On Friday March 5th, 2010, Lance Corporal Joe Glenton was sentenced to 9 months in a military prison for going absent without leave during the summer of 2007,as his unit was preparing to return to Afghanistan. He first went to Afghanistan in February 2006 with 4 Logistic Support Regiment
His defence lawyer, Nick Wrack said “He (Joe Glenton) thought he was going to help Afghanistan, to help the local people. The experience and the reality began to conflict with that.”
After going AWOL, Joe travelled in South East Asia and Australia, then flew back to Britain, handed himself in to the military authorities, but then campaigned against the Afghan war, delivering a letter to the Prime Minister, and addressing a rally in Trafalgar Square.
Is it right to send Joe Glenton to prison for 9 months? Well, Army discipline
insists on punishing him for going absent. What sort of verdict would a civilian court have reached?
During the 1950’s, popular feeling turned against the death penalty. There were instances of juries refusing to bring in a verdict of ‘Murder’, because they did not want to be responsible for sending someone to judicial death. Thus the law of innocence and guilt was brought into contempt because the punishment exceeded what most people regarded as right.
If Joe Glenton had been tried in a civilian court, and if I had been on the jury, I should have voted for his acquittal, even though it was apparent that he had gone absent without leave. In previous posts, I’ve argued that the Afghan war is unwinnable, Senior British officers agree. It is being waged for no clear reason. Certainly no member of the British Government has ever seriously explained why British soldiers are being sent there to be killed and wounded.
Joe Glenton, however, offers us a different perspective on the war. His defence lawyer said “He (Joe Glenton) thought he was going to help Afghanistan, to help the local people. The experience and the reality began to conflict with that.”
We are regularly told NATO forces are in Afghanistan to help the country.
It has been difficult to calculate the number of Afghan civilians killed. But, by every estimate, more have been killed by NATO forces than by the Taliban and Afghan warlords. One estimate reckons between four thousand and five and a half thousand killed by Afghans, but between five and a half thousand killed and eight and a half thousand killed by NATO.
There are also the indirect deaths, including a vast number of children who have died as a result of starvation; one Afghan estimate states that 120,000 Afghan civilians have been forced out of their homes.
How does killing Afghans help Afghanistan?
If neither the British or the American government can give a good reason for continuing the war, and if NATO forces have killed more innocent people than the Afghan forces, we should now judge the war as not only ill-conceived, not only unwinnable, but also immoral.
Joe Glenton went to Afghanistan hoping to help the Afghans. Our leaders affirm that to be the purpose of the war. Joe Glenton has given up 9 months of his life for protesting that if we cannot help the Afghans, we should bring the troops home.
You may not approve of War Resisters International. But if the war in Afghanistan continues, protest against it is bound to grow, and to become more violent.
How does killing Afghans help Afghanistan? Bring the troops home.
Showing posts with label Afghanistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Afghanistan. Show all posts
Wednesday, 21 April 2010
Saturday, 17 April 2010
Cost of the Afghanistan War
On March 23rd, 2010, the BBC News contained an item which stated that Britain’s defence budget would be £36 billion in deficit within the next ten years.
In October 2008, Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, commander of 16 Air Assault Brigade handed over to 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines. Interviewed, he said it would be impossible to defeat the Taliban.
A victory over the Taliban, he continued, is “neither feasible nor supportable.”
In October 2008, the Rupee News stated:
“NATO forces in Afghanistan have been defeated. The British, the Germans, and the rest know it. The US, instead of admitting it, is broadening the theatre of operations. It is dangerously expanding the war into Pakistan.”
For a very long time it has been accepted without question that when the nation is at war, there must be no argument about cost; what the military requires must be provided.
That is an understandable assumption when the nation is being attacked and fighting for its existence. Britain was on the verge of bankruptcy at the end of the Second World War, but the policy of all-out war, not counting the cost, did save Britain from conquest by the Nazis.
But why should that assumption apply to wars where there is no risk of Britain being invaded?
Anyhow, such arguments are likely to sound more and more abstract, as the British people discover they have less and less money to spend on the lethal fireworks of modern combat.
Millions of people in the Middle East think the war waged by NATO in Afghanistan is thoroughly immoral. Some of us may think so too. But now we need not bother too much about whether the war is immoral. On the one hand, it is unwinnable; on the other, we cannot afford to continue with it.
Bring the troops home.
