Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Withdraw from Afganisthan

  • 16-08-2009 10:18AM
    #1
    SLUSK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭


    I think we should all withdraw from Afghanistan, it is a waste of taxpayers money. Why should we help to "spread democracy" in Afghanistan? The practical consequences of this is that people probably are worse of there now than they were before. Sucks being a woman in Afghanistan since raping your wife now has been legalized. http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=3613 Why should EU taxpayers money be given to a government that has legalized rape?


«1345

Comments

  • #2
    Kev_ps3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,604 ✭✭✭Kev_ps3


    We? Since when has Irish troops been in Afganistan?
    btw the foreign troops should be removed because they do not belong in that country, not because "its a waste of taxplayers money":rolleyes:


  • #3
    dublincelt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 419 ✭✭dublincelt


    SLUSK wrote: »
    I think we should all withdraw from Afghanistan, it is a waste of taxpayers money. Why should we help to "spread democracy" in Afghanistan? The practical consequences of this is that people probably are worse of there now than they were before. Sucks being a woman in Afghanistan since raping your wife now has been legalized. http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=3613 Why should EU taxpayers money be given to a government that has legalized rape?


    WE?????!!!

    What a curious post.

    Are you from a NATO country?


  • #4
    mega man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 370 ✭✭mega man


    'we' what are you talking about? You've been reading too much of the Irish Sun


  • #5
    SLUSK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭SLUSK


    A quick google search on Irish troops in Afghanistan:
    http://www.indymedia.ie/article/80106
    http://www.nato.int/isaf/docu/epub/pdf/placemat.pdf
    There are not many Irish soldiers there but you have irish soldiers in Afghanistan. I presume their salaries and material they used are paid by tax payers in Ireland, which would include me.


  • #6
    Kev_ps3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,604 ✭✭✭Kev_ps3


    SLUSK wrote: »
    A quick google search on Irish troops in Afghanistan:
    http://www.indymedia.ie/article/80106
    http://www.nato.int/isaf/docu/epub/pdf/placemat.pdf
    There are not many Irish soldiers there but you have irish soldiers in Afghanistan. I presume their salaries and material they used are paid by tax payers in Ireland, which would include me.

    wow 7 troops.. we prob have more troops on the north pole


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,040 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    I think we should all withdraw from Afghanistan, it is a waste of taxpayers money

    Considering Ireland only has seven people here, who would be paid the same to sit in the Curragh and drink tea, I don't think it's really stretching the Irish taxpayer's budget.

    Personally, I think the average Afghan is better off now than they were ten years ago.

    NTM


  • #8
    OS119
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    does it not frighten anyone else that so many posters had no idea that the Republic of Ireland contributes troops (in whatever number or role) to a UNSC mandated, NATO-run operation?

    the RoI voted for the UNSCR, then contributes troops to its military and political success, regularly mentions the policy and deployment in its published foreign policy documents, announced it and sought permission in the Dail, and you people didn't know?

    i'm not slagging anyone down - well, ok, i am - but does that not say something very disturbing about the level of political knowledge even amongst those who profess to be interested on Irish politics and would therefore be assumed to be reasonably well informed about them?

    the deployment is 7 soldiers of Officer/SNCO rank who are specialists in particular areas of staff/planning ranging from Civil infrasructure provision, through to EID analysis. they operate under ISAF/NATO chain of Command and work in Kabul - a bomb went off outside one of the places they work last week.


  • #9
    Euro_Kraut
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,957 ✭✭✭Euro_Kraut


    This is interesting. I never knew there was any Irish deployment in Afganistan. I presume this falls under the Partnership for Peace Program. I see that other non-Nato countries like Austria and Finland also have small deployments there.


  • #10
    Mark200
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,536 ✭✭✭Mark200


    SLUSK wrote: »
    I think we should all withdraw from Afghanistan, it is a waste of taxpayers money. Why should we help to "spread democracy" in Afghanistan? The practical consequences of this is that people probably are worse of there now than they were before. Sucks being a woman in Afghanistan since raping your wife now has been legalized. http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=3613 Why should EU taxpayers money be given to a government that has legalized rape?

    Well the point of the American/British war there is to defeat the Taliban and remove the safe haven they and Al Qaeda had in Afghanistan. The method they are using is to introduce democracy and effective police forces. It's not so much a "spread democracy" crusade, but more a "eliminate terrorism" crusade.
    OS119 wrote: »
    does it not frighten anyone else that so many posters had no idea that the Republic of Ireland contributes troops (in whatever number or role) to a UNSC mandated, NATO-run operation?

    the RoI voted for the UNSCR, then contributes troops to its military and political success, regularly mentions the policy and deployment in its published foreign policy documents, announced it and sought permission in the Dail, and you people didn't know?

    i'm not slagging anyone down - well, ok, i am - but does that not say something very disturbing about the level of political knowledge even amongst those who profess to be interested on Irish politics and would therefore be assumed to be reasonably well informed about them?

    the deployment is 7 soldiers of Officer/SNCO rank who are specialists in particular areas of staff/planning ranging from Civil infrasructure provision, through to EID analysis. they operate under ISAF/NATO chain of Command and work in Kabul - a bomb went off outside one of the places they work last week.

