Poppy Watch

[Evil Genius]

The British war machine

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/4009352/Sun-Military-Awards-They-cried-with-pride.html

The maimed working class with their PTSD get glittered with stardust in the company of royalty and celebrity.

And the killing goes on.

Certainly does:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8287154/Shocking-footage-emerges-of-Taliban-stoning-couple-to-death.html

Still, I'm sure this lot, for instance, will be glad to see the back of the foreign occupiers:
http://www.afghan-web.com/woman/

Your correct EG, i think Afghanistan is the only country in the world that has a hospital dedicated entirely to women who suffering from burns iether by being set on fire or setting themselves on fire due to harsh treatment they receive.  But lets not kid ourselves, there plight, and the plight of their people by a ruthless regime, the taliban, is not the reason why British and US troops are there, and you know it.

I'm not kidding myself in the least.

The West went into Afghanistan because the Taliban regime was sheltering Bin Laden and Al Quaida, and refusing either to give them up or drive them out. Imo, this was justified.

But I hope you're not kidding yourself, either, by failing to recognise that since the invasion, life for 50%+ of the population has improved immeasurably.
Worse, if we leave before the governing administration is willing and able to resist the Taliban, then I'd give it about 10 minutes before the poor people of that benighted country are plunged right back into the Stone Age barbarity which characterised those savages*.


* - And if that makes me a Cultural Imperialist, as well as a Military one, then so be it.

I dont know where you get your figures, but I will concede on that, but there was an extremley high pice to pay for that, and it still hasnt been paid in full yet.  My only gripe is the bullshit and propaganda that is spun about the armed forces being sent in to help the poor natives when it is entirely for there own self serving reasons.  If it was for humanitarian reasons there was whole host of other countries higher up the list before Afghanistan.
I would mostly agree with your lasat paragraph, that they should see the transition out, although if the "savages" have support of large percentage of the population then, as muppet put it, you cant bomb them into civilisation and the whole excercise is a waste of time lives and money.  I hope its not.

As I tried to indicate, I have no illusions as to why NATO first went into Afghanistan - it was solely to evict Al Qaida and punish the Taliban.

Nor have I any illusions that they're still there in order to restore civilization and democracy etc to the country. But that is a (beneficial) side-effect which has followed (if only in a rudimentary form).

Therefore when/if the troops do leave, I hope for the sake of ordinary Afghanis that the local Government left behind is strong enough to prevent the return of the Taliban, since that bunch of barbarians are arguably the worst dictatorship the world has seen since the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. 

P.S. The "50%" figure I quoted simply referred to the female  population of the country.

[Groucho]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFHLvs_MpoY&feature=related

[Evil Genius]

FATALITIES BY PROVINCE - The route of the proposed TAPI gas pipeline is exactly where most U.S. troops have died in Afghanistan (the blood red provinces of Helmand and Kandahar) .

Er, you do know what "TAPI" stands for, don't you*?

Why on earth would the West invade Afghanistan, in order to pave the way for a pipeline running Eastwards i.e. towards India and China? 

You know, I've heard some pretty fcuked-up Conspiracy Theories in my time, but that one surely takes the biscuit...


* - Clue: Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India...

[Evil Genius]

Aye, "civilization", that's the first thing I think about when I think about Afghanistan before the occupation...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nENvd7Zj1Qs&feature=related

Civilisation is your argument for being there. Oil is mine.

There is no Oil in Afghanistan.

There is  Oil in Turkmenistan, so if invasion was the only means they could think of in order to get their hands on it, don't you think they'd have invaded Turkmenistan itself?

Even then, I'd have thought that the following might have been slightly more attractive...
"Earlier, on May 21st, Berdymuhammedov unexpectedly signed a decree stating that companies from Turkmenistan will build an internal East-West gas pipeline allowing the transfer of gas from the biggest deposits in Turkmenistan (Dowlatabad and Yolotan) to the Caspian coast. The East-West pipeline is planned to be around 1000 km long and have a carrying capacity of 30 bn m³ annually, at a cost of between one and one and a half billion US dollars. Construction of the pipeline is to be financed by the Turkmengaz company; it will begin this June and last five years."
http://www.europarussia.com/posts/1748

P.S. Civilization is not actually my argument for being there, though it is a welcome side-effect.

[muppet]

* - Clue: Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India...

TAPI - Trans-Afghan Pipeline Idiot.

[Evil Genius]

* - Clue: Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India...

TAPI - Trans-Afghan Pipeline Idiot.

When you've been caught out for making a stupid point, it's never a good idea to go on drawing attention to it...

I repeat:
"At the end of August Turkmenistan and Afghanistan signed an agreement on construction of the Trans-Afghanistan (TAPI) gas pipeline for the transfer of Turkmen gas to Pakistan and India"

Are you trying to tell me that NATO invaded Afghanistan in order to facilitate Turkmenistan in selling its Gas to Pakistan and India? 

[muppet]

From US government website in 1998: http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa48119.000/hfa48119_0.htm#17

I would caution that while we do support the project, the U.S. Government has not at this point recognized any governing regime of the transit country, one of the transit countries, Afghanistan, through which that pipeline would be routed. But we do support the project.

3 years later they had imposed their own Government regime. The year after that work began.

[Evil Genius]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFHLvs_MpoY&feature=related

I just hope that his viewers aren't as stupid as Mr. Zakaria, since his argument has more holes in it than a busted colander.

[muppet]

* - Clue: Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India...

TAPI - Trans-Afghan Pipeline Idiot.

When you've been caught out for making a stupid point, it's never a good idea to go on drawing attention to it...

I repeat:
"At the end of August Turkmenistan and Afghanistan signed an agreement on construction of the Trans-Afghanistan (TAPI) gas pipeline for the transfer of Turkmen gas to Pakistan and India"

Are you trying to tell me that NATO invaded Afghanistan in order to facilitate Turkmenistan in selling its Gas to Pakistan and India? 

