NationStates Jolt Archive

News just keeps getting better, doesn't it?
The commander of the British forces returning from Helmand said that his forces were having to make up for the time lost by the decision of the US and UK to invade Iraq instead of concentrating on post-Taliban Afghanistan.

"We could have carried on in 2002 in the same way we have gone about business now," said Brigadier Ed Butler. "Have the interim four years made a difference? I think realistically they have. It doesn't mean that we will not achieve what we set out to do."

...

Brigadier Butler continued that an international presence may be required in Afghanistan for the next 20 years, but he did not specify how long the British forces would have to remain.

...

The Brigadier's comments came as the UN Office on Drugs and Crime called for Western troops in Afghanistan to attack opium traders, saying the drugs situation there is "out of control".

Opium cultivation rose by 59 per cent this year, according to the UN's figures, to an all-time record of 165,000 hectares. That leaves a country that is practically run by the West supplying 92 per cent of the world's opium - much of which ends up as heroin.

...

Around 2.9m Afghans are involved in growing opium - 12.6 per cent of the total population - according to the UN's own figures.

Most of those are farmers who scrape only a subsistence living from the opium crop. The majority of the $3bn revenue from the opium industry goes to the warlords who still control it - and to the Taliban, according to UNODC.

The agency warned yesterday that the Taliban are funding their campaign against British and other Nato troops from the opium trade, buying raw opium from farmers and selling it on at a profit.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article1886633.ece

News just keeps getting better, doesn't it?
Well, the situation sucks, but it was always going to - Afghanistan is not a simple place, and with Pakistan just across the border and the situation there...

Iraq definitely didn't help...imagine if the US had 180,000 instead of 18,000 troops in Afghanistan for example. Would make things a lot easier, I'd say.

But personally I prefer them to say "We'll stay for 20 years or more." to making up excuses and trying to peddle to public opinion. If Afghanistan is going to become a proper country, a serious long-term effort is required.

Wow, that's an optimistic commander.

Wow, that's an optimistic commander.
More like an honest one.

This reminds me of that Daily Show bit they use as an ad for the show here in Oz - some US General in a press conference:
"Do I think we are winning in Iraq?...

.........

.........

...well, let me answer that by saying that I don't think we're losing."

This guy seems to at least be ready to tell the truth: He disclosed that his troops had come close to running out of supplies ."It got pretty close. We never actually ran out but that was the nature of the conflict. The guys were not starving but people were down to their belt rations," he said.
Imagine a US General saying the same thing. I have my doubts that the PR people of the military would let him.

If Afghanistan is going to become a proper country, a serious long-term effort is required.
Afghanistan wasn't very good before the US invaded, but it sure was better than it is now.

Afghanistan wasn't very good before the US invaded, but it sure was better than it is now.
Was it?

Afghanistan wasn't very good before the US invaded, but it sure was better than it is now.

That may be true. But I must admit that the facts of everyday life in Afghanistan is pretty much a white spot on the map for me. The only thing I do know is that invasions and starting wars in the name of good turns sour pretty fast. I'm seriously beginning to doubt that things can be changed for the better through killing, bombing and war. Just reading the newspaper makes me depressed. I don't bother watching the news, it'd just make me even more depressed because then I'd have to see politicians do what they do best....lie and mislead.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article1886633.ece
Ah, the Independent. The paper for left leaning Liberal Democrats who think it's 'hip' and trendy to read a paper that no one else does, forgetting that the reason no one else reads it is because it's crap. About as unbiased and accurate as a politicians spokesperson.

I'm seriously beginning to doubt that things can be changed for the better through killing, bombing and war.Oh, they can - plenty of examples for that.

Just, it needs to gone through with properly, both, the bombing and the follow-up. One cannot change things by dropping a few bombs, and then then leaving things be. And there's a hell of a difference between utterly smashing, errr, 'Unsuitable' regimes into really tiny bits and then rebuilding from scratch (Has historically worked, if one looks at, lets say, Japan or Germany), and dropping a handful of bombs, then aborting mid-conflict and leaving things be, maybe with a token force, which coincidentally happens to be incapable of finishing the job, while there's still rather healthy remnants of 'Old' orders remaining.

I.e. Serbia (Where the people aligned to the previous Milosevic regime are still the major political power, and happily threatening war on assorted neighbors, every now and then - yes, that worked well, NATO) or Afghanistan (Which does admittedly happen to be located in one of the worst geographical spots one can think of, which makes creating a working economy not based on drugs-funding-warlords difficult, to say the least).

That's the whole problem. Wars, annoying as they may be (I mean, yeah - killing innocent's unavoidable, so they're not exactly a first choice option) can work. But nowadays, it appears that nobody is willing to actually go through the whole matter properly, in a mixture of public pressure (Waaah, the poor babies!) and hubris (Oh, hell, we CAN DO THAT! Only remaining worldpower, baby! Now, whree to get the additional two hundred thousand men I need to invade country #3 while my other wars ain't done yet...) both of which happens to work brilliantly together to turn the whole forced-change-through-directed-violence idea - which, though kinda prohibitively expensive, isn't teachnically impossible to implement - into a farce and fairly impressive (Nevermind counterproductive) failure.

