  |
 Afghanistan in 2021, goodnight kabul? |
| Track this thread - Email this thread - Print this thread - Download this thread - Subscribe to this forum |
 Aug 14 2021, 02:56 AM
Post
#1
|
|
 I'm a paragon so don't perceive me
Joined: 3 February 2011
Posts: 37,409 User: 12,929                
|
I've been following this a fair amount in the last few weeks, ever since Biden gave the order to pull out.
Followed immediately by a huge Taliban resurge. They've started seizing all the major cities in Afghanistan in really short order and it looks like Kabul will fall in a matter of weeks if not days. So, with this in mind, and choppers getting ready to pull western personnel from the rooftops like Saigon, was leaving the correct move? Can anything be done for Afghanistan, or is it doomed to be ruled by the Taliban, assuming they do take Kabul and finalise a retaking of the country. |
 |
 
|
|
Aug 14 2021, 08:07 AM
Post
#2
|
|
 Shakin Stevens
Joined: 29 December 2007
Posts: 46,140 User: 5,138 
 
|
They should never have been there in the first place so we are just reverting to the pre 2002 situation only with most likely a more extreme Taliban following an invasion from a foreign force. Western nations really should learn their lessons like!
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 14 2021, 12:00 PM
Post
#3
|
|
|
I'm a paragon so don't perceive me
Joined: 3 February 2011
Posts: 37,409 User: 12,929
|
True, but given international forces were there already, do we prefer an uncomfortable unresolving status quo or, as it seems, a very swift return to an extremist regime?
like I get it, I don't want to be making excuses for imperialism but in this moment, doing so effectively ceded control of the country to a very unsavoury group. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 14 2021, 12:14 PM
Post
#4
|
|
 BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,654 User: 3,272
    
|
I wasn't happy with the decision to go into Afghanistan at the time. However, once it had happened then the invading forces (US, UK and others) were under a moral obligation to leave the country in a better state than it was in at the time of teh invasion. They are clearly set to fail in that regard.
Once the US had made the decision to withdraw, the UK was left with little choice. Whether Johnson agrees with the US decision, who knows? He has been completely silent on the matter. Clearly attending photo opportunities takes a higher priority. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 14 2021, 12:45 PM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Shakin Stevens
Joined: 29 December 2007
Posts: 46,140 User: 5,138
|
The UK has no say whatsoever in what happens in Afghanistan Iraq or any of them so called coalition armies it’s like NATO just a front for US interest of which most of US interest then are UK interests and the interests of the neo-con agenda which is let’s face it a modern version of 19th century colonialism.
Of course we have a duty to leave it better but any look at the history of any nation trying to control Afghanistan has never ended well from Britain in the 1870s to the Soviets in the 1980s. Just leave these countries be to find their own solutions to their own problems with support from a proper democratic UN. Not NATO which is a front for 21sr century imperialism. This post has been edited by steve201: Aug 14 2021, 12:46 PM |
|
|
|
|
Aug 14 2021, 12:54 PM
Post
#6
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,654 User: 3,272
|
The long record of failure of other countries trying to control Afghanistan was one reason why I opposed the intervention at the time. However, it has to be recognised that it was done with the backing of a UN resolution.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 14 2021, 09:22 PM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Shakin Stevens
Joined: 29 December 2007
Posts: 46,140 User: 5,138
|
I assume your referring to the UN Charter?
The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by the United States and thus part of US law. Under the charter, a country can use armed force against another country only in self-defense or when the Security Council approves. Neither of those conditions was met before the United States invaded Afghanistan. If it was a UN charter why does the United States for example leave unilaterally and so the uk follows? Seems a one way process to me hence why I’m sceptical of the UN resolution. This post has been edited by steve201: Aug 14 2021, 09:23 PM |
|
|
|
|
Aug 14 2021, 09:31 PM
Post
#8
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,654 User: 3,272
|
QUOTE(steve201 @ Aug 14 2021, 10:22 PM)  I assume your referring to the UN Charter? The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by the United States and thus part of US law. Under the charter, a country can use armed force against another country only in self-defense or when the Security Council approves. Neither of those conditions was met before the United States invaded Afghanistan. If it was a UN charter why does the United States for example leave unilaterally and so the uk follows? Seems a one way process to me hence why I’m sceptical of the UN resolution. No, I was referring to the UN resolution that specifically authorised the intervention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nation...Resolution_1386 A fresh resolution is not required to withdraw troops from anywhere. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 14 2021, 09:40 PM
Post
#9
|
|
|
Shakin Stevens
Joined: 29 December 2007
Posts: 46,140 User: 5,138
|
There’s so many holes in that resolution which was meant to be 6 months long….20 years later nothing has been achieved except making the security of nations worse due to the invasion.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 15 2021, 05:07 AM
Post
#10
|
|
|
I'm a paragon so don't perceive me
Joined: 3 February 2011
Posts: 37,409 User: 12,929
|
Pretty much only Kabul left, I can't see it holding out much longer
 there's no good outcome, everything is awful here and the way both the international world and the Taliban have treated this poor state (barely a state, really, I only use it to talk about its people as whatever collective they are) is horrific. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 15 2021, 05:50 AM
Post
#11
|
|
 Queen of Soon
Joined: 24 May 2007
Posts: 74,077 User: 3,474
  
