well,that's gratitude for you. Karzai slates NATO...

Last edited by VillageGreen on Mon Oct 07, 2013 8:52 pm; edited 1 time in total

What a bloody cheek this man has.

Thousands of NATO troops went there [and many died and/or were injured] to try and change the country for the better and this is the f**king thanks NATO countries get.

Afghanistan's Hamid Karzai says Nato caused 'great suffering'

President Hamid Karzai has criticised Nato for failing to bring stability to Afghanistan in over a decade there.

"On the security front the entire Nato exercise was one that caused Afghanistan a lot of suffering, a lot of loss of life, and no gains because the country is not secure," he said.

FULL LINK - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Well Mr Karzai,i hope your sh*t-hole of a backward country goes to the dogs when NATO does pull out.

Guest

Shouldn't have gone in the first place if you ask me. Hugely divided country with lots of tribes etc who hate each other so we could never have pleased them.

Russia couldn't beat them 30+ years ago despite being on their doorstep and having a much bigger army.

Time to pull out and forget about them I say.

Posts : 983 Join date : 2012-04-24

I'm not surprised they're pissed off. UK/US interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq was never about 'making the country a better place', or even about terrorism. Soldiers are sent to risk their lives in these places just to protect our supply of these county's natural resources, or to satisfy the big arms companies who have the ear of our governments. Violence in Iraq is worse than ever now, sounds like it might be the same in Afghanistan as well.

Fortunately the general public seems to have wised up to the warmongering propaganda of the politicians and their buddies in the media. At least we seemed to have put the brakes on us putting our foot into Syria as well.

Like GJ says these countries are so riven by internal disputes between different factions that military interventions from the West aren't are going to do much to solve the problems.

Posts : 10244 Join date : 2011-10-23

Flat_Track_Bully wrote:: I'm not surprised they're pissed off. UK/US interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq was never about 'making the country a better place', or even about terrorism. Soldiers are sent to risk their lives in these places just to protect our supply of these county's natural resources, or to satisfy the big arms companies who have the ear of our governments. Violence in Iraq is worse than ever now, sounds like it might be the same in Afghanistan as well.

Fortunately the general public seems to have wised up to the warmongering propaganda of the politicians and their buddies in the media. At least we seemed to have put the brakes on us putting our foot into Syria as well.

Like GJ says these countries are so riven by internal disputes between different factions that military interventions from the West aren't are going to do much to solve the problems.

Iraq maybe, but I don't think that applies to Afghanistan. Unless we were concerned about not getting enough Heroin in to the UK.

Posts : 983 Join date : 2012-04-24

Czarcasm wrote:

Flat_Track_Bully wrote:: I'm not surprised they're pissed off. UK/US interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq was never about 'making the country a better place', or even about terrorism. Soldiers are sent to risk their lives in these places just to protect our supply of these county's natural resources, or to satisfy the big arms companies who have the ear of our governments. Violence in Iraq is worse than ever now, sounds like it might be the same in Afghanistan as well.

Fortunately the general public seems to have wised up to the warmongering propaganda of the politicians and their buddies in the media. At least we seemed to have put the brakes on us putting our foot into Syria as well.

Like GJ says these countries are so riven by internal disputes between different factions that military interventions from the West aren't are going to do much to solve the problems.

Iraq maybe, but I don't think that applies to Afghanistan. Unless we were concerned about not getting enough Heroin in to the UK.

Afghanistan's location is very important for building oil pipeline. Besides it has plenty of oil and other mineral deposits to make controlling the country's government very profitable.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Interestingly Afghanistan's post-invasion constitution does not appear to allow nationalisation of mining assets. I wonder why that could be?

Did NATO not go into Afghanistan in the first place to sort out the terrorist training camps that were there prior to and after 9/11.

That was the main objective,surely..That is what was said at the time.

Posts : 10244 Join date : 2011-10-23

VillageGreen wrote:: Did NATO not go into Afghanistan in the first place to sort out the terrorist training camps that were there prior to and after 9/11.

That was the main objective,surely..That is what was said at the time.

Afghanistan, under the Taliban was a safe haven for Al qaeda and other crackpot organisations.

I know the USA and us to a lesser extent get a bad press for trying to impose their own policing of the world, but you simply cannot give nutters like Saddam Hussein etc. a free rein to do what they like. Lunatics have to be taken out of the game, or we'd all be dead before long.

Posts : 983 Join date : 2012-04-24

Czarcasm wrote:

VillageGreen wrote:: Did NATO not go into Afghanistan in the first place to sort out the terrorist training camps that were there prior to and after 9/11.

That was the main objective,surely..That is what was said at the time.

Afghanistan, under the Taliban was a safe haven for Al qaeda and other crackpot organisations.

I know the USA and us to a lesser extent get a bad press for trying to impose their own policing of the world, but you simply cannot give nutters like Saddam Hussein etc. a free rein to do what they like. Lunatics have to be taken out of the game, or we'd all be dead before long.

Even the American's have now admitted that there were no links between the Taleban and Saddam Hussein. Hussein and Bin Laden were actually enemies for much of the time because Hussein was relatively secular, while Bin Laden was into hardline Islamic policies.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

In the summer of 2004, the 9/11 Commission concluded that "to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."[24][25][26]

This conclusion is consistent with the findings of various investigations into specific aspects of the Saddam Hussein/al-Qaeda relationship, including those conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and National Security Council. The Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq also reviewed the intelligence community's conclusions[27] and found that they were justifiable.[28]

Of course the US were funding and arming Saddam back in the 80's during the Iran-Iraq war, but that's another story!