Jump to content

Afghanistan


Bulletguy

Recommended Posts

 

The fear, relief, confusion and weariness on this young boys face struck me, one of the refugees who arrived at Heathrow. Volunteers from the Red Cross were on hand doing sterling work handing out food parcels.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58350542

 

The final flight out of Kabul for civilians left yesterday.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58367225

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think everyone does John. Worse still when Embassy staff left they also left personal details of Afghans who worked for British.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/south-asia/afghan-workers-british-embassy-kabul-b1909606.html

 

Several thousand anti-Taliban forces, National Resistance Front of Afghanistan (NRF), are gathering in the Panjshir valley, an area 30 miles north east of Kabul. It's historically significant as both the Russians and Taliban failed to take the area and ever likely as geographically it's a natural fortress the locals know every nook and cranny of.

 

The long, deep and dusty valley stretches about 75 miles (120km) - south-west to north-east - to the north of the Afghan capital Kabul. It is protected by high mountain peaks - rising 9,800ft (3,000m) above the valley floor. They are an imposing natural barrier - protection for the people living there.

 

There is only one narrow road in, which winds its way between large rocky outcrops and the meandering Panjshir River.

 

"There is a mythical aspect to the entire area. It's not just one valley. Once you get into it there are at least another 21 sub valleys connected," says Shakib Sharifi, who lived there as a child, but left Afghanistan after the Taliban took control.

 

At the far end of the main valley, a trail leads up to the 4,430m (14,534ft) Anjoman Pass and heads further east into the Hindu Kush mountains.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-58329527

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They talk about Help for Heroes...

Johnson's speech ignoring the Heroes who helped British Forces reminded me of Churchill's VE Day speech ignoring those who had the worst job of the war on the arctic convoys.

I think those Afghans who helped British Forces also had the worst job of the war. At least British soldiers could go back to their camps and relax in reasonable safetey. Wheras those Afghans helping them are constantly at risk - like the lads on the Arctic Convoys were. Then simply betrayed, ignored and abandoned by the British Prime Minister.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman

I note the forums attack monkeys are conveniently ignoring their latest great White Lefty Dope.... Biden's roll in the shambles *-) ............

 

Along with shirking responsibility for putting Blair in charge of Labour in the first place :-| ..........

 

So as per usual its left to the Tories to clear up THEIR MESS >:-) .........

 

Just feedin the Monkeys (lol) (lol) (lol) .........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is typical of Boris 'the butcher' Kemal that he tries and big up his role, ignoring the fact he's known this was coming for a year after Chump signed a 'peace deal' with the Taliban, let alone the pleas made for months to actual do something. Still we've burnt our bridges now and decided to make the US BFF's.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

colin - 2021-08-30 1:15 PM

 

It is typical of Boris 'the butcher' Kemal that he tries and big up his role, ignoring the fact he's known this was coming for a year after Chump signed a 'peace deal' with the Taliban, let alone the pleas made for months to actual do something. Still we've burnt our bridges now and decided to make the US BFF's.

 

Johnson was in election mode as usual. Praising Britain's soldiers because they have a vote, and betraying the Afghans who supported them because they don't have a vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
colin - 2021-08-30 1:15 PM

 

It is typical of Boris 'the butcher' Kemal that he tries and big up his role, ignoring the fact he's known this was coming for a year after Chump signed a 'peace deal' with the Taliban, let alone the pleas made for months to actual do something. Still we've burnt our bridges now and decided to make the US BFF's.

 

So what excuse do the other countries have for also being caught on the hop? :-| .........

 

BTW......what does BFF's mean? :-S .........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pelmetman - 2021-08-30 9:14 AM

 

I note the forums attack monkeys are conveniently ignoring their latest great White Lefty Dope.... Biden's roll in the shambles *-) ...........

Says the attack monkey. *-)

 

 

So as per usual its left to the Tories to clear up THEIR MESS >:-) .........

As they should.......filthy lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pelmetman - 2021-08-30 2:35 PM

 

colin - 2021-08-30 1:15 PM

 

It is typical of Boris 'the butcher' Kemal that he tries and big up his role, ignoring the fact he's known this was coming for a year after Chump signed a 'peace deal' with the Taliban, let alone the pleas made for months to actual do something. Still we've burnt our bridges now and decided to make the US BFF's.

 

So what excuse do the other countries have for also being caught on the hop? :-| .........

 

BTW......what does BFF's mean? :-S .........

