Saigon All Over Again

I think Bidon was correct to pull the USA out, they went in to get rid aL-Qaeda job done go home,
the Taliban say they will not allow Afghanistan soil to be used by terrorist groups,
That is more than the last Government could guarantee,
George Bush senior went to war once the USA completed the task in hand the USA went home,
 
Last edited:
The Taliban are saying all the right things, as long as nobody actually asks them for details.
We can expect a gradual regression to the very harsh and oppressive treatment of women and minorities within the strictest interpretation of Islamic law.
 
Purple said:
The Taliban are saying all the right things, as long as nobody actually asks them for details.
We can expect a gradual regression to the very harsh and oppressive treatment of women and minorities within the strictest interpretation of Islamic law
Click to expand...
I agree
The reason the Americans said they went into Afghanistan was to remove the terrorist bases in Afghanistan used to plan and attack the USA,
If they want to go back in and fight your case good luck to them, but they have to come home seeing the New government in Afghanistan has signed up to not allowing Afghanistan soil be used to attack anyone,
 
Last edited:
Harvard University estimated that the US lost 2448 service members, 3846 contractors (6300 overall) and another 1150 killed from Allied states so perhaps 7500 overall.

Over 100k Afghan military, police and civilians are reportdly killed and over 50k Taliban. How accurate most of these numbers is hard to say but I would say that an overall figure of 200k dead is not unrealistic.

I know quite a few Americans, both family and through work. Almost all know someone who served in Afghanistan or know someone who had a family or friend there. Most either know or know of someone who was injured or mentally scared.

Harsh and cold reality is that once Al Quieda and Bin Landen were taken care of, there was no strategic or security reason for the US to remain there. They should have pulled out earlier. Afghanistan has no oil, no ports and the price, both monetary and in American lives, is not worth them staying there. It's hard on the locals who are left but Afghanistan has been a banana state for many years, and will remain so for many to come. I wouldn't be surprised to see civil wars between warlords next
 
There is an argument especially made by Biden as to why should the US send troops to a far away land to be killed or injured , in fact he said in a argument a decade ago when Obama escalated troop numbers
" why should I send my son to die in Afghanistan in order to save the women and children of that country"
It's a valid and powerful argument but it also raises the threshold of when in fact the US should engage?

What if Poland or Lithuania is attacked or messed with, Biden could make the exact same argument
"Why should I send my son to die in Europe in order to save the citizens of Europe"
In fact Donald trump worried the Europeans when he threatened to withdraw from NATO , the famous image of Angela Merkel standing over him and pleading with him not to pull out of NATO.
These are the far reaching consequences of the pull out from Afghanistan by Biden
 
There are certainly far reaching consequences for NATO and for the EU.
We in the EU have to decide if we are willing to spend enough money to defend ourselves. This is particularly interesting for Ireland which is unaligned but not Neutral. If we were Neutral we would be capable of defending ourselves. Will we continue to rely on the UK to defend is in any international conflict or should we have an actual army?
 
This is not really a new attitude in the US. It was always disinclined to become involved in foreign wars.

However, it has learned from experience that distance does not shield it from attack.

It will retaliate when threatened.

Pulling out of NATO and so losing its influence was Trumpian naivety.

I agree with the posters who mentioned the ungovernability of Afghanistan with its numerous and disparate warring tribes, who have to be paid off at every hands turn. Some far more dangerous than the Taliban.

Foreign powers might win some battles and gain some territory, but they can’t hang on to it.

Even the Taliban who once supposedly controlled the majority of Afghanistan, in reality only held some cities and major towns. Even at that they were not fully controlled and they never really governed.
 
Last edited:
Sophrosyne said:
This is not really a new attitude in the US. It was always disinclined to become involved in foreign wars.

