FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

After 20 years...

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

The Taliban have total control of Afghanistan. More than what they even had originally...

Was there any point whatsoever?

And never mind the Taliban, all that effort to stop Isis from establishing a caliphate... Down the drain.

Now they ALL have a central hub...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *mateur100Man
over a year ago

nr faversham

Other than western takeover or permanent military presence, neither of which would be acceptable, what do you suggest

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uck-RogersMan
over a year ago

Tarka trail

And what has their biggest export into Europe been. !

And the cost to Europe in another 20 years.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *moothCriminal_xMan
over a year ago

Redditch

350,000 strong army but couldn't hold the country against a 75,000 strong under trained and under equipped force. The afghan people arent a cohesive unit and the tribal loyalties outside of the cities is what holds sway. The problem has been pakistan and the refusal to tackle pakistan is criminal - they hid bin laden and trained and fed the taliban.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Other than western takeover or permanent military presence, neither of which would be acceptable, what do you suggest"

I think one of those options may be coming up... I don't know what the solution is but it looks like this middle east saga is not going to end anytime soon

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"350,000 strong army but couldn't hold the country against a 75,000 strong under trained and under equipped force. The afghan people arent a cohesive unit and the tribal loyalties outside of the cities is what holds sway. The problem has been pakistan and the refusal to tackle pakistan is criminal - they hid bin laden and trained and fed the taliban.

"

Totally agree, arrogance in the American government, and the uk being bitches to America went along

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *V-AliceTV/TS
over a year ago

Ayr

Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said no one wants Afghanistan to become a "breeding ground for terror", as the Taliban enters capital Kabul.

Well, Boris, it's not that long ago that the UK, ie. N. Ireland, was a breeding ground for terror. You know how that was brought (mostly) to an end?

Yep, that's right; the UK Government negotiated a peace with the terrorists - even released many of them from prison. Hell, the Queen even shook hands with one of them - after they killed one of her extended family.

So, if we don't want the Taliban exporting violence to our country - even though we exported plenty to theirs; negotiate with them.

Lots of people will say that's impossible - but those people are full of shit. A Taliban government would be not unlike a skint Saudi Arabia, in terms of its approach to human rights.

We have a working relationship with those murdering wankers; so why not the Taliban? Or do we only turn a blind eye to those wealthy enough to buy our weapons?

One more thing - if the West gets on its high horse about Afghanistan's new government, you can be assured that the Chinese won't. They'll do what they've done with the governments in Africa - trade infrastructure and technology for resources.

That's the real difference between the USA/UK and Chinese foreign policy, this century; the former have left a trail of death and destruction behind them before some token restoration of the infrastructure that they destroyed.

The Chinese haven't done the violence first and have left a trail of roads, railways, hospitals and schools ... and they're not the good guys - they're no better than the Taliban when it comes to human rights.

So, how the fuck have we, in the West, with all our moral superiority, come to where we are now?

We should negotiate with Afghanistan's new government - whoever they are. Whether they will want anything to do with us, is another matter.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ornyH90Man
over a year ago

Edinburgh


"Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said no one wants Afghanistan to become a "breeding ground for terror", as the Taliban enters capital Kabul.

Well, Boris, it's not that long ago that the UK, ie. N. Ireland, was a breeding ground for terror. You know how that was brought (mostly) to an end?

Yep, that's right; the UK Government negotiated a peace with the terrorists - even released many of them from prison. Hell, the Queen even shook hands with one of them - after they killed one of her extended family.

So, if we don't want the Taliban exporting violence to our country - even though we exported plenty to theirs; negotiate with them.

Lots of people will say that's impossible - but those people are full of shit. A Taliban government would be not unlike a skint Saudi Arabia, in terms of its approach to human rights.

We have a working relationship with those murdering wankers; so why not the Taliban? Or do we only turn a blind eye to those wealthy enough to buy our weapons?

One more thing - if the West gets on its high horse about Afghanistan's new government, you can be assured that the Chinese won't. They'll do what they've done with the governments in Africa - trade infrastructure and technology for resources.

That's the real difference between the USA/UK and Chinese foreign policy, this century; the former have left a trail of death and destruction behind them before some token restoration of the infrastructure that they destroyed.

