Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 402

Try our Fantastic 5-Issue Bundle Offer! For just £18, a saving of 10% on the regular cover price, you’ll get:
The Play-offs Issue - pictured (out 12 Sept) – Covering the climax of the Super League & Championship seasons
The Grand Finals Issue (out 17 Oct) – Grand Final excitement from both sides of the world plus Four Nations preview
The Four Nations Issue (out 21 Nov) – Fantastic coverage of the Four Nations tournament down under
The Golden Boot Issue (out 19 Dec) – A look back at the 2014 season plus the big reveal of the winner of the Golden Boot
The 2015 Season Preview Issue (out 23 Jan) – How will your team perform in 2015? We preview every club.


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Surrender in Afghanistan

USA negotiates with Taliban

  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#1 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 10,059 posts

Posted 18 June 2013 - 02:09 PM

So many poor lives ruined.

 

Yo Blair. Thanks for everything.

<_<

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk...canada-22957819

 

Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#2 walter sobchak

walter sobchak
  • Coach
  • 1,862 posts

Posted 18 June 2013 - 02:31 PM

So many poor lives ruined.
 
Yo Blair. Thanks for everything.
<_<
 
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk...canada-22957819

 

Unwinable war, no invading and occupying army has ever conquered Afghanistan, not the British, soviet union, Alexander the great and now the US and NATO.

#3 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,833 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 12:09 PM

In some ways this resembles the IRA talks leading to a cease-fire in Northern Ireland: politicians openly risking voter dissatisfaction to attempt to negotiate peace.  Regardless of what people like to think back here in safe Britain, the Taliban are a major power in Afghanistan and without negotiation and compromise there will never be peace.  What's the alternative?  We keep bombing any gathering of Afghan people in the countryside while they keep bombing any non-Afghan in the country.  We made some morally dubious decisions to secure a cease-fire in Northern Ireland, including releasing some serious and nasty criminals, but I doubt anyone these days will question the long-term effectiveness of those negotiations.


Probably Winston Churchill's best quote: "To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war"


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#4 Phil

Phil
  • Coach
  • 1,906 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 12:42 PM

states have always negotiated with "terrorists" in order to gain a lasting peace. In my lifetime Britain has negotiated with the IRA and UDA/UVFV and Eoka in Cyprus.

 

Before that negotiations were entered into with the Kenyan Mau-Mau.

 

Every Government claims "we will never negotiate with terrorists"  obviously they do this in a completely cynical manner with an eye on the polls whilst all the while they are in negotiations with the "terrorists". Even Israel the hardest of the hardliners have negotiated with the PLO and more lately with Hamas and Hezbollah.

 

some of the "terrorists" are later re-invented as "statesmen" and are allowed openly into the hallowed halls of the international big boys.

 

Its not black and white its "politics" a real nasty business if there ever was one.


"Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality" - Mikhail Bakunin

#5 Marauder

Marauder
  • Coach
  • 11,799 posts

Posted 19 June 2013 - 01:05 PM

Some Taliban tribal leaders have been negotiating towards peace for a long time with the West and have pointed the finger towards the ISI as the reason why the war is trundling on.

states have always negotiated with "terrorists" in order to gain a lasting peace. In my lifetime Britain has negotiated with the IRA and UDA/UVFV and Eoka in Cyprus.

 

Before that negotiations were entered into with the Kenyan Mau-Mau.

 

Every Government claims "we will never negotiate with terrorists"  obviously they do this in a completely cynical manner with an eye on the polls whilst all the while they are in negotiations with the "terrorists". Even Israel the hardest of the hardliners have negotiated with the PLO and more lately with Hamas and Hezbollah.

 

some of the "terrorists" are later re-invented as "statesmen" and are allowed openly into the hallowed halls of the international big boys.

 

Its not black and white its "politics" a real nasty business if there ever was one.


Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.



http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

#6 T-Dub

T-Dub
  • Coach
  • 1,987 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 12:51 PM

All military conflicts end in negotiation between the participants to one degree or another

#7 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,865 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 01:35 PM

Unwinable war, no invading and occupying army has ever conquered Afghanistan, not the British, soviet union, Alexander the great and now the US and NATO.

The presence of NATO in Afghanistan is neither an invasion nor an occupation
Afghanistan isn't the enemy

Whether NATO should be there is highly debatable
But the willingness of both sides to talk is surely a good thing and is in no way a sign of surrender

If lives have been 'wasted' and I don't know whether that's the case or not, being willing to waste some more doesn't represent good thinking, otherwise we'd still be on the Somme 97 years later
WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#8 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,865 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 01:37 PM

states have always negotiated with "terrorists" in order to gain a lasting peace. In my lifetime Britain has negotiated with the IRA and UDA/UVFV and Eoka in Cyprus.

Before that negotiations were entered into with the Kenyan Mau-Mau.

Every Government claims "we will never negotiate with terrorists" obviously they do this in a completely cynical manner with an eye on the polls whilst all the while they are in negotiations with the "terrorists". Even Israel the hardest of the hardliners have negotiated with the PLO and more lately with Hamas and Hezbollah.

some of the "terrorists" are later re-invented as "statesmen" and are allowed openly into the hallowed halls of the international big boys.

Its not black and white its "politics" a real nasty business if there ever was one.


Yes indeed
WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#9 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 19,980 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 05:21 PM

A good mate of mine is from Afghanistan and he grew up in the 80's. Tells me some real hair raising tales about growing up. Tells it in a very matter of fact way too. He lived under the Taliban and it's really interesting to hear his stories.

No I don't care if you're if you're into different bands

No cause for so much hatred, I'm just a different man

Pull off that cover, I will too, and learn to understand

With music deep inside we'll make world unity our plan

 

7 Seconds -Walk Together, Rock Together


#10 GeordieSaint

GeordieSaint
  • Coach
  • 4,788 posts

Posted 20 June 2013 - 08:27 PM

The presence of NATO in Afghanistan is neither an invasion nor an occupation
Afghanistan isn't the enemy

Whether NATO should be there is highly debatable
But the willingness of both sides to talk is surely a good thing and is in no way a sign of surrender

 

There are some massive misconceptions, mistruths, blatant lies and a severe lack of understanding on all sides regarding the War in Afghanistan. The original poster and post #2 are way off the mark for example with their statements.

 

Ckn, Phil and T-Dub are correct in my opinion that you can't fight and finish a low-intensity conflict like in Afghanistan, Northern Ireland, Chechneya etc without engagement with those parties you are fighting against.


Kings Lynn Black Knights Rugby League Club - http://www.pitchero....nnblackknights/


#11 walter sobchak

walter sobchak
  • Coach
  • 1,862 posts

Posted 23 June 2013 - 07:10 AM

There are some massive misconceptions, mistruths, blatant lies and a severe lack of understanding on all sides regarding the War in Afghanistan. The original poster and post #2 are way off the mark for example with their statements.
 
Ckn, Phil and T-Dub are correct in my opinion that you can't fight and finish a low-intensity conflict like in Afghanistan, Northern Ireland, Chechneya etc without engagement with those parties you are fighting against.

The british(3 times) and the soviet union weren't defeated in Afghanistan?

#12 walter sobchak

walter sobchak
  • Coach
  • 1,862 posts

Posted 23 June 2013 - 07:15 AM

The presence of NATO in Afghanistan is neither an invasion nor an occupation
Afghanistan isn't the enemy
Whether NATO should be there is highly debatable
But the willingness of both sides to talk is surely a good thing and is in no way a sign of surrender
If lives have been 'wasted' and I don't know whether that's the case or not, being willing to waste some more doesn't represent good thinking, otherwise we'd still be on the Somme 97 years later

If tens of thousands of foreign soldiers with their attack helicopters, f-16's and unmanned drones were in the UK, you wouldn't consider the UK to be occupied?

