Afghanistan - the reality

[Beef Oven]

Not only that, but in 1940 Britain was directly attacked from the air and threatened with invasion

Which should not come as a shock given we had declared war on Germany. Totally agree :ok:

[french frank]

It was Great Britain and France that declared war with Nazi Germany, not the other way around, and there is plenty of evidence that Hitler didn't really want a war with us ... we were a rather annoying distraction ... and his main target was the communist USSR. It wasn't exactly a world war at that stage.

But that's absurd - and even more irrelevant than Iraq. Nazi Germany did not 'declare war' on any of the countries it invaded. They just invaded them. You could hardly call the Allies the 'aggressors' for getting involved.

Poor Chamberlain (so despised by the Left) did everything he could to avoid war but eventually had to accept the inevitable. Furthermore, all the evidence shows that Chamberlain had overwhelming public support in his desire to avoid war. Quite right too!

So you would have agreed with the public in wanting to avoid war with Hitler, but you feel that war with Afghanistan was okay?

However, in retrospect much of the free world ended up being somewhat grateful for the previously seemingly belligerent likes of Winston Churchill ... ?

So now we've changed sides again, and Churchill was defending the free world? :confused:

[scottycelt]

You have not addressed RB's points scotty but I admire your use of that auld Naval tactic - "Make smoke!" :winkeye:

Would you care to highlight 'RB's' points that I have singularly failed to address and I'll endeavour to rectify the situation immediately, amsey ... ? :whistle:

[Richard Barrett]

Don't bother answering my points, scottycelt, I'm really not interested in what you have to say.

[Beef Oven]

Don't bother answering my points, scottycelt, I'm really not interested in what you have to say.

Other's might be. You don't own your posts, this is the internet.

[amateur51]

Would you care to highlight 'RB's' points that I have singularly failed to address and I'll endeavour to rectify the situation immediately, amsey ... ? :whistle:

Certainly not, scotty - RB is on your case himself now, it seems :winkeye:

[scottycelt]

But that's absurd - and even more irrelevant than Iraq. Nazi Germany did not 'declare war' on any of the countries it invaded. They just invaded them. You could hardly call the Allies the 'aggressors' for getting involved.

So you would have agreed with the public in wanting to avoid war with Hitler, but you feel that war with Afghanistan was okay?

So now we've changed sides again, and Churchill was defending the free world? :confused:

Come on, ff, you know perfectly well this has absolutely nothing to do with me!

Read my post properly. I sympathised with the desire to avoid war but also concluded that this understandable desire is not always ultimately the correct way forward. Sometimes war is inevitable through no fault of one of the combatants. In the end, the UK and France had little option but to declare war on Nazi Germany, but declare war they most certainly did!

I'm not sure of the relevance of Iraq either ... did I mention it?

[french frank]

Come on, ff, you know perfectly well this has absolutely nothing to do with me!

Sorry! When you said 'Quite right too', I thought you were expressing your personal opinion about wanting to avoid war and that you therefore felt war with Afghanistan was 'inevitable'. I was commenting on that 'you'.

I'm not sure of the relevance of Iraq either ... did I mention it?

No, but you introduced Nazi Germany, and ticked me off for drawing parallels with Iraq.

[scottycelt]

Sorry! When you said 'Quite right too', I thought you were expressing your personal opinion about wanting to avoid war and that you therefore felt war with Afghanistan was 'inevitable'. I was commenting on that 'you'.

No, there's really only one "me" ... honestly.

I hate the very idea of war.

Sadly, I think war is sometimes inevitable despite my intense desire to avoid it if at all possible.

Hope that's now clear.

No, but you introduced Nazi Germany, and ticked me off for drawing parallels with Iraq.

Well, I certainly introduced Nazi Germany to make my point.

Did I actually 'tick you off 'for drawing parallels with Iraq? I certainly recollect commenting somewhat dismissively on the supposed parallels between Afghanistan and Syria.

