If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
He's just a blatant troll.
/ignore
:yes:
He has...
That said I can't see why. He advanced a view badly and was a bit of a twat, but if we banned everyone like that they'd be no-one left
You should answer that question yourself!
According to NY Times, based on US army logs published on wikileaks.org http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/world/asia/26warlogs.html?pagewanted=all , the war is not going as good as media says.
Quote:
"[the logs] are a daily diary of an American-led force often starved for resources and attention as it struggled against an insurgency that grew larger, better coordinated and more deadly each year”
Also you are mistaken in "The sooner the Taliban come to the negotiating table the better the deal they'll be able to get".
When invasion started, coalition forces had no intention to negotiate with Taliban. But since the war is getting tougher and more expensive, public opinion at home is leaning towards oposition, coalition wish to negotiate, while Taliban keeps doing what they were doing for many years since 1979, fighting against invaders.
Coalition wants to leave Afghanistan and keep its face, they can't do it without defeating the Taliban, or without formal negotiations. US and UK need to get to negotiations ASAP, not Taliban.
According the principles of ANY law, you can't legalise an act on the "post factum" basis, meaning that ISAF mandate from december 2001 doesn't legalise US/UK invasion in october 2001 and mandate from 2003 doesn't legalise previous ISAF involvement in other areas than Kabul surroundings.
I would like to point out, that there were 3 terrorist attacks in UK I know about conducted by islamic extremists, first of them happened almost 4 years AFTER UK troops went to Afghanistan!
- 2005 London bombing
- 2007 Glasgow airport
- 2008 failed Exeter bombing
Before that, there was NO islamic terrorists attack on UK soil!
So how did the "protection from terrorists" worked out?
Anyway, is there anything you would like to say on the topic?
1. Under what law.
2. In which court.
It's my broken record moment.
You also haven't actually answered Flash's point about Taliban/Al Q change in tactics because they were losing. Eventually the ISAF forces will change their tactics and the Taliban/Al Q will react. It's how wars are fought.
Yes I'm being picky, but did George Bush actually declare war on Afghanistan? no.
Luckily I don't get my info from the media or wikileaks. All those leaks are telling us is that war is brutal (knew that), that NATO doesn't report all civilian deaths to the media (knew that) and that the civvies killed by NATO are much smaller than those killed by the Taliban (knew that). Also that the Special Forces are targetting Talibam (and I was pretty sure that was the case)
Why am I mistaken? What is said for public consumption on negotiation isn't what is said in public and indeed what diplomats and politicos are currently saying on negotiation is part of a much wider strategy. The Taliban aren't going to get control of Afghanistan unless we decide to let them. But then we're not going to stick to a war of genocide, we negotiated with the Germans and Japanese in 1945 rather than kill every last one, it's the same with Afghanistan. The sooner they negotiate the more likely they are to get little things, the big thing they want is out of their reach by military means.
I think he was banned for repeatedly posting links to dodgy propaganda websites in the 'protein' thread.
Well, I thought that's obvious, also, someone already wrote it on this thread, maybe with different wording:
1. International law, more precisely Public international law, even more precisley, UN Charter.
2. There is no court, enforcement is up to security council of UN. Since US and UK have right of veto, the law in this particular cause will never be enforced. However, lack of viable enforcement doesn't mean the law is void.
You are accusing me of not answering Flash's point, but you haven't answered any of my points! Anyway, I beieve I did answer his point by saying that Talibans are not losing and basicaly nothing of what he thinks about Taliban's change of tactic is based on truth, at least that's what leaked US military logs are inducing (have you read the NY times link I included? or the afghan war leaked info on wikileaks.org?). This is the latest, up-to-date informaion directly from the battlefield, not Flash's feelings and wishes.
That's not all what those leaks are saying. For example, Pakistan playing on both sides, internal clashes between Afghan army and police, huge corruption of new Afghan governement and officials, police and army's brutality towards civilians - that leads to population's growing support for Taliban.
Winning population support is what this war is about, really.
Btw what are your sources? The best one I found are internet and media, if you have some more accurate and reliable, please share!
I'm saying, coalition is trying to negotiate with Taliban. Taliban is consistently ignoring them. It is up to coalition to interest Taliban in negotiation, therefore they have 2 options.
1. Escalate the war so Taliban will be force to come to some peace terms. That would support your theory. However, the war is the longest war US ever fought and the end is not near.
2. Escalate benefits Taliban gets from negotiations. That's my theory, and I believe it is more feasible.
However, I'm not sure Taliban will be ever interested in negotiations.
I would go so far to say that Taliban can't be defeated, this culture is deep in Afghan people. They are fighters.
Sooner or later coalition will leave Afghanistan, then one of two things happen, either Taliban fights its way back to power against new gov't, or it will be part of new gov't. I believe that second option is more acceptable. That's why I think coalition should be the one who tries to lure Taliban to negotiations, not the other way around.
I dont think you understand the concept of counter insurgency operations.
So, the law you want to use is the UN Charter. The defence being "self-defence" and given the NATO agreement and the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Centre (plus attacks on US Embassies and Naval Vessels which preceded those) chances are that defence would stick.
Oh, and there's no court.
Kind of kills the argument really, wouldn't you say?
Afghanistan didn't do any of that. None of the terrorists was Afghani and Afghanistan's gov't was not involved in attacks.
Well, the truth is that there is International Court of Justice, that should resolve cases passed to it by SC UN. That's never gonna happen, of course.