The Chinese haven't done the violence first and have left a trail of roads, railways, hospitals and schools ... and they're not the good guys - they're no better than the Taliban when it comes to human rights.

So, how the fuck have we, in the West, with all our moral superiority, come to where we are now?

We should negotiate with Afghanistan's new government - whoever they are. Whether they will want anything to do with us, is another matter."

Nicely said

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

History does seeem to hint going to war in Afghanistan tends to be a bad idea in the long run.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"History does seeem to hint going to war in Afghanistan tends to be a bad idea in the long run."

The graveyard of empires

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *V-AliceTV/TS
over a year ago

Ayr

It's interesting to note - like it or not - that the Taliban have (effectively) taken control of the whole of Afghanistan with minimal bloodshed; something the USA/UK and their allies were never able to do.

Why? Well, because the Taliban, fucking awful as they undoubtedly are, were not resisted.

The uncomfortable truth is that most Afghans would rather be alive, under a shit government, than die resisting it; particularly the men, for whom it won't be anywhere near as bad.

The Afghans, of course, are not unique in preferring life, no matter how low in quality, to being dead.

The mantra "Better to die on your feet, than live on your knees" is bullshit a lot easier to spout - especially for the 99% of us with no military training - than it is to live up to.

The Taliban are shite. That they are in power without a civil war and huge bloodshed is an unexpected bonus.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London

The Powell Doctrine (former Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State):

In short, the doctrine says that the U.S. should not go to war unless it can say "yes" to the following questions, as listed by Foreign Policy columnist Stephen M. Walt:

Is a vital national security interest threatened?

Do we have a clear attainable objective?

Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?

Have all other nonviolent policy means been fully exhausted?

Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?

Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?

Is the action supported by the American people?

Do we have genuine broad international support?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asyukMan
over a year ago

West London


"The Taliban have total control of Afghanistan. More than what they even had originally...

Was there any point whatsoever?

And never mind the Taliban, all that effort to stop Isis from establishing a caliphate... Down the drain.

Now they ALL have a central hub... "

See above.

The initial point was to prevent it from being a source of terrorist activity.

That happened. It will probably continue as the Taliban will not want anyone back and they do want to export opium and minerals "in peace".

What was achieved was a degree of freedom and a generation of educated girls.

Perhaps the legacy of that will make a difference in time. Perhaps not.

No choice but to wait and see.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *V-AliceTV/TS
over a year ago

Ayr


"The Powell Doctrine (former Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State):

In short, the doctrine says that the U.S. should not go to war unless it can say "yes" to the following questions, as listed by Foreign Policy columnist Stephen M. Walt:

Is a vital national security interest threatened?

Do we have a clear attainable objective?

Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?

Have all other nonviolent policy means been fully exhausted?

Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?

Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?

Is the action supported by the American people?

Do we have genuine broad international support?"

And ignoring that doctrine, recent though it is; is why the USA is utterly shite at foreign policy.

They still believe, even now, that all they have to do is show up with enough firepower and it'll be ok, in the end.

Why? Because it worked against the Nazis and the Japanese - neither of whom they defeated on their own - last century; and they've never been able to move on from that.

Their simple-minded belief in their own "exceptionalism" has a lot to do with it, too.

Hopefully, this latest monumental fuck-up will give them pause and they might start to think stuff through, in future.

They'll have to - if they're going to hold China in check.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Inequality breeds extremely, wherever you have poverty you will have people ripe for radicalisation.

What could the solution be?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittleAcornMan
over a year ago

visiting the beach


"Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said no one wants Afghanistan to become a "breeding ground for terror", as the Taliban enters capital Kabul.

Well, Boris, it's not that long ago that the UK, ie. N. Ireland, was a breeding ground for terror. You know how that was brought (mostly) to an end?

Yep, that's right; the UK Government negotiated a peace with the terrorists - even released many of them from prison. Hell, the Queen even shook hands with one of them - after they killed one of her extended family.

So, if we don't want the Taliban exporting violence to our country - even though we exported plenty to theirs; negotiate with them.

Lots of people will say that's impossible - but those people are full of shit. A Taliban government would be not unlike a skint Saudi Arabia, in terms of its approach to human rights.

We have a working relationship with those murdering wankers; so why not the Taliban? Or do we only turn a blind eye to those wealthy enough to buy our weapons?

