With Regards to the Afghan deployment poll - corrected version

Shame to see you cant be arsed to even have the courtesy or conviction to read a posting that may disagree with your well informed opinions, but I'm not really surprised.
I did go through all the pages responding to your poll / posting BTW.

I did not write all that just to have a go at you. Dont be so self centered.

To be blunt I got tied of wading through a lot of the crap and trying to formulate an answer to a post that has gone all over the place.

You initially posted that we should send troops because we are under attack by various Afghan factions.

If you have no understanding whatsoever about Afghanistan then why write something like that?

This is a public forum, your opinions will be questioned, sometimes even ridiculed, get used to it.
I would expect the same if I posted that we should declare war on the US, UK, France, or why not Mexico?

There are those on this forum with whom I have profound differences, but we can disagree without being disagreable, ad I respect them for their willingness to stand by their point of view, their ability to think about their stance and their arguements making me seriously consider mine.

Walking away from defending your opinion hardly engenders any confidence in your ability to make a rational arguement.

Most of the posting is a very basic synopsis of the Afghan situation over the last 15-20 years.
It also briefly touches on my concerns about the direction the forum has taken in recent months.

If you are interested in reading a different viewpoint in Neo con relations with Islamic conservatives, try the book 'Black Mass' by John Grey.

Every military is a reflection of the society from which it comes.
You are right in saying that the military and those interested in it are not all right wing.
Equally not every socialist or person regarded as left leaning viewpoint is fluffy. James Connolly, Nelson Mandella, and LBJ for example.
And me, an interest in the Irish miltary and service in the RDF.
I have argued strongly here in the past for expansion in capability of the Naval Service and the Aircorps in particular, and believe that Ireland should be more active in overseas deployment.

Honestly though I am surprised that an Irish military forum has gone so far to the right. Talking of blooding troops in Afghanistan FFS?
It is fair to say in recent times a lot of postings on this forum have been promoting or in favour of a neo-con agenda, and also promoting service by Irish citizens with the armed forces of other countries, both which make me distinctly uncomfortable.

You suggest I have offered no solution - I did, there is only one, negotiation - inclusive of both the UIF and the Taliban.

Of course I dont have any great regard for any extreme viewpoint, and of course know the invasion was ot about human rights, but dont forget that a lot of Talban policies were directed by a predominantly Saudi financed Al Qaeda, whose state sponsored Wahabi version of Sunni Islam. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

I am not talking about appeasement, I am talking about negotiating an acceptable co-existence, and the nations involved in Afghanistan can do this - at this point - from a position of strength.

Sooner is better than later, supply routes through the south eastern passes are already stretched and under threat, and there is no garuantee that Russia will allow access from the North.
In negotiation from strength terms and conditions can be dictated.
Those should include civil and human rights and freedoms.
Quite simply, a society that denies basic education and healthcare to 50% of its population is going to be fairly ****ed fairly quick.

The Taliban cannot be defeated by military might alone. Pakistan will continue to give selected Afghan Taliban leaders support as in the long term it is in their interest to have a cadre of allies in their NW.
As for attacks on Pakistans Taliban, they probably see it as the US doing their job for them.
If it is in the Afghan Talibans interest, and many of them feel this way, then they will get shot of Al Qaeda.

Either the involved powers sort it out, or hunker down to prop up a corrupt puppet who will sell us heroin uninterupted for the next few decades.

Lets look at it this way - Through history, to avoid war or end hostilities, it has most often been necessary to talk to adversaries and opponents.

Negotiation from a position of moral or military strength have more often than not yielded positive results, in using a West African proverb – Teddy Roosevelt famously, and correctly said Speak Softly, and Carry a big stick – you will go far.