    So they're there to build stuff...?


  • #11
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Definitely not. We need to stay there until Afghanistan is cleared up or else it will remain as it was a huge security threat to the region, and a huge supplier of heroin to the Western market.

    OP: That law was scrapped due to Western pressure on Karzai.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/05/afghanistan-shia-rape-law-scrap


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    OS119
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    Mark200 wrote: »
    .

    So they're there to build stuff...?

    some are there to facilitate the reconstruction element, some are there to support combat operations - for example to IED Analysis cell looks at the technical issues, patterns and doctrine behind the use of IED's against NATO/ISAF troops: that information is then used both to protect NATO/ISAF troops against those IED's throgh the use of denial/avoidance and ECM - and to kill those who are undertaking that IED campaign through the use of Ambushes of IED teams, ECM to detonate the IED's in 'own goals' and the use of 'signatures' to identify, then trace (and kill) those who control the campaign.


  • #13
    SLUSK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭SLUSK


    So you support this "war on terror" even though it has proven to be an epic fail?

    The heroin trade has surged after the Taliban were toppled. Now this war has spread and destabilized Pakistan. There will be no victory in Afghanistan only bloodshed. Obama has the same neoconservative agenda like George W. Bush?

    How much "collateral damage" do you think is acceptable?


  • #14
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,968 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    Pakistan is the real reason to stay in Afganistan. (bloody Stans are such trouble)


  • #15
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    SLUSK wrote: »
    So you support this "war on terror" even though it has proven to be an epic fail?

    The heroin trade has surged after the Taliban were toppled. Now this war has spread and destabilized Pakistan. There will be no victory in Afghanistan only bloodshed. Obama has the same neoconservative agenda like George W. Bush?

    How much "collateral damage" do you think is acceptable?

    Just enough to ensure the mad mullahs in that part of the world can't have free rein to ferment their particular brand of ideals on the world and that I can go about my business in a normal manner.


  • #16
    SLUSK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭SLUSK


    How many "terrorists" do you think are created when you slaughter innocent villagers?

    Sounds like you are dying to put on the jack boots yourself and stomp on people's faces like the "heroes" in the american and british armies.


  • #17
    OS119
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    SLUSK wrote: »
    So you support this "war on terror" even though it has proven to be an epic fail?

    The heroin trade has surged after the Taliban were toppled. Now this war has spread and destabilized Pakistan. There will be no victory in Afghanistan only bloodshed. Obama has the same neoconservative agenda like George W. Bush?

    How much "collateral damage" do you think is acceptable?

    any idea who your comments were directed at?

    if you want top persuade people that Afghanistan is a disaster and the whole 'WOT' idea is mince, is there a chance you could prove it - or at least try to?

    as for 'colateral damage' - dreadful term, but there you go - if the sh*it really hits the fan i'll accept the deaths of 6 billion other people if it keeps my family alive.


  • #18
    DoireNod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 863 ✭✭✭DoireNod


    This thread might be of interest to some of you.


  • #19
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    SLUSK wrote: »
    How many "terrorists" do you think are created when you slaughter innocent villagers?

    Sounds like you are dying to put on the jack boots yourself and stomp on people's faces like the "heroes" in the american and british armies.


    I'll assume that "reply" was directed at my post.

    I certainly would not support the slaughter of any innocents, however I can understand why the US and the UK and others would seek to prevent and relatively small band of seriously unstable people and regimes from threatening the stability of the whole world.

    I have no problem about the way they live or anything like that but don't start interfering with my way of life and livelihood.


  • #20
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    SLUSK wrote: »
    So you support this "war on terror" even though it has proven to be an epic fail?

    The heroin trade has surged after the Taliban were toppled. Now this war has spread and destabilized Pakistan. There will be no victory in Afghanistan only bloodshed. Obama has the same neoconservative agenda like George W. Bush?

    How much "collateral damage" do you think is acceptable?

    Of course he doesn't.

    Neoconservatism goes much further than foreign policy. As for "this war" destabilising Pakistan, that might have been a useful argument if Pakistan wasn't already destabilised before the war began.

    Do you really think the Taleban in Government is better than having an Government accountable to the international community?


  • #21
    SLUSK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭SLUSK


    Maybe not, the Taliban were of no threat to us in the EU so why should we have troops there?