One more thing - if the West gets on its high horse about Afghanistan's new government, you can be assured that the Chinese won't. They'll do what they've done with the governments in Africa - trade infrastructure and technology for resources.

That's the real difference between the USA/UK and Chinese foreign policy, this century; the former have left a trail of death and destruction behind them before some token restoration of the infrastructure that they destroyed.

The Chinese haven't done the violence first and have left a trail of roads, railways, hospitals and schools ... and they're not the good guys - they're no better than the Taliban when it comes to human rights.

So, how the fuck have we, in the West, with all our moral superiority, come to where we are now?

We should negotiate with Afghanistan's new government - whoever they are. Whether they will want anything to do with us, is another matter.

Nicely said

"

Yup, you pretty much always end up negotiating with the "terrorists". Unless you can defeat them, which is very difficult when they live there and have a degree of support from the population (doesn't even need to be a majority).

You'd think after all these years of experience our leaders would have worked this out.

IRA, ANC, Stern Gang etc. all designated as terrorist organisations by the UK government, all ended in government themselves.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ostafunMan
over a year ago

near ipswich

"I would like to assure the international community that nobody will be harmed," Zabihullah Mujahid says.

"We do not want to have any problems with the international community," the Taliban spokesman adds.

"We have the right to act according to our religious principles. Other countries have different approaches, rules and regulations... the Afghans have the right to have their own rules and regulations in accordance with our values."

"[We] are committed to the rights of women under the system of sharia [Islamic law]," Mujahid says.

"They are going to be working shoulder to shoulder with us. We would like to assure the international community that there will be no discrimination."

When asked about contractors and translators who have worked with foreign powers, Zabihullah Mujahid says: "Nobody is going to be treated with revenge."

"The youth who have grown up here, we do not want them to leave. They are our assets."

"Nobody is going to knock on their door and ask them who they have been working for," he adds.

"They are going to be safe. Nobody is going to be interrogated or chased.

If this is true its looking good for everyone especially when the say afghan soil will not be used to house al-Qaeda.Lets hope they are true to their word.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *unnyPairCouple
over a year ago

Seminole

You left out they will no longer produce opium.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ostafunMan
over a year ago

near ipswich


"You left out they will no longer produce opium. "
Well thats good news too dont you think?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *irtylittletramp100TV/TS
over a year ago

Notts


""I would like to assure the international community that nobody will be harmed," Zabihullah Mujahid says.

"We do not want to have any problems with the international community," the Taliban spokesman adds.

"We have the right to act according to our religious principles. Other countries have different approaches, rules and regulations... the Afghans have the right to have their own rules and regulations in accordance with our values."

"[We] are committed to the rights of women under the system of sharia [Islamic law]," Mujahid says.

"They are going to be working shoulder to shoulder with us. We would like to assure the international community that there will be no discrimination."

When asked about contractors and translators who have worked with foreign powers, Zabihullah Mujahid says: "Nobody is going to be treated with revenge."

"The youth who have grown up here, we do not want them to leave. They are our assets."

"Nobody is going to knock on their door and ask them who they have been working for," he adds.

"They are going to be safe. Nobody is going to be interrogated or chased.

If this is true its looking good for everyone especially when the say afghan soil will not be used to house al-Qaeda.Lets hope they are true to their word.

"

perhaps they have realized that as a terrorist group you had to find them, as a government much easier!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The Taliban have total control of Afghanistan. More than what they even had originally...

Was there any point whatsoever?

And never mind the Taliban, all that effort to stop Isis from establishing a caliphate... Down the drain.

Now they ALL have a central hub... "

ISIS and the Taliban dont like each other and are not the same thing tbf

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"The Taliban have total control of Afghanistan. More than what they even had originally...

Was there any point whatsoever?

And never mind the Taliban, all that effort to stop Isis from establishing a caliphate... Down the drain.

Now they ALL have a central hub...

ISIS and the Taliban dont like each other and are not the same thing tbf"

No they aren't, and no they don't, that isn't what I said, I said that the efforts to stop Isis from creating a caliphate were down the drain, which they are because now the Taliban have done it instead. And they may be enemies, however, they do have a common cause in the establishment of an sharia ruled Islamic State and are both Sunni. And now there is an entire country to use to set an example to the rest of the world.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"You left out they will no longer produce opium. "

Yeah, right, there's far too many billions in the opium industry and too many weapons to buy for them not to. They'll sell, just not cheap.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"You left out they will no longer produce opium.