|
Bloody Trump. Once he did that deal that was it, Afghanistan was f***ed and it would only be a matter of time. Hopeless moron out of his depth in a puddle.
This is deeply concerning for a number of reasons. Firstly, who the hell wants a terrorist group running a country with some hardline sick and twisted interpretations of a thousand year old book as the basis for all their decisions. No civilised country bases their entire legal and political system on a religious text. Secondly this has forced hundreds of thousands from their homes as people flee or have their homes burned/ransacked by the advancing taliban. Thirdly, with them controlling the worlds largest heroin supply chains buying drugs will literally fund a terrorist group and they will be pushing that shit harder in order to make money. Fourthly, this opens a new front in migration to the EU, something that already has relations strained and thousands will die in the journey alone. Most importantly however, the invasion was meant to rid the country of this lot And they’ve come back stronger. The gov is weak and democracy is fragile. The post-WW2 occupation of Germany lasted officially until 1994, that’s almost 50 years. And Germany is a lot different from Afghanistan in that the Nazis never got a chance to hide in the alps, regroup, and then comeback stronger with a bigger militant force. Hell, the Brits were in Germany until the coalition era gutted the defence budget and the yanks are still there |
|
|
|
|
Aug 15 2021, 08:57 AM
Post
#12
|
|
|
BuzzJack Gold Member
Joined: 25 July 2016
Posts: 4,364 User: 23,471
  
|
Decades of intervention and billions of pounds essentially undone within a fortnight?
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 15 2021, 09:42 AM
Post
#13
|
|
|
BuzzJack Gold Member
Joined: 21 February 2021
Posts: 3,547 User: 124,514
|
Yep it's like ISIS got all the press last decade (somewhat understandably as they were disgustingly brutal and they attracted much Western support) and not downplaying their heinous murders they were relative novices and easier to control. The Taliban were in for the long play getting stronger all the time and now they've got the green light to cause havoc in an already destroyed country.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 15 2021, 10:45 AM
Post
#14
|
|
|
I'm a paragon so don't perceive me
Joined: 3 February 2011
Posts: 37,409 User: 12,929
|
Media reporting that the Taliban are in talks for a peaceful transfer of power and a transitional government, with the current president set to resign - under duress of course as it sounds like Kabul is surrounded. At least it seems they want to avoid bloodshed in the capital but here we go.
Absolutely USA and I suppose UK in tow shouldn't go back in though, I've seen articles like the one linked here (read the last two paragraphs) and it seems like they're building up for acceptance of a return. Interventionism needs to stop. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2...-of-afghanistan |
|
|
|
|
Aug 15 2021, 01:04 PM
Post
#15
|
|
|
Buffy/Charmed
Joined: 18 April 2013
Posts: 44,034 User: 18,639
   
|
The American helicopters desperately evacuating personnel and abandoning a lot of those who helped in the fight, or had started to modernise the country, is VERY reminiscent of the fall of Saigon. The invasion and occupation were completr and utter failures. Hopefully they can evacuate the government as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 15 2021, 07:16 PM
Post
#16
|
|
|
#38BBE0 otherwise known as 'sky blue'
Joined: 27 October 2008
Posts: 16,170 User: 7,561
 
|
Cost of war in Afghanistan to UK taxpayer since 2001: £22bn
Savings made from aggressive cuts to public spending between 2010-2019 which has led to huge increases in child poverty, food banks, a mental health crisis and failing public services: £30bn Utterly, utterly hopeless. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 15 2021, 07:34 PM
Post
#17
|
|
|
Shakin Stevens
Joined: 29 December 2007
Posts: 46,140 User: 5,138
|
There’s always enough money for fake security risks!
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 17 2021, 03:33 AM
Post
#18
|
|
|
I'm a paragon so don't perceive me
Joined: 3 February 2011
Posts: 37,409 User: 12,929
|
western countries need to accept refugees from this mess at the very least of responsibility that they hold, not put out whatever inhuman speak this is:
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 17 2021, 05:12 AM
Post
#19
|
|
|
Queen of Soon
Joined: 24 May 2007
Posts: 74,077 User: 3,474
|
Bare with us here coz it’ll sound real bad to start
But he’s kinda not wrong. We cannot have a repeat of Syria with half the country walking thousands of miles to be exploited by people smugglers And sent out into the Med to drown in overcrowded unfit-for-purpose boats. It’s cruel And inhumane. Wholly unnecessary suffering and loss of life. Not only to mention that f*** knows what Organised crime is being funded via the cash the people smugglers raise. HOWEVER, where I disagree with Macron and Orban (who was first off this particular set of blocks to the surprise of no one) is that we should of course be taking in Refugees here. This is our mess and we have an obligation to clean it up. But for me that means we need to deal with the problem as close to their home as we can safely do so and safely evacuate refugees from there. From a purely economic perspective, In particular there is a large pool of well educated women whose talents will be wasted by the taliban. We have so many skilled occupation shortages it is just daft not to connect the dots. From a humanitarian position we take who wants to come and we provide shelter from the mess of our creating |
|
|
|
|
Aug 17 2021, 06:16 AM
Post
#20
|
|
|
I'm a paragon so don't perceive me
Joined: 3 February 2011
Posts: 37,409 User: 12,929
|
Yeah, I expect that part of the EU's plans with that 'control' is sending out aid to neighbouring countries so lots of refugees can be directed there and find new lives instead of making a dangerous journey the same way that the EU did for Turkey for Syrians. That's fine, though I have limited confidence in the abilities of Afghanistan border countries to provide for large numbers of refugees, maybe Iran aside. Syrian refugees nearly collapsed Lebanon's public services. At the very least there needs to be a large amount of foreign aid to ensure that doesn't happen, though I fear it may just result in large amounts of camps in say, Pakistan.
On the other hand, encouraging refugees who can speak English/French/German/etc or otherwise have a good chance of integrating in the West would be preferable, then they can contribute to our economies and be far safer than they are in that region. So I'd support aid helping them over (and why the Western countries need to do their utmost now to help any Afghan citizens with previous ties out if they can). |
|
|
|
|
| Time is now: 19th April 2024 - 07:26 PM |
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 BuzzJack.com
About | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
