Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Barry, your argumentation does not add up. Basically you say that our soldiers and those of other countries have to be present in Afghanistan because Pakistan has nuclear weapons.
No British minister or military officer has ever stated this.
So it's not conclusive as an argument and won't bring us anywhere, in particular because Britain's military presence in Afghanistan is set to end in 2014.
We all know that the Taliban will be stronger and more popular by then among the Pashtun Afghans, and everyone in Britain knows that every British soldier killed from now until the day they leave that country is a wasted life, someone who died for no reason at all, as the Taliban will be in power as soon as the British and allied soldiers return home.
This is so unacceptable, and it has absolutely nothing to do with Pakistani nuclear weapons.
Your whole point is wrong, when you say the Pakistani Taleban could take over in Pakistan. They can't, because they too are Pashtuns, or closely related to them, and live in northern Pakistan, in regions bordering on to Afghanistan, whereas the majority of Pakistanis are closer related to the Indians.
The Taleban are an ethnic group, more than religious or political, and stand no chance of gaining power - in particular through force, in Pakistan.
Another point you got wrong is northern Afghanistan. The Taliban never controlled that area even when they were in power, because the north of that country is inhabited by Tajiks and Uzbeks, who had - and have - their own militias, and they prevented the Taliban from ever gaining control of the northern areas.
The Afghan situation is purely ethnical, as too the situation in Pakistan. The nuclear weapons cannot fall in the hands of the Taliban, who belong to ethnical populations, or tribes, living in northern Pakistan and about tho thirds of Afghanistan.
I know from experience that you will totally ignore these facts, and go on equiperating the Taleban to an international terrorist group called Al Quaeda, which the Taleban inherited when they came to power in the 90s, after Al Quaeda was already present and were allies of the Mujahedin who fought the Soviet soldiers.
At the end of the day, when our soldiers do pull out of Helmand province, every man and woman in our Forces killed there will have been sacrificed for nothing, for no reason. And all the wounded will have endured suffering to the end of their day for nothing.
And Pakistan will still have nuclear weapons.
Fortunately, much of what you are saying is not said by government ministers in Westminster, and hopefully we will see a change of policy very soon, long before 2014, and a British withdrawal from Afghanistan, especially since Liam Fox has been disgraced and dismissed.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Alexander - of course they would not state that, it is an unstated reason for diplomatic reasons.
The reason for going in to Afghanistan in the first place was its use as a training camp for terrorists and to get rid of the Taliban regime that was sponsoring them. The reason for staying in 'ghan is to support the new government and help them with fighting the Taliban while training their own police and army units. Pakistan's nuclear weapons and their vulnerability to the Taliban is just another reason for being there and a very good one, possibly the most important of all.
We have to hope that the Afghan government will be militarily strong enough to stand on its own two feet by then and to defend itself against the crazies.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
we can only hope that barryw has got some of it right
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
At the bottom of all this I have been saddened by the fact that we have taken children from the early years of primary education, up through secondary, into the army and back home in a bag in the time this so-called war has been going on, and yet on it goes.
There's money to be made in war, pure and simple.
What would poor politicians have going for them with no armed conflicts to crow about? We are rightly concerned by the effects all of this has on our own children, but many children, the world over, grow to adulthood (by chance?) knowing nothing but conflict.
Twenty-first century, (thriving, stable, representative?) Democracy abounds and yet we are still fighting WWII.
What does all of this add to our borrowing? Why do we accept the necessity to spend-spend-spend to kill to "preserve our institutions', and at the same time penny-pinch in every area where our Civilisation and Humanity could/should/does shine forth as a mark of our national achievements?
Why is it that we can bomb, belittle and impoverish our fellow human beings only to throw-up our hands when they seek our shores to avoid what we do to them at 'home'?
The love of money and the overweening desire to keep it all where it is?
The only conclusion I can come up with is that the human race is farmed.
Some raised for slaughter and some for breeding and by-jingo is there ever a stink when that plan wobbles.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Ahhh Tom, our history has been littered with people who think the way you do and when such thoughts take root in government they end up costing a lot of young lives.