Yeah, right, there's far too many billions in the opium industry and too many weapons to buy for them not to. They'll sell, just not cheap. "

China will just have it instead

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *adyinred696969Couple
over a year ago

Brecon


""I would like to assure the international community that nobody will be harmed," Zabihullah Mujahid says.

"We do not want to have any problems with the international community," the Taliban spokesman adds.

"We have the right to act according to our religious principles. Other countries have different approaches, rules and regulations... the Afghans have the right to have their own rules and regulations in accordance with our values."

"[We] are committed to the rights of women under the system of sharia [Islamic law]," Mujahid says.

"They are going to be working shoulder to shoulder with us. We would like to assure the international community that there will be no discrimination."

When asked about contractors and translators who have worked with foreign powers, Zabihullah Mujahid says: "Nobody is going to be treated with revenge."

"The youth who have grown up here, we do not want them to leave. They are our assets."

"Nobody is going to knock on their door and ask them who they have been working for," he adds.

"They are going to be safe. Nobody is going to be interrogated or chased.

If this is true its looking good for everyone especially when the say afghan soil will not be used to house al-Qaeda.Lets hope they are true to their word.

"

""Nobody is going to knock on their door and ask them who they have been working for," he adds.

"They are going to be safe. Nobody is going to be interrogated or chased."

Well, they need to tell the families of the interpreters they have already killed then...well, some families, one guy had his (USA) Dept of Defence ID melted into his chest, his arms were hacked off, and then they hung him, after killing his family.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ynetaurusMan
over a year ago

Newcastle

Retaliation no...just leave them to their own devices and in a very short time the infastructure will collapse Water Eletricity Fuel Food Medical care etc

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *moothCriminal_xMan
over a year ago

Redditch


""I would like to assure the international community that nobody will be harmed," Zabihullah Mujahid says.

"We do not want to have any problems with the international community," the Taliban spokesman adds.

"We have the right to act according to our religious principles. Other countries have different approaches, rules and regulations... the Afghans have the right to have their own rules and regulations in accordance with our values."

"[We] are committed to the rights of women under the system of sharia [Islamic law]," Mujahid says.

"They are going to be working shoulder to shoulder with us. We would like to assure the international community that there will be no discrimination."

When asked about contractors and translators who have worked with foreign powers, Zabihullah Mujahid says: "Nobody is going to be treated with revenge."

"The youth who have grown up here, we do not want them to leave. They are our assets."

"Nobody is going to knock on their door and ask them who they have been working for," he adds.

"They are going to be safe. Nobody is going to be interrogated or chased.

If this is true its looking good for everyone especially when the say afghan soil will not be used to house al-Qaeda.Lets hope they are true to their word.

""Nobody is going to knock on their door and ask them who they have been working for," he adds.

"They are going to be safe. Nobody is going to be interrogated or chased."

Well, they need to tell the families of the interpreters they have already killed then...well, some families, one guy had his (USA) Dept of Defence ID melted into his chest, his arms were hacked off, and then they hung him, after killing his family. "

Can you pm me details of this please? Id like to include mention in an email to my mp - for all the good it will do

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


""I would like to assure the international community that nobody will be harmed," Zabihullah Mujahid says.

"We do not want to have any problems with the international community," the Taliban spokesman adds.

"We have the right to act according to our religious principles. Other countries have different approaches, rules and regulations... the Afghans have the right to have their own rules and regulations in accordance with our values."

"[We] are committed to the rights of women under the system of sharia [Islamic law]," Mujahid says.

"They are going to be working shoulder to shoulder with us. We would like to assure the international community that there will be no discrimination."

When asked about contractors and translators who have worked with foreign powers, Zabihullah Mujahid says: "Nobody is going to be treated with revenge."

"The youth who have grown up here, we do not want them to leave. They are our assets."

"Nobody is going to knock on their door and ask them who they have been working for," he adds.

"They are going to be safe. Nobody is going to be interrogated or chased.