In October 2008, Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, commander of 16 Air Assault Brigade handed over to 3 Commando Brigade Royal Marines. Interviewed, he said it would be impossible to defeat the Taliban.
A victory over the Taliban, he continued, is “neither feasible nor supportable.”
In October 2008, the Rupee News stated:
“NATO forces in Afghanistan have been defeated. The British, the Germans, and the rest know it. The US, instead of admitting it, is broadening the theatre of operations. It is dangerously expanding the war into Pakistan.”
For a very long time it has been accepted without question that when the nation is at war, there must be no argument about cost; what the military requires must be provided.
That is an understandable assumption when the nation is being attacked and fighting for its existence. Britain was on the verge of bankruptcy at the end of the Second World War, but the policy of all-out war, not counting the cost, did save Britain from conquest by the Nazis.
But why should that assumption apply to wars where there is no risk of Britain being invaded?
Anyhow, such arguments are likely to sound more and more abstract, as the British people discover they have less and less money to spend on the lethal fireworks of modern combat.
Millions of people in the Middle East think the war waged by NATO in Afghanistan is thoroughly immoral. Some of us may think so too. But now we need not bother too much about whether the war is immoral. On the one hand, it is unwinnable; on the other, we cannot afford to continue with it.
Bring the troops home.
Thursday, 15 April 2010
Participation Politics & Tony Benn
The Guardian on March 17th, 2005, contained an article by Tony Benn titled Not apathy, but anger.
“My own experience,” he wrote “four years after leaving parliament to devote more time to politics, has convinced me that, far from being apathetic, most people are angry that no one seems to be listening to them; nor do they believe what they are told. Anger and mistrust are highly political responses and in no sense can they be described as apathy.”
Tony Benn is living up to what he promised. He tours the country incessantly, calling on British citizens disillusioned with government, politicians, Parliament, and the inadequacy of a system which describes itself as democracy, but is not democracy, to take to the streets in public protest.
One of the causes for which he campaigns tirelessly is the call to bring back British troops from Afghanistan. Anyone who bothers to read history will know that no foreign power has ever succeeded in occupying Afghanistan.
The Afghan war is unwinnable. NATO should admit defeat, and if NATO insists on continuing to fight, Britain should anyhow withdraw its troops.
The Afghan war is unwinnable.
Bring the troops home.
See next post
“My own experience,” he wrote “four years after leaving parliament to devote more time to politics, has convinced me that, far from being apathetic, most people are angry that no one seems to be listening to them; nor do they believe what they are told. Anger and mistrust are highly political responses and in no sense can they be described as apathy.”
Tony Benn is living up to what he promised. He tours the country incessantly, calling on British citizens disillusioned with government, politicians, Parliament, and the inadequacy of a system which describes itself as democracy, but is not democracy, to take to the streets in public protest.
One of the causes for which he campaigns tirelessly is the call to bring back British troops from Afghanistan. Anyone who bothers to read history will know that no foreign power has ever succeeded in occupying Afghanistan.
The Afghan war is unwinnable. NATO should admit defeat, and if NATO insists on continuing to fight, Britain should anyhow withdraw its troops.
The Afghan war is unwinnable.
Bring the troops home.
See next post
Wednesday, 2 December 2009
War is EXPENSIVE.
We have now heard President Obama is sending 30,000 troops to Afghanistan and HOPES to be able to withdraw in 2011. We have also heard this will cost a further 30 billion dollars on top of the already vast US Defence budget.
What could we not do with 30 billion dollars to provide defences against terrorism in the United States and Britain?
Our first defence against terrorism is an obvious one: find ways of not needing so much oil, and therefore not needing to fight wars in the Middle East to obtain oil.
How many people have heard of Malcolm McCullough? Not many, I guess.
Malcolm McCullough has built a sports car. At the 2008 Geneva Motor Show it achieved acceleration 0 – 60 mph in 7 seconds, and had a range of 250 miles, with fuel consumption equivalent to 150 miles per gallon. Yes, of course, it runs on hydrogen. Each of its four wheels has an electric motor. Electric cars have come a long way from the milk floats we all remember. Malcolm McCullough accepted the challenge of building an electric car which would compete seriously with the best petrol-driven cars.
The 2008 Motor Show. 2008. Eighteen months ago. Why have I only heard of this eighteen months afterwards - in a specialised journal?
