The Arab Spring and "the War on Terror"

[a m ole]

4 minutes ago, PussEKatt said:

People hanging onto planes that are about to take off is sillyness of the highest digree ?!

A great philosopher once said “put yourself in their shoes, well, they haven’t got any, but…”

[PussEKatt]

Put yourself in their shoes is all very well but what are they going to do when the plane closes its undercarrage doors and when they get to 30,000feet. 

[Genie]

8 minutes ago, PussEKatt said:

Put yourself in their shoes is all very well but what are they going to do when the plane closes its undercarrage doors and when they get to 30,000feet. 

I reckon they thought the plane wouldn’t take off with them attached.

They lost that game of bluff unfortunately.

[HanoiVillan]

 

[PussEKatt]

As you say.They must be desperate but getting on a plane thats about to take off is madness.Unfortunately its a very sad situation with no real answer.On the other hand now that the Taliban have a home base again,I wonder how long before the war on us unclean Infidels starts.911 v2 ?

[a m ole]

1 hour ago, PussEKatt said:

Put yourself in their shoes is all very well but what are they going to do when the plane closes its undercarrage doors and when they get to 30,000feet. 

The point of the “they haven’t got any” part is they’re so far removed us as a people that they wouldn’t know the doors close, they also wouldn’t know that flying at 500mph and 30,000ft they will freeze to death.

Edited August 19, 2021 by a m ole

[chrisp65]

1 hour ago, PussEKatt said:

People hanging onto planes that are about to take off is sillyness of the highest digree ?!

 

1 hour ago, a m ole said:

The point of the “they haven’t got any” part is they’re so far removed us as a people that they wouldn’t know the doors close, they also wouldn’t know that flying at 500mph and 30,000 they will freeze to death.

 

Terrified desperate people, in a country of abject poverty, with 40% literacy and a deep cultural knowledge of what these people did last time they were in power.

Probably best we don’t try and impose our knowledge and experience on their decision making at a time like this.

[Ingram85]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

 

Tbf, ancient books and tales of myths and legends are always getting the world into trouble anyway so another group trying to use utter nonsense for good against them is more than welcome.

[lapal_fan]

48 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

 

 

Terrified desperate people, in a country of abject poverty, with 40% literacy and a deep cultural knowledge of what these people did last time they were in power.

Probably best we don’t try and impose our knowledge and experience on their decision making at a time like this.

I find it equally as silly as making these people out to be idiots and simpletons as well to be honest. 

No-one is that stupid to not know what would happen holding onto a plane.  

It's absolutely horrible, but it was probably as simple as a game of chicken gone wrong. 

[chrisp65]

10 minutes ago, lapal_fan said:

I find it equally as silly as making these people out to be idiots and simpletons as well to be honest. 

No-one is that stupid to not know what would happen holding onto a plane.  

It's absolutely horrible, but it was probably as simple as a game of chicken gone wrong. 

Just for clarity, you’re not suggesting I think they’re idiots and simpletons?

 

[darrenm]

Something I've been pondering.

Oil has been the motivator for most western foreign meddling in the latter half of the 20th century. It's put middle Eastern sheikhs and countries into real positions of influence due to the money they have and the oilfields they control.

But now, oil is being phased out as a fuel for locomotion, being replaced by stored electrical energy in private vehicles and eventually in commercial and industrial settings too. 

For this, the world will be massively reliant on lithium. The US will be acutely aware that they'll need to source lithium wherever it can be found soon. Anyone with vast quantities will be a world financial heavyweight.

Where has the most lithium?

Afghanistan.

Why would the US look at the world's largest reserve of the mineral it will be most reliant on for the next few decades at least and decide to march straight out?

Diplomacy? Not much chance taking it by force without creating a huge anti war backlash and having to engineer another war on terror.

If the previous government were unstable enough to look like they would allow the Chinese to come in and get whatever they wanted then would it make sense to allow the Taliban to take over, form a stable administration and be able to trade weapons for lithium, which the Chinese couldn't compete with and the Taliban would be most interested in?

[lapal_fan]

5 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Just for clarity, you’re not suggesting I think they’re idiots and simpletons?

 

No!

I just see things on other socials which imply "awww, they can't even read books in their mud huts, let alone know how fast a plane goes!!!" 

From their ivory towers of anti-vaccine knowledge. 

[tonyh29]

15 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Something I've been pondering.

Oil has been the motivator for most western foreign meddling in the latter half of the 20th century. It's put middle Eastern sheikhs and countries into real positions of influence due to the money they have and the oilfields they control.

But now, oil is being phased out as a fuel for locomotion, being replaced by stored electrical energy in private vehicles and eventually in commercial and industrial settings too. 

For this, the world will be massively reliant on lithium. The US will be acutely aware that they'll need to source lithium wherever it can be found soon. Anyone with vast quantities will be a world financial heavyweight.