Anyway, existence of the court doesn't give validity to the law. The law became valid after it is ratified by all the signataries.
Except the Taliban murdering lots more civilians looses them even more support. Now I'm not arguing its perfect or its not going to be a long hard slog, but I am arguing that we're not loosing and have the resources and infrastructure to keep going longer than the Taliban
Serving soldiers including brother, cousin and friends
Don't need to escelate (though more boots on the ground would help) and yes they may throw in a few trinkets, that's what negotiation is about. The taliban might not negotiate now, but they will eventually negotiate. They're getting steadily ground down, resources are tight, recruitment is hard and they're base of foreign jihadists is drying up.
We are trying to lure the Taliban into negotiations... but it won't be to negotiate their return to power. And if the fighting culture is deep in the Afghans, well most Afghans aren't Taliban...
And by the time we leave all that might be left of the Taliban is a couple of dozen fighters with AKs holed in some caves against a professionalised Afghan army and with plenty of the country having no wish to have their peace and security taken from them by a bunch of fanatics. That's why its in the Taliban's interests to negotiate.
Now all this is dependant on us not cutting and running. But yes if we cut and run the Taliban will possibly be back after a bloody war which makes the current hostilities seem like a pillow fight and we'll be back doing the same thing in ten years (or in Yemen or Somalia or wherever)
Just knowingly harbouring and supporting those that did, which is an act of war itself.
I may be proved wrong, but the UNSC cannot refer cases ther, it has to be a complaint from a nation state which is a member of the UN. Do you think that the regime in Afghanistan now will do that?
So, no case to answer and not court in which any case will be adressed.
Tell me again how you can therefore argue that the war is illegal, that those who ordered troops there are war criminals as are the soldiers who fought (and stilll fight) without libelling them all.
Oh please, in what universe is that an act of war? Afghanistan didn't extradite wanted criminals, ok, bad afghanistan!, but invasion is not adequate response for that. At least it's not acknowledged by any international treaty.
I'm not really sure I get your point. Are you saying, that when coalition forces replaced Afghan gov't, which won't be willing to call for justice against the coalition, then it makes the whole war just and legal?
Well, international law is kind of 'virtual', there is no sovereign authority that can impose and enforce law on the others. It is all based on n-lateral treaties, such as UN Charter for example. However, if any country breaches the treaty, there are not many other options for others than to express their disappointment. It is up to the international community to apply the pressure on the 'villain', but who would do that? No one, we are all happy allies, coz our economical relationships are more important than some kind of war in some kind of god forsaken country.
However, that won't change the fact there was no legal basis for the invasion.
Also there is something called "Just war", war has to fulfil few conditions to be considered one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War#Criteria_of_Just_War_theory
I do beleive, that war in Afghanistan fulfils only "Legitimate authority", and maybe "Right intention". There are 5 more conditions that I believe have not been met.
I would never call soliders criminals, not generally. If they do kill an enemy who has surrendered or torture prisoners or rape civilians or commit any other crime, that's something different. But I don't remember any case like that related to ISAF.
They are soldiers, they go where they are sent and it is not up to them to discuss or doubt the orders. They are willing to sacrifice thier lifes for the country, that's something I can only appreciate and value. On the other side, Mr. Blair might be accused of starting the war of aggression, together with Mr. Bush. But I highly doubt that, there isn't political will strong enough.
Regardless of legal or illegal, right or wrong, do we not owe our moral fibres and the people of Afghan the duty to finish what we started?
And the total I believe is 331 now.
We should evaluate each day on it's merits rather than say 'we can't pull out now, we've lost too much.' otherwise we end up in a situation where the casualties are piling up in a war that could never have its cost in blood justified but we fool ourselves into thinking by paying more blood we are honouring the dead.
I'm not saying we should pull out by the way, I just don't agree with the general argument saying that because we have so much already invested, we can't pull out until it's done. I'd certainly rather have the shame of defeat than the blood of 10,000 british soldiers on my hands. Then you just need to decide where to draw the line. Is 5,000 acceptable? 2,500? 1,000?
Ultimately wars come down to a numbers game - "Victory belongs to those that believe in it the most and believe in it the longest." Not that I don't think we're doing good and valuable work in securing the region btw, it's just at what cost. I could use a hundred more metaphors or proverbs but you get the picture.
The Afghan National Civil Order Police and the Afghan Uniform Police as coming on leaps and bounds allready. There has been an awfully great amount of loss in the country, as well as improvements.
Im not so much saying pulling out would mean previous efforts were meaningless. However the day is always at its darkest before the sun rises, and I'm sure it will be at its brightest, before our time in Afghan finishes.
It also makes me concerned exactly how many totalities occur at the hands of the insurgents. Its one thing to argue as goldsworth/steelgate would and say that it wouldnt happen if troops were not there, however I think the Taliban would still kill and behead people.
Once the country is sorted out to the standard we have stated it to be, things will be different.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/5080797/Hamid-Karzai-signs-law-legalising-rape-in-marriage.html
Its not right, but thats the way it has been done in that country for many a year, the politicians are likely to only be enshrining what has been done for many a year. So isnt it good that on the behest of ISAF and the UN that Karzai has agreed to look at reviewing law. Now I know thats still not acceptable, but had ISAF forces not being in Afghanistan women would likely have continued to have been raped whether there was a law allowing it or not.
there isn't any real attempts to change the culture though, it's just a classic enemy of my enemy is my friend rule, even if they have nearly the same beliefs of my enemy