 

Well if I lived in another country then I might be asking the question of them, as I don't then that's up to the electorate of those countries. The differance being the US where Chump decided to sign a 'peace treaty' (i.e. surrender) with the Taliban and dumped us in it. As for BFF, that's Best Friends Forever, a policy we seem to have adopted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
colin - 2021-08-30 2:58 PM

 

pelmetman - 2021-08-30 2:35 PM

 

colin - 2021-08-30 1:15 PM

 

It is typical of Boris 'the butcher' Kemal that he tries and big up his role, ignoring the fact he's known this was coming for a year after Chump signed a 'peace deal' with the Taliban, let alone the pleas made for months to actual do something. Still we've burnt our bridges now and decided to make the US BFF's.

 

So what excuse do the other countries have for also being caught on the hop? :-| .........

 

BTW......what does BFF's mean? :-S .........

 

Well if I lived in another country then I might be asking the question of them, as I don't then that's up to the electorate of those countries. The differance being the US where Chump decided to sign a 'peace treaty' (i.e. surrender) with the Taliban and dumped us in it. As for BFF, that's Best Friends Forever, a policy we seem to have adopted.

 

Would you rather we were friends with the Taliban like Corbyn and his mates on here? 8-) .........

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pelmetman - 2021-08-30 7:39 PM.......................Would you rather we were friends with the Taliban ....................

Under present circumstances, do you have an alternative strategy to offer? No other government seems to have found/offered one.

 

It is foolish to try to pass the buck for this farrago between political factions. Both left and right are up to their necks in it. No side, or party, can claim to have clean hands. Hubris and bombast blinded them all from the outset.

 

"They" believed they could "fix" Afghanistan and, when "they" discovered how long, and at what cost, that "fix" would take, they dumped Afghanistan and cut and ran.

 

"They" don't even seem to have understood what their (our) money was spent on, or that what it bought was a chocolate army of 50 - 60,000 (or was it 300,000 or 400,000?).

 

We've all been roundly shafted by a bunch of gun-toting fundamentalist hillbillies "we" set out to defeat and failed - who are now effectively dictating our foreign policy.

 

Time for a little honesty, collective shame, soul searching, and shared guilt, I think - in preference to ill-informed attempts at political points scoring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brian Kirby - 2021-08-31 9:17 AM

 

pelmetman - 2021-08-30 7:39 PM.......................Would you rather we were friends with the Taliban ....................

Under present circumstances, do you have an alternative strategy to offer?

 

Yes he has, you must have missed it...

Bring back the death sentence for suicide bombers

Anyone who tries talking to them instead is a 'Terrorist Lover like Corbyn' :-S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pelmetman - 2021-08-30 7:39 PM

Would you rather we were friends with the Taliban like Corbyn and his mates on here? 8-) .........

 

I have never, ever, indicated that we should be friends with the Taliban, although Boris 'the butcher' Kemal seems to think that since we where so decisively defeated by them we should offer them diplomatic recognition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brian Kirby - 2021-08-31 9:17 AM

 

pelmetman - 2021-08-30 7:39 PM.......................Would you rather we were friends with the Taliban ....................

Under present circumstances, do you have an alternative strategy to offer? No other government seems to have found/offered one.

You won't get anything resembling an adult response from him....just more of his usual huff 'n puff shouty shouty nonsense.

 

 

"They" believed they could "fix" Afghanistan and, when "they" discovered how long, and at what cost, that "fix" would take, they dumped Afghanistan and cut and ran.

It will be interesting to see how things develop in the coming months. IS are obviously there though I suspect only a small number, and the Taliban don't like them. Also "several thousand" resistance fighters of Afghanistans National Resistance Front who are securely bunkered in what is described as a fortress like valley only a few miles north of Kabul, and they don't like the Taliban, so probably also don't like IS,

 

I think it's a mistake to dismiss them as "hillbillies" Brian as they're more tech savvy than folk realise making use of the internet and social media platforms. https://www.dw.com/en/will-the-taliban-restrict-internet-access-in-afghanistan/a-59029364

 

What will be the real test is their ability to run a country and maintain it's infrastructure. I know they're capable of knocking out any parts needed for their AK-47's, but running a country is quite another matter!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bulletguy - 2021-08-31 4:00 PM.....................I think it's a mistake to dismiss them as "hillbillies" Brian as they're more tech savvy than folk realise making use of the internet and social media platforms. https://www.dw.com/en/will-the-taliban-restrict-internet-access-in-afghanistan/a-59029364......................

Just a journalistic flourish Paul. :-) It's difficult to dismiss them, after all, they won! Won what, we have yet to see.

