egafd.com

Yes, folks, the "Lets kick Osama`s arse in Afghanistan Show" has been
running 10 years this week ! I did, for my own amusement, a little
comparison with our biggest previous foray into that country, the 2nd
Afghan War 1878-80. Currently we have 10,000 troops in Afghanistan.
In 1879 Lord Roberts of Kandahar had two divisions under his command
totalling 20,000 men. That old war saw a casualty list running into many
thousands. So far we have lost just 912 dead and wounded including
380 brave soldiers who have given their lives. But its the financial cost
that is most staggering. The 1878-80 War cost, allowing for inflation to
today`s prices, was ?1.6 billion. The current war is running at a staggering
?13.3 billion !! An utter waste of men and money having achieved very
little in its violent decade.

Yep, just nuke the whole fuckin place - end of !!

Is the world a safer place after 10 years fighting in Afghanistan, probably not, will it eventually be a safer place, I hope so, anyone who knows anything about Afghan history knows you can?t win a war there ever, let alone in a few years, but change is possible.

Is Afghanistan a better and safer place for women to live? Yes.
Are women now being educated again? Yes.
Is free thinking no longer punishable by death? Depends who and where you are.
Can the Afghan people look after themselves, well we will find out in 2014

?13.3 billion in 10 years does not seem that much to me, and how is it calculated, is it the total cost of the British army being there including wages etc, if so it is a fake figure as wages get paid anyway, is it the extra cost of being there, then as I said earlier, it does not seem that high, when collecting bins every week costs the government an extra 250 million.

380 brave soldiers losing their lives, you would not want one to die, but statistically it is an incredible low number for 10 years. I would also be interested to know what the average yearly death rate in the army is not in war, I think you would be incredible surprised at how high it is, soldiering in or out of conflict is extremely dangerous.

There were 2 main issues with Afghanistan first was it was a breeding ground for terrorists, and second it was run by a barbaric regime in the Taliban. Both have been snubbed out, the Taliban are no longer in control, and the terrorist training camps have moved to Pakistan, leaving Afghanistan as a place for them to return to fight. Will they both return when we leave? Only time will tell, the answer though is probably yes.

So should we be there, yes, as a cizilized nation/people we have a duty to uphold people less fortunate than us? basic human rights. If the Taliban return when we go, should we return? I would say yes. We have to see the job through to the end, even if it takes a quarter of a century.

Is that really what you think?

Totally agree..over three hundred Brit lives lost for fuck all and limitless families ravaged.Our squalid politicians too bottleless to call an end to this farce.When we eventually withdraw and the place reverts to Taliban control as it surely will will we go back in?Will we fuck.Shame that our people have to risk bullets for the likes of Bush Blair Brown and Cameron.If it wasn't so tragic it would be funny.

Problem is it takes six or seven killed at once to stir our gutless lot at Westminster.The trickle trickle of the dead merits just a few lines in news bulletins.Always ending 'his family have been informed'.Thank God none of my family are fighting out there.Not in my fucking name.

Good post, Zorro.

Sadly, freedom, justice, equality and tolerance has always come at a very heavy price. Do we think the millions of Europeans killed over the centuries was worth it us to have what we have today? I'd have to say yes.

And I along with the rest of the UK taxpayers are bored shitless by this total waste of British manpower and money. Bring the boys home Dave and let the war mongering Yanks keep their war on terror (i.e. Islam) going. Rule Britannia and fuck the rest.

"anyone who knows anything about Afghan history knows you can?t win a war there ever, let alone in a few years"

This is incorrect. What you can say is that the Afghans put up a really good fight. Since Afghanistan emerged as a modern state, there have been three wars with Britain. The British invasion of 1839 produced initial victory for the intruders followed by stunning defeat followed by a second victory. In 1878, the British invaded again. Though they suffered a major defeat at Maiwand, their main army beat the Afghans. The British then re-drew the frontier of British India up to the Khyber Pass, and Afghanistan had to cede various frontier areas. In the Third Anglo-Afghan war, the fighting was launched by the Afghans. Amanullah Khan sent troops into British India in 1919. Within a month they were forced to retreat, in part because British planes bombed Kabul in one of the first displays of airpower in central Asia. The war ended in tactical victory for the British but their troop losses were twice those of the Afghans, suggesting the war was a strategic defeat. The British abandoned control of Afghan foreign policy at last.

"Can the Afghan people look after themselves, well we will find out in 2014"

Obviously not. Given the Afghan people and 140,000 foreign troops cannot defend Afghanistan against the Taliban insurgency to any great extent (see recent interview with Karzai on security and regular attacks in Kabul). THen clearly the removal of 140,000 troops is not going to produce the required result.

"13.3 billion in 10 years does not seem that much to me"

It does for me to produce a situation where 140,000 troops cannot even bring safety to the heavily fortified locations in the capital, Kabul. As I am sure you are aware, unlike John Wayne, it isnt the British fighting this war alone.

"380 brave soldiers losing their lives, you would not want one to die, but statistically it is an incredible low number for 10 years."

Brown University in the United States says at least 33,877 people -- foreign and Afghan troops, civilians, insurgents and others -- have died, while the US Congress says America alone has spent at least $444 billion. Let us not forget the poor sods we are allegedly protecting.

"There were 2 main issues with Afghanistan first was it was a breeding ground for terrorists, and second it was run by a barbaric regime in the Taliban. Both have been snubbed out, the Taliban are no longer in control"

Stanley McChrystal, former US commander in Afghanistan, was quoted as saying that NATO was "a little better than" halfway to achieving its military goals. Former British ambassador to Kabul, Sherard Cowper-Coles, wrote a scathing review of Western strategy in The Daily Telegraph under the headline "It's a fantasy to think we are winning the war in Afghanistan".
"Without a credible political product to offer populations caught in the crossfire, no settlement will hold. That is the fatal flaw in the whole intervention," he wrote.

Clearly, tHe only solution to this war is for the Allies and Karzai is to do a deal with the Taliban.

Cheers
D

"Do we think the millions of Europeans killed over the centuries was worth it us to have what we have today? I'd have to say yes."

This strikes me as claptrap. In what sense were the deaths of millions of Europeans in the First World War "worth it"? Particularly given the settlement forced on Germany at the end of the war was an important factor in Hitler's rise to power?

CHeers
D

[quote]This strikes me as claptrap. In what sense were the deaths of millions of Europeans in the First World War "worth it"?[/quote]

Given that it was the beginning of the end for European empires and expansionism. Given that we stopped three more empires (Ottoman/German/Austro-Hungarian) replacing the old British/French/Portuguese/Spanish empires, which they would have done had those allies not given up their lives for that cause. And thus British-styled Anglo-American democracy won out the despotic monarchies of the German and Ottoman empires.

So, a profound and definite 'yes' from me. They gave their lives for a very worthy cause. If you think the world would have been better had they not given their lives and the Second Reich and the Ottomans had carved up all the land from China to South Africa then that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. The Turks and Germans would have enslaved Africa all over again for a start. Was all that death horrific? Yes. Tragic and sad? Yes. Immensely regrettable? Yes. But worth it given the likely alternative? Hell, yes.

[quote]Particularly given the settlement forced on Germany at the end of the war was an important factor in Hitler's rise to power?[/quote]

You're talking of the settlement, not the war.