That is precisely why the US invaded. NATO just followed orders.

[Evil Genius]

From US government website in 1998: http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa48119.000/hfa48119_0.htm#17

I would caution that while we do support the project, the U.S. Government has not at this point recognized any governing regime of the transit country, one of the transit countries, Afghanistan, through which that pipeline would be routed. But we do support the project.

3 years later they had imposed their own Government regime. The year after that work began.

Of course the Yanks "supported" this proposed pipeline.

Anything which reduces the world's dependence on Energy from the Gulf has got to be in their interests, esp if there are liable to be lucrative construction contracts for US companies for the building of it etc.

But the Turkmenis are also building other pipelines eg through Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan etc, without the USA invading those countries.

So I repeat my question from #703: "Are you trying to tell me that NATO invaded Afghanistan in order to facilitate Turkmenistan in selling its Gas to Pakistan and India?"

Personally, I still reckon 9/11 had slightly  more to do with it 

Late Edit: Just seen your reply (#706, above) and I now accept that one of the two of us must be an idiot... 

[muppet]

From US government website in 1998: http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa48119.000/hfa48119_0.htm#17

I would caution that while we do support the project, the U.S. Government has not at this point recognized any governing regime of the transit country, one of the transit countries, Afghanistan, through which that pipeline would be routed. But we do support the project.

3 years later they had imposed their own Government regime. The year after that work began.

Of course the Yanks "supported" this proposed pipeline.

Anything which reduces the world's dependence on Energy from the Gulf has got to be in their interests, esp if there are liable to be lucrative construction contracts for US companies for the building of it etc.

But the Turkmenis are also building other pipelines eg through Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan etc, without the USA invading those countries.

So I repeat my question from #703: "Are you trying to tell me that NATO invaded Afghanistan in order to facilitate Turkmenistan in selling its Gas to Pakistan and India?"

Personally, I still reckon 9/11 had slightly  more to do with it 

I answered your question.

You mention other countries but did you even read my link to the Us Government site? The only regime issues regarding the pipelines, were in Afghanistan.

911 was the excuse used for the invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq. A flying school in the States tipped off the FBI and other agencies that the men who would go on to be involved in the 911 hijackings were undertaking very unusual flight training. They were paying for 767 simulator time but wanted no training for take-off or landing. The vast vast majority of pilot training for novices involved take-off emergencies and landing training.

The info was passed to the White within the 12 months running up to 911. Nothing was done about it.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

Aye, "civilization", that's the first thing I think about when I think about Afghanistan before the occupation...

Aye, like this was their first time of occupying Afghanistan...

The First Anglo-Afghan War

Ah right, so you reckon that the 2001 Invasion was just a continuation of "The Great Game", then?

I suppose it is just possible that the Politicians and Generals figured that they wait 150 years for some mad fcuker to emerge from the caves of Tora Bora and attack the West, so that they'd have a pretext for exacting revenge...

Ah right, so the reason that Afghanistan was such a fcuked up place in 2001 had nothing at all to do with the plundering depredations of resource rapacious powers like Britain throughout recent centuries. That's right, nothing at all! 

[seafoid]

The British war machine

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/4009352/Sun-Military-Awards-They-cried-with-pride.html

The maimed working class with their PTSD get glittered with stardust in the company of royalty and celebrity.

And the killing goes on.

Certainly does:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8287154/Shocking-footage-emerges-of-Taliban-stoning-couple-to-death.html

Still, I'm sure this lot, for instance, will be glad to see the back of the foreign occupiers:
http://www.afghan-web.com/woman/

Bomb them into civilization?

Aye, "civilization", that's the first thing I think about when I think about Afghanistan before the occupation...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nENvd7Zj1Qs&feature=related

Afghanistan was f*cked long before the Yanks and the Brits turned up. It has been at war since the late 1970s.
It is a playground for India and Pakistan, Saudi, the Russians, the Americans, the Brits and the Iranians.

But the Brits and the Yanks just dragged it on for another 10 years and both countries are now effectively bankrupt.

Iraq is just as bad as Afghanistan


http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2007/dec/20/iraq-the-hidden-human-costs/?pagination=false

In House to House: An Epic Memoir of War, Staff Sergeant David Bellavia—a gung-ho supporter of the Iraq war—casually recounts how in 2004, while his platoon was on just its second patrol in Iraq,
a civilian candy truck tried to merge with a column of our armored vehicles, only to get run over and squashed. The occupants were smashed beyond recognition. Our first sight of death was a man and his wife both ripped open and dismembered, their intestines strewn across shattered boxes of candy bars. The entire platoon hadn't eaten for twenty-four hours. We stopped, and as we stood guard around the wreckage, we grew increasingly hungry. Finally, I stole a few nibbles from one of the cleaner candy bars. Others wiped away the gore and fuel from the wrappers and joined me.

Maybe there was a point to wasting 3 million million dollars. 

[Rossfan]

But I hope you're not kidding yourself, either, by failing to recognise that since the invasion, life for 50%+ of the population has improved immeasurably.
P.S. The "50%" figure I quoted simply referred to the female  population of the country.

When does the US/NATO begin the war to liberate women in Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern oligarchys 

[HiMucker]

But I hope you're not kidding yourself, either, by failing to recognise that since the invasion, life for 50%+ of the population has improved immeasurably.
P.S. The "50%" figure I quoted simply referred to the female  population of the country.

When does the US/NATO begin the war to liberate women in Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern oligarchys 

In fairness EG stated he knows this is not the reason they went to war but it is a positive side effect.  Saudi human rights issues are scandalous.  Though they have the west by the balls so dont see relations worsening there.