 

But look at the country. It has been over-run by invaders pretty much since it was first populated. Landlocked, with "interesting" neighbours, it is a little larger than France. High (between 250M and 7,500M), it is mountainous, largely arid, lacking a coherent road network, with (from WIKI) three rail links: one, a 75-kilometer line from Mazar-i-Sharif to the Uzbekistan border; a 10-kilometer (6.2 mi) long line from Toraghundi to the Turkmenistan border (where it continues as part of Turkmen Railways); and a short link from Aqina across the Turkmen border to Kerki, which is planned to be extended further across Afghanistan. It imports most of its electricity. The Chinese have snaffled a large proportion of its mineral sites. It imports about 10 times more than it exports. Its GDP (PPP) is a little over $2,000 per capita. It is riddled with corruption. It is ethnically and linguistically divided, so government is complex. It is majority illiterate, and much of its education is/was US based - presumably now departed. It lacks a developed healthcare system, with much of what is available being provided via foreign charities.

 

It is a basket case. Its population lacks a clear concept of their country, having loyalties mainly to their own province. It is also bankrupt. If it is ever to become a developed, productive state, it will need foreign intervention to achieve that. As we and others have discovered over several centuries, if the proposed form of government is not congenial for a substantial majority it will be rejected - possibly violently. The problem is how can such a divided population be invited to adopt what is necessary, when their country and level of education makes conveying any sense of what is proposed so difficult.

 

If Afghanistan is to be enabled to flourish it must be placed under some kind of protected status which, IMO, can only be achieved through the UN - so that no-one (not least the Afghans) gains the impression that they are being taken over by vested national interests. It will take decades, and it will mean some king of Afghanistan development fund to get the necessary money where it needs to go. Who, now, is going to promote that? As you say, it will be interesting to see what actually happens. As you can tell from the above, I'm not optimistic! :-S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brian Kirby - 2021-08-31 6:43 PM

 

Bulletguy - 2021-08-31 4:00 PM.....................I think it's a mistake to dismiss them as "hillbillies" Brian as they're more tech savvy than folk realise making use of the internet and social media platforms. https://www.dw.com/en/will-the-taliban-restrict-internet-access-in-afghanistan/a-59029364......................

Just a journalistic flourish Paul. :-) It's difficult to dismiss them, after all, they won! Won what, we have yet to see.

 

But look at the country. It has been over-run by invaders pretty much since it was first populated. Landlocked, with "interesting" neighbours, it is a little larger than France. High (between 250M and 7,500M), it is mountainous, largely arid, lacking a coherent road network, with (from WIKI) three rail links: one, a 75-kilometer line from Mazar-i-Sharif to the Uzbekistan border; a 10-kilometer (6.2 mi) long line from Toraghundi to the Turkmenistan border (where it continues as part of Turkmen Railways); and a short link from Aqina across the Turkmen border to Kerki, which is planned to be extended further across Afghanistan. It imports most of its electricity. The Chinese have snaffled a large proportion of its mineral sites. It imports about 10 times more than it exports. Its GDP (PPP) is a little over $2,000 per capita. It is riddled with corruption. It is ethnically and linguistically divided, so government is complex. It is majority illiterate, and much of its education is/was US based - presumably now departed. It lacks a developed healthcare system, with much of what is available being provided via foreign charities.

 

It is a basket case. Its population lacks a clear concept of their country, having loyalties mainly to their own province. It is also bankrupt. If it is ever to become a developed, productive state, it will need foreign intervention to achieve that. As we and others have discovered over several centuries, if the proposed form of government is not congenial for a substantial majority it will be rejected - possibly violently. The problem is how can such a divided population be invited to adopt what is necessary, when their country and level of education makes conveying any sense of what is proposed so difficult.

 

If Afghanistan is to be enabled to flourish it must be placed under some kind of protected status which, IMO, can only be achieved through the UN - so that no-one (not least the Afghans) gains the impression that they are being taken over by vested national interests. It will take decades, and it will mean some king of Afghanistan development fund to get the necessary money where it needs to go. Who, now, is going to promote that? As you say, it will be interesting to see what actually happens. As you can tell from the above, I'm not optimistic! :-S

Yes I read up on it's wiki page and it has vast amounts of untapped minerals in excess of $1 trillion so it's a 'basket case' that shouldn't be. China also has an oil exploration contract to develop three oil fields so with it's mineral mining rights as well, makes it the largest investor. The UN idea would be a good way to go forward for reasons you suggest but for now the Taliban bods are running the show. How long that lasts and where it goes next is anyones guess but i'm expecting a bloodbath if they clash with the National Resistance Front as they won't allow their land to be taken. It's easy to see why so many Afghanis are desperately trying to leave and who can blame them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
Brian Kirby - 2021-08-31 9:17 AM

 

pelmetman - 2021-08-30 7:39 PM.......................Would you rather we were friends with the Taliban ....................

Under present circumstances, do you have an alternative strategy to offer? No other government seems to have found/offered one.