If this is true its looking good for everyone especially when the say afghan soil will not be used to house al-Qaeda.Lets hope they are true to their word.

""Nobody is going to knock on their door and ask them who they have been working for," he adds.

"They are going to be safe. Nobody is going to be interrogated or chased."

Well, they need to tell the families of the interpreters they have already killed then...well, some families, one guy had his (USA) Dept of Defence ID melted into his chest, his arms were hacked off, and then they hung him, after killing his family. "

Source? Link?

PM me it you dont want to post it here

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *V-AliceTV/TS
over a year ago

Ayr


"Retaliation no...just leave them to their own devices and in a very short time the infastructure will collapse Water Eletricity Fuel Food Medical care etc"

Nonsense. The Chinese will see to maintaining their infrastructure; maybe even the Russians and Pakistanis.

The truth is that the Taliban government don't need the West's help when it's available elsewhere.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't engage with them. As I've said before, they're basically a skint Saudi Arabia - and we deal with the rich one all the time.

It's worth remembering we deal with Saudi Arabia even though their leader - MBS - like Putin, is happy to execute journalists.

It's also true that Saudi nationals brought down the twin towers of the WTC.

So, the West can deal with the Taliban, too; IF they'll let us.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *estivalMan
over a year ago

borehamwood


"Retaliation no...just leave them to their own devices and in a very short time the infastructure will collapse Water Eletricity Fuel Food Medical care etc

Nonsense. The Chinese will see to maintaining their infrastructure; maybe even the Russians and Pakistanis.

The truth is that the Taliban government don't need the West's help when it's available elsewhere.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't engage with them. As I've said before, they're basically a skint Saudi Arabia - and we deal with the rich one all the time.

It's worth remembering we deal with Saudi Arabia even though their leader - MBS - like Putin, is happy to execute journalists.

It's also true that Saudi nationals brought down the twin towers of the WTC.

So, the West can deal with the Taliban, too; IF they'll let us."
why would the west want to deal with them? There skint unlike the saudis

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *V-AliceTV/TS
over a year ago

Ayr


"Retaliation no...just leave them to their own devices and in a very short time the infastructure will collapse Water Eletricity Fuel Food Medical care etc

Nonsense. The Chinese will see to maintaining their infrastructure; maybe even the Russians and Pakistanis.

The truth is that the Taliban government don't need the West's help when it's available elsewhere.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't engage with them. As I've said before, they're basically a skint Saudi Arabia - and we deal with the rich one all the time.

It's worth remembering we deal with Saudi Arabia even though their leader - MBS - like Putin, is happy to execute journalists.

It's also true that Saudi nationals brought down the twin towers of the WTC.

So, the West can deal with the Taliban, too; IF they'll let us.why would the west want to deal with them? There skint unlike the saudis"

Well, quite. I did make that point in an earlier post.

The UK should admit as many of them as possible. All that fruit and veg isn't going to harvest itself, is it? All those hotel bedrooms need prepared for guests. All that food needs to be served.

UK citizens don't want to do it. Why not replace EU workers with Afghans?

Because they're not Christian? Because they're not white?

Who knows?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *estivalMan
over a year ago

borehamwood


"Retaliation no...just leave them to their own devices and in a very short time the infastructure will collapse Water Eletricity Fuel Food Medical care etc

Nonsense. The Chinese will see to maintaining their infrastructure; maybe even the Russians and Pakistanis.

The truth is that the Taliban government don't need the West's help when it's available elsewhere.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't engage with them. As I've said before, they're basically a skint Saudi Arabia - and we deal with the rich one all the time.

It's worth remembering we deal with Saudi Arabia even though their leader - MBS - like Putin, is happy to execute journalists.

It's also true that Saudi nationals brought down the twin towers of the WTC.

So, the West can deal with the Taliban, too; IF they'll let us.why would the west want to deal with them? There skint unlike the saudis

Well, quite. I did make that point in an earlier post.

The UK should admit as many of them as possible. All that fruit and veg isn't going to harvest itself, is it? All those hotel bedrooms need prepared for guests. All that food needs to be served.

UK citizens don't want to do it. Why not replace EU workers with Afghans?

Because they're not Christian? Because they're not white?

