ChatterBank8 mins ago
Extraordinary To See
22 Answers
An army of just tatty pick up trucks and moped gunslingers riding into Kabul to take it over, not a tank or armored car to be seen. I would think that the US superpower status is down the pan. But this tatty looking army must have know it would have only been a matter of time after listening to some of the loony speeches coming from Donald Trump over the years he was in office. Especially the one were he thought disinfectant injected would cure covid. They must have been laughing their socks off at times.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by teacake44. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
But why does Boris insist that the twenty years the British were there was all worth while? He stated that millions have been educated, especially females, and allowed to live a normal life. What planet is he on? how long does he think its going to take the Taliban to destroy all that, not another 20years, about 20 days.
They didn't actually beat them, tc. They moved in once they had withdrawn - a slightly different matter.
As I said in another thread, the only way the US and UK would have maintained its version of how Afghanistan should be run would be to maintain a permanent presence there forevermore. Mr Biden decided this was untenable and he is on record as saying he did not simply want to hand the matter over to the next president. I quite agree with him.
Many of the towns and cities in Afghanistan have been quietly handed over to Taliban control. I saw a scene from one town where the new regime arrived in their pick up trucks and on mopeds and were warmly welcomed by a local policeman. Western forces cannot remain in a country indefinitely to prevent regime change and it is arguable whether we have the right to do so anyway.
The problem the West has with its involvement in Middle Eastern affairs is that it tries to make them like us. It doesn't work. They require a different regime because (if you'll pardon the use of an age old saying) it's the only language they understand. It's no use trying to turn them into liberal democracies, with education, civil rights and all the rest. It's a waste of time, money and - most tragically of all - Western lives.
As I said in another thread, the only way the US and UK would have maintained its version of how Afghanistan should be run would be to maintain a permanent presence there forevermore. Mr Biden decided this was untenable and he is on record as saying he did not simply want to hand the matter over to the next president. I quite agree with him.
Many of the towns and cities in Afghanistan have been quietly handed over to Taliban control. I saw a scene from one town where the new regime arrived in their pick up trucks and on mopeds and were warmly welcomed by a local policeman. Western forces cannot remain in a country indefinitely to prevent regime change and it is arguable whether we have the right to do so anyway.
The problem the West has with its involvement in Middle Eastern affairs is that it tries to make them like us. It doesn't work. They require a different regime because (if you'll pardon the use of an age old saying) it's the only language they understand. It's no use trying to turn them into liberal democracies, with education, civil rights and all the rest. It's a waste of time, money and - most tragically of all - Western lives.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
//NJ trying to enforce the western way on them failed, to me thats a loss.//
The best they could have achieved was a no-score draw. Had they remained there indefinitely they probably could have prevented what has recently happened. But why should they? The latest headlines: the Afghan President Ghani has *** off to Tajikistan; the Taliban has met virtually no resistance when taking the territory it has assumed control of and a "peaceful transition" to Taliban power is expected. If government forces cannot be bothered to counter this takeover, why should we?
The best they could have achieved was a no-score draw. Had they remained there indefinitely they probably could have prevented what has recently happened. But why should they? The latest headlines: the Afghan President Ghani has *** off to Tajikistan; the Taliban has met virtually no resistance when taking the territory it has assumed control of and a "peaceful transition" to Taliban power is expected. If government forces cannot be bothered to counter this takeover, why should we?
I find I must agree with NJ's assessment of the situation in Afghanistan.
To us, as liberal Westerners, the notion of equality and education for women is an admirable ambition, and we have achieved the second, and are doing better with the first.
Therefore it fills us with horror that there is a nation that subjugates its female population, and denies them access to education, a system that to our eyes is abhorrent, and should be changed, if necessary, by force.
But why should we be the arbiters of what is right and suitable for other nations?
Simply because we believe we possess the moral right and the military power to force our concepts of best practice onto other nations, does that make it right for us to do so?
As history has shown, the speed and ease with which the Taliban reclaim control when successive invaders (and that is what they are) finally give up and leave, must surely suggest that this is actually what the Afghan culture understands, and regards as stability.
It is utterly foreign and horrible to us, but clearly not to them, and again, do we have the right to force our ideas of suitability on them by military force, simply because we have decided to occupy the moral high ground?
Maybe it is time for the West to have a good hard look at its attitudes and its morality, and ponder whether we really do have the right to spend billions of pounds and sacrifice millions of lives in what continues to be an utterly fruitless dream - making everywhere in the world think and behave as we do.
It has never worked - perhaps we should just accept that other nations don't actually want to be like us - they don't think we are as wonderful as we think we are.
Food for thought.
To us, as liberal Westerners, the notion of equality and education for women is an admirable ambition, and we have achieved the second, and are doing better with the first.
Therefore it fills us with horror that there is a nation that subjugates its female population, and denies them access to education, a system that to our eyes is abhorrent, and should be changed, if necessary, by force.
But why should we be the arbiters of what is right and suitable for other nations?
Simply because we believe we possess the moral right and the military power to force our concepts of best practice onto other nations, does that make it right for us to do so?
As history has shown, the speed and ease with which the Taliban reclaim control when successive invaders (and that is what they are) finally give up and leave, must surely suggest that this is actually what the Afghan culture understands, and regards as stability.
It is utterly foreign and horrible to us, but clearly not to them, and again, do we have the right to force our ideas of suitability on them by military force, simply because we have decided to occupy the moral high ground?
Maybe it is time for the West to have a good hard look at its attitudes and its morality, and ponder whether we really do have the right to spend billions of pounds and sacrifice millions of lives in what continues to be an utterly fruitless dream - making everywhere in the world think and behave as we do.
It has never worked - perhaps we should just accept that other nations don't actually want to be like us - they don't think we are as wonderful as we think we are.
Food for thought.
If they were likely to stay within national borders that would be almost bearable but they will attempt expansion in the name of Jihad. The more moderate neighbours must have squeaky bums right now. It may be economics will eventually be the way forward, help in return for improvements in human rights. It would be a very slow process and best achieved by some of the moderate Muslim nations rather than the West.
Latest Posts
News8 mins ago
Crosswords11 mins ago
Sick Note Culture Being Looked At.......
News23 mins ago
News31 mins ago
