Afghanistan- Why NATO Shouldn't Leave Immedately

Page 1 of 1 [ 7 posts ] 

SDFarsight
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 241

16 Jan 2010, 10:02 am

As part of my Media degree at university, 4 students including myself have to give a pro-war argument (even if we are personally against the war), in a recorded debate with another 4 students who have to give an anti-war argument. So in addition to other forms of research I'd like to check the pulse of the all-knowing folks at WP. Oh and by "pro-war" I presume they mean "NATO not leaving immediately", as no one is truly "pro-war".

Being an Afghanistan thread and thus 'wargaming' the university debate, you're welcome to post anti-war views too.


I think that there are two main reasons why NATO should stay in Afghanistan until the Afghan national army is able to stand on their own. Upon a NATO retreat of the country Afghanistan's government at it is now will be virtually powerless to stop the Taliban from taking hold of the entire country like the Taliban are threatening to do in Pakistan. They won't get access to nuclear weapons as is threatened in the Pakistan case, but it will be obviously be dire for Afghanistan's population. Several annual polls have shown that the Afghan people support the actions to stop the Taliban.

Upon a NATO retreat of the country the Al Qaeda bases will come back and the Al Qaeda in places such as Somila, Yemen and Pakisan will be hugely emboldened at our defeat. And that may bring attacks back to Europe and America as a result of the increased Al Qaeda bases.

What reason is there that NATO should leave immediatly or very soon, given the huge amount of responsibility there is to make Afghanistan a stable country?



Last edited by SDFarsight on 17 Jan 2010, 5:57 pm, edited 3 times in total.

TitusLucretiusCarus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 518

16 Jan 2010, 12:40 pm

I have arguments against the war in toto, but, my arguments against remaining -

Afghanistan is not socio-economically advanced enough to support a Liberal Democracy - the government is done for anyway, it only survives in it's current form on the basis that it is supported by either a) a large force of occupation b) a large Afghan military - both of which require fairly large scale repressive measures to keep the numerous social forces in check, warlords, tribal groupings, peasant uprisings etc etc I mention peasant uprisings as, from what I understand, the reason the Taliban-type groups have influence in Pakistan is that they speak of a redistribution of the land (there are, apparently, not a few landlords possessing huge tracts of property which the Taliban promises to split amongst the peasantry - that is, to carry out an agrarian revolution).

The invasion-occupation is not for the purpose of setting up an afghan government etc - Afghanistan is a crucial strategic base for anyone looking to assert control over the Oil and Gas reserves of central asia and the Caspian Sea region utilising permanent military bases in the area (e.g. planed expansion for Bagram north of Kabul, Balad in Iraq etc). Afghanistan being the Eastern-most point of a pincer which includes Georgia, Macedonia, Bulgaria and Kosovo/Albania, as well as Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Not that I'm trying to patronise you with regard to geography, just trying to clarify the proximity of these various states:

Image

Hence the level of support for the Saakashvili Government (inlcuding the training/equipping of a large number of troops in US Army fashion, who I understand formed the vanguard for the attack on South Ossetia) and the attempts to continue to push through their NATO membership.

Where Al-Qaeda is concerned it will collapse in the event of a successful revolution against, I think, the only state ruled by Islamic Fundamentalists - Iran - which, I think, is approaching and really only requires a General Strike now to bring the whole house of cards down (and would also very likely result in the overthrow of the current regimes in Saudi Arabia - denying al-qaeda its most significant source of support and funding - and Egypt, perhaps others). Therefore, no Al-Qaeda threat, no need to be in Afghanistan.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

16 Jan 2010, 1:38 pm

SDFarsight wrote:


I think that there are two main reasons why NATO should stay in Afghanistan until the Afghan national army is able to stand on their own.


That will happen a quarter after Never.

ruveyn



ASPER
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 354

17 Jan 2010, 4:56 pm

This is a very good time for all 4 of you to do your part against the war.
Be honest.
Say that the countries that compose NATO should stay in Afghanistan to be able to take over the resources and distribute them amongst themselves. And to eliminate people who is against the morals of the NATO countries.
You could also say that is one of the bordering countries with Iran, the main competitor in the middle east, who puts the monopoly of NATO countries in jeopardy. NATO and its allies need to be able to control the Iran-Afghan border for possible future attacks.