I wonder how many fewer young men (and women) would have died in WW2 if Churchill's arguments to re-arm had been listened to a lot sooner. So often we make the same mistake, cut back on defence, appease a potential aggressor and then having it blow up in our face. We are cutting defence now and that is bad enough when we really should be strengthening our defences and you seem to advocate going further. Complete madness in a dangerous world.
Keith - what do you hope I have got right? I wish I were wrong as a matter of fact. If I had a real solution that comment would make sense but I said I have not. Right now all we can do is fight the crazies and strengthen 'Ghan government and hope that when we withdraw we don't end up having to go back in again.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
You have a fine pair of crystal balls there Barry. With your 'what-ifs'. No mention as to cost though...funny that.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
terrorist training/recruiting camps are in our prisons as reported by the prison officers association.
prisons are mostly populated by people who would find tying their own shoe laces a problem to surmount, ideal for others to spin their evil to.
another batch were sent down yesterday for planning a major atrocity, it is expected they will be out in 6 years.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
I dont disagree there Howard - we can be our own worse enemy but be nevertheless will not solve that problem by letting another one develop elsewhere.
Tom - no, common sense and learning from past mistakes that have been made time after time. A modern military force cannot be whistled up just like that just out of thin air when needed - you have to maintain a well equipped, well trained, flexible and professional force able to respond to a variety of threats to unconventional and asymmetrical threats. That takes money and a minimum force level, we are at risk of falling below that minimum requirement in particular with naval forces and indeed there is a good case to say that we are already below what is needed. The other key advantage to such a force of course is its deterrence value. Argentina would be a lot less beligerent now if we had a conventional carrier available and even in 1982 would not have acted if the old Ark Royal was still in service.
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,707
Would that be the Taliban that was trained and armed by the CIA, MI6 & the SAS?
As for energy, the Caspian basin is one of the largest untapped oil reserves globally at the present - the quickest East - West route is by pipeline through - yes you got it Afghanistan
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
so this report is not secret anymore,and might have guessed oill is at the bottom of it.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Keith, Barry did not get it right. He says the Taliban are a threat to Pakistan and want to take the Pakistani nuclear missiles. This is not so
The Taliban in Afghanistan are not at war with Pakistan, but are controlled and armed and sponsored by Pakistan, housed and trained on Pakistani territory and offered there a safe-haven, as was Bin Laden.
Pakistan has blocked all supply routed to Nato soldiers in Afghanistan, for several months now, because they are in fact controlling the Taliban and telling them what to do, where and when.
So how on Earth would the Afghan Taliban wage a war on Pakistan, and get to the nuclear arsenals, if Pakistan controls the Taliban and supplies them with roadside bombs and detonation technology to blow up British and American soldiers?
Keith, it is a NATO report that states all this, try reading it.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
not reading other people's post properly is a sin committed by most of us alex as evidenced by your reading of barry's post.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
Alexander unless you have inside knowledge you do not know what the Taliban or Pakistan want to do with their nuclear missiles.
Howard, agreed
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Jan, the Taliban have no nuclear missiles. Pakistan has them, having developed and constructed them.
I have no knowledge what Pakistan wants to do with them, but presumably they are in connection with India having developed and built nuclear weapons before Pakistan did.
These two countries have been at war three times since 1948 over Kashmir, which is 60% Indian controlled and 40% Pakistani controlled.
Pakistan's nuclear weapons do not come in the context of the secret Nato report which became public after it was revealed to the media the other day. Their nuclear missiles have nothing to do with British or allied soldiers being in Afghanistan.
It is Barry who keeps inventing this story, even though the British Government, both the present and the past, have never stated that our or other soldiers are in Afghanistan in relation to Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.
I have not misread Barry's post, Howard, and Barry has been bringing this subject up about Pakistani nuclear weapons every time anyone mentions British soldiers being killed in Afghanistan.
