Support for American/Nato forces in Afghanistan

[zomgwtf]

This came up in the Guns thread so I guess I should just make a new thread. I can't stand by while people talk about things they have no idea about. Just spreading blatant misinformation in the form of 'I believes'.

To be completely honest with you I don't care what you believe. Not to further drag this off topic but I can't stand by while some punk over the internet blabs on about the wars about which he knows nothing. I've live through this stuff and I've talked to those Afghans you speak of, they DO want coalition forces there... I'd say around 70% support it. Much the same as how the Iraqi's actually DID want to be liberated.

Actually a quick search broguht up the poll I spoke of earlier:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8448930.stm

90% of Afghans support the current government over other choices.
83% Say that it was good that American forces invaded in 2001 to topple the regime.
68% Support American troops in Afghanistan
62% Support NATO forces.
89% Oppose Taliban forces in Afghanistan
81% Oppose other Jihadi forces in Afghanistan
75% Support foreign aid
5% blame American forces for Afghanistans violence
3% blame NATO
42% blame Taliban
24% blame Al Qaeda/other Jihad forces
76% Say they should only negotiate once Taliban stops fighting.
22% Say that they should leave sooner than 18months
25% say they should leave in 18 months.
21% say they should stay longer than 18 months
29% say it depends on security conditions for when they leave.

88% view taliban unfavourably
90% view Osama bin Laden unfavourably
51% view the USA FAVOURABLY (As a country)
81% view Pakistan unfavourably
59% view Germany FAVOURABLY

All across the field they view their lives and freedoms and rights given as vastly improved relative to what they had before.

It's pathetic that support for our military is higher in a forgeign nation than it is at home. It's good to know someones appreciating the sacrifices and commitments made, it sucks it's not really coming from home but it doesn't particularly stop me from sleeping at night.

 

[Pythagorean]

well, you could take out your personal attacks to narrow the responses to the argument...

 

[zomgwtf]

well, you could take out your personal attacks to narrow the responses to the argument...

I'm not making an argument, I'm providing facts that were brought into question in another thread. I'd post those here too so people could follow but Ivan cleaned up the thread already.

Really this was aimed at two specific persons and they know who they are. Others are welcomed to comment on the poll or give their 2cents as well but my intention wasn't to 'argue' it was to 'set straight'.

 

[drankin]

I've always suspected this but so many people talk about how we aren't wanted over there as if it's a bygone fact, I'm guilty of believing the stateside propaganda. Good to know it's been BS the whole time. The US media isn't much for giving us the facts.

 

[Jack21222]

In my opinion, it's misleading to lump in the lukewarm people in the "support" category. Only a small fraction "strongly support" US troops, when the rest "somewhat support." You should make that distinction.

 

[Hepth]

Do you have a poll with similar questions/options that was taken in the US? I think more people support having troops in Afghanistan than you realize.

 

[airborne18]

Honestly does it matter? The US is not ever leaving Afghanistan.

 

[russ_watters]

In my opinion, it's misleading to lump in the lukewarm people in the "support" category. Only a small fraction "strongly support" US troops, when the rest "somewhat support." You should make that distinction.

"somewhat support" is quite clearly a subset of "support". The OP most certainly did not imply that "support" mean "support strongly".

 

[zomgwtf]

Do you have a poll with similar questions/options that was taken in the US? I think more people support having troops in Afghanistan than you realize.

Yeah let me look for it.

EDIT:
Found this:
http://www.pollingreport.com/afghan.htm

Looks like a bunch of media polls. Quickly glancing through them you can see the support is around 40/60... not very good IMO.

 

[zomgwtf]

Honestly does it matter? The US is not ever leaving Afghanistan.

Well depending on the security conditions 33% of Americans won't mind and 50% of Afghans may not mind. .

Seriously though, you have to make clear what you mean by 'leave Afghanistan' do you mean 100% of the troops leave Afghanistan? Regardless, in the other thread I'm pretty sure you were on of the people calling me out for statistics regarding the support of troops in Afghanistan by the Afghans. There you have it, now your saying it doesn't matter because their never going to leave? Talk about changing the goalposts.

 

[airborne18]

Well depending on the security conditions 33% of Americans won't mind and 50% of Afghans may not mind. .

Seriously though, you have to make clear what you mean by 'leave Afghanistan' do you mean 100% of the troops leave Afghanistan? Regardless, in the other thread I'm pretty sure you were on of the people calling me out for statistics regarding the support of troops in Afghanistan by the Afghans. There you have it, now your saying it doesn't matter because their never going to leave? Talk about changing the goalposts.

No I was not one of those challenging for more stats. I think I said it would be no surprise if muslums said they didn't want us there in a poll. I said it would not matter becasue we are not there for no reason like Russia. We are there because they took down the WTC, and there is no way we are leaving.

