who should be the peacekeeping force in afghanistan

[sexy-girl]

i watched BBC news programme tonight was about kabul and reported from there saying how things had changed

one thing i saw that was very heart warming was the first tv broadcast made after the the taliban fled was made by a female presenter ... considering they werent allowed to show their face in public it must of been amazing for every woman who saw it to see a woman showing her face on television and presenting the news

near the end of the programme it was on the "what next" part of the discussion and it stated that america had said they werent going to be part of any peace keeping force in the region but would provide aid for the rebuilding

so what do you think ... where should the troops come from to be peace keepers in the region or should there be any ?

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

There shouldn't be any peace-keeping force -- there should be exacty what there will be, a provisional government made of all the various ethnic groups and tribes. It will happen because it has to happen.

 

[Phoenyx]

Canada allways seem sto lead these so I think they will be leading this one now.

 

[sexy-girl]

i agree that there should be a goverment made up of all ethic groups in afganistan maybe even including part of the taliban


but i dont think thats going to happen anytime soon i think there needs to be a peace keeping force in place to stop kabul and the major citys turning into chaos


afganistan before the taliban was just chaos there was no goverment and crimes and murders and women getting raped happened all the time


the taliban did put a stop to that but of course they went way way too extreame and they themselves became the criminals


i think afganistan though could return to the chaos if we're not careful ... and it would be our fault if it did ... thats why i think we should be resposible for the peacekeeping force ... we = america england and anyone else that wishes to help

 

[Marxist]

Where was all the concern about Afganistan before Sept. 11th?

 

[modest mouse]

The people of Afghanistan will obviously begin the process of fashioning their own government, the question here is who maintains order as the details are worked out among the people.

The Tribal elders are in fact asking for a peace keeping force while the country is "in the wind".

Whatever the composition of the Peace Keeping force, it will be under the heading of the UN. The only organization currently with the infrastructure to handle the task.

I'm optimistic about Indonesia's desire to be part of the force. Indonesia has one of the world's largest Muslim populations and is an example of economic success in the non-Western world(until a recent decline). I believe Indonesia has already promised troops to the effort.

The involvement of Turkey is key. Turkey has respect in both the region and in the eyes of the international community. The Turks have already begun humanitarian work in kabul.

Bringing the Arab nations into the fold is a high priority, but each nation must weigh the feelings of its populace and proceed accordingly.

There are the usual players...besides America, which I think is makeing a wise move in stepping aside...The Brits, Canada, Australia. The Germans seem to show a willingness to become more involved, as do the French(is it just me or is France always the last one to commit anything?).

The Russians are almost anxious to show goodwill in this effort but their presence may be more harmful than helpful.

It seems it will be a diverse force, probably with some nations providing hardware while others offer troops. It would seem the Force will be needed for some time, as the encroaching winter hampers travel in the region and a great deal of governmental questions are going to need resolution.

 

[sexy-girl]

england as far as i know have 6000 troops ready to act as peace keepers ... maybe its for the best english forces are experienced in this sort of thing and america has enough money to pay the bills

 

[crystalhunting]

I would say it needs to be comprised of troops from these nations;


1.Indonesia{most populated Muslim country}
2.Turkey{respected by all}
3.Morroco{also respected by all}
4.England{Afganistan was formerly part of British Empire}
5.France{has a high muslim population,as well as the F.L.}
6.USA{obvious}
7.Malaysia{Muslim nation}
8.China{the northern peoples are Chinese related partially}



CH

 

[KillerMuffin]

There must be a peacekeeping force in place until Afghanistan has a government that can effectively take over the job of keeping the peace. Peacekeepers also act as policemen and a national defense force. Afghanistan is currently defenseless and probably doesn't have much by way of civil policing. There is no government right now and there are a few groups who are interested in doing that job. Unless we want this country to fall into another civil war, there must be a military presence there.

Jeez, Marxist, what a stupid question. What do you think would have happened if anyone had gone into Afghanistan for the purpose of deposing the Taliban? As much as the Western world and some islamic nations wanted to do something, there was no feasible way of doing so without erupting a war in the entire region and exciting anti-western resentment. Not to mention we would not have been able to get a place to stage a military operation against the Taliban. Pakistan would have been against it and Uzebekistan wouldn't have been viable. The only option prior to 9-11 was political. The interest was there. The ability wasn't.

 

[lavender]

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

I don't particularly care who does the peacekeeping in Afghanistan as long as the US has some part in it to assure that the new government is unfriendly to terrorists. The UN has done creditable jobs like this in the past. They'd probably be the best qualified and relatively acceptable to the Afghans. Still the UN is dominated by the US and Western Europe and it might look like an occupying army, but even so, so be it. Serious action needs to be taken lest we have attacks far worse than 9/11.

 

[Marxist]

.

 

[Marxist]

Afganistan is doomed to repeat its history because it's not a country. It's a place. Countries share and celebrate commonalities. Afganistan is landlocked, large, mountainous, and surrounded by the most aggressive neighbors one could hope for. Whatever group or country is put in charge of the joint will leave in disgust after fighting breaks out among the zillion different tribes backed by Iran, India, Pakistan, or whomever. No one answered my earlier queery: WHERE WAS THE CONCERN ABOUT AFGANISTAN BEFORE 9-11?

