David Cameron on Afghanistan - "Mission accomplished" - Polidicks

[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/__Exl9-i4mCs/TCkqrXk65hI/AAAAAAAAAeI/2QNX9QaCm88/s640/Photo+Osborne+and+Cameron+laughing.png[/img] [url]http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2013/12/cameron-afghanistan-mission-accomplished-2013121715116889801.html[/url] [quote] Prime Minister David Cameron said on Monday that British troops could leave Afghanistan next year with a sense of having accomplished their mission, despite worries about the ongoing Taliban insurgency, drug cultivation and human rights abuses. His comments were immediately compared to a banner bearing the words "Mission Accomplished" that was strung across the bridge of a US aircraft carrier in 2003 for a speech about the Iraq war by former US President George W Bush. The message came to be seen by the president's critics as hubristic, premature and triumphalist - it was followed by another decade of fighting in which tens of thousands of people died across Iraq. [B]...[/B] Cameron's critics said the words were misguided, given the widespread concerns over Afghan security, the drugs trade, human rights and allegations of corruption under the governance of President Hamid Karzai. Afghanistan, which is preparing for elections next year, still faces a potent Taliban insurgency as the United States and other foreign powers withdraw their troops. Yury Fedotov, head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, said in October that Afghanistan risks becoming a "[B]full-fledged narco-state[/B]". Earlier this month, a UN report criticised the slow and uneven implementation of a law designed to protect women from violence. [B]Opposition Labour politician Paul Flynn, a prominent critic of the Afghan war, attacked Cameron, highlighting the number of British soldiers killed or injured and the financial costs. [/B] [B]"'Mission Accomplished': 446 dead, 2,000 grievously injured, uncounted Afghan dead, 40 billion pounds UK cost, crook Karzai rules, drugs rampant," he said on Twitter. [/B] [B]Labour's defence spokesman, Vernon Coaker MP, said it was too soon to suggest the Afghan mission was over when British soldiers were still fighting the Taliban.[/B] [B]"The job is not done in Afghanistan," he added.[/B] Britain still has about 5,000 British troops in the country, but plans to withdraw them by the end of next year.[/quote]

That isn't what he said though. Someone asked him if the mission would be accomplished by the end of 2014, he said he thought so. Based on what he [I]feels[/i] the mission is. As much as I hate Cameron, the media is seriously taking this out of context. Its not like he did a Bush and publicly declare that the mission was accomplished and everything was fine. For what its worth, I think he is kind of right. But at the same time he is clearly so so wrong.

[t]http://puu.sh/5Pl9T.png[/t] HAHA! WE DID IT! HAHAAAA! [t]http://puu.sh/5PlsV.png[/t] HAAAAHAAAAAAA!

Ha! We finished the mission back in 2003! Step it up Aussies!

"narco-state"?? No shit thats exactly what it was before. Taliban have no clue how to make use of any of their countries resources other than opium.

[QUOTE=Exuberance;43208782]Ha! We finished the mission back in 2003! Step it up Aussies![/QUOTE] Uh... Wrong country?

[QUOTE=Sourcegamer8;43209170]Uh... Wrong country?[/QUOTE] Nah, you just all sound the same to us 'mericans

The "War on Terror" has to be the greatest financial and military [b]clusterfuck[/b] of our time. There's just nothing comparable to it in regards to corruption and loss of life in our lifetime.

[QUOTE=Sourcegamer8;43209170]Uh... Wrong country?[/QUOTE] "But Australia has the UK flag in their flag so they're like the same right????"

Just came back last week from there and the ANA are holding there own and doing a pretty good job at the moment. We have helped them a lot in that aspect.

[QUOTE=ewitwins;43209570]The "War on Terror" has to be the greatest financial and military [b]clusterfuck[/b] of our time. There's just nothing comparable to it in regards to corruption and loss of life in our lifetime.[/QUOTE] lmfao dude you're in your mid 20s at the most. What [B]lifetime[/B] are you talking about?

[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;43209650]lmfao dude you're in your mid 20s at the most. What [B]lifetime[/B] are you talking about?[/QUOTE] You just hit it on the head.