So, IF, as Barry suggests, the British Government, past and present, send our soldiers to be killed in Afghanistan because Pakistan has nuclear weapons, then why have they not told this to the British soldiers and to their families?
Why do they not tell the families of hundreds of dead British soldiers that the mission for which their beloved were sent to Afghanistan (fighting the Taliban and training Afghan soldiers and Police) is FALSE, and in reality they are there for another mission, namely to guard, protect??? control from the distance??? Pakistan's nuclear arsenal?.
In fact, the British Government don't have to, because what Barry is saying anout our soldiers being there because of nuclear weapons in P'stan is a pure invention.
They are officially there to train Afghan police and soldiers and fight the Taliban.
However, everyone, including NATO intelligence, knows that the Afghan police and army are giving the weapons they receive from the West to the Taliban to kill our and allied soldiers, and everyone knows that the Taliban are becoming more popular in Afghanistan and very soon will be a part of a new government there.
The novelty to all this, which I found in the Nato report, was that the Pakistani government and secret service are actually supplying the roadside bombs to the Taliban and telling them what to do, and are doing everything to prevent peace in Afghanistan, because Pakistan wants the Taliban in power, who depend on Pakistan, and not Karzai, the western backed president in Kabul, who could open up relations with India.
My point is, why are British soldiers being murdered in Afghanistan when we all know that their mission is doomed, and was doomed, from the start?
They must return home now!
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Have you found a link to the full NATO report Alex?
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Alexander - you always just try to make everything fit whatever you want it to fit... Thankfully there are people rather more in tune with reality than you.
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
Alexander I was assuming if in the future the Taliban got nuclear weapons from Pakistan.
I doubt if there is a single person in the United Kingdom who WANTS our troops to be there but most will understand the reason they are.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Well said Jan. Alex is not interested in what you actually said though.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Peter, the only link is that supplied in post 1, to SKY News.
Sky has seen the whole document, and commented on the essential points.
Last night I found that the BBC also had access to the NATO document, and had commented on it in as much the same way as SKY.
Apparently it was secret, and somehow has been leaked to the British media.
What I do know is that today, the governments of various countries, including ours, have decided to discuss an early withdrawal of the allied forces from Afghanistan, no longer by 2014, but much earlier.
The secret Nato document that has been leaked has caused this decision, as the governments concerned know that any further military action in Afghanistan is unsustainable, that any more deaths or injuries of our soldiers there will not be accepted by the public.
The knowledge that Pakistan is training and arming the Taliban and supplying them with roadside bombs and detonation equipment, and that the Afghan police and military are increasingly giving or selling their western-made weapons to the Taliban, will come as a shock-wave to the public of all countries whose soldiers are fighting in Afghanistan.
The shock will probably take a few days to get over, before there is a mighty public outcry supported by the media.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Jan, believe me, Pakistan will not give nuclear weapons to the Taliban.
Fortunately, Pakistan is not interested in big-time world politics, and neither are the Taliban.
But P/stan has a dispute with India over Kashmir. Hopefully the two countries will avoid another war over that territory and resolve their differences amicably.
The USA are about to withdraw 93,000 soldiers from Helmand province, long before 2014. That would leave only the 9,000 British soldiers in Helmand and the Afghan units that are still not trained, providing they still have their weapons and haven't given them to the Taliban.
So this would mean that either Britain send 93,000 more soldiers to Helmand to replace the Americans, or our 9,000 soldiers there, left on their own, stand and die as once our brave soldiers did in the 19th century in the same Afghanistan.
Only the Canadian soldiers would be at the side of ours, all the others have decided to depart with the Americans.
The French are pulling out their 4,000 soldiers from strategic supply routes long before 2014, and so no-one will be able to stop the Taliban bringing in men and arms to Helmand province unhindered.
And Pakistan a few months back closed all supply routes to British and allied soldiers in Afghanistan after an American drone killed some Pakistani soldiers inside a Taliban training camp in Pakistan!
The situation has drastically changed, Jan; Pakistan has turned against our soldiers in Afghanistan, and they cannot be exposed any longer.