”A team of five final year students from Kingston University,have designed and developed an electric motorcycle to compete in the Isle of Man TTXGP Grand Prix, the first ever zero emissions Grand Prix.The Isle of Man is probably the most famous
road race for motorcycles in the world and the race is open to teams from
across the globe. The Kingston students developed several innovative design
solutions to give them the edge against the more established and well funded
factory teams.” This notice came to me today in the bulletin of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institute.
Malcolm McCullough and the Kingston students are not alone. There are a fair number of engineers working with considerable success on building cars and motor bikes which will use electric engines, fuelled by hydrogen. The only waste product from Malcolm McCullough’s car is water. It emits no carbon dioxide; it makes no contribution to global warming.
It showed its paces at the 2008 Geneva Motor Show. Why in the name of all we cherish about our precious, fragile, planet, was Malcolm McCullough’s name not trumpeted across the media. Why in the name of sanity, is there not one sane woman or man in the gaggle of mental retards who inhabit the Houses of Parliament and the American Congress to propose funding the rapid building of cars and motor bikes along these lines?
What could not be done with even a small proportion of that 30 billion dollars which is going to be spent on blowing up Afghans?
Yesterday, I posted a blog praising Eddie Stobart for sending as much as possible of his freight by rail not road.
Suppose we could divert some of that 30 billion dollars from blowing up Afghans, and spend it on building a railway system, even if not good enough for a first world country, at least for the third world country which, thanks to our politicians, Britain is rapidly becoming?
War is expensive, in lives, in maimed personalities, in cash. Peace is also expensive, but it’s a more exciting adventure.
Vote for Peace - and that means spending cash on peace.
What could we not do with 30 billion dollars to provide defences against terrorism in the United States and Britain?
Our first defence against terrorism is an obvious one: find ways of not needing so much oil, and therefore not needing to fight wars in the Middle East to obtain oil.
How many people have heard of Malcolm McCullough? Not many, I guess.
Malcolm McCullough has built a sports car. At the 2008 Geneva Motor Show it achieved acceleration 0 – 60 mph in 7 seconds, and had a range of 250 miles, with fuel consumption equivalent to 150 miles per gallon. Yes, of course, it runs on hydrogen. Each of its four wheels has an electric motor. Electric cars have come a long way from the milk floats we all remember. Malcolm McCullough accepted the challenge of building an electric car which would compete seriously with the best petrol-driven cars.
The 2008 Motor Show. 2008. Eighteen months ago. Why have I only heard of this eighteen months afterwards - in a specialised journal?
”A team of five final year students from Kingston University,have designed and developed an electric motorcycle to compete in the Isle of Man TTXGP Grand Prix, the first ever zero emissions Grand Prix.The Isle of Man is probably the most famous
road race for motorcycles in the world and the race is open to teams from
across the globe. The Kingston students developed several innovative design
solutions to give them the edge against the more established and well funded
factory teams.” This notice came to me today in the bulletin of the Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institute.
Malcolm McCullough and the Kingston students are not alone. There are a fair number of engineers working with considerable success on building cars and motor bikes which will use electric engines, fuelled by hydrogen. The only waste product from Malcolm McCullough’s car is water. It emits no carbon dioxide; it makes no contribution to global warming.
It showed its paces at the 2008 Geneva Motor Show. Why in the name of all we cherish about our precious, fragile, planet, was Malcolm McCullough’s name not trumpeted across the media. Why in the name of sanity, is there not one sane woman or man in the gaggle of mental retards who inhabit the Houses of Parliament and the American Congress to propose funding the rapid building of cars and motor bikes along these lines?
What could not be done with even a small proportion of that 30 billion dollars which is going to be spent on blowing up Afghans?
Yesterday, I posted a blog praising Eddie Stobart for sending as much as possible of his freight by rail not road.
Suppose we could divert some of that 30 billion dollars from blowing up Afghans, and spend it on building a railway system, even if not good enough for a first world country, at least for the third world country which, thanks to our politicians, Britain is rapidly becoming?
War is expensive, in lives, in maimed personalities, in cash. Peace is also expensive, but it’s a more exciting adventure.
Vote for Peace - and that means spending cash on peace.
Friday, 23 October 2009
Stop Starvation .... with Books! And defuse Nick Griffin as well.
One reason to call for immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan is that the war is costing the British taxpayer too much money. How much did the invasion of Iraq cost us? We are not told. Once war is declared the money needed to fight the war is ring-fenced. Generals, quite rightly, ask for the soldiers and equipment they need to “do the job.” We, the taxpayers, are never allowed to decide whether we want to blow all that money away in explosions, never allowed to say we would rather spend our money on something else.