Where has the most lithium?

Afghanistan.

Why would the US look at the world's largest reserve of the mineral it will be most reliant on for the next few decades at least and decide to march straight out?

Diplomacy? Not much chance taking it by force without creating a huge anti war backlash and having to engineer another war on terror.

If the previous government were unstable enough to look like they would allow the Chinese to come in and get whatever they wanted then would it make sense to allow the Taliban to take over, form a stable administration and be able to trade weapons for lithium, which the Chinese couldn't compete with and the Taliban would be most interested in?

they are too late Putin has already snapped those rights up via arming the Taliban 

China are more interested in keeping radical Islam out of its borders , and the Xinjiang region .. the Taliban will soon be sorting out ETIM for them 

[Panto_Villan]

3 hours ago, blandy said:

That's right, IMO. And it's why it's really important that competent, thoughtful, dedicated, intelligent people are involved whenever there's a situation with few, if any, good options.

Unfortunately, it looks like this wasn't the case this time, nor will it be for the foreseeable future.

Over the past few years, Afghanistan has been, while still something of a mess, at least a stabler, safer, more "normal" place. But of course it was kept that way in large part by the presence of the Western forces. The USA in particular, when Trump was in charge, wanted to bring their forces home. Which is fair enough as a desire. But Trump did a deal with the Taliban directly. He didn't involve the government of Afghanistan in it, he basically just agreed with the Taliban "you stop doing all the bad stuff and we'll leave in 2021". The Taliban didn't keep their part of the bargain, nothing was done about that. Then Biden took over and decided "I want out" and the US ran away ahead of schedule, and without listening to either their own advisors, or their allies - the NATO nations who'd responded and supported the US after 9/11, when the US invoked the NATO treaty article 5 which requires the members to come to the aid of a fellow member under attack.

The USA has stuck 2 fingers up to its allies. Britain has much reduced influence or respect in the world, a situation brought about through both Brexit and  the particular untrustworthiness of Bunter Johnson. The West generally is of a mindset to be much more insular, much more nation focused, rather than any collective kind of outlook.

The result has been this shambles. The UK surprised and incapable, the Afghans (and all the other people in that Country) left completely in the lurch and to the whims of the unwanted, unelected, stone age, murderous knobheads. The consequences will last for decades, and not in a good way.

I think blaming this all on incompetent policy in the West is a pretty simplistic view. We've been in Afghanistan for almost twenty years and sensible and competent people were in power for sixteen of them. Only Trump wasn't a serious politician, and Biden could easily have ripped up the Taliban deal when he came to power if he wanted.

Of course Afghanistan is a relatively peaceful place if it has a substantial Western military force propping up their army, and pumping enormous amounts of money into the country. But we can't expect that situation to last forever.

Remember the only reason the US wanted to negotiate with the Taliban is because the Afghan state and army wasn't strong enough to cope with them by itself, despite overwhelming numbers and firepower and two decades of security guarantees. The Doha deal Trump made was a precondition for the Taliban to start negotiating with the Afghan government, and from what I'm hearing the Afghan government did very little to try to advance the peace talks after that (nor before it).

Sure, the current pullout seems like a total disaster if you assume the Afghan government were competent leaders who could have saved their country if only they'd had a little more time. But after 20 years I'm not sure there's many people left who actually think that?

What would maintaining the current state of stalemate for another five years or whatever actually have achieved?

[Genie]

49 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Where has the most lithium?

Afghanistan.

I remember reading a while back that China has about 90% of the worlds precious metals needed for battery production, can’t remember the source sadly.

I can’t see the Americans going after that though.

[darrenm]

6 minutes ago, Genie said:

I remember reading a while back that China has about 90% of the worlds precious metals needed for battery production, can’t remember the source sadly.

I can’t see the Americans going after that though.

Probably correct. But Afghanistan has potentially the world's largest source of lithium according to CNN

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/18/business/afghanistan-lithium-rare-earths-mining/index.html

Quote

There are also rare earth minerals and, perhaps most importantly, what could be one of the world's biggest deposits of lithium — an essential but scarce component in rechargeable batteries and other technologies vital to tackling the climate crisis.

 

[blandy]

25 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

I think blaming this all on incompetent policy in the West is a pretty simplistic view. We've been in Afghanistan for almost twenty years and sensible and competent people were in power for sixteen of them. Only Trump wasn't a serious politician, and Biden could easily have ripped up the Taliban deal when he came to power if he wanted.

Of course Afghanistan is a relatively peaceful place if it has a substantial Western military force propping up their army, and pumping enormous amounts of money into the country. But we can't expect that situation to last forever.

