Comments

Sign in or register to comment.

• Previous
• Next

• 1. At 11:03am on 06 Nov 2009, wendymann wrote:

  questions?
  
  When was the last time the taliban committed any act of international terrorism?
  
  Is it true that the 9/11 plot was hatched in germany, trained in the usa and the wmds of choice were civilian aircraft and that not one of the perpetrators was either afghan or pakistan?
  
  Is it true that the taliban offered to hand bin laden over to saudi arabia if the usa could provide the evidence that bin laden was responsible for 9/11?
  
  Why did the usa not provide that evidence?
  
  Is the afghan war legal?*
  
  What is the hard proven evidence that three quarters of plots are from afghan - pakistan region?
  
  Of the 200 convictions related to terrorism since 2001 how many are from irish dissidents , sikh nationalists et al.
  
  is it true that in the last 12 months there have been 80 bomb/serious terrorist acts/plots in northern ireland?
  
  If the threat of terrorism is so great why do countries such as japan, holland, canada feel they can walk away from afghanistan?
  
  Why do other european countries not send more troops if the threat is so great to them?
  
  Why is the threat greater to the uk ?
  
  Was g w bush correct when he said that the reason to be in iraq was to keep the streets of the usa safe?
  
  Why do we support karzai?
  
  What does afghanistan have that we want? (hint: access to caspian and persian gulf via pakistan and/or a way into pakistan)
  
  Isnt poppy production down because of the fall in price due to over production and wheat growing is currntly more profitable?
  
  Is it acceptable that for every single british soldier that is killed that 22 afghans are killed too?
  
  Why havent we won afghan hearts and minds after 8 years of conflict?
  
  Do al qaeda have bases other than those in afghanistan?
  
  If they do how does winning afghanistan make us safer?
  
  
  * hint: "After the 9/11 attacks, the council passed two resolutions, neither of which authorized the use of military force in Afghanistan. Resolutions 1368 and 1373 condemned the Sept. 11 attacks and ordered the freezing of assets; the criminalizing of terrorist activity; the prevention of the commission of and support for terrorist attacks; and the taking of necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist activity, including the sharing of information. In addition, it urged ratification and enforcement of the international conventions against terrorism.
  
  The invasion of Afghanistan was not legitimate self-defense under article 51 of the charter because the attacks on Sept. 11 were criminal attacks, not "armed attacks" by another country.Furthermore, there was not an imminent threat of an armed attack on the United States after Sept. 11, or Bush would not have waited three weeks before initiating his October 2001 bombing campaign. Afghanistan did not attack the United States.The necessity for self-defense must be "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." This classic principle of self-defense in international law has been affirmed by the Nuremberg Tribunal and the U.N. General Assembly."
  
  
  
  
  
  

  Complain about this comment

• 2. At 11:09am on 06 Nov 2009, wendymann wrote:

  Why does the bbc sound more like a cheer leader for the war?
  
  Wasnt todays speech really about signaling the intent to take the war from afghanistan into pakistan.
  
  Is pakistans nuclear capability the real reason we are in afghanistan, we cannot control the region if there is a nation that is able to protect itself from our military interventions?

  Complain about this comment

• 3. At 11:18am on 06 Nov 2009, Richard_SM wrote:

  
  
  When USA/UK launched the first war on Iraq, they sent an army of around 500,000 , with a population of around 24 million. In the second war on Iraq in 2003, they sent around 300,000 troops. Afghanistan has a much larger population, a more difficult terrain, is the base for al Qaeda. and yet they only sent around 40,000 troops originally and even now don't intend to have more than 100,000 troops in Afghanistan.
  
  It seems US/UK don't want to 'win' in Afghanistan, they just want to justify a military presence for strategic reasons. (possibly Iran)
  
  What's your panel's view?
  
  
  

  Complain about this comment

• 4. At 11:29am on 06 Nov 2009, wendymann wrote:

  "It seems US/UK don't want to 'win' in Afghanistan, they just want to justify a military presence for strategic reasons."
  
  they are currently securing the pipeline route and building a very expensive usa embassy in kandahar.
  
  "(possibly Iran)"
  
  and to a degree Pakistan. the usa-uk-india are supporting terrorist groups (and the so called 'good' taliban) that are known to be currently destabilising both iran and paksitan.

  Complain about this comment

• 5. At 11:31am on 06 Nov 2009, wendymann wrote:

  the ratio of dead to maimed is estimated at a minimum of 1 dead to 3 maimed.

  Complain about this comment

• 6. At 11:58am on 06 Nov 2009, wendymann wrote:

  liam fox re confirms the extremist neo conservative ambitions - as stated earlier by the times reporter and brown - for pakistan .. at least there is cross party agreement over the real reason for the war.
  
  

  Complain about this comment

• 7. At 12:14pm on 06 Nov 2009, wendymann wrote:

  should a serving soldier really be playing politics ..

  Complain about this comment

• 8. At 12:31pm on 06 Nov 2009, wendymann wrote:

  The Taliban fighters are already in the UK aren't they?
  
  There are many, many Afghans here, I am sure if al-Quaida wanted to infiltrate bombers into this country it would be the easiest thing in the world. And then of course, Afghans have ties with home. Their families may be taken hostage. All sorts of things.
  
  I am sure they could bomb at will. If they were put up to it.
  
  It's an interesting geopolitical question. Why does the US want a client state in Afghanistan? That's the question to ask. (as we bob along behind it).
  
  Perhaps we should look at a map:
  
  Afghanistan borders China, Iran, former Soviet republics, Pakistan. Very strategically situated. What else? What other reasons could the US corporates want Afghanistan for?
  
  Forget the hogwash.
  
  There is a medium to long term game playing logic there that escapes us. I think we should ignore people like Josh Arnold Foster. They are obviously part of the problem and not the solution. We should try and work out just why Afghanistan is strategically so important.
  
  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/06/afghanistan-uk-pullout-kim-howells?showAllComments=true#CommentKey:c4bc9af2-2c86-4967-97d6-ee64f950818c
  

  Complain about this comment

• 9. At 12:56pm on 06 Nov 2009, wendymann wrote:

  Speaking the Language of Occupation
  
  While the United States officially insists that it is not setting up permanent bases in Afghanistan, the scale and permanency of the construction underway at Bagram seems to suggest, at the least, a very long stay. According to published reports, in fact, the new terminal facilities for the complex aren't even slated to be operational until 2011.
  
  http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175135/nick_turse_in_afghanistan_the_pentagon_digs_in
  
  so why should anyone believe anything gordon brown - bob ainsworth has to say ..

  Complain about this comment

• 10. At 5:14pm on 08 Nov 2009, wendymann wrote:

  "But when Hitler's forces marched through Europe, everyone understood why Britain needed to fight the Nazi enemy.
  
  Today the threat is hard to see and more complex to understand. It is natural that people should question why we are asking our troops to put themselves in harm's way.
  
  This war is every bit a war of necessity. Afghanistan was a haven for terrorists in the Nineties. The badlands of the Afghan-Pakistan border are the breeding ground for terrorist plots against Britain. "
  
  "Pakistan's population is six times greater than that of Afghanistan. It has nuclear weapons. Islamist victory in Afghanistan would spur Pakistani Taliban ambitions for overthrowing what they see as an 'apostate regime' in Islamabad."
  
  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1226017/DAVID-MILIBAND-We-Afghanistan-bit-necessary-war.html
  
  looks as if the govt is making its pakistan case.

  Complain about this comment

• Previous
• Next

View these comments in RSS