#13 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,865 posts

Posted 23 June 2013 - 08:09 AM

If tens of thousands of foreign soldiers with their attack helicopters, f-16's and unmanned drones were in the UK, you wouldn't consider the UK to be occupied?

Add a few b52 s and nuclear submarines and you are on the money
The us has had a massive military presence in the uk since world war 2
Libya was bombed from lakenheath
There is a us spy base ten minutes drive from my home

If Afghanistan was 'occupied' it would be a hostile presence against that country.
WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#14 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,833 posts

Posted 23 June 2013 - 09:53 AM

The british(3 times) and the soviet union weren't defeated in Afghanistan?

A strange quirk in that but the USSR were invited in by the then mainly secular government of the day to help them secure against hard-line Islamic insurgents.  That simple statement needs an entire thesis worth of background and detail to put it into context but it was the government of the day that repeatedly asked the USSR for protection.  From the point that the Soviets sent in the troops they saw very similar sorts of conflict as we are seeing now there, albeit the 80s Taliban had US supplied weaponry including Stinger missiles to help deal with pesky helicopters.  The US armed with the experience of dealing with Vietnam passed on every single tactic that worked against them to the rebels in Afghanistan allowing them to run rings around the very slow and bulky Soviets who relied mainly on heavy armour to get around an environment that's not really suited to tanks.

 

Afghanistan, like Vietnam but in reverse, was an extension of the Cold War where the non-present superpower brutally and cynically used the local population to assault the present superpower and just did not care at all about the long-term damage or consequences to the war's host country.  30 years later, we're still dealing with the consequences of the interventions by the US, UK and USSR in Afghanistan.

 

The two 19th century British attacks into Afghanistan followed the same model, we attacked to subdue the unruly natives who were threatening the northern asian parts of the Empire.  The Russians were the puppet masters this time assisting the Afghans.  We went in there with 19th century field warfare tactics, a whole world of arrogance and an assumption we'd roll right over them, the Afghans didn't play ball though and refused to stand in line to be run to ground by our cavalry or form square to be shot at by our artillery.  The British generals, having refused to learn the lessons of the US independence war, still insisted that we could defeat anyone with a thin red line and artillery; this was an arrogance that led from the Napoleonic wars.

 

The next one is Syria, the insistence that we arm the rebels, who are on the side of the hard-line Islamic factions, is just a short-sighted plea to intervene again that will have nothing but long-term consequences if the rebels win.  If they win then the next target for them is Turkey with Israel probably wondering whether to support the short-term advantage of the rebels or the long-term advantage of keeping the devil they know.
 

Any politician that authorises an intervention on foreign soil should sign a covenant that he understands the long-term consequences and he'll be the first one on the ground if we have to go in in 20-30 years to fix any problems, regardless of his age.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#15 Phil

Phil
  • Coach
  • 1,906 posts

Posted 23 June 2013 - 10:01 AM

A strange quirk in that but the USSR were invited in by the then mainly secular government of the day to help them secure against hard-line Islamic insurgents.  That simple statement needs an entire thesis worth of background and detail to put it into context but it was the government of the day that repeatedly asked the USSR for protection.  From the point that the Soviets sent in the troops they saw very similar sorts of conflict as we are seeing now there, albeit the 80s Taliban had US supplied weaponry including Stinger missiles to help deal with pesky helicopters.  The US armed with the experience of dealing with Vietnam passed on every single tactic that worked against them to the rebels in Afghanistan allowing them to run rings around the very slow and bulky Soviets who relied mainly on heavy armour to get around an environment that's not really suited to tanks.

 

Afghanistan, like Vietnam but in reverse, was an extension of the Cold War where the non-present superpower brutally and cynically used the local population to assault the present superpower and just did not care at all about the long-term damage or consequences to the war's host country.  30 years later, we're still dealing with the consequences of the interventions by the US, UK and USSR in Afghanistan.

