ive just seen the news....

[stokemaveric]

and our troops are losing their lives in afghanistan to secure a few mud huts with blokes wandering around with rags on their heads im sure there are wider implications but good god is this what this war is all about?? taking command of some god forsaken civilisation who dont know the meaning of the word..and probably dont want ''saving'' anyway....

[ummmm]

No WBM....You're not the only ones that can see that.

[Sqad]

wbm..No, there are millions that agree with us, but they are not privileged to be on AB, like "wot we are."

[zzxxee]

i totally agree with everything ahmskunnirt has said it is a no win war he has put his point across very well and in an intelligent way well done someone who talks sense xx

[zzxxee]

i will get other half on to debate later about this someone who has actually been to iraq and afghanistan !!!!!

[waterboatman]

you're right there sqad. Unfortunately there are people who will refuse to see, or acknowledge that simple truth. I wish there was another way, but right now there isn't, because the likes of bin laden will not talk. They only want to destroy all that is good, like freedom, and will not see anyone else's point of view, or accept other people's values. They only want to get their own way by violence. We cannot let them do that, for reasons already stated.

[Sqad]

wbm......a bit of straight talking:

I couldn't care less about the standard of living for most Afghanis.
I couldn't care less about the women being second class citizens.
I could n't care less about the lack of education.
I couldn't care less about the "Poppy Fields"

I COULD care about:

Training grounds for Islamic Extremists, too willing to spread terrorism throughout the world with the killing and maiming of totally innocent women and children, ruining families by taking away the bread winners.

So there are other hot spots of terrorism throughout the world and yes they may have to be "dealt with"

Winnable? what are the military objectives..to clear out the Taliban and create a "holding" situation in an effort to educate the Afghans into a democratic society.

If they don't want it.......tough.....WE do.

Coalition forces have my support and yes, military and civilian personel will die, unfortunate, but that is the price we have to pay.

[waterboatman]

Exactly right sqad. Very well put.

[waterboatman]

Time for me to go. But before I do, I'd just like to tell those that think I don't know what I'm talking about. I am an ex-soldier with the medals and scars to prove it. In fact I was invested with one on Thursday from the Malaysian government for service in their country, fighting for their freedom. They DO appreciate our soldiers efforts in their defence.

[ummmm]

Good on ya WBM :-) xx

[jno]

we went in there to root out the the Taliban government and the Al-Qaeda movement they were sponsoring, following the 9/11 attacks. I don't have any problem with that; further attacks needed to be nipped in the bud.

I didn't think we'd succeed, but I was very nearly wrong. We actually came quite close. But then Bush took his eye off the ball and decided to invade Iraq as well, and Blair of course went along with this. We had no particular business being in Iraq, and it meant our efforts were divided.

Now we've left the Iraqis to it, possibly a bit better placed than they were before (and perhaps with a government that might sell us cheaper oil, which we all want, don't we?) But in Afghanistan we're going nowhere. Should we pull out, leave the Taliban to regroup and sponsor more 9/11-style attacks? Or keep at it? People are likely to die either way. If we stay, they'll be soldiers. If we pull out, they're more likely to be innocent civilians.

[Sqad]

jno...I agree with almost all you say.

Once the decision to act by force in Afghanistan is made then it has to be seen through to the end.

What constitutes "the end" is quite a different matter.

Pull out now, the Taliban will regroup and the question will be what have our 260+ soldiers died for and to me, even more important, what have the same number of soldiers lost their limbs and future for?

[Sqad]

kunni.....al those facts are correct.

That was then, this is now.

So, I assume that you would pull out of Afghanistan, leaving it to the rest of the Allied Forces?

That is an opinion that millions would agree with and millions would disagree with.

[jno]

ahmskunnirt, in spite of the lessons of history, I think the west actually came close to victory in Afghanistan this time. (I'm not saying they wouldn't have followed it up by making a right mess of it.) But they then chose to split their attention, and their resources, between there and Iraq, and the mission was doomed from that point on. A pity because Bush could really have made history with that one - and in, I think, a decent cause. Instead he and Blair will go down as failed warmongers.