Oh, and the 'Fight for Freedom' involving the legalisation of torture and other such nifty things isn't exactly helping the ethics of the fight, either.

Awh man, have any of you ever read the manga afuganisu-tan? its cuute, and politically educational!

http://forums.animesuki.com/showthread.php?t=28579

Someones sig on this forum interested me as well on the whole Afganistan war, showing two quotes of Dubya saying that catching Osama was the number one priority of the United States, and later of him saying that he doesn't know where he is, and doesn't care. D: if thats true (which it most likely is) well then....dammit. =.= how did we get this guy for 2 terms?

News just keeps getting better, doesn't it?


http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article1886633.ece

I guess the British average tax-payer will be very happy of this... NOT!

92% of the heroin in the world, is coming from Afghanistan.

Who is basically controlling that place?

The U.S.

So, the US is supplying 92% of the worlds heroin, and other opiates.


Do any of you know why?

Because the Afganistan President Kharzai, (Former Enron Employee) is being allowed to remain in power by the Afghani Warlords who really control the counry, in exchange for freedom to grow thier poppies.

The Bush administration has allowed this the entire time.

Why?

Small wonder, really.'
Money.

This is yet another demonstration of how "concerned for his fellow americans" Bush is.
He's so concerned, he made sure 92 percent of the worlds heroin came from territory he controls.

Where is the outrage?

Awh man, have any of you ever read the manga afuganisu-tan? its cuute, and politically educational!

http://forums.animesuki.com/showthread.php?t=28579

Someones sig on this forum interested me as well on the whole Afganistan war, showing two quotes of Dubya saying that catching Osama was the number one priority of the United States, and later of him saying that he doesn't know where he is, and doesn't care. D: if thats true (which it most likely is) well then....dammit. =.= how did we get this guy for 2 terms?

"how did we get this guy for 2 terms ?"

Was easy - rigging the electronic voting machines and dis-enfrachising sections of the voting population : both had significant effects in FL and OH in particular.

92% of the heroin in the world, is coming from Afghanistan.

Who is basically controlling that place?

The U.S.

So, the US is supplying 92% of the worlds heroin, and other opiates.


Do any of you know why?

Because the Afganistan President Kharzai, (Former Enron Employee) is being allowed to remain in power by the Afghani Warlords who really control the counry, in exchange for freedom to grow thier poppies.

The Bush administration has allowed this the entire time.

Why?

Small wonder, really.'
Money.

This is yet another demonstration of how "concerned for his fellow americans" Bush is.
He's so concerned, he made sure 92 percent of the worlds heroin came from territory he controls.

Where is the outrage?
Perhaps that's why?...

Awh man, have any of you ever read the manga afuganisu-tan? its cuute, and politically educational!

http://forums.animesuki.com/showthread.php?t=28579

Someones sig on this forum interested me as well on the whole Afganistan war, showing two quotes of Dubya saying that catching Osama was the number one priority of the United States, and later of him saying that he doesn't know where he is, and doesn't care. D: if thats true (which it most likely is) well then....dammit. =.= how did we get this guy for 2 terms?

Comparing Afghanistan to a bullied child is not a very good analogy. Afghanistan started this fight, and Afghanistan certainly did not seem defenceless when it was ruled by the Taliban, who murdered and mutilated the population.

92% of the heroin in the world, is coming from Afghanistan. Who is basically controlling that place? The U.S. So, the US is supplying 92% of the worlds heroin, and other opiates.


Have you ever notices the link between oil or drug sources and US military operations in recent times?

Viet-Nam: drug production
Panama: drug trafficking
Colombia: drug production and trafficking
Afghanistan: drug production
Kuwait: oil production
Iraq: oil production
...

Seems to me that control (in one sense or another, I'm not judging that here)of drug and oil sources are a big issue for the US military operations...

Have you ever notices the link between oil or drug sources and US military operations in recent times?

Viet-Nam: drug production
Panama: drug trafficking
Colombia: drug production and trafficking
Afghanistan: drug production
Kuwait: oil production
Iraq: oil production
...

Seems to me that control (in one sense or another, I'm not judging that here)of drug and oil sources are a big issue for the US military operations...


I could say something to the effect of "Its no surprise really. Does anyone really think that some very high-up people are not getting paid to look the other way?"

But I'd probably get told to wear a tin-foil hat.

Perhaps that's why?...

The warlords have a standing agreement with America.
They leave Kharzai alone, and he controls the cities, and the outlying countryside is run in a feudalistic manner, by the warlords.

Considering how deadly all that heroin is, why would that be worth it?

Afghanistan is the asshole of the world, and contributes very little to the US money coffers.