[QUOTE=ewitwins;43209740]You just hit it on the head.[/QUOTE] what ever are you talking about? You can't say "our" lifetimes because who are you talking to? Vietnam was many, many times more "costly" than the [I]war on terror[/I] Which brings me to my 2nd point: you need to be specific. The war on terror is a very broad generalized term covering many different conflicts and on going military action. Some is very successful, others not so. For example, do you know anything about military action in somalia to remove al qaeda leadership? No, neither do I. I know its been done, but we're not privy to the details. So we cannot say objectively whether that action has lead to a dent in the ability of terrorist groups like Al Qaeda to take offensive action. We just don't know, and won't know until this becomes declassified and we can view the whole shebang retrospectively. War is a constant in humanity, and while its popular to be on the "fuck the govt and fuck these stupid wars" bandwagon right now, the war in Afghanistan is objectively actually been a very low cost war in terms of lives. There very easily could be a much larger and much deadlier war just around the corner.

[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;43209777]what ever are you talking about? You can't say "our" lifetimes because who are you talking to? Vietnam was many, many times more "costly" than the [I]war on terror[/I] Which brings me to my 2nd point: you need to be specific. The war on terror is a very broad generalized term covering many different conflicts and on going military action. Some is very successful, others not so. For example, do you know anything about military action in somalia to remove al qaeda leadership? No, neither do I. I know its been done, but we're not privy to the details. So we cannot say objectively whether that action has lead to a dent in the ability of terrorist groups like Al Qaeda to take offensive action. We just don't know, and won't know until this becomes declassified and we can view the whole shebang retrospectively. War is a constant in humanity, and while its popular to be on the "fuck the govt and fuck these stupid wars" bandwagon right now, the war in Afghanistan is objectively actually been a very low cost war in terms of lives. There very easily could be a much larger and much deadlier war just around the corner.[/QUOTE] Though you cant deny that the american clusterfuck is greater than ever. Id say its perfectly natural for him to worry about how its all going to crash.

[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;43208787] No shit thats exactly what it was before. Taliban have no clue how to make use of any of their countries resources other than opium.[/QUOTE] but before 9/11 opium production was being reduced by the taliban. they were anti-opium. production was down by 99%. afghanistan only became the world's largest illicit opium producer again after we invaded go figure

[QUOTE=Sprockethead;43209792]Though you cant deny that the american clusterfuck is greater than ever. Id say its perfectly natural for him to worry about how its all going to crash.[/QUOTE] I'd say Vietnam, Korea, and the Afghan-Soviet War are Americas biggest screw ups in recent time. Compared to those three were actually doing pretty well.

[QUOTE=plunger435;43210066]I'd say Vietnam, Korea, and the Afghan-Soviet War are Americas biggest screw ups in recent time. Compared to those three were actually doing pretty well.[/QUOTE] anyone notice that every single time we decide to be the world police it ends badly and nothing is accomplished?

[QUOTE=plunger435;43210066]I'd say Vietnam, Korea, and the Afghan-Soviet War are Americas biggest screw ups in recent time. Compared to those three were actually doing pretty well.[/QUOTE] youve never been so far in debt that youre having a communist country buy it up before. Youve never had a surveillance state this extensive before. want me to go on?

[QUOTE=ZakkShock;43208718][t]http://puu.sh/5Pl9T.png[/t] HAHA! WE DID IT! HAHAAAA! [t]http://puu.sh/5PlsV.png[/t] HAAAAHAAAAAAA![/QUOTE] [t]http://i.imgur.com/TrA8Qm4.png[/t] "hooray"

I think its funny the Labour guy is giving cameron shit about the cost and the deaths when it was a Labour government that decided we should invade.

david is a cunt. he should fuck off allready

[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;43211249]I think its funny the Labour guy is giving cameron shit about the cost and the deaths when it was a Labour government that decided we should invade.[/QUOTE] Well the article stated that he, personaly, was against the war

[QUOTE=Sprockethead;43210793]youve never been so far in debt that youre having a communist country buy it up before. Youve never had a surveillance state this extensive before. want me to go on?[/QUOTE] The wars are worse since they actually caused a loss of life.

[QUOTE=ashrobhoy;43212132]david is a cunt. he should fuck off allready[/QUOTE] Let's show him what we think of his policies by refusing to vote for his party in the next elections.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43213605]Let's show him what we think of his policies by refusing to vote for his party in the next elections.[/QUOTE] That didn't seem to work so well last time.