Maybe the increasingly frazzled memory is playing tricks again and it's now high time to head for bed!

[scottycelt]

Don't bother answering my points, scottycelt, I'm really not interested in what you have to say.

You mean I now find myself in the disreputable company of the leaders of 70-odd countries and the United Nations Security Council... ?

[french frank]

Sadly, I think war is sometimes inevitable despite my intense desire to avoid it if at all possible.

Hope that's now clear.

Perhaps you would clarify - on topic - whether you consider the war in Afghanistan was 'inevitable'? Was it because the US wasn't going be stopped, no matter what the circumstances and chances of any form of victory? If you can't beat 'em, join 'em?

Well, I certainly introduced Nazi Germany to make my point.

Did I actually 'tick you off 'for drawing parallels with Iraq? I certainly recollect commenting somewhat dismissively on the supposed parallels between Afghanistan and Syria.

Afghanistan should have provided a lesson to the Western powers: Syria provides the next chance for them to show whether they have learned it. That's the connection.

[amateur51]

Perhaps you would clarify - on topic - whether you consider the war in Afghanistan was 'inevitable'? Was it because the US wasn't going be stopped, no matter what the circumstances and chances of any form of victory? If you can't beat 'em, join 'em?


Afghanistan should have provided a lesson to the Western powers: Syria provides the next chance for them to show whether they have learned it. That's the connection.

I thought that was Libya :erm:

But Syria will do just as well, tho' I'm truly fed-up that Blair has stuck his oar in again. :oh:

[scottycelt]

Perhaps you would clarify - on topic - whether you consider the war in Afghanistan was 'inevitable'? Was it because the US wasn't going be stopped, no matter what the circumstances and chances of any form of victory? If you can't beat 'em, join 'em?

Considering the international terrorist training camps and drugs trade factor it probably was inevitable and indeed a civil war situation already existed. Victory in any war is never certain. The question is really what is the least bad option ... the status quo with continuing deaths ongoing or an attempt to change the situation with more deaths initially but a chance of a better future. These are genuine moral dilemmas and as I keep saying (sorry!) it was the United Nations (not just the US) who chose the latter course. This you (and others) appear to continue to ignore. Why is this?

Afghanistan should have provided a lesson to the Western powers: Syria provides the next chance for them to show whether they have learned it. That's the connection.

You see, it's those dreadful 'Western powers' again! Do you only read books recommended by Mr Barrett? <winkeye> There would be quite a few countries involved in the Coalition which might be a bit perplexed by your description of them! As to your main point, no two situations are exactly the same. Syria is NOT the same as Afghanistan. There are certainly moral dilemmas for the outside world in the Syrian case, too. but I tend to come down on the side of caution here. Rather than making things better, any involvement could conceivably make things even worse, not least with continuing Russian military support for Assad. Consequently, there is no realistic prospect of UN agreement in this case which would officially "legitimise' any outside military action.

[amateur51]

and as I keep saying (sorry!) it was the United Nations (not just the US) who chose the latter course. This you (and others) appear to continue to ignore. Why is this?

Gosh there's a lot of smoke in here :yikes:

As you well know scotty, the prime movers in the attacks on Afghanistan were Bush's USA (axis of evil speech) and Blair's UK. The UN process required that other nations were involved but the military (and political) impetus came from USA/UK

[french frank]

You see, it's those dreadful 'Western powers' again! Do you only read books recommended by Mr Barrett?

What is those dreadful 'Western powers'? I wasn't in that comment going as far as to suggest that they had any responsibility for the trouble beginning: I was limiting myself to the "indisputable" facts that, subsequent UK interference in Afghanistan had

a) achieved nothing (evidence of Sherard Cowper Coles on the Radio 4 prog mentioned in the OP)

b) cost many lives of UK personnel alone

c) ergo, wasted £40bn of taxpayers' money.

That surely is a clear enough lesson that further such adventures would be inadvisable?