Why exactly Afghanistan

Frankly I knew "the mission" had been perverted when Laura Bush (and others) started to bang on about women's rights in Afghanistan.

I lived in Libya in the 1950s - dirt poor and no oil at the time. Every woman and I mean every woman was wrapped in a blanket which with only one eye showing - no western dress anywhere except amongst some of the youngest men.

When I look at Afghanistan today it looks just like Libya did then.

 

But they have developed a different culture. Do they really need to evolve into a western society to achieve greatness? It is strange but I sometimes have impression that poor people in distant countries are happier than we are. I mean, do Muslims want or need the western life style? Is the western life style so superior to less developed societies or we just flatter ourselves?

 

Well - I think this is my point. Women are valued lower than beasts of burden in traditional Moslem societies. It is shear arrogance that we can or should even try to impose our values on these societies and is completely futile and self-defeating in my opinion. BUT here we have the wife of the President advocating just this!

Sometimes wonder what the average Afghan thinks when confronted by a Western Female Soldier.

 

What gets me is the politicians and even some military commentators who should know better in UK...when ever the mission is questioned..they bring out the women and education sides..saying we have liberated the women...Its just not true..its better under sufference than under the Taliban, but the women in Kabul jails have a different story to tell.

 

Terminator III perhaps?

 

Twisted??? http://www.naturalnews.com/034289_Afghanistan_opium_trade.html The CIA would never do anything like sell guns or drugs.

 

You are quite right. Until today I haven't realised that Mrs. Bush has changed objectives of the mission into a crusade. A limited action hunting of Osama Bin Laden has turned into changing of the entire Afghanistan as a state and as a culture.

 

Karzai (SP?) recently announced "The Australian presence in Afganistan had a "minimal" negative effect..."

Well done our boys...Again made more friends than enemies...

 

Isn't it the reverse. you made more enemies than friends, you just didn't make as many enemies as the rest of us. If you made more enemies than friends, you would have had a "positive" effect.

Karzi's "double speak" is calling you "the best of the worst."

Gotta love politicians.

 

A bit harsh mate,

A land locked country with no government, no real assets or minerals and yet it has been a battle ground since the 19th century, why did the British Empire invade it twice? the Soviets in the 80's etc etc the Taliban hadn't even been heard of, let alone Bin Laden and his boys.

I'd also add, whilst a few here have spoken about women and their poor treatment in Afghanistan but our best buddy's the Saudi's don't seem to worry (not to mention where Bin Laden came from!!)

 

Afghanistan has been a battleground since WELL before the 19th century.

Genghis Kahn around 1219, and Alexander the Great in 330 BC are probably the two most well known conquerors of Afghanistan.

 

And we still have not learned the lesson. Afghanistan cannot be occupied...it can be attacked..and the first days attacking Taliban Camps etc was the thing that had to be done.. But which genius came up with the idea that it could ever be occupied?

 

Actually three times. Part of the Great Game with Russia but also because lawless Pathans span the Afghanistan\British India border and were constantly conducting a low grade insurgency as well as fighting amongst themselves. The rule of Pakistan in North West Border Regions is still pretty fragile.

For the record - First Afghan War ended in tragedy for the British (about 1832 I think) when they made the mistake of leaving a Garrison in Kabul after successfully installing a puppet ruler. Unable to support it in the Winter snows and through treachery (a well known Afghan characteristic) the entire British community was wiped out except for one man which the Afghans let escape to ensure the bad news got back to Delhi.

Never again did the British make the mistake of occupying Afghanistan - until our reckless Blair and Co turned up.

The British in India learnt that bribery and limited\occasional military action got the results needed.

My Great Grandfather was with the 2nd Devonshires in the Second Afghan War of 1880 (I think). This was very successful from the British point of view and kept Afghanistan quite until the final War of 1905.

The moral of the story is give them a whack every 30 to 50 years and stay out of the place.

 

But what about this?

 

My grandfather fought there in the late 1800's.



I was there in the 70's, nice people but don't fook with them.

KTK

 

Let's make a music break with some Islamic music. Don't give up before you've heard it - it's enjoyable.

 

Here are some useful data:

Nominal GDP, per capita:

Afghanistan .....585 $
Turkmenistan ..3.700 $
USA ......... 49,922 $
UK .......... 38,591 $

I have presented data forthe invaded country and two main invaders; UK and USA. I also have provided GPD for Turkmenistan, the northern neighbor of Afghanistan with simmilar background except it was under USSR for longer time. Turkmenistan also has better infrastructure, educational system and health care.

Invaders are much larger countries and have about eighty times (8.000% !!!) larger GPD per capita. That is why they dont understand what Afghanistan really needs. In my opinion they first need help to improove living standard. Later on, invaders might ask people of Afghanistan if they would like to consider changing role of women in their society.

EDIT:
585$ before taxes means 1,6$ per day or less than 1$ per day after taxes!
Why they don't just leave them alone?
They are abusing a starving nation.

 

Perhaps it's the other way around? That their feudal mindset is what keeps them poor?

 

The comment that Afghanistan can not be conquered is incorrect, only that in past attempts no one has done it properly.

There are plenty of examples of technologically advanced cultures defeating and conquering less advanced peoples, even when the attacker is based in a far off land. The English-American conquest of North America is one example as are England's conquests of Australia and New Zealand.

Military defeat is only one aspect and usually the easiest part. This must be followed up by the conquering nation sending out colonist's in numbers great enough to occupy the majority of the land, displacing the native population. The native population must lose much of its identity so that they become politically and economically non-factors in their own country.

Most "empire's" have failed because they can never convince enough of their own people to relocate and come to truly dominate their own new land.

 

Exactly mate...which is what I said in post 52. It cannot be occupied. As Scipio says...attacked...yes...occupation...no.