Who knows?"
i imagine the afghans we will be letting in are gona be the educated ones,so they gona be wanting something better than fruit picking of hotel maid jobs,any way are you suggesting we use them as cheap labour?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *V-AliceTV/TS
over a year ago

Ayr


"Retaliation no...just leave them to their own devices and in a very short time the infastructure will collapse Water Eletricity Fuel Food Medical care etc

Nonsense. The Chinese will see to maintaining their infrastructure; maybe even the Russians and Pakistanis.

The truth is that the Taliban government don't need the West's help when it's available elsewhere.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't engage with them. As I've said before, they're basically a skint Saudi Arabia - and we deal with the rich one all the time.

It's worth remembering we deal with Saudi Arabia even though their leader - MBS - like Putin, is happy to execute journalists.

It's also true that Saudi nationals brought down the twin towers of the WTC.

So, the West can deal with the Taliban, too; IF they'll let us.why would the west want to deal with them? There skint unlike the saudis

Well, quite. I did make that point in an earlier post.

The UK should admit as many of them as possible. All that fruit and veg isn't going to harvest itself, is it? All those hotel bedrooms need prepared for guests. All that food needs to be served.

UK citizens don't want to do it. Why not replace EU workers with Afghans?

Because they're not Christian? Because they're not white?

Who knows?i imagine the afghans we will be letting in are gona be the educated ones,so they gona be wanting something better than fruit picking of hotel maid jobs,any way are you suggesting we use them as cheap labour?"

I was being ironic. Has to be said, though; I doubt very much whether this Govt. will give a shit about what they want. They'll just expect them to be grateful.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ust RachelTV/TS
over a year ago

Horsham


"History does seeem to hint going to war in Afghanistan tends to be a bad idea in the long run."

Look at the russians, they pulled out of Afghanistan as they couldn't win

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *mateur100Man
over a year ago

nr faversham

It's apparently down to Boris to get the g7 to extend the deadline...the deadline was set by the Taliban wasn't it?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *V-AliceTV/TS
over a year ago

Ayr


"It's apparently down to Boris to get the g7 to extend the deadline...the deadline was set by the Taliban wasn't it?"

Well, apparently:

"The Taliban must guarantee a safe passage for those who want to leave Afghanistan beyond the 31 August deadline, PM Boris Johnson has said."

Boris is telling the Taliban what they "must" do. He really doesn't get it, does he?

The fact there's an evacuation at all, is because the Taliban are allowing it to go ahead unharmed.

Even if they destroy an aircraft full of fleeing Afghans, to enforce the deadline - and that's not beyond them - such a horrific act wouldn't have the USA and its allies piling back in to fight them again.

They're in charge. The West has two options:

1. Fund a war against them, which would be a civil war, this time; not like the one we funded against the Soviet occupation.

2. Work with them to try and improve things. The Taliban are a gang, not a government. With help, they could be one, which would offer some stability; as I've said before, they could be a sort of skint Saudi Arabia.

Human rights would still be shit - but all we have to do is stop insisting on them being any better than they are in as they are in Saudi Arabia; it's a standard of human rights that doesn't stop us selling the Saudis weapons, after all.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *mateur100Man
over a year ago

nr faversham


"It's apparently down to Boris to get the g7 to extend the deadline...the deadline was set by the Taliban wasn't it?

Well, apparently:

"The Taliban must guarantee a safe passage for those who want to leave Afghanistan beyond the 31 August deadline, PM Boris Johnson has said."

Boris is telling the Taliban what they "must" do. He really doesn't get it, does he?

The fact there's an evacuation at all, is because the Taliban are allowing it to go ahead unharmed.

Even if they destroy an aircraft full of fleeing Afghans, to enforce the deadline - and that's not beyond them - such a horrific act wouldn't have the USA and its allies piling back in to fight them again.

They're in charge. The West has two options:

1. Fund a war against them, which would be a civil war, this time; not like the one we funded against the Soviet occupation.

2. Work with them to try and improve things. The Taliban are a gang, not a government. With help, they could be one, which would offer some stability; as I've said before, they could be a sort of skint Saudi Arabia.

Human rights would still be shit - but all we have to do is stop insisting on them being any better than they are in as they are in Saudi Arabia; it's a standard of human rights that doesn't stop us selling the Saudis weapons, after all."

Good luck with that

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top