Afghanistan

[Scottie]

Do you think we should be there yes or no

I am not asking if you support our troops obviously I hope we all do.

I don't think we should be in Afghanistan we won't make a difference

[Sheilz]

A simple No

[Gismo]

A resounding no, but, had you asked me at the start of the campaign i would have said yes.
It's a no win war, we are making no friends, we should bolster our shores with our own troops and use the war funding in other areas to keep terrorists at bay from entering the UK

[doogz__]

No.

There's boys dying over there, every week, for nothing.

They're serving their country, but for no real purpose that i can see.

And everytime i hear about it, i just think, what if that was my bro. He's never been to Afghanistan, but he's done several tours in both Iraq wars, and everytime you hear about someone being injured/killed, you get that feeling in your stomach. And then you feel terrible when you find out it wasn't him, and you feel relieved. Relieved, because someone else has died.

War sucks. Says the guy that is designing bits of aircraft carriers just now. Ah well, it's a job.

[euan]

Tricky one this. The troops couldn't make a difference in the UK to keep terrorists out as they are already here. The London bombings were all home grown, same with Glasgow. So I don't think that's a valid reason for pulling them out.

Are they making a difference? Well arguably yes - there are a group in Afganistan who don't want the troops there as they used to run the place. The people on the ground, the law abiding person like you or me, whenever you hear from them they appreciate the work that is being done and don't want the troops to leave as they want to live in a democracy.

It's a very emotive subject though, and the question I ask is why are we the ones trying to sort it out? I guess the answer to that is to try and stop the mind rot coming from certain groups who use Afganistan (and Pakistan for that matter) as a base, which in turn affects our countries security.

So is it better to put a sticking plaster on the issue by bolstering security in the UK, or is it better to get at the root cause of the issue, which is a lot harder to sort out, but arguably better in the long term?

[GCA3N]

Very tough question and one where the answer is probably down to individuals own thoughts and emotions. Saying no kinda means that our troops have died in vane which would be so sad. Saying yes is going to mean more deaths. Should we be there origonally then no but should we stay now we're there then yes.
While we are on the subject we all owe these men and woman (boys and girls) a massive massive thankyou for what they put themselves through every day.

[doogz__]

I see your point, but my point of view is that it's their country.

It's their problem.

I know that's a pretty sh1t thing to say, but sometimes you have to look after number 1 first, and our country is a f*cking mess, and the money we're spending keeping troops over there, i feel, would be much better spent here.

[Delboy]

I know what you mean Doogz but I don't believe it's as simple as that. By fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda we are (hopefully) reducing or even eliminating their ability to launch terrorist attacks in the UK. Remember, they were running terrorist training camps over there!

[N16SHP]

For me its a no.

My personal opinion on the matter is that we are fighting an enemy that we cannot see, and that we are out numbered by. Greig, i totally agree with you, if we leave, our soldiers have died in vein, but if we stay, we are losing more troops needlessly fighting a war we cannot win in the near future.

Would I be right in saying that we as a nation didn't really want to go in, but had we not gone along with Bush and the US, we would have risked our relationship with the US?

Can I just say that after watching several doc's and Ross Kemp that our troops are doing a fantastic job out there!!!!

[rpn]

:frown:

[GCA3N]

I see your point, but my point of view is that it's their country.

It's their problem.

I know that's a pretty sh1t thing to say, but sometimes you have to look after number 1 first, and our country is a f*cking mess, and the money we're spending keeping troops over there, i feel, would be much better spent here.


You have a good point, one of those arguments where there is probably no right and wrong anwers. It's a very sad situation that we have found ourselves in. Think one thing for sure is I defo believe that if the goverment new how things were to turn out they would never had gone in in the first place.

[Stewart]

I don’t believe we should be over there fighting but understand there is probably some good work done over there deflecting some of the harm from our shores. I think we are ill prepared with alarming problems with regards to kit and support to our troops.

[KenL]

A resounding no, but, had you asked me at the start of the campaign i would have said yes.
It's a no win war, we are making no friends, we should bolster our shores with our own troops and use the war funding in other areas to keep terrorists at bay from entering the UK


...but what about the ones who are British?

Do you stop people moving between countries? How do you tell who is a terrorist?

I think we need to be looking at the root cause. If that is an Al Qaida stronghold in Afghanistan/Pakistan border then we should focus our energy and troops there.

I really feel for the loss of troops and have great respect for them and the job they are doing. I really wish that NATO countries would start pulling their weight fully, not just the USA and us.

[Gismo]

...but what about the ones who are British?

Do you stop people moving between countries? How do you tell who is a terrorist?