Why then, is such an arrangement allowed at all?

Ah, the Independent. The paper for left leaning Liberal Democrats who think it's 'hip' and trendy to read a paper that no one else does, forgetting that the reason no one else reads it is because it's crap. About as unbiased and accurate as a politicians spokesperson.

at least its better than the Murdoch press, not much to brag about

The problem as one above poster states is that the country is entirely ununified. The US and the British military can fluster against the Taliban all they want, the problem will come if they actually defeat them and are forced to confront the Warlords who rule 75% of the damn country. The elected officials are afraid to leave the capital and none of the international forces go into the warlord-controlled areas...

In some ways it makes Iraq look like a picnic really.

Interesting statistic concerning war in the middle east:

Current average daily death toll from war in Afghanistan: 34

Average daily death from war in Lebanon and Israel during conflict: 60

Current average daily death toll from war in Iraq: 120

Current average daily death from manmade war and famine in the Democratic Republic of Congo: 1,200

The warlords have a standing agreement with America.
They leave Kharzai alone, and he controls the cities, and the outlying countryside is run in a feudalistic manner, by the warlords.

Considering how deadly all that heroin is, why would that be worth it?


Then again, considering drug trafficking profits...

Comparing Afghanistan to a bullied child is not a very good analogy. Afghanistan started this fight, and Afghanistan certainly did not seem defenceless when it was ruled by the Taliban, who murdered and mutilated the population.

:confused: HOW? :confused:

...snip...
In some ways it makes Iraq look like a picnic really.
...snip...

A friend of mine is a tecnical officer in the Italian Air Force. He was commandeered to a mission with the possibility to choose between Afghanistan and Iraq...

Guess what?

He choose Nassirya*...

*in Iraq, Italian forces have been repeatedly attacked there

Ah, the Independent. The paper for left leaning Liberal Democrats who think it's 'hip' and trendy to read a paper that no one else does, forgetting that the reason no one else reads it is because it's crap. About as unbiased and accurate as a politicians spokesperson.
Well, gee. It's from a paper you don't like. So I guess this means you think the British commander is lying, do you?

News just keeps getting better, doesn't it?


http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article1886633.ece




Job security .. BTW an international presence could be four guys at a checkpoint playing poker.


Why is it you make it sound like a massive invasion ?

Bush accepts Iraq-Vietnam echoes

Bush discusses Iraq
President George W Bush has accepted that the surge in violence in Iraq may be equivalent to America's traumatic experience in the Vietnam War.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6065050.stm

Job security .. BTW an international presence could be four guys at a checkpoint playing poker.


Why is it you make it sound like a massive invasion ?
Oh, of course. We currently have several thousand troops over there and everything's deteriorating into total choas and you think 4 guys are all that's needed.
At least I now know what US state you live in: the 51st one of Denial, along with the Bush Admin and damn near every other neocon in the US.

Why is I make it sound like a massive invasion?
gee, I dunno. Why is it you refuse to accept the comments and advice of senior commanders who are over there on the ground, and instead repeat the inane babblings of a President who's never seen a day's combat in his life?

Afghanistan is a complete mess right now. And imo the only way to solve it is by formulating a strong long-term plan that includes creating infrastructure and will mean being there for a couple of decades.
Worked for Japan and Germany after WWII.
You start educating a child at 5yrs old, they're not going to be in any position to change society markedly for at least 20 years. The powers-that-be need to get their heads around that pretty basic concept.
But as long as we continue to have blind idiots in the Whitehouse saying and thinking that it'll all be over by Xmas, Afghanistan is going to continue to be a disaster.

20 years? That would be nice as folks in the Middle East seem to enjoy century after century of conflict.

Ah, the Independent. The paper for left leaning Liberal Democrats who think it's 'hip' and trendy to read a paper that no one else does, forgetting that the reason no one else reads it is because it's crap. About as unbiased and accurate as a politicians spokesperson.

I've noticed this trend--don't attack the quotes in the story, attack the place the story appears. It's one thing to argue against the Independent's spin on the story--that's perfecly fair game--but to discount the story as a whole, including the quote from the general on the ground, because you think the paper is biased is, well, stupid. When I go after Fox News, it's always for the spin, for the interpretation, not for the quotes of the people they're citing. If you're going to try to discredit this general's POV, you've got to start with him, not with the fact that it was printed in the Independent.

It's one thing to argue against the Independent's spin on the story--that's perfecly fair game--but to discount the story as a whole, including the quote from the general on the ground, because you think the paper is biased is, well, stupid.
I wouldn't call it 'stupid' as such. More like 'desperate'.

The saddest thing about this is that a Berlin Airlift-style food supply would fail miserably in Afghanistan. It might have worked in Iraq. It could work in North Korea. In Afghanistan, forget it. We can't hope to win the hearts and minds of the people there. We need to so what we should have done in Vietnam - more special units. Let the soldiers grow beards and try to infiltrate the ranks. What we're doing right now isn't working.