Remember the only reason the US wanted to negotiate with the Taliban is because the Afghan state and army wasn't strong enough to cope with them by itself, despite overwhelming numbers and firepower and two decades of security guarantees. The Doha deal Trump made was a precondition for the Taliban to start negotiating with the Afghan government, and from what I'm hearing the Afghan government did very little to try to advance the peace talks after that (nor before it).

Sure, the current pullout seems like a total disaster if you assume the Afghan government were competent leaders who could have saved their country if only they'd had a little more time. But after 20 years I'm not sure there's many people left who actually think that?

What would maintaining the current state of stalemate for another five years or whatever actually have achieved?

There's a number of things.

The recent events are (IMO) a consequence of recent political pygmies and their incompetence and so on.

But if we go back further, as a number of people have said, politicians 20 years ago didn't just go in, get Osama and leave, there was this (mistaken) mission creep and exporting democracy stuff. To be fair to Biden, he was even back then dead against that wider engagement, so he's been consistent in that. He's just messed up with timing and how he's dealt with it as president. I mean the film on the News yesterday and the day before of civilians falling from aircraft to their deaths - that's gonna be his legacy. He claimed when he won "America is back" and then there's the pictures of the USA running away with civilians clinging to planes - that's not very "back" is it?

Like was said earlier, there are/were no good outcomes possible. The one that we're already seeing is a really bad outcome. But it's been done entirely for short-termist US domestic reasons, abrogating their responsibility having gone in there 20 years ago.

If the stalemate had endured, instead, well, 5 more years of whatever of education, freedoms for Women, further improvements in people's lives there. Over the 20 odd years, the country has had mains electricity brought to most of the population (it was a small percentage when the US went in). They've had girls education where there was none. They've had better infrastructure - water, hospitals, roads, health outcomes ...there have been improvements.

But even if the decision to leave was still to be kept to, the problem is that the Taliban would always be waiting to come back, however long it would take. Pakistan and other neighbouring counties were tacitly supporting the Talibans, if not at Gov't level, parts of their forces, or via the supply of weapons and money and supplies and sanctuary. @Awol posted about it I think.

Anyway, my observations, or thoughts are not that "they should have stayed"  - more that it's been horribly mishandled, particularly by Biden, but also by (an admittedly dumped upon) UK government. Maybe you see it differently, what's happened the past few months, I dunno? 

[chrisp65]

1 hour ago, Panto_Villan said:

I think blaming this all on incompetent policy in the West is a pretty simplistic view. We've been in Afghanistan for almost twenty years and sensible and competent people were in power for sixteen of them. Only Trump wasn't a serious politician, and Biden could easily have ripped up the Taliban deal when he came to power if he wanted.

Of course Afghanistan is a relatively peaceful place if it has a substantial Western military force propping up their army, and pumping enormous amounts of money into the country. But we can't expect that situation to last forever.

Remember the only reason the US wanted to negotiate with the Taliban is because the Afghan state and army wasn't strong enough to cope with them by itself, despite overwhelming numbers and firepower and two decades of security guarantees. The Doha deal Trump made was a precondition for the Taliban to start negotiating with the Afghan government, and from what I'm hearing the Afghan government did very little to try to advance the peace talks after that (nor before it).

Sure, the current pullout seems like a total disaster if you assume the Afghan government were competent leaders who could have saved their country if only they'd had a little more time. But after 20 years I'm not sure there's many people left who actually think that?

What would maintaining the current state of stalemate for another five years or whatever actually have achieved?

Who were these sensible people in power for 16 years?

Do you mean George W Bush? Surely not Blair? 

I can’t deduct Bush, Trump and Biden from 20 years and come up with 16.

I can’t deduct Blair, Johnson and Cameron and come up with 16.

I’m struggling here, do you mean the Afghan regime was sensible and competent?

 

[Panto_Villan]

Just now, chrisp65 said:

Who were these sensible people in power for 16 years?

Do you mean George W Bush? Surely not Blair? 

I can’t deduct Bush, Trump and Biden from 20 years and come up with 16.

I can’t deduct Blair, Johnson and Cameron and come up with 16.

I’m struggling here, do you mean the Afghan regime was sensible and competent?

Yeah - Bush, Blair, Obama, Biden, Cameron etc were all competent politicians. You can disagree with the decisions they made and the ideologies they held, but the distinction being drawn is between Trump (who simply wasn't capable of understanding the foreign policy issues, and was actively working to undermine his own national security apparatus) and them. They're clearly worlds apart.

[HanoiVillan]

39 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

Yeah - Bush, Blair, Obama, Biden, Cameron etc were all competent politicians. You can disagree with the decisions they made and the ideologies they held, but the distinction being drawn is between Trump (who simply wasn't capable of understanding the foreign policy issues, and was actively working to undermine his own national security apparatus) and them. They're clearly worlds apart.

Bush's foreign policy was leagues worse than all the others, including Trump's. It's not even a contest.