Churchill was unarguably one of histories most influential statesmen, and famously said that Jaw Jaw was better than War War.
Churchill negotiated with Michael Collins, a wanted terrorist, ending the war of independence in Ireland.
Ghandi negotiated with the British and gained independence for India.
JFK avoided nuclear war in dealing with the Soviets
Nelson Mandela, a convicted incarcerated terrorist, ended apartheid by Negotiating with his jailors.
Ronald Regan ended the Cold war by negotiating with the Soviets.
Bill Clinton helped bring peace to Northern Ireland by helping facilitate negotiations there.

Each of these seemingly impossible scenarios have come to pass, and should serve as a model for the future to at least attempt to resolve tensions without recourse to violence.

I think You are quite wrong about Irelands position in the world.
Its small but very influential. Sorry it irritates you.

We are the only post colonial nation in Europe in its true sense.
Of course Joe Soap will hardly know where we are, but decision makers quite often will.

The Irish Diaspora in North America, Britain and Australia/New Zealand are well known.
But in other parts of the world for decades, Irish Workers have educated the leaders and decision makers, or their fathers or Grandfathers of developing nations in Africa, South America and Asia.

Currently there are several power blocks that are influenced by Irish thinking and theory.
Dr. Paa Kwesi Nduom, potentially Ghanas future president, was educated in St. Augustine's College as a border in St. Theresa's house.
Julius Kambarage Nyerere, the first President of Tanzania attended St Mary’s School in Tabora, was heavily influenced by the Irish. and his successors remain so.
The ANC in South Africa, Nelson Mandela in particular, are very pro Irish.

Perhaps the most unusual, if not bizarre example of Irish influence was not in Christian Africa or Catholic South America but in Muslim Pakistan.
Benazir Bhutto was educated in the Convent of Jesus and Mary (Karachi)
Her husband Asif Ali Zardari was educated in the Jesuit college St Patrick’s.
Another past pupil, perhaps the most famous, was General Pervez Musharraf.
In the feudal system that passes as a democracy in Pakistan every major power block in its political landscape had links to the Irish education machine which shaped, developed and nurtured talent wherever they went.

To paraphrase Christopher Hope of South Africa, they did sing about misty clouds, green fields and St. Patrick as perched birds dropped off the telephone lines from dehydration.

Now, on the more obtuse political points, I do not wring my hands, I just see and activley support more pragmatic solutions.
I would be against the invasion of North Korea, they have nuclear weapons and Iran has learned from this.
I would be fully in favour of intervention in Zimbabwe, negotiation has reached its end point, people are dying of Cholera because basic, cheap chemicals are not being purchased for Gods sake.

The tangental reference to Nixons axiom of a silent majority and a noisy over reported minority etc.
Briefly Ireland and the UK are instinctivley centre left countries, the general emphasis being collective action and support.
On the other hand the US and the Netherlands are centre right, the emphasis being placed on individual responsibility.
The Dutch are often thought of as ultra Liberal, they most certainly are not in general, particularly outside the Randstaat- but they have a tradition and belief in tolerance.
In all four cases, each will interpret these ideas differently.
All of them will veer off the centre in either direction at times, and there is now quite often a crossover.

Your points on the failure of human rights and democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan blame a liberal agenda instead of the ultra conservative faction who actually are the ones who failed to impose their ideals, transpositon of guilt is not an excuse.

Being an idealist is not a bad thing by the way - I've been called a lot worse. In the course of human history it is pragmatic progressives that overcome obsticles, you cant stand in the way of millions who want change. Those who look back stagnate and get overtaken.
Without idealists the basic premise that we are all entitled to basic rights, that we are to be judged on the content of our character would not be the norm.
Without idealists we would not be an independent nation, this little state was built by poets and dreamers, people like Pierce, Markowitz and Yates.
Without idealists a man would not have walked on the moon, a King would not have led us to the mountain top, slavery might well still exist without people like Wilborforce, blacks would be second class citizens in the US and South Africa and a little man educated by the Irish in Rajkot led a nation of over 400,000,000 to independence.
Yes we can, and Yes, we will.