 

The two 19th century British attacks into Afghanistan followed the same model, we attacked to subdue the unruly natives who were threatening the northern asian parts of the Empire.  The Russians were the puppet masters this time assisting the Afghans.  We went in there with 19th century field warfare tactics, a whole world of arrogance and an assumption we'd roll right over them, the Afghans didn't play ball though and refused to stand in line to be run to ground by our cavalry or form square to be shot at by our artillery.  The British generals, having refused to learn the lessons of the US independence war, still insisted that we could defeat anyone with a thin red line and artillery; this was an arrogance that led from the Napoleonic wars.

 

The next one is Syria, the insistence that we arm the rebels, who are on the side of the hard-line Islamic factions, is just a short-sighted plea to intervene again that will have nothing but long-term consequences if the rebels win.  If they win then the next target for them is Turkey with Israel probably wondering whether to support the short-term advantage of the rebels or the long-term advantage of keeping the devil they know.
 

Any politician that authorises an intervention on foreign soil should sign a covenant that he understands the long-term consequences and he'll be the first one on the ground if we have to go in in 20-30 years to fix any problems, regardless of his age.

 

 

Great post + very many


"Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality" - Mikhail Bakunin

#16 walter sobchak

walter sobchak
  • Coach
  • 1,862 posts

Posted 23 June 2013 - 10:43 AM

A strange quirk in that but the USSR were invited in by the then mainly secular government of the day to help them secure against hard-line Islamic insurgents.  That simple statement needs an entire thesis worth of background and detail to put it into context but it was the government of the day that repeatedly asked the USSR for protection.  From the point that the Soviets sent in the troops they saw very similar sorts of conflict as we are seeing now there, albeit the 80s Taliban had US supplied weaponry including Stinger missiles to help deal with pesky helicopters.  The US armed with the experience of dealing with Vietnam passed on every single tactic that worked against them to the rebels in Afghanistan allowing them to run rings around the very slow and bulky Soviets who relied mainly on heavy armour to get around an environment that's not really suited to tanks.
 
Afghanistan, like Vietnam but in reverse, was an extension of the Cold War where the non-present superpower brutally and cynically used the local population to assault the present superpower and just did not care at all about the long-term damage or consequences to the war's host country.  30 years later, we're still dealing with the consequences of the interventions by the US, UK and USSR in Afghanistan.
 
The two 19th century British attacks into Afghanistan followed the same model, we attacked to subdue the unruly natives who were threatening the northern asian parts of the Empire.  The Russians were the puppet masters this time assisting the Afghans.  We went in there with 19th century field warfare tactics, a whole world of arrogance and an assumption we'd roll right over them, the Afghans didn't play ball though and refused to stand in line to be run to ground by our cavalry or form square to be shot at by our artillery.  The British generals, having refused to learn the lessons of the US independence war, still insisted that we could defeat anyone with a thin red line and artillery; this was an arrogance that led from the Napoleonic wars.
 
The next one is Syria, the insistence that we arm the rebels, who are on the side of the hard-line Islamic factions, is just a short-sighted plea to intervene again that will have nothing but long-term consequences if the rebels win.  If they win then the next target for them is Turkey with Israel probably wondering whether to support the short-term advantage of the rebels or the long-term advantage of keeping the devil they know.
 
Any politician that authorises an intervention on foreign soil should sign a covenant that he understands the long-term consequences and he'll be the first one on the ground if we have to go in in 20-30 years to fix any problems, regardless of his age.

The popular Misconception deliberately put forward by the politicians and corrupt corporate media both here and in the US is that the US and to a lesser degree the UK involvement in Afghanistan only began when the US armed the "freedom" fighters after the soviet invasion. The US involvement in Afghanistan began well before the soviet invasion, it was the policy of jimmy carter and his national security advisor zbigniew brzezinski to draw the soviet union into a Vietnam style quagmire, "let's do to the Russians in afghanistan what they done to us in Vietnam" and "let's give them their own veitnam" where the popular phrases heard at the time in the carter white house. The arming of the mujahideen in Afghanistan, saddam Hussein in the Iraq-Iran war, the Libyan "rebels" and now with the Syrian "rebels" are just classic examples of the failed and flawed policy of "my enemies enemy is my friend."

