling movement.
Such an attack would probably include US Delta Force and Navy Seals, who would join up with Russia's elite Spetsnaz and Alpha commandos in Tajikistan, the Central Asian state where Russia has military bases and 25,000 troops. The combined forces would be lifted by helicopters, and backed by air support, deep into neighboring Afghanistan to attack Bin Laden's fortified base in the Hindu Kush mountains.
How well such a raid would succeed remains in question: US special forces have had a dismal record of fiascos over the past quarter century. Russia's special forces, though more capable than similar American units, experienced some success but also many failures in the Afghan War. Assassinating irksome Third Worlders is the specialty of Britain's very able and very deadly SAS (Special Air Service) commandos.
In such an attack, the US would also launch cruise missile attacks, and Russia air strikes, would pound Afghan government installations and communications to punish Taliban.
The United States blames Bin Laden for the 1998 bombing of US embassies in East Africa, and the October bombing of destroyer `USS Cole' in Yemen. Washington accuses the shadowy Saudi, who fought the Soviets in Afghanistan, of masterminding world anti-American terrorism. Bin Laden tops the FBI's `Ten Most Wanted' list with a US $5 million price on his head.
Russia accuses Bin Laden and Taliban of aiding resistance forces in Chechnya, whose forgotten people continue to battle Russian colonial rule. Moscow also fears Taliban threatens the Russian - backed communist dictators - or `Red Sultans' - of Central Asia. Russia is determined to avenge its defeat in Afghanistan, and regain control of this vast, resource-rich region.
Washington recently joined the `Shanghai Five,' an unofficial pact between Russia, China, and three Central Asian states to combat `Islamic terrorism' - meaning the region's anti-communist Islamic independence movements. The US agreed to share intelligence with them and provide some funding for the crusade against Islamic insurgents.
The Clinton Administration's anti-Muslim alliance with Russia is strategically wrong and morally disgraceful. Leading human rights groups are condemning Russia for war crimes and mass murder in Chechnya, widespread torture, rape, looting, collective punishment, and operating concentration camps. Russia has killed some 140,000 Chechen civilians to date and covered that nation with millions of anti-personnel mines.
America has no business colluding with the perpetrator of these crimes, nor with China's brutal repression of Sinkiang Muslims, nor aiding pro-Moscow police states in Central Asia. All of Washington's new `friends' in the anti-Islamic crusade are major violators of human rights.
America has a better case against Bin Laden, who proclaimed jihad, or holy struggle, to `liberate Arabia and Palestine from American rule.' He may have been behind the terrorist bombings in East Africa; perhaps, too, of the `USS Cole.' But Washington has to date shown no real proof, only leaks and claims by dubious `anti-terrorism experts.'
Old comrades from the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan who know Bin Laden, tell me the US has blown him out of all proportion into a mythical caricature, the latest of long list of Muslim bogeymen beginning with the 19th-Cerntury `Mad Mullah.' Bin Laden's alleged attacks may have actually been done by other Saudi extremists of the Wahabi sect.
Afghanistan's Taliban refuses Washington's demands to hand over Bin Laden, a hero to many Muslims, until the US shows proof of his crimes , which it has not. When Bin Laden and other mujihadin battled heroically against the Russians in Afghanistan, the US hailed them as `freedom fighters.' But when these `jihadis' called for liberation of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf from US domination, they were branded `Islamic terrorists.' In 1998, the Clinton Administration showered cruise missiles on guerilla camps in Afghanistan and an innocuous drug plant in Sudan, killing over 100 civilians and fighters.
The US engineered a punishing Iraq-style embargo of war-ravaged Afghanistan at a time when many of its 18 million people are starving and homeless. Though Taliban controls 95% of the country, the US refuses to recognize or aid the Islamic regime. Washington and the US media have launched a fierce propaganda campaign against Taliban, accusing it of encouraging the opium trade, harboring `terrorists,' and abusing women. The woman's issue has resonated loudly in the west, particularly on college campuses.