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    SLUSK wrote: »
    Maybe not, the Taliban were of no threat to us in the EU so why should we have troops there?

    Do you not think the importing of heroin into the European Union a threat? Increased assistance in the curbing of heroin importation into the European Union could very much save lives in Europe.

    As for the Taleban not being a threat in the European Union, it is curious then why people who have been involved in terrorist action in the UK, including many of the 7/7 bombers were trained in either Pakistan or Afghanistan. Indeed, Abu Hamza who has since been deported from the UK had lost his arm in Afghanistan while training mujahideen. Infact recent investigation has found that he had trained teenagers in the use of AK47 rifles at a school near London in 1998.

    To say that these groups do not serve as a threat to life within the European Union is absurd.

    I personally would have much preferred the use of diplomacy in relation to Afghanistan but it is not an option to pull out now. Much more lives will be affected by the decision to pull out than continuing the operations towards peace and security.


  • #23
    It wasn't me!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,034 ✭✭✭✭It wasn't me!


    To withdraw from Afghanistan would leave a vaccuum in terms of authoritative control and it would crumble. I'd be more in favour of another Irish deployment to the region than withdrawal.


  • #24
    OS119
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    SLUSK wrote: »
    Maybe not, the Taliban were of no threat to us in the EU so why should we have troops there?

    the Taleban posed a direct threat to the EU for two reasons - while in power/government in Afghanistan their ideology allowed/required them to play host to Al-Quiada and they therefore knowingly provided material support for terrorism against western European interests, and secondly they supported, and still do - politically and militarily - the Pakistan Taleban who pose, and have done for donkeys years, a very serious threat to the stability of nuclear-armed Pakistan - as well as providing their own support for Al-Quiada and its fellow travellers.

    so yes, the Taleban, past and present, present a significant threat to European lives and their interests.


  • #25
    Buffy the bitch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 169 ✭✭Buffy the bitch


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Do you not think the importing of heroin into the European Union a threat? Increased assistance in the curbing of heroin importation into the European Union could very much save lives in Europe.

    Just so you know troops do nothing about all the poppies over there, they're fighting a war against people, not drugs.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    As for the Taleban not being a threat in the European Union, it is curious then why people who have been involved in terrorist action in the UK, including many of the 7/7 bombers were trained in either Pakistan or Afghanistan.

    That's crap. A few guys decided to make bombs and go on a suicide and all of a sudden they're the Taliban :rolleyes: to be honest I thought 7/7 would be happening every week over there, you can't go and bomb the hell out of another country and expect not to be hit back.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    To say that these groups do not serve as a threat to life within the European Union is absurd.

    No it's not. 7/7 is a good example you might say but then again would 7/7 have happened if Britain wasn't bringing their war hungry country to parts of the world that's none of their business. But then again 7/7 wasn't the Taliban. If the IRA were bomging were London they would be saying that they have close links to Al-Qaeda.


  • #26
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Buffy the bitch wrote: »
    Just so you know troops do nothing about all the poppies over there, they're fighting a war against people, not drugs.

    The Helmand province distributes 42% of the worlds opium. If the Helmand were in the complete control of the Afghanistan goverrnment it is clear that they would be able to have more control over the output of opium from the Helmand province. I thought this would have made sense. Currently the opium trade helps the Taleban, with 20% going in tax to them each year from it. Although the war is primarily against the Taleban, there is a net effect when it comes to heroin too.

    I would prefer if troops never went in, but once they are in they need to create stability before leaving. It's ridiculous to suggest that the level of death would just decrease if the troops were pulled out today. No doubt it would become a vacuum for militant activity as it was before.
    Buffy the bitch wrote: »
    That's crap. A few guys decided to make bombs and go on a suicide and all of a sudden they're the Taliban :rolleyes: to be honest I thought 7/7 would be happening every week over there, you can't go and bomb the hell out of another country and expect not to be hit back.

    It's clear that these groups have contact with each other. Islamic extremism in Afghanistan has been exported to the UK rather simply put. Likewise Islamic extremism in Pakistan.
    Buffy the bitch wrote: »
    No it's not. 7/7 is a good example you might say but then again would 7/7 have happened if Britain wasn't bringing their war hungry country to parts of the world that's none of their business. But then again 7/7 wasn't the Taliban. If the IRA were bomging were London they would be saying that they have close links to Al-Qaeda.

    My point is that the radicalism for these attacks by and large is exported from overseas. Afghanistan has had it's fair share of involvement. I never said it was directly the Taliban, but it wouldn't be reasonable to say that the Taliban and other groups in Afghanistan do not contribute to the attitudes that exist elsewhere.

    The Afghans need to be trained and effectively to ensure that all of Afghanistan is under their sovereign control. This isn't happening at the minute. Hence why the Helmand is an absolute mess.