I think we need to be looking at the root cause. If that is an Al Qaida stronghold in Afghanistan/Pakistan border then we should focus our energy and troops there.

I really feel for the loss of troops and have great respect for them and the job they are doing. I really wish that NATO countries would start pulling their weight fully, not just the USA and us.Not sure what your point is there Ken, you highlighted a section of my text in bold and then said

...but what about the ones who are British?
I'd have thought most of our troops were british :confused:

If, as i suspect you were meaning the next sentences :rolleyes: then, that would be what the funding would help, more rigourous border control, entry points at airports and sea ports.
Of course it's a difficult task deciding who is a terrorist and who is not.

Why do you feel that we should send our troops to dissolve terrorist groups in a foreign land, have you considered that maybe the country involved should do it themselves instead of lazing about in their secure and heavily guarded homes gorging on fine wine and food wasting the money they have instead of living the high life and letting other countries do their dirty work.

Pakistan are making efforts to rid themselves of the Taliban after they were attacked, why can't Afghanistan do the same

[Sheilz]

Not sure what your point is there Ken, you highlighted a section of my text in bold and then said

I'd have thought most of our troops were british :confused:

If, as i suspect you were meaning the next sentences :rolleyes: then, that would be what the funding would help, more rigourous border control, entry points at airports and sea ports.
Of course it's a difficult task deciding who is a terrorist and who is not.

Why do you feel that we should send our troops to dissolve terrorist groups in a foreign land, have you considered that maybe the country involved should do it themselves instead of lazing about in their secure and heavily guarded homes gorging on fine wine and food wasting the money they have instead of living the high life and letting other countries do their dirty work.

Pakistan are making efforts to rid themselves of the Taliban after they were attacked, why can't Afghanistan do the same


Agree but re your last point, poss poverty and govt that is even more corrupt than our own may be the reason why they're not doing it themselves.

[Sheilz]

Another question for anyone. What is the link? Is there a link? Between heroin and UK presence in Afghanistan. I suspect there is a strong link though I don't think I can fully explain why I think that - based on instinct rather than fact.
If Afghanistan did not have such a lucrative heroin crop would the west bother with it? The west interferes in the affairs of other smaller nations who happen to be rich in several natural sought after resources, is this also the case in Afghanistan.

[Gismo]

Agree but re your last point, poss poverty and govt that is even more corrupt than our own may be the reason why they're not doing it themselves.Not possibly, absolutely guaranteed the corruption is top to bottom

[stoney]

well i think that they should be there now as we have started and if we withdraw it would be seen as a sign of weekness and then we would see more attacks on are home soil but f you had asked me at the start of it i would have said no as i dont think its right just barging in to some ne elces contry just be cos usa says so

[euan]

Not possibly, absolutely guaranteed the corruption is top to bottom

And that is the reason they went in. The root cause of most of the terrorism stems from Pakistan, Afghanistan and, arguably, Iran. The governments there were quite happy to let the local rulers (typically, militia) to run the areas, cultivating the heroin, oil, whatever. The militia would then pay the government to keep them off their backs. When the militants started getting out of their own country and attacking others, that's when the US and the UK started taking an interest and the local governments started realising they were onto a loser. Hence the push from the troops is establishing a police force that will stand up to the militia (difficult, as it's made up of most of the militia...) and getting free and democratic elections run without interference from the outside. It's the only way to change the way of lives in the countries. The election results in Afgahistan were rigged by the guy in charge because he knew he stood no chance of staying in charge if the elections were free. Until that changes and the countries are run in a free way, without suppression and with the money the government makes being suitable re-invested in the country rather than letting the government live in large houses in opulence, the troops will stay in my view.

Why are no other countries there? Because nobody has attacked them in the same way they attacked the UK and the US. Doesn't make it right, but they went there to protect our countries by establishing regime change. While other countires may think it's needed to be done, politically they won't support them by sending in their own troops.

[KenL]

Not sure what your point is there Ken, you highlighted a section of my text in bold and then said

I'd have thought most of our troops were british :confused:


No, I was meaning border control would not prevent "home grown" terrorists.

[Ally S]

If you have ever played the game Risk then you will know how hard it is to control Afghanistan!

Trouble in Afghanistan goes back a long way. Charlie Wilsons War shows how it was in the 80's and how complex things can be.

What happens over there can definitly affect things over here and it would be risky to ignore it.

[GCA3N]

If you have ever played the game Risk then you will know how hard it is to control Afghanistan!

Trouble in Afghanistan goes back a long way. Charlie Wilsons War shows how it was in the 80's and how complex things can be.

What happens over there can definitly affect things over here and it would be risky to ignore it.


:off topic: Charlie wilson's war was a fantastic film.