#17 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 40,865 posts

Posted 23 June 2013 - 11:24 AM

Great post + very many

aye


WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#18 Severus

Severus
  • Coach
  • 12,860 posts

Posted 23 June 2013 - 01:02 PM

Thanks for that post ckn. For me this just reinforces the view that we should stay well away from any involvement in Syria and similar situations. We've done enough damage for one century.
Fides invicta triumphat

#19 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,162 posts

Posted 23 June 2013 - 06:26 PM

A strange quirk in that but the USSR were invited in by the then mainly secular government of the day to help them secure against hard-line Islamic insurgents.  That simple statement needs an entire thesis worth of background and detail to put it into context but it was the government of the day that repeatedly asked the USSR for protection.  From the point that the Soviets sent in the troops they saw very similar sorts of conflict as we are seeing now there, albeit the 80s Taliban had US supplied weaponry including Stinger missiles to help deal with pesky helicopters.  The US armed with the experience of dealing with Vietnam passed on every single tactic that worked against them to the rebels in Afghanistan allowing them to run rings around the very slow and bulky Soviets who relied mainly on heavy armour to get around an environment that's not really suited to tanks.

 

Afghanistan, like Vietnam but in reverse, was an extension of the Cold War where the non-present superpower brutally and cynically used the local population to assault the present superpower and just did not care at all about the long-term damage or consequences to the war's host country.  30 years later, we're still dealing with the consequences of the interventions by the US, UK and USSR in Afghanistan.

 

The two 19th century British attacks into Afghanistan followed the same model, we attacked to subdue the unruly natives who were threatening the northern asian parts of the Empire.  The Russians were the puppet masters this time assisting the Afghans.  We went in there with 19th century field warfare tactics, a whole world of arrogance and an assumption we'd roll right over them, the Afghans didn't play ball though and refused to stand in line to be run to ground by our cavalry or form square to be shot at by our artillery.  The British generals, having refused to learn the lessons of the US independence war, still insisted that we could defeat anyone with a thin red line and artillery; this was an arrogance that led from the Napoleonic wars.

 

The next one is Syria, the insistence that we arm the rebels, who are on the side of the hard-line Islamic factions, is just a short-sighted plea to intervene again that will have nothing but long-term consequences if the rebels win.  If they win then the next target for them is Turkey with Israel probably wondering whether to support the short-term advantage of the rebels or the long-term advantage of keeping the devil they know.
 

Any politician that authorises an intervention on foreign soil should sign a covenant that he understands the long-term consequences and he'll be the first one on the ground if we have to go in in 20-30 years to fix any problems, regardless of his age.

Everybody repeats the story that Britain was defeated by the Afghans, it is true that Afghanistan never became a colony but the North West frontier province was annexed by the British from Afghanistan and was held. Today it is that part of Pakistan that speaks Pashtun and is run by the Pakistani Taliban but it was originally part of Afghanistan.



#20 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 17,162 posts

Posted 23 June 2013 - 06:29 PM

The popular Misconception deliberately put forward by the politicians and corrupt corporate media both here and in the US is that the US and to a lesser degree the UK involvement in Afghanistan only began when the US armed the "freedom" fighters after the soviet invasion. The US involvement in Afghanistan began well before the soviet invasion, it was the policy of jimmy carter and his national security advisor zbigniew brzezinski to draw the soviet union into a Vietnam style quagmire, "let's do to the Russians in afghanistan what they done to us in Vietnam" and "let's give them their own veitnam" where the popular phrases heard at the time in the carter white house. The arming of the mujahideen in Afghanistan, saddam Hussein in the Iraq-Iran war, the Libyan "rebels" and now with the Syrian "rebels" are just classic examples of the failed and flawed policy of "my enemies enemy is my friend."

The US did not arm Saddam. That's a myth. Saddam was in the Soviet camp and used their tanks etc (also Soviet tank warfare tactics). He also bought quite a few bits of tech from France and to an extent Britain but not really the USA.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users