Hva er det igjen vi slåss for i Afghanistan?

[Slagenherdet]

,

Endret 28. april 2012 av gentrus

[After Dark]

grunen til at usa er i afganistan er eneklt og greit inperealistisk eigeninterrese

 

Et uvurderlig innlegg i debatten. Saklig begrunnet med rasjonelle argumenter og gode eksempler. Legg til 7-8 stavefeil, 4 bokstaver som skulle vært i uppercase og mangel på passende bruk av punktum, så har vi en klar vinner.

 

Ellers har vel også invasjonen vært en maktdemonstrasjon. 9/11 var vel det blodigste angrepet noensinne utført av en ikke-statlig entitet (i alle fall entiteter som ikke har direkte målsetning om opprettelse av en stat), og dermed måtte skylden også spres over på en annen stat. Blandt annet fordi at naturen på angrepet betydde at skulle man redde ansikt, måtte motangrepet kunne være av en betydelig styrke. Et angrep utelukkende på al-Qaeda kunne i seg selv ikke vært større og mer ødeleggende enn det USA var satt ut for.

 

Dersom det utelukket var en maktdemonstrasjon så hadde det holdt lenge å bombe Afghanistan flatt istedefor å gå inn i landet. Tror nok målet til Bush og co er å fjerne Taliban fra Afghanistan, men det er nok vel så mye for å fjerne en fiende som det er for å spre demokrati og menneskerettigheter til Afghanistan.

[Kubin]

Europeans See What America Cannot

 

Det trengs ti ganger så mange soldater i Afghanistan. Så slaget er vel i realiteten tapt.

 

"At this week's NATO conference in Vilnius, Lithuania, an angry U.S. Secretary of Defence Robert Gates accused some Europeans of not being prepared to "fight and die" in Afghanistan in the battle against the Taliban.

 

The undiplomatic Gates is quite right. Most Europeans regard the Afghan conflict as a. wrong and immoral; b. America's war; c. all about oil; or d. probably lost.

 

To many Europeans, the NATO alliance was created to deter the real threat of Soviet aggression, not to supply foot soldiers for George Bush's wars in the Muslim world.

 

While Gates and the Harper government were pleading for more troops, the commander of the 40,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan, U.S. Gen. Dan McNeill, landed a bombshell. If proper U.S. military counter-insurgency doctrine were followed, McNeill admitted, the U.S. and NATO would need 400,000 troops to defeat Pashtun tribal resistance in Afghanistan."

 

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/...4838323-sun.php

[DeathBabe]

Make love not warrrrr

[Kubin]

"Killing ourselves in Afghanistan.

 

In a secret meeting with a Taliban commander, I learned how Bush administration aid to Pakistan helps fund insurgents who kill U.S. troops.

 

(...)

 

The U.S. is paying for both sides of the war in Afghanistan. As is becoming increasingly clear, for at least two and a half years, and perhaps far longer, the Pakistani government has been receiving massive U.S. aid while its intelligence agency and elements of its military have been pursuing their own anti-American agenda within Afghanistan. The U.S. has given the Musharraf regime $10 billion since Sept. 11, 2001, but Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and factions within the Pakistan army, while helping the U.S. track al-Qaida with one hand, have been aiding the Taliban with the other, both inside Afghanistan and across the Pakistani border in Tribal Areas like North Waziristan. In part because of Pakistani help, the Taliban have made a steady comeback and American and Afghan casualties are at their highest annual levels since the war began.

 

(...)

 

Muhammed said the ISI had helped train and arm him to fight inside Afghanistan against U.S. and international coalition forces since 2002. "If the world can know what happens inside the Tribal Areas, maybe Afghanistan has a chance to survive," he said. "Like this, the war will not end." "

 

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/03/10/taliban/

[After Dark]

Så hva mener du er det rette å gjøre i Afghanistan?