to be sick of hearing about soldiers being killed in afghanistan

[southeastastra]

and think we should pull out

Yes, let's all argue abut a thread title and then we don't have to think about the utter futility and political expediency of Britain's current "adventures" abroad. So mcuch easier that way.

People join the military (not just the army) for 101 reasons. There are so many different trades across all 3 services it is not as simple as "soldier" "pilot" or "sailor".

We went in to Afghanistan in October 2001 following 9/11 in order to deal with the terrorist training camps and to deal with the narcotics issues; both of which were designed to save lives. It was a critical time, following the assassination on 9/9 of Ahmad Shah Massoud.

ISAF is NATO led, but was established by UN Resolution 1386. It was mandated to secure Kabul and surrounding areas from the Taliban, al Qaeda and factional warlords, so as to allow an independent and democratic Afghan government to become established. That's still not been achieved.

And it's not about oil - there isn't any.

UK remains likely to contribute to UN military missions.

Oh BTW, the military is essentially up to strength (recruiting in some trades periodically suspended) and anyone who approaches with an attitude of "can't get anything else, so this'll do" is very unlikely to get at the moment.

beertrickspotter

I do hope you realise how hurtful saying 'It's all about oil. That's all it's ever been about', is to those of us with loved ones in the forces. :(

My dh is there at the moment. I understand Southeastastra what you meant by the thread title but I think it was very insensitive. You should be thankful that you only get to hear what is in the news rather than what is actually happening in reality out there. It really annoys me that some peole seem to have an opinion based on what they hear on the news or read in the paper. Regardless of why/if you think our armed forces should be there they are. My dh is in the thick of it so to speak at the moment and moral is low. Instead of making silly comments I'm sure your support would be better received if you were to do something useful to support them.

ll31- Are you for real??

Afghanistan's oil and gas deposits are negligible. There is a pipeline, but that wouldn't be a reason for war because most western governments and oil companies prefer an export route from the Caspian Sea to Azerbaijan and Georgia and on to the Black Sea over one through Afghanistan. (Bypassing Russia and Iran would break their collective monopoly on regional energy supplies).

Sandy, where else would people get their opinions from, though? I think that's the problem - lots of us don't know what to think and just feel awful that people are dying. I'm absolutely sure that's too simple a view, but it's not insensitive, surely?

Best wishes for your DH.

SandyChick, Unfortunately unless you know someone in the forces who has been to afghan the papers, news, internet is all they have to go by so you cant fault them for that. They cant exactly rock up to some camp and ask the lad on duty his experiences and views.

Perhaps for background, you might like to look at this. OK, it's Wiki, but I think people may have forgotten what their rule was/is like. They make Ghadaffi's Libya look benign and enlightened.

Yes, human rights in Afghanistan were hideous. But I don't see us invading China. Or israel. And we didn;t get involved in Rwanda.

Could we please stop calling Afghanistan 'Afghan'? That is offensive too. If you can't be bothered to type its proper name, just use A.

And agree with seeker. There is much more to it than human rights. When it comes down to it, we have a history of not getting involved in the very worst of human rights situations.

Ive never heard that one before, how is Afghan offensive?

dss is in Afghanistan atm. I read it as op being sick with horror. This will be his last tour. I feel sick too, esp when they say, 'The family has been informed'. And then feel a bit guilty because it is not us. (btw, op has been here for donkey's years)

It is incorrect. It's an adjective or as a noun is used to describe a person coming from Afghanistan. It's offensive because it shows that you don't care enough to use the whole word so you've gone with a shortened version that has a different meaning.

Another example would be "I'm going to Thai for my holidays". Disrespectful.

So its laziness on my part, thats all, not offensive really! Its actually now popularly know as "the ghan" so im doing pretty well by getting the Af in......

You don't have to know someone in the forces to find out what our armed forces do and I don't expect everyone to be experts but People don't make the effort to find things out for themselves they just listen to what is fed to them by the media. People can be really ignorant. I'm sure alot of people think that the armed forces are a bunch of 17 year old squaddies all out in afghan.

Totally agree, the info is there is people want it but those just just grab the snippets of news here and there are misinformed by no fault of their own. I really do hope people don't assume that.

southstar- glad your dh is home safe. Enjoy the post deployment leave

Still offensive, but definitely not as bad as "The Ghan"!

What the Taliban do is way beyond the sorts of human rights abuses in China et al. And indeed everywhere else: in 1998, Physicians for Human Rights said: "To PHR's knowledge, no other regime in the world has methodically and violently forced half of its population into virtual house arrest, prohibiting them on pain of physical punishment". Their paper on "the Taliban's War on Women" makes sobering reading.

I think the lessons learned from Rwanda (and Bosnia) may have coloured thinking about intervention - in that the international community no longer seemed minded to ignore systematic killing of civilians (even though it took 7 years from the start of the Taliban's military activities until intervention, during which time there were at least 15 massacres). Human Rights Watch reported that only Massoud stood between the Taliban and future massacres. And he was assassinated in September 2001.

By 2009 it was estimated that the Taliban were responsible for about 75% of civilian deaths in Afghanistan.

At the time of the invasion, the terrorist training camps were probably the tipping factor (especially immediately post 9/11), but the opium supply was hardly trivial (75% of world supply in 2000).

Ty Sandy, but if only. He is part of TRB so the waiting game is just begining! I hope your count down flys by.

"What the Taliban do is way beyond the sorts of human rights abuses in China et al."

China also has a much biger army and massively important trade links.

The British government did not look round the world and choose, in a purely altruistic way, the country with the worst human rights record to invade.

Forces people refer to Afghanistan as "Afghan", "Ganners" etc as a way to soften the reality - gallows humour if you will.
They often refer to the Taliban as "Terry" too. You have to understand the Forces mindset, sometimes a joke or a nickname is the only way to help yourself deal with the harsh realities of your job.