h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Right I didn't know who actually set up 'Armed Forces Day'. But this is the first year I've ever heard of it, but it really doesn't matter to me which, in power politico, set it up or continues it, I think it stinks because it creates a patriotic bru ha ha which masks the reality of limbs disappearing and lives being lost.

And I detest stuff going on in places like Malawi and Saudi..but I know that we won't intervene there in a million years..and probably nor should we. We can speak out about such things, we can use economic measures..but yes the world is often a nasty place.

We're no longer an Imperial force in the world, so why are we off on a jolly in Afghan?

It seems like you and I destined to disagree on this one HI, but I urge you to go to that web site everyday . And then tell me you are more than happy for us to be there for 10-20 years.

<>

There have been times when RN personnel outnumbered all other arms in Afghanistan. The RAF might also point out that the big noisy things flapping around in the sky belong to them.

>>I don't give a toss about what happens in Afghanistan.<<

Bring back the British Empire

It's that degree of imperial arrogance that gets the US into trouble If you (or we) send troops into another country, there are responsibilities that go with that. If you don't care about Afghanistan now, after having your armed forces there, then why should people who have sympathy with the terrorists on the basis of that care about you? I don't agree with the terrorists, but I do understand the rationale for taking the fight onto US soil for instance. So even if you don't care about the people in Afghanistan, there are very good self-protection reasons for countries not behaving as if they don't give a shit when they've been inteferring with other nation states.


>>
And every day young Brits who sign up for the army as youngsters..well yes we could say its their choice. But christ when I was 18 I might have done the same with no *real* understanding of what I was letting myself in for in terms of politicians' decisions to put me into such situations.
<<

Not sure what your point is there Effers. Do you mean that the young soldiers wouldn't have joined up if they'd known they'd be in an unjust war? Or do you mean they didn't realise they'd have to risk their lives for their country when they joined up? The latter is plainly ridiculous, and the former seems unlikely for most soldiers who join understanding that they won't get to make the decisions about where, when and why they fight.

Yes you're quite right kea, I'm not making a lot of sense. I'm just too angry about what I see as young men being used as canon fodder, given my understanding of the nature of Afghan society, the history and the politics.

And I expect all those who advocate that they stay, *fully face facts* about the reality of what it means in terms of deaths and maimings of young people for years to come.

And yes if it was up to me, they'd be home tomorrow.

one of the problems we have created in afgan. is imposing western democracy, which there is no real history of there,

we should have made a bastardisation of the tribal system and democracy

the people elect a tribal representative, who has the backing of the leader or warlord, they form the parliment, who elect the president, who then has the backing of the tribes, all conflict can then be carried out round the table and not with the AK47, as it is now when someone does not like what karzai is up to

Should UK troops come home from Afghanistan now?

Well, my heart says yes, but my head... well my head is actually a bit confused as to why we are really there in the first place. The politicians have certainly given a mixture of reasons over the years.

why we are there is as a hasty ill planned reaction to 911

>>one of the problems we have created in afgan. is imposing western democracy

No. We did not.

It's an Islamic Republic.


>>we should have made a bastardisation of the tribal system and democracy

They did.

>>why we are there is as a hasty ill planned reaction to 911


No, it was a reaction to the Taliban refusing to co-operate.
They continued to pursue the policy of brinkmanship and thumbing their nose at the west that had been for years.
They push the brinkmanship too far and got hurt.

<>

they had just signed a huge deal with america to lay a gas pipeline across the country????

By "america" you mean the US government?

mr bush jr

I guess I should stay out of this. However I just wanted to remind Effers that people should choose their battles wisely. Afghanistan is not the only place terrible things happen. However the cost of interfering in those other places might be too high.

>I just wanted to remind Effers that people should choose their battles wisely. Afghanistan is not the only place terrible things happen.<

Really Xantic..terrible things happen everywhere? Thanks for reminding me..yeah I'd forgotten. And no I'm not fighting a 'battle', I'm posing a question on 'Ask' about a specific issue, and giving my opinion on the question.

What I was trying to say is the reason there´s no military action against Saudi Arabia, is due to the economic collapse that could cause in the world.

What, though, would be the point of staying there for ten, twenty, thirty years? I just don't understand the logic of those who suggest things will suddenly change if we just* stay there for a longer period... They clearly won't, history says it won't for a start, if anything, from what has happened thus far in the most recent conflict in that country, we've just seen the violence grow and the afgansatn population become more entrenched and against Westurn politics, which, lets face it, as far as they can see is a politics based on the gun and the bomb. Why on earth would a continueing presence there do anything to alter that view in their minds?
It would not matter if we were to remain there for 50, or a hundred years, it wouldn't alter in the slightest what would happen when the troops leave, the only differnce would be that the sooner we leave, the sooner we stop are troops dieing there. If anything the continueing presence is fueling the terrorists cause, each death of an affganastan is another ten recruits for the terrorist. Also, as it would appear they're not stupid, most of the terrorist training that was occuring in Affganastan has just moved out over the boarder...

1: Bring home troops now.
2: Dispatch with all haste Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond to Afganistan
3: Effect "Regime Change" by eliminating the nefarious Karzy of Kalibar and his henchman, Bungdit Din and the Burpa hordes
4: Install Brother Belcher as a pro western puppet leader with Private Widdle as deputy stooge

Simples

Afghanistan isn't an easy topic to give a glib messageboard answer to. I've seen pretty good arguments on all sides of the debate, all make good cases and all are eminently wise and sensible.

So let's forget about being wise and sensible.

We went into Afghanistan in suport of our US allies as part of a NATO force. We should also leave as part of a NATO force. The behaviour of some of the NATO members has been frankly deplorable and makes the idea of any future European combined army risible, but that's a side issue.

The Americans are talking about pulling out. Fine. Let them do all the talking and let's take our lead from them. If America pull out, we follow. In the meantime we support our allies as they have supported us in the past and as we hope they will support us in the future.

Dust off, and nuke the entire site from orbit, its the only way to be sure!!!!

To walk away now will cheapen every death that has occurred bot our own and that of the Afghans.We made the mess we clean it up..

I certainly don't want our troops leaving with their tails between their legs..And I suspect they won't want to either.