That said, the Afghanis didn't start it. If you want to get really technical, it was the damn Russians who started it.

Comparing Afghanistan to a bullied child is not a very good analogy. Afghanistan started this fight, and Afghanistan certainly did not seem defenceless when it was ruled by the Taliban, who murdered and mutilated the population.

What the fuck?

After the cold war and FSU's withdrawal, you left the region to be played with by your "allies" Pakistan and KSA and this resulted in taliban. Your one great ally financed it and your another great ally fought alongside taliban in its rise to power.

US is ateast indirectly responsible for the taliban's rise to power. Don't you pretend as if you had nothing to do with it.

And even now, you don't make a full fledged effort in the country....perpetuating the "Ugly American" stereotype.

http://in.rediff.com/news/2006/oct/16inter.htm
We (the US) are really stupid. The American government, is in a way, over its head and it doesn't understand that you need to have a really textured, rich, intimate, long-standing local knowledge of places like this before you start running around creating governments. And, the idea that you can have that kind of knowledge of a place like Afghanistan and a place like Iraq at the same time is ridiculous, with nobody who speaks the language, with foreign service officers rotating in and out every few months, and the same with the military.

It's a style of arrogance that to me goes even beyond colonial arrogance. At least during the colonial period, people came out and learnt the language, stayed a long time, they lived with the local population even if in a very hierarchical fashion. It was actually a lot less arrogant than what we are doing now.

No wonder, because the people who run the Afghan policy are clueless idiots...

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20061030&s=corn
By referring to the Durand Line, the expert was noting that US efforts in the region are complicated by pre-9/11 history. O'Sullivan, according to this expert (who wishes not to be named), didn't know what the Durand Line was. The expert was stunned. O'Sullivan is the most senior Bush Administration official handling Afghanistan policy. If she wasn't familiar with this basic point, US policy-making on Afghanistan was in trouble.

Oh, of course. We currently have several thousand troops over there and everything's deteriorating into total choas and you think 4 guys are all that's needed.
At least I now know what US state you live in: the 51st one of Denial, along with the Bush Admin and damn near every other neocon in the US.

Why is I make it sound like a massive invasion?
gee, I dunno. Why is it you refuse to accept the comments and advice of senior commanders who are over there on the ground, and instead repeat the inane babblings of a President who's never seen a day's combat in his life?

Afghanistan is a complete mess right now. And imo the only way to solve it is by formulating a strong long-term plan that includes creating infrastructure and will mean being there for a couple of decades.
Worked for Japan and Germany after WWII.
You start educating a child at 5yrs old, they're not going to be in any position to change society markedly for at least 20 years. The powers-that-be need to get their heads around that pretty basic concept.
But as long as we continue to have blind idiots in the Whitehouse saying and thinking that it'll all be over by Xmas, Afghanistan is going to continue to be a disaster.


Whats with the dooms day cool aid you drink ?


When in history...recorded or otherwise has Afghanistan been better off and had the CHANCE it has now if the UN and NATO actually follow though and coninue to support reform and democracy ?

Aside from missing my entire POINT ...the quote says an international presence...that can be ANYTHING from 4 dudes playing poker to a brigade to a regiment to an army..DID he say what he meant by it ?

NO you just ASSumed.


Afghanistan is NOT a complete mess...ONE small segment is being dealt with by NATO because as the US commander said " we went into the peacekeeping mode too quickly "...so now they are hunting and killing insurgents and Taliban AND establishing a LASTING presence because they LEARNED from past errors.

Really you feel so pessamistic about everything so much I am suprised you have not slit your wrist yet .


And dont give me the Bush follower shit...Bush and everyone around him have fucked up ...people do that ..things change and the enemy doesnt always just give up and go home quietly they learn and they adapt and then ITS your turn..you morons that think change can take place in months and years in a region like the Middle East are beyond hope.

LIKE the President has said from the beginning WE ARE IN IT FOR THE LONG HAUL...

YOU do not even know what we are fighting against or dont even believe we should be...again the KOOL aid part .

Running away and hiding from the radical Islamamist that would like to have a Caliphate and change the world to suit THEIR image is not an OPTION .

Wake up dude .

Well, the situation sucks, but it was always going to - Afghanistan is not a simple place, and with Pakistan just across the border and the situation there...

Iraq definitely didn't help...imagine if the US had 180,000 instead of 18,000 troops in Afghanistan for example. Would make things a lot easier, I'd say.

But personally I prefer them to say "We'll stay for 20 years or more." to making up excuses and trying to peddle to public opinion. If Afghanistan is going to become a proper country, a serious long-term effort is required.


Wrong answer.

WE learned from the Russians and from all the years the US fought with and alongside the Jihadist against the Russians that the PEOPLE of Afghanistan would NOT accept a large miltary force even if it was giving them money call girls and coke all day long ...they would consider it another invasion and fight it bitterly ..


