It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


UK plans rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 24 2010 @ 09:14 AM

British defense secretary: 'We are not a global policeman'

Senior British officials, including new Foreign Secretary William Hague, arrived in Afghanistan Saturday with a warning that Britain wants to withdraw its troops as soon as possible.

Hague, Defense Secretary Liam Fox and International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell are set to meet President Hamid Karzai in their first visit to the country since a new coalition government took power in London this month.

Hague described Afghanistan -- where around 10,000 British troops are helping fight a Taliban-led insurgency well into its ninth year -- as "our most urgent priority" in comments released from London as the party touched down.

In an interview with The Times newspaper before arriving in Kabul, Fox made clear the visit would focus on speeding up the withdrawal of British troops from Afghanistan, and that no new troops would be deployed.

Wise political policy on the part of the British as public support continues to fall.
Now if only Pres. Obama would listen to his citizens instead of those that profit in death and blood.

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 09:21 AM
reply to post by whaaa

No no no, the Taliban is there. That is where the fight is. /s

At least that is what the Dem faithful keep saying. They back Obama all the way on anything he does, even if it is the same thing as Bush.

Go get em Obama!

Frelling idiocy.

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 09:24 AM
Looks good on the surface.

But I think it's more rhetoric to be perfectly honest. They need those troops elsewhere and they will either be redeployed to new battles in Iran and North Korea, or deployed on the streets in my opinion.

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 09:30 AM

I think UK is headed in the right direction!!

It seems they have some new leaders that are trying to overturn their bloated government and law system. It appears they are listening to their public. It appears they are trying to return the power to the people.

As Nick Clegg put it, "This will be the most significant political change since 1832."!!!!

The US needs a Nick Clegg. Do we have Ron or a Rand Paul that can pull this off? Will the Tea Party push someone into the right spot to get this done? Could next May's headline be that the "US moves toward a rapid withdrawal from Afghanistan with Iraq to follow?"

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 09:30 AM
More likely they are going to the Falklands. My guess is that British intelligence found out that the Argies are up to something.

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 09:30 AM
I'm sure it would be a popular move. But we need to define what we are there for in the first place. Is it to protect the Afghans from the Taliban who make the lives of most Afghanis hell or are we their to stop future terrorist attacks from being planned at terrorist training camps. To be honest I've never been sure what the objective is.

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 09:30 AM

[edit on 24-5-2010 by woodwardjnr]

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 09:37 AM

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
I'm sure it would be a popular move. But we need to define what we are there for in the first place. Is it to protect the Afghans from the Taliban who make the lives of most Afghanis hell or are we their to stop future terrorist attacks from being planned at terrorist training camps. To be honest I've never been sure what the objective is.

This article might give some indication of the real reason.

Follow the money for truth.

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 10:14 AM
reply to post by whaaa

Spot on. I only browsed the article and will read it in full in a sec.

Breaking a country means defense contracts which helps to launder taxpayers money and create opportunities in new, previously inaccessible lands. Rebuilding that country, with your chosen regime in power, is even more lucrative. There is no other reason to be there. Any Taliban, Al-Qeada rhetoric is cover for the real reason we're there.

Don't be fooled into thinking the coalition government are any different from the previous though. They work for the banksters just as Labour did. Nick Clegg is no saviour, nor Cameron. They're all corrupt, immoral, unethical and only interested in what's best for the top earners wallets.

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 03:22 PM
My understanding is ( including conspiracies )

The US aided the Taliban in their fight against the Russians.
A profitable source like the opium trade is rather difficult to maintain when your most worthy enemy is in control.

The Taliban prohibited the popi fields. ( something with religion )
There goes commerce. 9-11 was staged to gain back control.

I've also heard of an important pipeline in the area.

One thing I can say is that they are definitely not there for the people of Afghanistan.

If the Brits want to leave then they are apparently unaware of the reason they are there in the first place. Or, they ain't getting any or enough. Or politics demands for it to keep the public at ease.

[edit on 5/24/2010 by Sinter Klaas]

posted on May, 24 2010 @ 03:41 PM
I'm sure I won't be alone when I say " Thank god. Its about time we got our troops out of this illegal war on a non existant enamy".

Personally I dont think this will happen as the UK politicians love to suck the C"""S of the US goverment.

best keep our fingers crossed.

posted on May, 31 2010 @ 10:01 AM
It's official, the U.S. military's length of involvement in Afghanistan has surpassed it's involvement in Vietnam.

posted on May, 31 2010 @ 10:45 AM
Look at it the this way.

The "Surge" is underway. tens of thousands more US troops being deployed.

Operational command of British forces has been transferred to the Americans.

it's quite obvious to me that Afghanistan will be used as a land staging post for Iran!!!!

So would not surprise me if the British Gov knowing this said balls to that! we're out of here. so they have a plausible denial when it all kicks off between the US Iran Israel and every bugger else!!

NO WAY do we want to get sucked into that!! there is NO WAY the British public would support another move, on the grounds of Oooh the have first strike capability, or maybe could have, they have WMD or maybe could have. TRhey could destabilize the region or would do. if WE don't stoppem!!

Everyone knows the reasons, it's all about contracts for lobbyists and oil, and the British Gov learned its lesson after Iraq, when their share of the pie was boxes full of young dead soldiers, and the big shaft!. it high time that the US Citizens realised this too. Or do they already but just don't care or what??