That was what I said. I never questioned the stats. I also said the problem is that NATO took over, and too many countries with a show military presence is there and too many people stiring the pot.

Well something like that.

 

[Proton Soup]

what difference does it make whether they want us there or not? perhaps other peoples, in other parts of the world, would like us to save them, too. perhaps others are more deserving of being saved.

whether they want us there or not, it still doesn't justify our being there. and if we were justified in being there, what they wanted would not matter.

 

[Office_Shredder]

what difference does it make whether they want us there or not? perhaps other peoples, in other parts of the world, would like us to save them, too. perhaps others are more deserving of being saved.

Tough luck for them. What kind of insane argument is it to say that if you can't help everyone, then you shouldn't help anyone?

whether they want us there or not, it still doesn't justify our being there. and if we were justified in being there, what they wanted would not matter.

In fact, as long as people are happy with an arrangement that is usually justification enough for doing it

 

[russ_watters]

what difference does it make whether they want us there or not? perhaps other peoples, in other parts of the world, would like us to save them, too. perhaps others are more deserving of being saved.

whether they want us there or not, it still doesn't justify our being there. and if we were justified in being there, what they wanted would not matter.

Actually, the two points have a very important connection: We go in because of 9/11, but we fight the way we fight - and still think we have a chance of winning - because of the popular support.

 

[Proton Soup]

Actually, the two points have a very important connection: We go in because of 9/11, but we fight the way we fight - and still think we have a chance of winning - because of the popular support.

didn't we go into kill bin Laden? these shifting goalposts are an indication to me that we really don't know why we're there and what our objective is. what is our measure of winning? and can we please keep it consistent so that the troops can accomplish it and come home?

 

[Proton Soup]

Tough luck for them. What kind of insane argument is it to say that if you can't help everyone, then you shouldn't help anyone?

this is not a justification to waste blood and treasure. the military is for our defense.

In fact, as long as people are happy with an arrangement that is usually justification enough for doing it

this is not a justification to waste blood and treasure. the military is for our defense.

 

[russ_watters]

didn't we go into kill bin Laden? these shifting goalposts are an indication to me that we really don't know why we're there and what our objective is.

No shifting goalposts: we went into destroy al Qaeda and the Taliban...which would preferably include but not necessarily require killing Bin Laden.

what is our measure of winning?

1. A marginalized al Qaeda and Taliban (check).
2. A stable government that keeps al Qaeda and the Taliban from coming back on its own so we can leave.

and can we please keep it consistent so that the troops can accomplish it and come home?

It is perfectly consistent - I can't fathom how it can be so complicated to you.

this is not a justification to waste blood and treasure. the military is for our defense.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but that view of isolationism is obsolete, unworkable and immoral -- but regardless, 'fixing other people's problems' is only a biproduct of why we are there: In this cause, their problem and our problem are the same problem - but we went in because it is our problem.

 

[zomgwtf]

didn't we go into kill bin Laden? these shifting goalposts are an indication to me that we really don't know why we're there and what our objective is. what is our measure of winning? and can we please keep it consistent so that the troops can accomplish it and come home?

In addition to what russ already posted I'm just going to say that going after Osama bin Laden was important, and that's not a shifting goalpost. He founded al Qaeda, don't you think it's important to the mission of destabilizing and perhaps taking down al Qaeda to chop off it's head and biggest propaganda tool?

I mean this guy/al Qaeda has been making plans and is responsible for many terrorist attacks since 1990... Taking him out and fellow leaders is vital to taking down the organization, how you can't see this is truly beyond me.

In response to the attacks, the United States launched a War on Terror to depose the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and capture al-Qaeda operatives, and several countries strengthened their anti-terrorism legislation to preclude future attacks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden

Our objective is almost complete in Afghanistan, we just need them to be strong enough to fight on their own and to be able to continue to grow independently.

 

[CheckMate]

Those poll results are biased. I'm sorry but they look unreal. I mean the majority of Afghans support the Coalition and occupation (Usa+Nato)? That's BS right there.

Do you know how much support the Taliban get ? And It's not because of threats. In Kabul, US has support but outisde the capital it's another story.

There's a reason why, no matter how much Taliban you gun down, there's always more. That's because they always get new recruits.

And you CANNOT HAVE A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT IN AFGHANISTAN. Afghanistan is divided in three big ethnic groups and there's tension between them. The only thing that unites them is their religion. They value their religion, their ethnic group and than their nationality. In that order.

 

[mheslep]

Those poll results are biased. I'm sorry but they look unreal. I mean the majority of Afghans support the Coalition and occupation (Usa+Nato)? That's BS right there.

Why?

Do you know how much support the Taliban get ?

Do you? Who supplied the primary boots on the ground that originally through the Taliban out of Kabul in 2001?