So we sent small amounts of troops and used air power to let the AFGHANI forces do the majority of the fighting and bolster the Afghan forces with our special forces and SMALL numbers of troops ...

THAT IS THE ONLY REASON WE HAVE BEEN SO SUCCESSFULL.

Its BULLSHIT to think the Afghans would accept a hundred thousand troops running around inside their country.

Nue Leonstein I am suprised you even posted that . I would figure you to know better.

the mistake they made is they left area's before they were consolidated .

They are fixing that problem now .

So we sent small amounts of troops and used air power to let the AFGHANI forces do the majority of the fighting and bolster the Afghan forces with our special forces and SMALL numbers of troops ...
That's five years ago now. Now those Afghan forces have built their own little countries, if they aren't busy fighting the central government or supporting Taliban fighters.

Its BULLSHIT to think the Afghans would accept a hundred thousand troops running around inside their country.
What's the difference? All it would mean would be that NATO would be able to provide the same peacekeeping and security forces everywhere in the country, and not just inside a few cities, while the rest of the country is so dangerous that you can't even use the main highways.

They are fixing that problem now .
They are fixing nothing as long as they can't get enough troops together to stay in an area and consolidate another. As it is, NATO forces will move into one place, stay a few weeks and then move on, while the bad guys are going back.

In Helmand on the other hand British forces sit in little mud fortresses (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bygH7Dba4Kc) for weeks on end literally under siege. That's not what winning looks like.

News just keeps getting better, doesn't it?


http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article1886633.ece

yes and how long have we had troops in Germany, Japan, Korea and elsewhere? Longer than 20 years.

20 years. Holy mother of fuck.

That's five years ago now. Now those Afghan forces have built their own little countries, if they aren't busy fighting the central government or supporting Taliban fighters.


What's the difference? All it would mean would be that NATO would be able to provide the same peacekeeping and security forces everywhere in the country, and not just inside a few cities, while the rest of the country is so dangerous that you can't even use the main highways.


They are fixing nothing as long as they can't get enough troops together to stay in an area and consolidate another. As it is, NATO forces will move into one place, stay a few weeks and then move on, while the bad guys are going back.

In Helmand on the other hand British forces sit in little mud fortresses (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bygH7Dba4Kc) for weeks on end literally under siege. That's not what winning looks like.

I guess they should be more like US forces and get out and about and shoot things more often ...dont you think ?:D

yes and how long have we had troops in Germany, Japan, Korea and elsewhere? Longer than 20 years.


OMG ...SENSE...run before it becomes rampant !

Whats with the dooms day cool aid you drink ?


When in history...recorded or otherwise has Afghanistan been better off and had the CHANCE it has now if the UN and NATO actually follow though and coninue to support reform and democracy ?

Aside from missing my entire POINT ...the quote says an international presence...that can be ANYTHING from 4 dudes playing poker to a brigade to a regiment to an army..DID he say what he meant by it ?

NO you just ASSumed.



Afghanistan is NOT a complete mess...ONE small segment is being dealt with by NATO because as the US commander said " we went into the peacekeeping mode too quickly "...so now they are hunting and killing insurgents and Taliban AND establishing a LASTING presence because they LEARNED from past errors.

Really you feel so pessamistic about everything so much I am suprised you have not slit your wrist yet .


And dont give me the Bush follower shit...Bush and everyone around him have fucked up ...people do that ..things change and the enemy doesnt always just give up and go home quietly they learn and they adapt and then ITS your turn..you morons that think change can take place in months and years in a region like the Middle East are beyond hope.

LIKE the President has said from the beginning WE ARE IN IT FOR THE LONG HAUL...

YOU do not even know what we are fighting against or dont even believe we should be...again the KOOL aid part .

Running away and hiding from the radical Islamamist that would like to have a Caliphate and change the world to suit THEIR image is not an OPTION .

Wake up dude .
Me wake up?
How about you wake up and smell the b/s you're shovelling.
Afghanistan's a total mess. They barely have control of the capital - and even there, there's figting and suicide bombers.
Outside of that, it's total chaos and Warlord terrority. The Taliban is gaining support and strength again, due to the incompetence of the Bush Admin in not dealing with the problem 5 years ago. In case you didn't read the OP article (or more likely -just ignored the bits that you didn't like reading), Opium production has gone through the roof there - hardly proof that things are getting better. More likely shows that there's no control there, allowing them to do whatever the hell they want. And most that money (est $3Billion US) is being spent on arms. We're really got control of the situation there, haven't we?
Oh, sorry. Of course we have, cause Bush said so.
5 years they had the Taliban scattered and broken. So what did they do? remove most of the troops, stop the search for Osama and decide to invade Iraq on a bunch of b/s pretences.
Which allowed the Taliban and the Warlords to regroup, rearm and come right back as strong as ever.