Think we're gonna to that again!

Sorry USA you on you're own in this one!

posted on May, 31 2010 @ 11:01 AM
Well as long as they dont come back over here, took us ages to get rid of them last time

posted on May, 31 2010 @ 12:28 PM
reply to post by Lady_Tuatha

Only on Paddy's day!!!

posted on May, 31 2010 @ 03:56 PM
reply to post by JakiusFogg

Do you think MAYBE the US government will listen to the world and to it's people.

Oh what the hell was I thinking. The government never listens to the people.

We have a foreign country invading ours with millions of people each year yet they send troops to the other side of the world.

Well, ain't that sweet.

posted on May, 31 2010 @ 04:11 PM
The real reason for this is simple. We're broke, like the rest of europe. In hock to our eyeballs. We cant afford it. Given that we are about the undertake the worst austerity measures for 50 years they don't really have a choice. Its as simple as that.

posted on May, 31 2010 @ 04:22 PM
reply to post by justwokeup

Oh that's just great that is. here's me think we just had some moral epiphany, and stearing a new course under our New Green Government (Blue / Yellow Mix).

But no, it just turns out we're skint.
Well lets save up for a few years to buy soem new shiney spud guns and glass bottles and a couple cans of petrol and we'll be off, back in for another go.

Instead of bayonets we could issue our boys with IKEA carving knives at a quid fifity a go.

Helmets? easy saucepans from the pound shop.

Rifles and Ammunition?? not Needed. Just load each soldier up with 8 pints of Stella Artios and tell him the enemy over there was eyeing up his bird!!

We'd be done and dusted and back home for tea, in no time at all!!!

posted on May, 31 2010 @ 08:26 PM
Probably best to give the troops a rest before we invade Iran

posted on Jun, 2 2010 @ 11:46 PM

British defense secretary: 'We are not a global policeman'

If only that had been volunteered (and meant) before 2003's Iraq invasio; and we might not be leaving (or have failed) our Afghanistan project in 2010.
I still believe the Allies may as well, have been bombing our own infrastructure, when we invaded Iraq in 2003. More Iraqis have been killed by post Saddam violence than all the people to have died under Saddam. Politically the country is becoming increasingly united with Iran. And (from a Western oil stability, pro-Israel existence, point of view) this is worse than the country being under Saddam.

On the other hand the cultural problems our missions have faced are much the same in both countries: I.e. both are tribal societies for about as far back as the human race goes. Both countries are accustomed to a male governed, community influenced, autocracy. Our system tries to eliminate community, replacing it with a geographically available "seat". Our system is one person, one number of votes, and actually relies on the electorate thinking of themselves as individuals, first and foremost. Here's why...

The Problem With Democracy...
When you want to do business with a tribal society (like get them to vote for you, in a weird system, some European conquerors are imposing), you make "gifts" to its elders. These elders then listen to what you have to say, decide if the "gift" is big enough, and if they do when they tell their whole tribe to vote for you. The elder actually saves-distribute most of the gift on behalf of his tribe. He calls them together and tells them who he thinks they should vote for. The people of the tribe don't much care about this stupid voting, system, either. So they choose to do, what their elder says. This means large amounts of votes have been effectively bulk purchased, and its not a matter of security at the ballot box (although it can be in both Iraq and Afghanistan if somebody has made a "gift" to the man who e.g. transports votes to a counting station.

Why Iraq has moved towards Iran...
It's happened because over two thirds of Iraqis are ShIts and therefore share the same religion as Iran. The difference is today's Iranians are increasingly moderate, and secular in their outlook. Being Western is widely considered cool (probably because that's in sharp contrast, to the political, opinions, of the generally older population).
However Iraq is different. Here the older generation tends to be far more Secular in their political beliefs, than the younger generation. This is because they were brought up under Saddam Hussein's education system, and you need to remember that before the 1991 UN sanctions, Iraq used to have one of the best financed, free, public education, systems in the Middle East. Saddam did this because the Fundamentalists were his political enemies. Both wanted to kill each other. Saddam (like us) saw education as the best way to eliminate Tribal-Religious threats from his own population. Before 1991, Saddam had aspirations to model his economy on the United States. You might think it would please the Western World, but instead it alarmed us because Saddam hated Israel, and was not considered "predictable". The last thing the Western World wanted was a Saddam, with a powerful economy, financing a powerful military. That is the real reason why U.N.. sanctions were allowed to harm the Iraq economy, far more than they influenced Saddam's military.
However those Iraqis brought up under U.N. sanctions (when Saddam's media blamed Western governments, and many were unemployed) the people became more Fundamentalist. But this is far more true for those educated post 2003. This is because there are no longer, state run schools, in many areas. Instead the education system has community based, religious, education, effort. (About as opposite to a Western Education, or many government vales, as you can get).

If only: We had not bombed (and just lifted Iraq's Sanctions when it became clear the government had disarmed) we would be so much stronger position today. Instead we have a huge bill, an increasingly nuclear (capable) Iran, with a pro-Islamic neighbour. Iran, rural Pakistan and the Taliban have all improved their co-operation during our governments, pathetic, "war on words" (I mean "terror"!).

The Sunnis used to stop the ShIIts from brockering any bond with Iran. But because we made a tribal society, a democracy, literally millions of Sunnis have fled to Syria (which should eventurally, make it a more military capable, country). Absolute Mess!!!

new topics

top topics


log in