UK will in Afghanistan for decades says diplomat

[Gromit]

The UK presence in Afghanistan will need to go on for decades to help rebuild the country, British ambassador Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles has said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6220856.stm

The stated aim for joining this war was to stop terrorism, but the result has been the opposite - more terrorism. Anyone know what we are fighting for? Are we winning? And is it all worth it?

[Reverandfunk]

Shouldn't be there like Iraq.

Let them kill themselves, I don't see why our armed forces should put their lives on the line for that rabble.

[Gromit]

Reverandfunk

I agree we "Shouldn't be there like Iraq." but aren't you forgetting we invaded their country..

[Reverandfunk]

I can't remember lol

Same as we invaded Iraq then.

[jno]

The invasion of Afghanistan was to sort out the Taliban, who were behind 9/11. I think that was legitimate. I thought it was crazy at the time, but I was wrong; they very nearly succeeded in clearing out the terrorists and instigating a reasonably secular government. Then they took their eyes off the ball and ran off to invade Iraq as well; and from that point Afghanistan was a quagmire, and so it will continue to be. It's infuriating - they came so near, then they blew it.

[Theland]

Trouble is we fight according to rules, the Taliban don't. So we've lost already.

[Loosehead]

We invaded with good intentions however it's clear that both Iraq and Afganistan do not want peace. With Hind sight it was a mistake to try and help. I'm with the reverend on this one, pull out and let them kill each other. Rather that than our forces. The US will eventualy pull out and let the them fight it out, civil war is inevitable in both these sh1t holes.

[Reverandfunk]

Spot on loosehead, we should pull out and let them kill each other, I personally couldn't give a toss. What I do object to is our armed forces being put at risk and for what?

[jno]

Civil war seems inevitable in Iraq because we invaded and overthrew the man who was keeping the country peaceable (though he was undoubtedly a tyrant). Is civil war better than tyranny? Whether it is or not, we're the ones who enabled it to happen, and they're the ones who are suffering it. How nice: we go in, bomb a country, overthrow the government - and then tell them to sort out the mess.

But it wasn't just hindsight. Plenty of people predicted this before and during the war. The government refused to listen. Would those ABers who now want out, care to say honestly whether they were in favour of invading either country at the time?

[Reverandfunk]

JNO - Personally I think we should never have gone in. Saddam was a tyrant but maintained order. The are other tyranical regimes in the world are we going to war with them? Eeerrr no probably because there is no oil involved and surprisingly that is where the Bush family made its millions.

I can't see what gives us or anyone else the right to invade another country or tell them how to live. For example the weapons of mass destruction were never found. We have nuclear weapons why shouldn't Iraq? Did we tell India or Pakistan we were coming into their countries to search for their weapons or North Koreo for that matter. Oh I forgot the Americans already tried it with North Korea.

Rather than than going around sticking our noses in other peoples business we should concentrate on getting our own house in order first.

[Loosehead]

yes jno, I'll own up, I did want to remove Saddam and I fully supported the removal of the Taliban. I don't think those aims where wrong but I do accept that it was a mistake with hindsight. However Abhorrent those regimes where they where keeping a lid on things.

[jno]

Loosehead and Reverandfunk, I was happy for the Taliban to go, and sorry the USA didn't finish the job (more than sorry, downright annoyed, because the situation there is slowly getting worse.) Though as I said, I thought they were crazy to start the war because I thought they couldn't possibly succeed. I was sort of wrong - they didn't succeed, but they could and should have.

But I thought the Iraq war was a mistake from the start, and on that one I was definitely right. The Americans will be reluctant to leave, because of the loss of face, and also because the increasing chaos in the whole region poses a threat to Israel, the only country with which the USA really does have a special relationship. But I think in the end US voters will demand that they leave. What will happen after that, I shudder to think. As Gromit says, already the result is much more terrorism.

[Theland]

I'll own up. I believed the nuclear threat and supported the government when they told us we were in danger - 40 minute to kissing your a$$ goodbye etc.

[jno]

I didn't personally believe the WMD stuff - I thought that if Saddam had them he'd be using them - but I can't blame anybody for believing their government. When politicians complain that the public distrusts them, remind them of this.

[Reverandfunk]

B8ugger me a lot of the country didn't have running water and they use their hands to wipe their Ar5e but they have nuclear capability...yeah rite.