As for Bush to constantly rabbit on about being in for the 'Long Haul' (tm), mind giving me links as to their exact policies?
If you can remember back far enough (like more than a few seconds, since you appear to be suffering from Anterograde Amnesia, like most rabid right-wingers these days) Bush & co were all spouting the same nonsense that it'd be over within 6 months. 5 years on, obviously they're had to change their retoric. Yet I've yet to see any change in strategy.

Mind telling me where I ever said we should run away and hide? Or is this just another case of Foxism - of just making shit up about ppl saying things you don't want to hear and then dismissing them on the basis of what you've made up? Something you seem adept at (see a compliment - you are good at something!)


Anyway, nice chatting with you. You just keep taking those happy pills, watching Fox and ignoring reality. I'm sure everything will sort itself out for you in the end.

So we sent small amounts of troops and used air power to let the AFGHANI forces do the majority of the fighting and bolster the Afghan forces with our special forces and SMALL numbers of troops ...

lol. Afghan forces are the first to flee in the face of the taliban. Totally infiltrated and incompetent. They are in worse shape than the Iraqi govt forces.

Karzai still has American bodyguards for a reason.



THAT IS THE ONLY REASON WE HAVE BEEN SO SUCCESSFULL.

Depends on what u call as success. If sitting in main cities and allowing the taliban to reign the countryside is a success, then yeah the US-NATO policy is a great success and is destined for even more success....:rolleyes:

At least half of the voters in this country are idiots. We can pretty much agree on that. We just happen to disagree on which half.

As it is, I still think just about anything's better than the Taliban.

As it is, I still think just about anything's better than the Taliban.

Saying that we are better than taliban is not really something I would boast about.

Good I like long term commitments. Non of that one night stand stuff. I mean you just can't pull out, right? Its not an effective way of preventing terrorism. You have to keep it in there, and blow all your assests in that nation, and hope that it remembers your name in the morning.

That's five years ago now. Now those Afghan forces have built their own little countries, if they aren't busy fighting the central government or supporting Taliban fighters.


What's the difference? All it would mean would be that NATO would be able to provide the same peacekeeping and security forces everywhere in the country, and not just inside a few cities, while the rest of the country is so dangerous that you can't even use the main highways.


They are fixing nothing as long as they can't get enough troops together to stay in an area and consolidate another. As it is, NATO forces will move into one place, stay a few weeks and then move on, while the bad guys are going back.

In Helmand on the other hand British forces sit in little mud fortresses (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bygH7Dba4Kc) for weeks on end literally under siege. That's not what winning looks like.

Good points all. The British Army is being stretched to breaking point, and quite frankly it's amazing they're still doing as "well" as they are. We've got bugger all helicopters and still run around in rusty old "snatch" land rovers. I'm generally against wars of aggresion, but damn, you'd think these war mongers would at least send our boys out with decent gear. Every week there's another story, a general telling the honest truth, or a story about the soldiers on the ground not having the correct body armour/wargear.

Would that we'd not gotten involved in Iraq and that the US had kept larger numbers in Afghanistan. :(

I am so tired of idiots thinking that Afghanistan and Iraq have anything to do with "Freedom and Democracy".

If the U.S cared about shitty little nations having those things, we would have gone into Rwanda, when there was a real genocide going on there.

We only care about "Freedom and Democracy" when theres something in it for US.
Oil.

Its all about the goddamn oil.

Its every reason why we are in Iraq, and EVERY reason why we arent leaving until Iraq has enough of a military to protect its oil fields.

Do you people actually think we would give two shits whether or not Iraqi citizens could vote, if they werent living on top of some of the largest Oil deposits in the area?

Why do you think we are attempting to hold back an all out civil war in Iraq?

Why do you think we are trying to quell an uprising in Afghanistan?

Maybe, so that we can control as much of the Middle East as we can, so when the whole damn region destabilizes, we can secure as much oil as we can?

Ya think?

Now, ask your self how many lives this is all worth.

The saddest thing about this is that a Berlin Airlift-style food supply would fail miserably in Afghanistan. It might have worked in Iraq. It could work in North Korea. In Afghanistan, forget it. We can't hope to win the hearts and minds of the people there. We need to so what we should have done in Vietnam - more special units. Let the soldiers grow beards and try to infiltrate the ranks. What we're doing right now isn't working.

That said, the Afghanis didn't start it. If you want to get really technical, it was the damn Russians who started it.

I doubt that...
Who supported the fundamentalist mujaheddin against the legitimate (recognised and accepted by the UN) pro-soviet government of Afghanistan?
Remember, CCCP didn't technically "invade" Afghanistan, they were officially called by the Afghan government to help them stop the fundamentalist mujaheddin guerrillas (who were also major players in the opium market...)
See pre-war-on-terror propaganda movies, namely "Rambo III", as a source that surely isn't biased in favour of communism. ;)
Also, another country was involved... you know, first ever islamic nuclear power, allegedly supporting terror actions against India, ally of the USA, ruled by a military dictator, home of the Pashtun ethnical group...

Also the Berlin Airlift succeeded because West-Berlin was small enough, and the US and UK could afford such an expensive programme for the PR benefit.

The Bush administration has allowed this the entire time.

Why?

Small wonder, really.'
Money.




Actually, you're wrong. Bush does not control the strategy on the gound, it's not his style. He leaves it to military professionals, who in this case made a mistake. The theory was that if we took out the opium market, the afghani economy would collapse and there would be a huge influx of insurgents. Its debatable about which would have been a better choice.

I am so tired of idiots thinking that Afghanistan and Iraq have anything to do with "Freedom and Democracy".

If the U.S cared about shitty little nations having those things, we would have gone into Rwanda, when there was a real genocide going on there.

We only care about "Freedom and Democracy" when theres something in it for US.
Oil.

Its all about the goddamn oil.

Its every reason why we are in Iraq, and EVERY reason why we arent leaving until Iraq has enough of a military to protect its oil fields.

Do you people actually think we would give two shits whether or not Iraqi citizens could vote, if they werent living on top of some of the largest Oil deposits in the area?

Why do you think we are attempting to hold back an all out civil war in Iraq?

Why do you think we are trying to quell an uprising in Afghanistan?

Maybe, so that we can control as much of the Middle East as we can, so when the whole damn region destabilizes, we can secure as much oil as we can?

Ya think?

Now, ask your self how many lives this is all worth.

There's very little doubt that it's all about oil but there are two opposing theories.

The first is based on crashing the price of oil. By controlling the oil in Iraq and then providing excessive supply from there OPEC would be screwed and lose control of the pricing structure. It's also worth remembering that prior to the invasion Iraq was selling oil in Euros, not using what becomes petrodollars , and that in itself may be viewed as a reason for the invasion.

The second is an opposite view - by leaving the oil in the ground the price of oil increases, due to reduced supply, creating huge profits for the oil companies whilst leaving reserves as we approach peak oil.

In the meanwhile Shrub the Blunder Boy has been busying himself, via his daughter, buying a land tract in South America which just happens to sit on an underground lake the size of Texas and California. The next round of wars in the future may well be fought over water.
read here for details : http://www.peakoil.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=24445

Comparing Afghanistan to a bullied child is not a very good analogy. Afghanistan started this fight, and Afghanistan certainly did not seem defenceless when it was ruled by the Taliban, who murdered and mutilated the population.
What governmental organisation, may I ask, attacked the US?

Actually, you're wrong. Bush does not control the strategy on the gound, it's not his style. He leaves it to military professionals, who in this case made a mistake. The theory was that if we took out the opium market, the afghani economy would collapse and there would be a huge influx of insurgents. Its debatable about which would have been a better choice.
Yeah, but they didn't take out the opium market, they left the Northern Alliance alone, they've only been attacking the Taliban's fields...

There's very little doubt that it's all about oil but there are two opposing theories.

The first is based on crashing the price of oil. By controlling the oil in Iraq and then providing excessive supply from there OPEC would be screwed and lose control of the pricing structure. It's also worth remembering that prior to the invasion Iraq was selling oil in Euros, not using what becomes petrodollars , and that in itself may be viewed as a reason for the invasion.

The second is an opposite view - by leaving the oil in the ground the price of oil increases, due to reduced supply, creating huge profits for the oil companies whilst leaving reserves as we approach peak oil.

In the meanwhile Shrub the Blunder Boy has been busying himself, via his daughter, buying a land tract in South America which just happens to sit on an underground lake the size of Texas and California. The next round of wars in the future may well be fought over water.
read here for details : http://www.peakoil.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=24445

Considering Bush's close connection to the Carlysle group, and the Royal Saudis, Haliburton, and Enron, Im gonna go for option 2.

Bush's base profits as OPEC profits, no?

Actually, you're wrong. Bush does not control the strategy on the gound, it's not his style. He leaves it to military professionals, who in this case made a mistake. The theory was that if we took out the opium market, the afghani economy would collapse and there would be a huge influx of insurgents. Its debatable about which would have been a better choice.

The decison to leave the fields alone, was not a military one.
It was a political one.

In return for allowing Kharzai to remain in power, the majority of the warlord's opium fields are left alone.
This money they use to finance thier armies.

Considering Bush's close connection to the Carlysle group, and the Royal Saudis, Haliburton, and Enron, Im gonna go for option 2.

Bush's base profits as OPEC profits, no?

Agree entirely. Crafty sods wrote into the new Iraq Constitution words to the effect that Iraq receives revenues from exisitng wells but only royalties aka buttons/barrel for all new wells. Hence part of their current concern about Iraq splitting into three which could make the Iraqis dump their constitution.

God only knows what will happen if Iran is now attacked and their oil exports suspended - about $400 barrel I guess. Part of the US fleet is already en route to The Straits / Iran and ships are also gathering in the eastern Med. for proximity to Syria.

I am so tired of idiots thinking that Afghanistan and Iraq have anything to do with "Freedom and Democracy".

If the U.S cared about shitty little nations having those things, we would have gone into Rwanda, when there was a real genocide going on there.

We only care about "Freedom and Democracy" when theres something in it for US.
Oil.

Its all about the goddamn oil.

Its every reason why we are in Iraq, and EVERY reason why we arent leaving until Iraq has enough of a military to protect its oil fields.

Do you people actually think we would give two shits whether or not Iraqi citizens could vote, if they werent living on top of some of the largest Oil deposits in the area?

Why do you think we are attempting to hold back an all out civil war in Iraq?

Why do you think we are trying to quell an uprising in Afghanistan?

Maybe, so that we can control as much of the Middle East as we can, so when the whole damn region destabilizes, we can secure as much oil as we can?

Ya think?

Now, ask your self how many lives this is all worth.


Yes, the mountains of Afghanistan are just soaked in oil.

I doubt that...
Who supported the fundamentalist mujaheddin against the legitimate (recognised and accepted by the UN) pro-soviet government of Afghanistan?
Remember, CCCP didn't technically "invade" Afghanistan, they were officially called by the Afghan government to help them stop the fundamentalist mujaheddin guerrillas (who were also major players in the opium market...)
See pre-war-on-terror propaganda movies, namely "Rambo III", as a source that surely isn't biased in favour of communism. ;)
Also, another country was involved... you know, first ever islamic nuclear power, allegedly supporting terror actions against India, ally of the USA, ruled by a military dictator, home of the Pashtun ethnical group...

Still, the Russians propped up the pro-Communist government in Afghanistan, the Mujahadeen popped up in response, and the U.S., needing an ally, supported them. So if the U.S. "started it" against Iraq by propping up a monarchy or "started it" in Iran by propping up the Shah, then the Russians "started it" by propping up the government there. Before the Ba'athists took power in Iraq, a pro-Western monarchy was there. Iraq went from having a pro-West government to a government that could take the West or leave it; now, it's on the road to a fervently anti-Western government.

Frankly, the Mujahadeen probably would have done pretty much the same thing to the Russians without the U.S., but it would have taken longer and the two states would probably be hostile to one another today. They would see the U.S. as an annoyance, but al-Qaeda...well, I take that back; al-Qaeda was in response to something different. They probably would have had a working alliance with the Taliban, just with different enemies. But that's a story for a different time and place.

Also the Berlin Airlift succeeded because West-Berlin was small enough, and the US and UK could afford such an expensive programme for the PR benefit.

Even if there were a big enough city in Afghanistan, it would be difficult to make sure all the food didn't fall into the wrong hands. The U.S. and UK could afford a PR boost and try to win the hearts and minds of the people (my grandfather was in Berlin after the Airlift, and when people found out he was an American, they were falling all over themselves to make him feel as welcome as they could. They were very pleased with America at the time.) It's a question of if it would work. In North Korea, if the government started to crack and people began distrusting Kim, or if Kim's successor did not keep such a tight grip on them, a Pyongyang Airlift may turn out to be effective. The idea is to take a concentrated area of people who are starving and in chaos, feed them like they've never been fed before, and let them know who's doing that for them. Best case is that we win the hearts and minds of the North Koreans. Worst case is propaganda gets in the way but the situation starts to get better, and the Communists lose their grip. Revolution happens when things begin to improve. It's rock bottom now for the North Koreans. If things start to get better, the seeds are planted.

That would never work in Afghanistan. It's far too difficult to plant such seeds of revolution.

The decison to leave the fields alone, was not a military one.
It was a political one.

In return for allowing Kharzai to remain in power, the majority of the warlord's opium fields are left alone.
This money they use to finance thier armies.

No, actually it was a military one. And it worked from a military standpoint, just not the more important political standpoint.

20 years!!!!!
it is a generation.
how much did it take to get democracy?

Yes, the mountains of Afghanistan are just soaked in oil. No. But it is a very convenient place to put a pipeline to transport oil from Central Asia to the Indian ocean. Which is what Unocal signed a deal with the Taliban to do before backing out do to public pressure and other concerns. And what the government of Afghanistan announced it would do shortly after the country was "liberated".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2608713.stm

Actually, you're wrong. Bush does not control the strategy on the gound, it's not his style. He leaves it to military professionals, who in this case made a mistake. The Bush administration routinley ignore the advice of their military professionals (and completely ignore anyone with any expertise on the Middle East in particular). Rumsfeld's brilliant decision to disband the Iraqi military for example. If they actually valued the advice of people with real military experience, then Colin Powell might still be around. He left for a reason.

Ah, the Independent. The paper for left leaning Liberal Democrats who think it's 'hip' and trendy to read a paper that no one else does, forgetting that the reason no one else reads it is because it's crap. About as unbiased and accurate as a politicians spokesperson.

Yeah, you're right, they must have just made up their quotes from him.