I'll tell you where it'll be as soon as most of the terrorists are caught or killed, right back on the back page of paper like it always was. Concern will fade faster than a wind whipped American flag on the antennae of a Nissan pickup driven by a Mexican.

 

[RedJ]

Afgans keep you warm right?

Marxist, no one cared because knew about the place and there was no need to talk about it since there is nothing in the country of any value to exploit so let the bastards rot was the tacit flavor of the day. People cared more about the poor giant Budda than the Afgan that dies every 5 minutes. Of course now the Taliban threatens to rattle the US's hegemony over collective thought, namely TINA, so we have to save the country. Imperialism. Every country needs a peace keeping force in the absence of a government while a government is being formed. More than likely, however, democracy will be the syrup to swollow the pill of Capitalism and the Afgans will be making us Nike shoes and cosmetics or Mickey Mouse Pajamas and third world wages all in the name of Democracy.

RedJ

 

[Magnus 67]

I agree that there should be a multi-national coalition to keep the peace until a new multiethnic government could be put in place. There needs to be more emphasis on Muslim countries being involved in this process. I think that America should remain on the sidelines, so that the government that gets put in place has credibility in the region.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

No one answered my earlier queery: WHERE WAS THE CONCERN ABOUT AFGANISTAN BEFORE 9-11?

I'm not sure what the point of your question is. I don't think anyone would argue that any of this bombing campaign is motivated by concern for the welfare of the Afghan people per se. We didn't particularly care about the Afghan people then and I don't think we care much for them now. We're concerned about our own interests and these interests are best served by ending ethnic feuding and civil unrest in Afghanistan lest it remain a place where anti-US terrorists are protected and trained.

I don't see anything wrong with this selfish goal as it simultaneously aids the status of the Afghan people. The only losers here are the terrorists and the government that protects them.

Should we have tried to oust the Taliban before September 11? Definitely, and I think we might have had we fully appreciated the extent of bin Laden's destructive potential.

I want peacekeeping in Afghanistan for my own safety first and for the Afghan people's safety second. I think most people that would argue otherwise are lying to themselves.

 

[p_p_man]

I had a dream...I had a dream...

I dreamt that Afghanistan went back to its tribal system of Government

I dreamt that the great world of Islam rose up as one to fight the West

I dreamt that bin Laden was never found

And I dreamt that Bush walked away from the problem...

I had a dream...

 

[Azwed]

Re: I had a dream...I had a dream...

I dreamt that Afghanistan went back to its tribal system of Government

I dreamt that the great world of Islam rose up as one to fight the West

I dreamt that bin Laden was never found

And I dreamt that Bush walked away from the problem...

I had a dream...

I had a dream that I shot you in the head with my DEagle for being an ass again. Think there is any meaning behind that dream?







No offense of course you Limey bastard.

 

[p_p_man]

Re: Re: I had a dream...I had a dream...

I had a dream that I shot you in the head with my DEagle for being an ass again. Think there is any meaning behind that dream?

No offense of course you Limey bastard.

I had a dream....

You missed...

 

[Azwed]

Bah I used to shoot competition when I was a teenager. I don't miss.

 

[p_p_man]

. I don't miss.

In that case I can duck real fast!

 

[paganangel]

what the-? did i miss a meeting?

what the fuck is all this peecekeeping force bullshit? anyone remember the good old days of occupation and assimilation? i mean, why would we leave peace keeping force there? if this is a war, let's try and win it. leave a puppet government in their for a generation or two. slowly educate and enlighten the poor and ignorant, show that people can live in peace, even with often extreme difference. (this cannot be done in a short period of time. it will take a generation at least.) and while we are at it leat's do sometghing about the oils ituation. everytime the littlest thing happens to isreal, it is an excuse to take land away from palastinians. well, if we are such great buddies of theirs, let's just do what they do. obviously the un has no problem with it. while we are at it, FUCK THE UN. i haven't seen them do anything worth squate yet except ruin parking, raise the crime rate and fuck up the budget in my city. they are nothing but a gripung board, and they have no real authority w/o the unanimous backing of it's members. yet the orginization exists to resolve disputes between it's members. how the fuck does that work? peacekeeping my ass. a territory of the united states. they started it. to the victor goes the spoils.

 

[p_p_man]

Yeah paganangel...

you're only saying that because you won this one...

But it wasn't difficult was it?

 

[paganangel]

y do u not believe in lucidity?

what does us winning have to do with how the "aftermath" should be handled? and btw, exactly when the fuck did we win? i don't think that happened yet. not even close. not to be tangental, this can't be "won." perhaps that's another thread. let's stick to ythe argument at hand

 

[p_p_man]

Re: y do u not believe in lucidity?

what does us winning have to do with how the "aftermath" should be handled? and btw, exactly when the fuck did we win? i don't think that happened yet. not even close. not to be tangental, this can't be "won." perhaps that's another thread. let's stick to ythe argument at hand

AT LAST!

I've met a free thinking honest American!