 

It is foolish to try to pass the buck for this farrago between political factions. Both left and right are up to their necks in it. No side, or party, can claim to have clean hands. Hubris and bombast blinded them all from the outset.

 

.

 

Best have a word with our resident Labour Lefties who are trying to pass the buck for the war THEIR warmonger started *-) ..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh Dave, how simple the world must seem to you! Here are some easily checked facts. I know, because that is what I did - from Wiki, the HoC library, and NATO.

 

It began with the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Centre in 2001. The USA claimed the right to attack in self-defence at the UN, which was accepted, but not endorsed. It than invoked the NATO charter which, among other things, binds all NATO members to treat the attack on 1 as an attack on all. This led to the formation of ISAF (International Security Assistance Force), which was a 130,000 strong coalition of troops from 42 NATO, and other, countries.

 

The following were all involved with ISAF to varying degrees:

(NATO Countries (28) - Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.

Non-NATO Countries (14) - Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Finland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Georgia, Ireland, Jordan, New Zealand, Sweden, Singapore, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Bosnia and Herzegovina.

 

The man at the head of the table was none other than George W Bush, that widely renowned American loony leftie.

 

As a NATO member Britain was obliged to join the alliance. So yes, Blair was PM at the time, and did not need parliamentary approval to commit UK troops to the coalition, but had widespread support for doing so from both sides of the House.

 

Can you imagine the political fall-out had a Labour PM refused to honour the NATO charter when the US asked for assistance?

 

Do you really think that the Conservatives would have been silent if a Labour PM had refused to assist a Republican US President? Did they actually object? Have you never wondered why they gave Blair their support?

 

Do you ever stop to think, and do a little fact checking, before you post such profoundly ignorant clap-trap?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brian Kirby - 2021-09-01 12:48 PM

 

Oh Dave, how simple the world must seem to you! Here are some easily checked facts. I know, because that is what I did - from Wiki, the HoC library, and NATO.

 

It began with the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Centre in 2001. The USA claimed the right to attack in self-defence at the UN, which was accepted, but not endorsed. It than invoked the NATO charter which, among other things, binds all NATO members to treat the attack on 1 as an attack on all. This led to the formation of ISAF (International Security Assistance Force), which was a 130,000 strong coalition of troops from 42 NATO, and other, countries.

 

The following were all involved with ISAF to varying degrees:

(NATO Countries (28) - Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.

Non-NATO Countries (14) - Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Finland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Georgia, Ireland, Jordan, New Zealand, Sweden, Singapore, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Bosnia and Herzegovina.

 

The man at the head of the table was none other than George W Bush, that widely renowned American loony leftie.

 

As a NATO member Britain was obliged to join the alliance. So yes, Blair was PM at the time, and did not need parliamentary approval to commit UK troops to the coalition, but had widespread support for doing so from both sides of the House.

 

Can you imagine the political fall-out had a Labour PM refused to honour the NATO charter when the US asked for assistance?

 

Do you really think that the Conservatives would have been silent if a Labour PM had refused to assist a Republican US President? Did they actually object? Have you never wondered why they gave Blair their support?

 

Do you ever stop to think, and do a little fact checking, before you post such profoundly ignorant clap-trap?

 

I admire your patience Brian

But it will go in one ear and out the other

It always does :-S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brian Kirby - 2021-09-01 12:48 PM

 

Oh Dave, how simple the world must seem to you! Here are some easily checked facts. I know, because that is what I did - from Wiki, the HoC library, and NATO.

 

It began with the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Centre in 2001. The USA claimed the right to attack in self-defence at the UN, which was accepted, but not endorsed. It than invoked the NATO charter which, among other things, binds all NATO members to treat the attack on 1 as an attack on all. This led to the formation of ISAF (International Security Assistance Force), which was a 130,000 strong coalition of troops from 42 NATO, and other, countries.

 

The following were all involved with ISAF to varying degrees:

(NATO Countries (28) - Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.

Non-NATO Countries (14) - Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Finland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Georgia, Ireland, Jordan, New Zealand, Sweden, Singapore, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Bosnia and Herzegovina.

 

The man at the head of the table was none other than George W Bush, that widely renowned American loony leftie.

Don't you mean rabid rightie?!! :-S

 

Can you imagine the political fall-out had a Labour PM refused to honour the NATO charter when the US asked for assistance?

 

Do you really think that the Conservatives would have been silent if a Labour PM had refused to assist a Republican US President? Did they actually object? Have you never wondered why they gave Blair their support?

Good luck with trying to get anything remotely resembling an adult answer to any of those questions. :-|

 

Do you ever stop to think, and do a little fact checking, before you post such profoundly ignorant clap-trap?

Never.....which explains why he's such an ignoramus. :-|

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...