If you give the official reasons... "Protect democracy" and "defeat AlQaeda", all you'll be doing is propaganda for NATO. That is what the MSM does, be original, and real.



TitusLucretiusCarus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 518

17 Jan 2010, 5:22 pm

:scratch:

:?



SDFarsight
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 241

17 Jan 2010, 5:46 pm

ASPER wrote:
This is a very good time for all 4 of you to do your part against the war.


We may roleplay the anti-war team's position to practice at countering their arguments.

Quote:
Be honest.


If we lie, the anti-war team will use that against us by proving us wrong. Or at least they would do that if they're a good anti-war team.

Quote:
Say that the countries that compose NATO should stay in Afghanistan to be able to take over the resources and distribute them amongst themselves

That wouldn't do much for the "hearts&minds" now, would it?

Quote:
And to eliminate people who is against the morals of civil rights.


Fixed.

Quote:
You could also say that is one of the bordering countries with Iran, the main competitor in the middle east, who puts the monopoly of NATO countries in jeopardy. NATO and its allies need to be able to control the Iran-Afghan border for possible future attacks.


I doubt Iran would want to attack Afghanistan.

Quote:
If you give the official reasons... "Protect democracy" and "defeat AlQaeda", all you'll be doing is propaganda for NATO. That is what the MSM does, be original, and real.


If it's propaganda, then it's not official.



ASPER
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 354

17 Jan 2010, 10:11 pm

SDFarsight wrote:
If we lie, the anti-war team will use that against us by proving us wrong. Or at least they would do that if they're a good anti-war team.

You aren't lying, you are just proposing w/e reasons why NATO should stay.
If you people say that the resources should be handled by responsible people like NATO countries that is a reason not a lie. Whatever the other side says can be discredited by pointing out how Afghans are poor because they don't know how to handle these resources.
(Not that I actually agree with this, but you could use these excuses as talking points, it doesn't justify the pro-war side, it makes it look like a bunch of tyrants, after all, there are no reasonable excuses to stay in Afghanistan, it is an invasion and all of this war is being funded with money from people who disagree).


SDFarsight wrote:
ASPER wrote:
Say that the countries that compose NATO should stay in Afghanistan to be able to take over the resources and distribute them amongst themselves

That wouldn't do much for the "hearts&minds" now, would it?

If you are talking in favor of war and occupation that doesn't do much for the "hearts&minds" anyway.
This is a great opportunity to make the pro-war people look bad, because if you stick to the official explanations you'll be doing propaganda for the pro-war side.
It is just a suggestion, that you guys get sarcastic on the subject.

SDFarsight wrote:
ASPER wrote:
And to eliminate people who is against the morals of civil rights
Fixed.

I wasn't trying to be ethically correct, actually it was a sarcastic mockery of the NATO mindset.
This might not make your teachers happy, but who cares, they deserve it for making you guys pretend that you defend a war.
Behind all this I see this, that to get a grade you have to agree and put up a story about something you know is wrong. I see brainwashing, they are preparing you for the future MSM. Only the pathological liars make it.

SDFarsight wrote:
ASPER wrote:
You could also say that is one of the bordering countries with Iran, the main competitor in the middle east, who puts the monopoly of NATO countries in jeopardy. NATO and its allies need to be able to control the Iran-Afghan border for possible future attacks.
I doubt Iran would want to attack Afghanistan.

NATO and its allies want to attack Iran because Iran compromises their monopoly on the region.
Again, I have been only suggesting ideas, sarcastic(because it shows the sincerity of tyrants) ones to make the pro-war people look bad.


SDFarsight wrote:
ASPER wrote:
If you give the official reasons... "Protect democracy" and "defeat AlQaeda", all you'll be doing is propaganda for NATO. That is what the MSM does, be original, and real.
If it's propaganda, then it's not official.

Propaganda can be official.
Official means within the establishment.
The establishment always have their reports, analysts and spokespeople ready to give their biased version of reality.