However, it has learned from experience that distance does not shield it from attack.
Click to expand...
The US is an empire. It doesn't like being called one but that's how it behaves. "American Exceptionalism" and how they talk of "American Lives" also goes with an imperial attitude. Not having America in that role is probably better than the alternative. When you are an empire you end up getting attacked.
The people who supported Hindenburg in the 40's were the same sort of people as those who supported Trump and supported the neo-Nazis in Charlottesville. The American Nazi Party (American Nazi Bund) filled Madison Square Gardens in 1939 and had tens of thousands of members. German is, by far, the biggest European ethic group in America. They were probably okay about entering the Second World War, they just wanted to be on the other side.
I agree with all of that. Afghanistan isn't really a country. It certainly isn't a Nation State. There was plenty of Nation (re)Building after the Second World War but there were also plenty of examples of countries that were let slip into chaos and dictatorship.
 
joe sod said:
why should I send my son to die in Afghanistan in order to save the women and children of that country"
Click to expand...

I think the whole US notion that intervention in Afghanistan to protect women and children needs to be knocked on the head. If it was really about that then they would not be leaving.
America's interventions are resource driven, plain and simple.
The Taliban were being wined and dined in Washington even before Sept 11.
This is not Bidens fault or Trumps fault, they are simply following through on the policy of the Military Industrial Complex. The deal with the Taliban was done in the face of Afghan government protestations. The Taliban did not recognise the Afghan government as legitimate and in this deal the US was prepared to recognise the Taliban as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan
If anyone is wondering why Afghan government collapsed so quick it is because it was pure puppetry, dependent on US military support which now gave legitimacy to the Taliban.
Trump, Biden - smokescreen, it is the same policy.
 
Purple said:
In Afghanistan?
Click to expand...

Afghanistan has large mineral resources. It is also strategic for gas pipelines from Asia. It is also strategic militarily in the US effort to destabilise Iran.

From Vietnam to Afghanistan, US foreign policy interventions have the sole objective of protecting or installing governments or regimes that are friendly to US business interests supported by Military Industrial Complex.

It is executed under the guise of bringing democracy and protecting human rights so people around the world can eat freedom fries.

Anyone, or any entity that co-operates will be a friend of America, like Saudi Arabia, or the Shah of Iran, and soon, the Taliban. Regardless of their democratic credentials and human rights record.

Anyone, or any entity that does not co-operate is an enemy. From JFK to Putin and the Ayatollah.

This deal will see US business interests in the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan benefit and be protected.

Make no mistake, the Taliban will be a friend of US business.
 
Charles de Gaulle said that countries have interests, not allies. He was right.
 
WolfeTone said:
America's interventions are resource driven, plain and simple.
Click to expand...
But it has resources, reports say it has some of the biggest deposits of lithium discovered by the Soviets back in the 80s, it wasn't much value then but is vital now for electric cars and the high tech economy. All the more baffling why Biden one of the biggest proponents of the green transition and moving away from oil has abandoned that vital resource to China. You can't do a green transition without these vital elements and China now controls the lions share of it.
The abandonment of Afghanistan now makes a war or proxy war with China a lot more probable . How will the Taliban deal with China will be interesting topic, they won't be as pliable with money as the Africans were
 
joe sod said:
The abandonment of Afghanistan now makes a war or proxy war with China a lot more probable .
Click to expand...
Agreed.
joe sod said:
How will the Taliban deal with China will be interesting topic, they won't be as pliable with money as the Africans were
Click to expand...
The Chinese just want the resources. They don't care one tiny little bit about the people of Afghanistan or what the Taliban do to any or all of them.
 
Pick a superpower; USA, China, Russia or India. If one has to dominate the world which would you choose?
 
Purple said:
Pick a superpower; USA, China, Russia or India. If one has to dominate the world which would you choose?
Click to expand...

The Romans!

Seriously though, I am not anti-US. I'm not naive enough to think that in their absence another form of empire will emerge.
I'm just calling out the nonsense that US foreign intervention is for anything but sustaining its empire, which operates primarily on the welfare of its business interests and not woolly notions of human rights for women.
 
The people with the power and/or the money run things for their own benefit. It has always been thus. In the developed world things are fairer and more just than ever but still far from perfect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register