Politicians are, by definition, ring-fenced. Our system means we have a Minister of Defence, whose remit is to extract as much money as possible from the Treasury to spend on soldiers, armaments, etc. Similarly with all the other ministers. We, as normal human beings, know we have a certain amount of cash, some of which we have to spend on food, heating, mortgage, etc, and some which we spend on various activities. If one activity costs too much, we give it up.
We might well find ourselves in the position of wanting, but not being able to afford, a New Year holiday in Barbados. But instead, we might go for a springtime cycling holiday in Cornwall. Government spending is allocated in such a way that once the decision is taken to go to Barbados, there is no procedure for changing to a Cornish cycling trip.
If the British government cut its large expenditure on war and armaments, there would be plenty of money left for cycling trip expenditure which might actually achieve more than war.
It is. however, necessary to use the cliché, and think ‘out of the box.’ Last night on BBC Question Time www.bbc.co.uk/questiontime/,Nick Griffin www.bnp.org.uk was one of the guests. Hedged around with shifts of language, we nevertheless gather that the British National Party wishes to drive non-white people out of Britain.
We all know that Europe is being infiltrated in vast numbers by immigrants from Asia and Africa; why? Because their own countries offer them little hope of improving their lives.
Do we approve of immigration? And if so, how much? Well, we can, and should, discuss that. But surely everyone must approve of abolishing poverty in Third World countries.
One reason why life in Third World countries is getting worse and worse rapidly is because the population is rising. Now it is no use us telling an African family to have fewer children. With no welfare, no pensions, etc, the African couple will have six, seven, eight, children in order that some of the children will survive to look after their parents in old age.
But there is a simple solution, tried and tested.
Simple does not mean easy.
In the 1980’s the United Nations predicted world population would rise to 12 billion, which is far more than Planet Earth can support. But, mercifully, this prediction has now been revised, and the forecast is now a bit under 9 billion round 2040 (which is still far more than Planet Earth can support).
But why the revision of 3 billion less?
In 1989, the state of Kerala, in south India, was one of the poorest parts of the world. The average daily earning was 89 cents. A Brazilian educator Paulo Freire www.ptoweb.org/freire.html sexyracy.blogspot.com taught that education should be about the basic problems of living. Kerala started a state-wide campaign to teach people to read, with reading material which discussed hunger, poverty, safe drinking water, etc. Singers travelled the state encouraging participation. A slogan was shouted “Kerala reading, Kerala beautiful”. There were reading classes in the fields, on the shore, in cowsheds.
By 2000, Kerala literacy was nearly equivalent to that in the First World.
And, and, and … the women were literate, and the birthrate has declined to 18 births per thousand per year, while in much of Africa it is over 60 per thousand.
In the 1980’s, in many of the poorest countries, only about 3 % of women could read. Where women have learnt to read, the birthrate drops.
It costs much less to teach people to read, than it does to drop bombs on them.
The solution is simple; not easy; in a way very complicated; but simple: we need to set the cost of the Afghan war against the cost of sending books and teachers to poor countries; we need to take into account the fact that if we do spend the money on books not bombs, we may start to stop the reason for the British National Party’s existence.
That is a simple solution.
Stop starvation … with books.
I I obtained some of these figures from The Meaning of the 21st Century, www.21school.oz.ac.uk/ by James Martin,www.campaign.ox.ac.uk/
Politicians are, by definition, ring-fenced. Our system means we have a Minister of Defence, whose remit is to extract as much money as possible from the Treasury to spend on soldiers, armaments, etc. Similarly with all the other ministers. We, as normal human beings, know we have a certain amount of cash, some of which we have to spend on food, heating, mortgage, etc, and some which we spend on various activities. If one activity costs too much, we give it up.
We might well find ourselves in the position of wanting, but not being able to afford, a New Year holiday in Barbados. But instead, we might go for a springtime cycling holiday in Cornwall. Government spending is allocated in such a way that once the decision is taken to go to Barbados, there is no procedure for changing to a Cornish cycling trip.
If the British government cut its large expenditure on war and armaments, there would be plenty of money left for cycling trip expenditure which might actually achieve more than war.
It is. however, necessary to use the cliché, and think ‘out of the box.’ Last night on BBC Question Time www.bbc.co.uk/questiontime/,Nick Griffin www.bnp.org.uk was one of the guests. Hedged around with shifts of language, we nevertheless gather that the British National Party wishes to drive non-white people out of Britain.
We all know that Europe is being infiltrated in vast numbers by immigrants from Asia and Africa; why? Because their own countries offer them little hope of improving their lives.
Do we approve of immigration? And if so, how much? Well, we can, and should, discuss that. But surely everyone must approve of abolishing poverty in Third World countries.
One reason why life in Third World countries is getting worse and worse rapidly is because the population is rising. Now it is no use us telling an African family to have fewer children. With no welfare, no pensions, etc, the African couple will have six, seven, eight, children in order that some of the children will survive to look after their parents in old age.
But there is a simple solution, tried and tested.
Simple does not mean easy.
In the 1980’s the United Nations predicted world population would rise to 12 billion, which is far more than Planet Earth can support. But, mercifully, this prediction has now been revised, and the forecast is now a bit under 9 billion round 2040 (which is still far more than Planet Earth can support).
But why the revision of 3 billion less?
In 1989, the state of Kerala, in south India, was one of the poorest parts of the world. The average daily earning was 89 cents. A Brazilian educator Paulo Freire www.ptoweb.org/freire.html sexyracy.blogspot.com taught that education should be about the basic problems of living. Kerala started a state-wide campaign to teach people to read, with reading material which discussed hunger, poverty, safe drinking water, etc. Singers travelled the state encouraging participation. A slogan was shouted “Kerala reading, Kerala beautiful”. There were reading classes in the fields, on the shore, in cowsheds.
By 2000, Kerala literacy was nearly equivalent to that in the First World.
And, and, and … the women were literate, and the birthrate has declined to 18 births per thousand per year, while in much of Africa it is over 60 per thousand.
In the 1980’s, in many of the poorest countries, only about 3 % of women could read. Where women have learnt to read, the birthrate drops.
It costs much less to teach people to read, than it does to drop bombs on them.
The solution is simple; not easy; in a way very complicated; but simple: we need to set the cost of the Afghan war against the cost of sending books and teachers to poor countries; we need to take into account the fact that if we do spend the money on books not bombs, we may start to stop the reason for the British National Party’s existence.
That is a simple solution.
Stop starvation … with books.
I I obtained some of these figures from The Meaning of the 21st Century, www.21school.oz.ac.uk/ by James Martin,www.campaign.ox.ac.uk/
Thursday, 15 October 2009
The Emperor's New Clothes in Helmand
John Hutton, www.johnhuttonmp.co.uk/ epolitix.com apinfo.co.uk who, in June 2009, resigned as Minister of Defence, was interviewed as a Defence spokeman on Channel Four News www.channel4.com/news/last night (October 14th). He uttered the standard government pronouncement on the need to send more British troops to Afghanistan, ‘to finish the job there.’ In answer to one of Jon Snow’s interjections, www.channel4.com/news/authors.jsp, Hutton asseverated this was ‘not a political matter” because it was “a matter of UK national security.”
But why?
Why is making war on Afghanistan “a matter of UK national security”?
Has Afghanistan got nuclear weapons, and rockets capable of delivering a nuclear warhead on London?
Has Afghanistan got a fleet of air craft carriers equipped with the latest aircraft such as the F/A-22 Raptor, the LCA, the EuroFighter 2000 Typhoon, the SU-47 (SU-37 Berkut). The SU-37Terminator, the MG/MAPO 1.42 MFI, the Aurora, the X-35 Joint Strike Fighter (F-35 Lightning II), the Chenghu J-10, the JF-17 Thunder (Chengu FRC-1), the V-22 Osprey?
How many regiments of Paratroopers does Afghanistan have? How many commandos of Marines?
How detailed is plan for the invasion of Britain which our intelligence forces have managed to steal from Taliban HQ?
Is there a fleet of Afghan submarines already patrolling the Atlantic western approaches ready to torpedo every oil tanker and merchant ship bringing fuel and food to embattled Britain?
How easily will the Afghan tanks be able to cross Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Moldova, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Germany, Holland, Belgium, and France, not to mention the English Channel?
Have the Afghans worked out a plan to seize the Channel Tunnel, and roll their tanks along the railway line?
No one in government has ever properly explained why defending “UK national security” entails attacking Afghanistan. We are, indeed told that terrorists are trained in Afghanistan. But they are also being trained in north-west Pakistan? Why are British troops not attacking Pakistan then?
I have not covered up the fact that this blog is written by a poet, and that the first person to become a follower of this blog is a song-writer. No one in authority takes any notice of poets. But possibly our craft is one of the best for training an ordinary adult to look at the world like a child. Let us remember Hans Andersen with his story of The Emperor’s New Clothes. The NATO governments display their shows of force in Afghanistan, as the Emperor, strutting starkers, displayed his astonishing new costume. Let us be the little boy who sees the nakedness.
The only difference is that the little boy is laughing at the Emperor’s sagging belly and spotty bottom. We must weep as the corpses of our soldiers, killed as a result of bad decisions by our rulers, are brought home.
Let’s bring them home alive. Tony Benn says so, and this time certainly Tony Benn is right.
Leo Aylen
But why?
Why is making war on Afghanistan “a matter of UK national security”?
Has Afghanistan got nuclear weapons, and rockets capable of delivering a nuclear warhead on London?
Has Afghanistan got a fleet of air craft carriers equipped with the latest aircraft such as the F/A-22 Raptor, the LCA, the EuroFighter 2000 Typhoon, the SU-47 (SU-37 Berkut). The SU-37Terminator, the MG/MAPO 1.42 MFI, the Aurora, the X-35 Joint Strike Fighter (F-35 Lightning II), the Chenghu J-10, the JF-17 Thunder (Chengu FRC-1), the V-22 Osprey?
How many regiments of Paratroopers does Afghanistan have? How many commandos of Marines?
How detailed is plan for the invasion of Britain which our intelligence forces have managed to steal from Taliban HQ?
Is there a fleet of Afghan submarines already patrolling the Atlantic western approaches ready to torpedo every oil tanker and merchant ship bringing fuel and food to embattled Britain?
How easily will the Afghan tanks be able to cross Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Moldova, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Germany, Holland, Belgium, and France, not to mention the English Channel?
Have the Afghans worked out a plan to seize the Channel Tunnel, and roll their tanks along the railway line?
No one in government has ever properly explained why defending “UK national security” entails attacking Afghanistan. We are, indeed told that terrorists are trained in Afghanistan. But they are also being trained in north-west Pakistan? Why are British troops not attacking Pakistan then?
I have not covered up the fact that this blog is written by a poet, and that the first person to become a follower of this blog is a song-writer. No one in authority takes any notice of poets. But possibly our craft is one of the best for training an ordinary adult to look at the world like a child. Let us remember Hans Andersen with his story of The Emperor’s New Clothes. The NATO governments display their shows of force in Afghanistan, as the Emperor, strutting starkers, displayed his astonishing new costume. Let us be the little boy who sees the nakedness.
The only difference is that the little boy is laughing at the Emperor’s sagging belly and spotty bottom. We must weep as the corpses of our soldiers, killed as a result of bad decisions by our rulers, are brought home.
Let’s bring them home alive. Tony Benn says so, and this time certainly Tony Benn is right.
Leo Aylen
Wednesday, 14 October 2009
War wrong? War stupid.
I guess the majority of British people now think it was wrong for Mr Blair to follow Mr Bush and order the invasion of Iraq. Wrong. Wrong. An illegal war. Invading Iraq meant disregarding the principles of the United Nations. Blair’s decision now seems not only wrong morally, but also very stupid.
The real motive for invading Iraq must have been to get hold of as much Iraqi oil as possible. Has this been successful? We are kept in the dark.
What is the morality of sending British soldiers to fight in Afghanistan? Well, we could argue that for a long time. But, in a way, we don’t need to argue the morality, because we can simply say that the Afghan war is a very stupid mistake.
Read history. No foreign power has ever conquered Afghanistan. However we judge the morality of invading Afghanistan, there is only one sensible course of action left now: admit defeat, withdraw as soon as possible, and save the lives of British soldiers.
The real motive for invading Iraq must have been to get hold of as much Iraqi oil as possible. Has this been successful? We are kept in the dark.
What is the morality of sending British soldiers to fight in Afghanistan? Well, we could argue that for a long time. But, in a way, we don’t need to argue the morality, because we can simply say that the Afghan war is a very stupid mistake.
Read history. No foreign power has ever conquered Afghanistan. However we judge the morality of invading Afghanistan, there is only one sensible course of action left now: admit defeat, withdraw as soon as possible, and save the lives of British soldiers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
