Friday, 29 January 2010

Is It Morally Wrong?

Is it morally wrong to give money to Taliban fighters in the hope they will lay down their arms and 'join the other side'? Yes. Afghans will be happy to accept any monies offered to them from anyone. That's called survival.

Hamid Karzai announced he would be inviting Taliban representatives to a peace council in the spring, the first for eight years, followed by another international conference in Kabul. More rhetoric followed by requests for more money possibly.

It is also morally wrong to have our troops there fighting this lost cause. Afghanistan cannot be governed by a central government. History proves that.


Strathturret said...

What's morally wrong is being there in the first place and not revealing our (the Wests) real motives.

subrosa said...

That's actually what I meant by the last paragraph Strathturret. I shall insert a 'there'. Apologies for not making myself clear.

Captain Ranty said...

It's all just a game.

Those playing the game risk nothing. Politicians wrapped up snug and warm in their beds make "brave" decisions that put our sons and daughters in harms way. They (the troops) are pawns. It was ever thus.

War teaches us nothing that we didn't know already. Two sides, with weapons and opposing ideologies = death, maiming and misery for combatants and non-combatants alike.

No-one wins. The politicos score a few points, win honours galore, retire and die. Then it all starts again, somewhere else, over nothing.

Put women in charge. Everywhere. Differences will be settled over a cup of tea.


subrosa said...

I firmly believe if more women were involved CR far less military wars would occur.

When you look at our government during Blair and Brown's reign no woman has any influence. They're 'tokens' used by the males involved.

Strathturret said...

Disagree. Was Thathcher not more bellicose than those 'wets' like Whitelaw, Heath and MacMillan who had seen action?

Personally feel that world has become more dangerous since politicians who saw WW2 at first hand have have died out/retired.

Crinkly & Ragged Arsed Philosophers said...

Strange juxtaposition of the government taking the high moral ground in refusing to pay ransom for the release of hostages; yet they will bribe mercenary's to change side?

In one respect £87m is peanuts. In all others it's impossible to audit or for the 'loyalty' bought to be enforced. On the other hand the Taliban will have no restraint in effecting retribution.

The Taliban and al Qaeda are Afghanistan's main source of income. Karzai and cohorts will nourish and extend that for as long as possible.

First rule of political commentory - don't limit reaction to what has been said; consider rather what hasn't.

Dramfineday said...

Captain Ranty - "it's a game" have a read at Flashman and the great game by George McDonald Fraser. Have a hoot but take on board the message. I've already had a discourse with SR regarding the Afghans - and their interactions with my father in law during the 1943-45 Burma Brit / Japan war. They were looking forward to getting back to fighting the British and the end of ww2!

Lost cause - and the rest!

subrosa said...

I hope I hinted at what hasn't been said Crinkly. That is the money will have to be spent for generations to keep these people from attacking us.

Related Posts with Thumbnails