All the women's groups now shrilly lamenting that Afghan women must go veiled were silent when the Soviets slaughtered close to 2 million Afghans - half women --from 1979-1989; silent about 500,000 Afghans maimed by Soviet mines since then; silent about thousands of women raped during the post-war anarchy before Taliban restored internal order.
Taliban is battling the opposition Northern Alliance in the northeast corner of Afghanistan bordering Tajikistan. The Alliance commander, Ahmad Massoud, is a long-time collaborator with the Russians. His cornered forces are being increasingly aided by Russian arms, pilots, artillery, air support, as well as covert help from Iran, India and, likely, the US - all of them fueling the decade-old Afghan civil war.
The Clinton Administration, which shamefully financed Russia's massacre of the Muslim Chechen, is now actually helping Russia re-enter Afghanistan, an act of dazzling geopolitical folly that will endanger Pakistan and further convince the Muslim world that the United States is its sworn enemy. American money now pays for the killing of Palestinians in the Mideast, the slaughter of the Chechen, the death of 500,000 Iraqi children (UN figures, not mine), and now the punishment of ravaged Afghanistan - all this under the banner of a war against terrorism.
Instead of trying to overthrow Taliban, which will surely pave the way for a second Russian occupation of Afghanistan, the US and its allies should recognize Taliban as the legitimate Afghan government, and work with Kabul to curtail the opium trade, which is currently beyond anyone's control in a nation that is starving and desperate.
The west may not like the fierce Taliban, but it is the legitimate government of Afghanistan and the only power holding that nation together. Taliban is also the only force blocking Russia's plans to restore its former rule in Central Asia, and to reoccupy strategic Afghanistan.
[Eric Margolis is a syndicated foreign affairs columnist and broadcaster, and author of the just released War at the Top of the World - The Struggle for Afghanistan, Kashmir, and Tibet which was reviewed in The Economist, May 13, 2000]
Copyright � 2000 Eric Margolis - All Rights Reserved
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2000/1204-Crusade.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 3:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
It will always be a "lost" cause.
America and other countries have no more right to be there than Martians.
Let them settle it and let the power of media, the world, make its play.
The same thing with N. Korea.
What keeps these tyrants and islands of idiocy aworking is the mere fact that we create the "enemy". With this justification (just like has happened in the last 8 years in America), we give approval and justification to all sorts of deformed thought and primitive action.
Let the power of "right" decide, not the power of "might". The world is small enough now for this to happen.
| Quote: |
| Eric Margalois = a Taliban apologist. |
Joo - put another coin in your Joo box baby.
You don't get it. People have the right to their own brand of tyranny as much as the other option of trident tomfoolery.... let it be....
He is not "apologizing" just trying to make it clear that people are free to be "self determined". You just don't get it nor will you the new world order. You are an anachronism, just like the jukebox.
DD
http:/eflclassroom.ning.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="ddeubel"]
| Quote: |
| People have the right to their own brand of tyranny |
maybe- but They don't have a right to protect and assist Al Qaeda.
What I said goes you couldn't come up with an answer. Until you don't don't blame me for my statement.
The nature of the enemy and what they fight for is the problem , not US policy.
Right before 9-11 Margalois The US ought to have done exactly the opposite of what he recomended.
Notice also that Margalois doesn't even have his fact straight how exactly does the US help China persecute muslims?
Margalois is a jerk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kimbop
Joined: 31 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Stop hatred, ignoarance, and violent forms of islam! The west is responsible for sharing its science, human rights, and compassionate social programs throughout the world!
Afghans WANT peace and freedom, but a minority of extremists get in the way. The taleban are 'right'? The taleban 'keep the country held together'? They tear it apart, and keep it down. And allow evil to go unpunished.
Smart people are already looking toward the future:
"Stable Iraq could influence Mideast"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081004/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_s_influence_analysis |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