  • #27
    OS119
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,518 ✭✭✭OS119


    Buffy the bitch wrote: »
    l

    That's crap. A few guys decided to make bombs and go on a suicide and all of a sudden they're the Taliban :rolleyes: to be honest I thought 7/7 would be happening every week over there, you can't go and bomb the hell out of another country and expect not to be hit back.

    your post is contradictory. firstly you say that they weren't Taleban/AQ, then that its no surprise that Taleban/AQ hit back and that the London bombings were an example of that.

    given that at least two of the four had been to Pakistan in the 12 months before the attacks and had received bomb-making and operational training from the Pakistani Taleban, and then made videos in which they described themselves as Taleban/AQ, its not that great a leap of imagination to say 'they were a Taleban/AQ franchise'.

    you also kind of miss the point - deliberately perhaps? - that Taleban/AQ were supporting and waging war on the west long before a US bomb landed on Afghan soil (under President Clinton) and while western policy towards Afghanistan in particular and Political Islamic Militantism general could only be described as 'utter indifference'.


  • #28
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,040 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    SLUSK wrote: »
    So you support this "war on terror" even though it has proven to be an epic fail?

    Has it?

    It certainly can't be put down as a 'win', but I don't see it as a 'loss' either. Right now, in public at any rate, it's something of a stalemate.
    The heroin trade has surged after the Taliban were toppled.

    Terry is nothing but pragmatic, it must be said. When they were running the country and had access to whatever financial wealth the entire country had, they were more than willing to crack down on poppy production. Now, to finance their war, they find themselves open to any source of funding they can find and one of the more lucrative for them is opium.
    How much "collateral damage" do you think is acceptable?

    The minimum possible. This is rarely 'zero'.

    NTM


  • #29
    Poccington
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭Poccington


    SLUSK wrote: »
    Maybe not, the Taliban were of no threat to us in the EU so why should we have troops there?

    Depending on how A'Stan goes over the next few years, the Taliban and as a result AQ could be a much larger threat to the West than it is at the moment.

    As it stands, I don't feel we're contributing enough to A'Stan but that's what happens when you've a Government like ours.


  • #30
    gurramok
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭gurramok


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Considering Ireland only has seven people here, who would be paid the same to sit in the Curragh and drink tea, I don't think it's really stretching the Irish taxpayer's budget.

    Personally, I think the average Afghan is better off now than they were ten years ago.

    NTM

    Are you really there? :) (as in Methar-Lam, Afghanistan). Had to google that place :)

    What is the mission and in what order..

    1 - Destroy the Taliban and then the Western troops go home
    2 - Beef up the Afghan military to such an extent it would be very powerful and then the Western troops go home even without a defeated Taliban.
    3 - A bit of both depending which comes first?

    Are the Western troops and Afghan military really tackling the opium trade seriously?(why has the supply continued when troops are everywhere at point of entry at borders)


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Buffy the bitch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 169 ✭✭Buffy the bitch


    OS119 wrote: »
    your post is contradictory. firstly you say that they weren't Taleban/AQ, then that its no surprise that Taleban/AQ hit back and that the London bombings were an example of that.

    Did you even read my post? I said the 7/7 bombers were not the Taliban. These guys were Muslims making a stand becasue people of their religion were been murdered / still are.
    OS119 wrote: »
    given that at least two of the four had been to Pakistan in the 12 months before the attacks and had received bomb-making and operational training from the Pakistani Taleban, and then made videos in which they described themselves as Taleban/AQ, its not that great a leap of imagination to say 'they were a Taleban/AQ franchise'.

    Oh yeah because there isn't a muslim out there who can travel to any country like Pakistan for any other reason than go there and learn how to make bombs :rolleyes:

    No they didn't say they're the Taliban, here is what Khan said:
    I and thousands like me are forsaking everything for what we believe. Our drive and motivation doesn't come from tangible commodities that this world has to offer. Our religion is Islam, obedience to the one true God and following the footsteps of the final prophet messenger. Your democratically elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world. And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters. Until we feel security you will be our targets and until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people we will not stop this fight. We are at war and I am a soldier. Now you too will taste the reality of this situation.

    Here is what Tanweer said:
    What have you witnessed now is only the beginning of a string of attacks that will continue and become stronger until you pull your forces out of Afghanistan and Iraq. And until you stop your financial and military support to America and Israel.
    OS119 wrote: »
    you also kind of miss the point - deliberately perhaps? - that Taleban/AQ were supporting and waging war on the west long before a US bomb landed on Afghan soil (under President Clinton) and while western policy towards Afghanistan in particular and Political Islamic Militantism general could only be described as 'utter indifference'.

    And Clinton sending missiles into Afghanistan would have nothing to do with that? By the way the topic is about Irish troops in Afghanistan not American troops.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement