# Afghanistan: Another Vietnam



## Garpal Gumnut (5 October 2009)

The Allied Forces need to change the rules of engagement to ensure that the Taliban and Islamist Al Qaeda do not win the war in Afghanistan.

I am hearing disturbing accounts from a Medical Officer mate in the US Army of obvious Taliban being treated for illness in Coalition medical facilities.

She can tell they are Taliban because they are better nourished than the other locals.

They then go out with their medicines, get well, and lean on the other Afghans to join them with threats of murdering their families if they don't. They then maim and kill our diggers.

The present rules of engagement and compensation for non combatants injured and dead mean that the coalition, including our Aussie Diggers are fighting with one hand tied behind their backs.

The Afghans need to realise that we are just as determined as the Taliban and that they will suffer as long as they harbour the Taliban.

I am told the Taliban live in the villages within a stone's throw of American, Dutch and Aussie bases.

If we are not willing to fight a war to win, then we should be out of there.

If we are to stay and win , we need to fight and fight hard. 

Should we do this we will inevitably have casualties, both military and civilian.

In my opinion we need to fight and fight hard.

gg

..............................................................

http://itoastgg.blogspot.com/

http://twitter.com/730report


----------



## Solly (5 October 2009)

*Re: Afghanistan Another Vietnam*

*Another Apocalypse... NoW*


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 October 2009)

The Russians buggered it up, and they are no pussies when it comes to the Geneva convention.

There is lots of oil in Afghanistan and we need to be honest about why we are in there. For the oil.

As Bill Clinton would say " Its the oil, stupid "

All this democracy rubbish annoys me. The Afghans will never embrace democracy.

We need to demolish the Taliban and ensure we get access to the oil.

gg


----------



## nunthewiser (5 October 2009)

Afghani,s dont surf!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 October 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> Afghani,s dont surf!




Nuns should not smoke weed. Full stop. 

gg


----------



## nunthewiser (5 October 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Nuns should not smoke weed. Full stop.
> 
> gg




totally agree man


----------



## Stan 101 (5 October 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> We need to demolish the Taliban and ensure we get access to the oil.
> 
> gg




GG, there is another train of thought that suggests the US need to work with the Taliban in Afghanistan to bring order back to the country for the Afghani people.

As it stands, there is no real leadership in the country and it has allowed for extremist splinter groups to wield power in small communities. Innocent locals are becoming collateral damage and are not happy with the US. 

The Afghani people are just human. They may not like the extremists, but they don't like the US for bring war to their country again. They are better off staying with the devil they know.

The Taliban governed their people in a business like way before this latest conflict. There were taxes paid to a treasury and the like. There was law for the land and the people.

The US need to find a way to work with the locals. The west want the oil, the locals are tired of being bombed. The radical locals like the carnage for their holy war to keep the infidels off their holy land.

The US need to start thinking like their enemies. It seems the US only know how to think like themselves.


cheers,


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 October 2009)

Stan 101 said:


> GG, there is another train of thought that suggests the US need to work with the Taliban in Afghanistan to bring order back to the country for the Afghani people.
> 
> As it stands, there is no real leadership in the country and it has allowed for extremist splinter groups to wield power in small communities. Innocent locals are becoming collateral damage and are not happy with the US.
> 
> ...




I suppose it would work if they gave up their extreme religiosity, misogyny and wearing pyjamas in the daytime with a crushed bowler hat on their heads.

gg


----------



## wayneL (5 October 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I suppose it would work if they gave up their extreme religiosity, misogyny and wearing pyjamas in the daytime with a crushed bowler hat on their heads.
> 
> gg



We talking the Taliban or the Yanks here?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 October 2009)

wayneL said:


> We talking the Taliban or the Yanks here?




lol

Sometimes difficult to tell apart.

gg


----------



## So_Cynical (5 October 2009)

The latest attacks are hard to understand, just how does a superpower not notice 300 or so Taliban sneaking up on the US base in the middle of nowhere with no cover.

It just don't make any sense...and just doesn't seem possible considering all the Hi tech gadgetry available.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 October 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> The latest attacks are hard to understand, just how does a superpower not notice 300 or so Taliban sneaking up on the US base in the middle of nowhere with no cover.
> 
> It just don't make any sense...and just doesn't seem possible considering all the Hi tech gadgetry available.





High tech will not win this war.

Resolve and getting infantry to take out the Taliban in the villages is the way to go.
That is why the Digger has been the most successful on a per capita basis.
The rules of engagement need to change though.

gg


----------



## pj2105 (6 October 2009)

Doesn't seem Obama will pull out.  I think Afghanistan is a 30 year war, Alexander the Great has been the only person to win there.

America is at the point of decline to their empire and are not sure whether to pull back gracefully (as England did with their empire) or get deeper and deeper involved (as Athens got sucked into with the 'Sicilian Expedition').

Either way America is in deep.  Russia, China and India, big heavy weights near-by are standing around watching the Americans get deeper and deeper in the quagmire.


----------



## Zird (6 October 2009)

The war  was lost before it started. Impossible to win aka  the ruskies. .
After 8 years the US have tentative hold on a small part of Kabul -  the rest is in the hands of the those that have had control for centuries.

Does not matter what tactics the coalition use, Afganistan people  know that the invaders (US, Aussies etc) will eventually (soon) leave like all before and their fate will be in the hands of people vowed to kill anybody that had anything to do with the coalition. The battle for 'hearts and minds' is lost. There is never going to be a peoples uprising to get Taliban out.

The geography, like Vietnam is too big and difficult to  be able to exert control no matter how good the high tech weaponry.. Same situation as Vietnam. The land war is also un-winneable.

I feel deeply for the brave soldiers who have to carry on with  this insane war, A war dreamed up by the imbecile  George Bush.


----------



## pj2105 (6 October 2009)

I agree with most of what you said.
The one thing I don't agree with is that George Bush dreamed up the war.

America went to Afghanistan because of Sept 11, the terrorists did what they did because they wanted American's in Afghanistan (and in the Middle East) so they could get more of them killed, and like a lamb to the slaughter, George Bush got lead by the nose into Afghanistan.





Zird said:


> The war  was lost before it started. Impossible to win aka  the ruskies. .
> After 8 years the US have tentative hold on a small part of Kabul -  the rest is in the hands of the those that have had control for centuries.
> 
> Does not matter what tactics the coalition use, Afganistan people  know that the invaders (US, Aussies etc) will eventually (soon) leave like all before and their fate will be in the hands of people vowed to kill anybody that had anything to do with the coalition. The battle for 'hearts and minds' is lost. There is never going to be a peoples uprising to get Taliban out.
> ...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (6 October 2009)

I agree that many armies since Alexander have had a go at controlling Afghanistan and failed.

It would be good, and not all that inconceivable in a saner world, if the USA, Russians, Chinese and Indians got together and walked in and rounded all the Taliban up and sent them to a basket weaving camp in Tristan da Cunha with a couple of thousand goats for company.

The Taliban and al Qaeda cause those four countries no end of strife in one way or another.

Imagine all the Afghan oil that could be shared around among the poor of India, China, Russia and the USA.

They might even find old Obama in amongst the goats.

gg


----------



## nunthewiser (6 October 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I agree that many armies since Alexander have had a go at controlling Afghanistan and failed.
> 
> It would be good, and not all that inconceivable in a saner world, if the USA, Russians, Chinese and Indians got together and walked in and rounded all the Taliban up and sent them to a basket weaving camp in Tristan da Cunha with a couple of thousand goats for company.
> 
> ...




LOL

and you reckon Nuns shouldnt smoke weed !

as you were ....please leave some ofthe stash for the next bloke


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (6 October 2009)

Nun mate, who ever thought the Berlin Wall would come down, that we'd have a black President of the USA, that a pair of nincompooks from Nambour High would be running Australia.

Stranger things have happened. 

It would be in all four great powers interests to get rid of the Taliban and al Qaeda from the region.

Let them go back to the Middle East and Europe where they belong.

gg


----------



## 888 (6 October 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The Allied Forces need to change the rules of engagement to ensure that the Taliban and Islamist Al Qaeda do not win the war in Afghanistan.
> 
> I am hearing disturbing accounts from a Medical Officer mate in the US Army of obvious Taliban being treated for illness in Coalition medical facilities.
> 
> ...





Don't be naive, the US troops are not there to win the war with Taliban.  It's to secure drug trade for the big guns in Washington.  The diggers are just pawn and smoke screen for them.


----------



## Bobby (6 October 2009)

I don't have an answer of how to beat the Taliban with the rules of engagement as they are .

What I do know is Afghans are a race of misogynist males who can't grasp the idea of equality .


  Check their  entertainment favorite on UTube ( Afghan dog fighting ) a land of Sicko's !


----------



## Tink (6 October 2009)

I see Howard is still 'babbling'

Former prime minister John Howard says Australia must send more troops to Afghanistan or risk losing the war.

Mr Howard, who is in the US to meet with former president George W Bush, told Fox News that Australia should increase its troop commitment to avoid handing victory to the Taliban, a scenario he said would deal an "enormous blow" to American prestige.

*Send more troops or lose the war: Howard*


----------



## wayneL (6 October 2009)

Tink said:


> I see Howard is still 'babbling'
> 
> Former prime minister John Howard says Australia must send more troops to Afghanistan or risk losing the war.
> 
> ...




It's one or the other. Go all in or get the %$£* out. This pusseyfooting around is BS.

Admitting why we are there might be a good thing to do as per GGs comments. 

What's the goal? Nobody has been able to crystallize *why* our boys are dying there.


----------



## Bobby (6 October 2009)

wayneL said:


> It's one or the other. Go all in or get the %$£* out. This pusseyfooting around is BS.
> 
> Admitting why we are there might be a good thing to do as per GGs comments.
> 
> What's the goal? Nobody has been able to crystallize *why* our boys are dying there.




The Goal is to stop this crap country being a safe haven for terrorists , well after the so called elections you can see why I call it crap !

As for the thinking of Afghans  these people have been brought up with Hate , Violence , corruption , nepotism , religious brain washing poison ~ etc :


----------



## wayneL (7 October 2009)

Bobby said:


> The Goal is to stop this crap country being a safe haven for terrorists , well after the so called elections you can see why I call it crap !
> 
> As for the thinking of Afghans  these people have been brought up with Hate , Violence , corruption , nepotism , religious brain washing poison ~ etc :



Meanwhile, the terrorists all go some place else. Our boys are just fighting pissed off locals and religious zealots wanting to give the infidels a bloody nose.

FAIL.


----------



## Bobby (7 October 2009)

wayneL said:


> Meanwhile, the terrorists all go some place else. Our boys are just fighting pissed off locals and religious zealots wanting to give the infidels a bloody nose.
> 
> FAIL.




Think you may need to elaborate some  ?  
If it was anyone else how said the above Wayne I'd be concerned


----------



## wayneL (7 October 2009)

Well if I was an Al CiaDuh terrorist, the last place I'd be is Afghanistan.

Terrorists don't fight armies, there is no "terror" in that. They want to frighten the crap out of folk. They have absolutely nothing to gain by fighting in Afghanistan.

They have moved on where the US Army and the coalition of the blackmailed aren't. All that is left are Taliban resistance fighters.


----------



## matty2.0 (7 October 2009)

wtf are you smoking?
vietnam = the next china ...

have you seen their gdp growth rates?

manufacturing is going from china to vietnam ... same model ... same values/culture/politics ...


----------



## wayneL (7 October 2009)

matty2.0 said:


> wtf are you smoking?
> vietnam = the next china ...
> 
> have you seen their gdp growth rates?
> ...




Eh?

**pinches self for consciousness check.

I thought we were talking about wars.


----------



## Bobby (7 October 2009)

wayneL said:


> Well if I was an Al CiaDuh terrorist, the last place I'd be is Afghanistan.
> 
> Terrorists don't fight armies, there is no "terror" in that. They want to frighten the crap out of folk. They have absolutely nothing to gain by fighting in Afghanistan.
> 
> They have moved on where the US Army and the coalition of the blackmailed aren't. All that is left are Taliban resistance fighters.




SHeez Wayne is that you saying the above ?  I.m going to wait some for the old Wayne to get back his hijacked identity


----------



## wayneL (7 October 2009)

Bobby said:


> SHeez Wayne is that you saying the above ?  I.m going to wait some for the old Wayne to get back his hijacked identity



Well isn't the goal of terrorists to terrorize?

You can't terrorize fighting an army. Why would they expend resources doing so?


----------



## GumbyLearner (7 October 2009)

Has anyone here read Shantaram? 

Geoffrey Roberts talks about going to Afghanistan in his book.


----------



## Bobby (7 October 2009)

wayneL said:


> Well isn't the goal of terrorists to terrorize?
> 
> You can't terrorize fighting an army. Why would they expend resources doing so?




I'm off to bed now  , I think that  analogy is flawed ~ but do like the real you "  

Sleep Well .


----------



## Tink (7 October 2009)

wayneL said:


> It's one or the other. Go all in or get the %$£* out. This pusseyfooting around is BS.




well Australia wants them out, so get them out.

If they think we are going to be listening to Bush again, dream on..

If we dont know what we are doing there after all this time, who's fault is that?


----------



## Aussiejeff (7 October 2009)

Tink said:


> well Australia wants them out, so get them out.
> 
> If they think we are going to be listening to Bush again, dream on..
> 
> *If we dont know what we are doing there after all this time, who's fault is that?*




Ours entirely.

Unlike some other planetary places, WE all have the "luxury" of voting for peeps who will tell us what to do and where to go. 

Ya gotta love that fact?

So, 'tis our fault to a "t".

*Pssst. Q to GG re Afghanistan=Vietnam. Does Afghanistan have dense tropical jungle? Is AQ & Taliban overtly backed & funded by one of the worlds most powerful nations (eg as China backed N. Vietnam)? Not a lot of similarity there. The only similarity I see is the "strategic quagmire" scenario the US seems to be heading into. "Democracy" can be such a drag in the conducting of wars?


----------



## nulla nulla (7 October 2009)

History shows the British got kicked out, the Russians got kicked out and eventually the coalition will get kicked out. It is a war of attrition that the coalition will eventually find to be too expensive to maintain in both the loss of life and dollars.

Thank God for labours abolishing conscription.


----------



## Taltan (7 October 2009)

The predominat goal/achievement is to keep the Taliban focused on bombing things in Kabul or Karachi rather than New York or Bali. It's sad to say but basically its a lot harder to plan 9/11 when you spend your time hiding from the US troops and survellience aircraft. You can see the same thing in the Gaza strip where there is a break from firing rockets into Israel not cause Hamas & Israel have made peace but because Hamas is busy fighting for control of Gaza & West Bank with Fatah. Likewise the Taliban and associated warlords are busy.

Yes the approach in Afghanistan is wrong but you cannot do any better without a fundamental shift in one of the Western values of either 
- occassionaly taking action that commanders know will result in loss of civilian life or;
- reducing people's individual religious freedom.

Rightly or wrongly we in the West don't accept either of the two above and thus cannot strike at Al Qaedia fatally, thus the best we can do is what we're doing - which is keeping them focused on attacks away from our shores.
That's my $0.02 worth


----------



## wayneL (7 October 2009)

I understand that The Taliban and Al Quaida are two separate groups.

We are busy messing with The Taliban while Al Quaida are elsewhere.


----------



## Taltan (7 October 2009)

Al Quaida is a brand name, those who carried out 9/11 did not plan Madrid 03 or London 05. Those who did 9/11 are still hiding and as a result there have not themselves majorly succeeded in attacking Western soil since 9/11. Thats what we wanted, to be able to fly, take buses and live our lives in general safety. That doesn't mean we don't have domestic nutcases, crime, gun problems or GFC. It just means that what happened on 9/11 is not repeated - that's essentially what we wanted.


----------



## wayneL (7 October 2009)

Taltan said:


> Al Quaida is a brand name, those who carried out 9/11 did not plan Madrid 03 or London 05. Those who did 9/11 are still hiding and as a result there have not themselves majorly succeeded in attacking Western soil since 9/11. Thats what we wanted, to be able to fly, take buses and live our lives in general safety. That doesn't mean we don't have domestic nutcases, crime, gun problems or GFC. It just means that what happened on 9/11 is not repeated - that's essentially what we wanted.




So essentially we need to have perpetual war to keep the b@stards off our back?  (presuming the totally manufactured account of 911 is even remotely close to the truth)

Plan B please!


----------



## Knobby22 (7 October 2009)

It was better as a proxy war with the Russians.

Oh damn, that's what caused the Taliban to be created. 

We should support the Shah in Iran then withdraw it at last second, Oh damn  Ayatollas run it now.

We should get rid of that evil dictator in Iraq, who we supported previously, oh damn more Ayatollah's running the country.

It would have been better policy for all the US foreign policy people to have taken drugs and partied hard and avoid doing anything.


----------



## Taltan (7 October 2009)

As I said above Plan B would be to tackle the teachings of Islam head on or to accept our troops causing mass civilian casualties. Unless bombings rise exponentially those options are simply off the table for our society right now, so Plan A it is.

As for the US doing nothing they've tried that many times, Rwanda 1994 and Zimbabwe recently come to mind.


----------



## wayneL (7 October 2009)

Taltan,

You've never read Edward De Bono then?


----------



## Aussiejeff (7 October 2009)

wayneL said:


> *So essentially we need to have perpetual war to keep the b@stards off our back?  *(presuming the totally manufactured account of 911 is even remotely close to the truth)
> 
> Plan B please!




Don't larf!

Isn't that what the Egyptians, Greeks & Romans up resorting to as their Empires began to unravel?

Hmmmm.. now we have the "endless global war on terror"??

Do I perceive the sickly-sweet smell of dejavu??


----------



## Calliope (7 October 2009)

Aussiejeff said:


> *Pssst. Q to GG re Afghanistan=Vietnam. Does Afghanistan have dense tropical jungle? Is AQ & Taliban overtly backed & funded by one of the worlds most powerful nations (eg as China backed N. Vietnam)? Not a lot of similarity there. The only similarity I see is the "strategic quagmire" scenario the US seems to be heading into. "Democracy" can be such a drag in the conducting of wars?




The Chinese get their kicks by sitting back and watching rogue states make the western democracies look foolish. Most of these rogue states such as Burma, Zimbabwae, Soudan, Somalia, Iran, Libya, North Korea etc are client states and are heavily dependant on China for support, and China could make them stop their nonsense at any time they liked.  

If they don't support the Taliban in Afghanistan and Parkistan it's because they share a border and the don't want freedom movements spilling over into Xinjiang province where the Uygurs (among others ) live. That's not to say they don't enjoy seeing the American's getting their arses kicked in Afghanistan.


----------



## Taltan (7 October 2009)

wayneL said:


> Taltan,
> 
> You've never read Edward De Bono then?




Nope I havn't.

As for a perpetual war. Well as long as this war has no conscription, no specific taxes, there's no effective life difference to most of us. If ever there was our will to win the war would increase. We didnt win Vietnam and we won't win Afghanistan cause we don't have the will not because we lack the know-how.


----------



## Zird (8 October 2009)

The objective of Al Qaida (or Al Qaieda) is the destruction of the leading infidel  - USA.
They cannot fight militarily to achieve this objective so they look for other avenues. Fiscal methods.
They were able to use small 'box cutter' knives on several airflights  and do there own 'shock and Awe'. As a consequence draw the US and other infidels into an unwinneable Afganistan war which could seriously harm if not  criple the US economy.


Chrisian Science Monitor  
By David R. Francis    |  Staff Writer/ September 15, 2009 edition

 "For the first time, the war in Afghanistan in the next budget year will cost Americans more than the war in Iraq. By the end of the next fiscal year, which starts Oct. 1, the total military budget costs for both wars will have exceeded $1 trillion.

That’s more than the cost of the Vietnam War, adjusting for inflation, or any other US war except World War II ($3.2 trillion in 2007 dollars).

A trillion dollars is hard to imagine. Think of it this way: If you had an expense account good for $1 million a day, it would take 2,935 years to spend $1.071 trillion, which is the actual estimate for the wars’ price tag by Travis Sharp of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in Washington. He reckons the two conflicts will have cost the typical American family of four roughly $13,000 by next year.

Wars, even counterinsurgency conflicts, are expensive in lives and dollars.

Why is Afghanistan getting so expensive? The US is sending more troops, of course. It also costs about 50 percent more to keep a soldier in Afghanistan than in Iraq, says Linda Bilmes, a Harvard University economist. In sharp contrast to flat, urbanized Iraq, most of Afghanistan’s population lives in rural, mountainous terrain with few good roads to link them up.

*Officially, Afghanistan war costs are budgeted at $65 billion for fiscal 2010, somewhat more than the $61 billion for the Iraq war.
*
The true total is probably closer to *$85 billion or more,* estimates Gordon Adams, a defense expert at American University’s School of International Service in Washington. He says the US is paying more than $500 million a year to counter the narcotics business there.

Further, there is foreign aid coming out of the State Department budget. To counter the Taliban from crossing the border into Afghanistan, Pakistan gets easily $1 billion in military and other foreign aid.

If one looks beyond immediate war costs, the price tag escalates dramatically. Factoring in outlays for such things as veterans’ health and other benefits, the replenishment of military hardware worn out or destroyed by war, a higher price for oil, and the interest on debt incurred by the war, the total cost of the two wars will be “significantly more” than $3 trillion, says Professor Bilmes.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (8 October 2009)

It is only recently that we have begun "costing" wars. 

If you take the Second world War , you had a bunch of fascists and maniacs against the Allied forces. That war could have been easily lost by the Allies, were it not for the force and vigour with which it was fought.

Dresden and Hiroshima were dreadful events but were necessary to pulverise the enemy in to capitulation by destroying their morale.

A similar attitude needs to be adopted in Afghanistan. The population are as guilty as the fighters by harbouring the Taliban and providing recruits for the Islamist forces.

Unfortunately innocent civilian lives need to be lost if the Taliban are to be comprehensively removed as a threat to the Free World.

The people of Australia, Europe and the USA need to take some harden up pills and realise this difficult fact.

The Islamist and Taliban fighters cannot be reasoned with and have as their avowed aim the imposition og their religion and values worldwide. We should not and cannot allow this to happen.

The first thig that need to be removed is the right of civilians to use the courts of the Allies to gain compensation for injury or death received in the conflict.

gg


----------



## Stan 101 (8 October 2009)

Zird said:


> The objective of Al Qaida (or Al Qaieda) is the destruction of the leading infidel  - USA.




From what has been said by several ex US military, CIA and other government US leaders the number one issue this group have is infidels on their holy land. They want the US off the saudi peninsula and other places nearby.



> Unfortunately innocent civilian lives need to be lost



GG, this is unfortunately true in the current climate. The issue with it these people are needlessly dying. Your comment may be in some way justified if there was a result. 
The truth is that after 8 years the Afghanistan affair is in at least the same state. Splinter groups have infiltrated Pakistan and India. Seems like all those civilian casualties were nothing but a waste.




> The people of Australia, Europe and the USA need to take some harden up pills and realise this difficult fact.




So the families of those who died in 9/11 should harden up, too? Those victims were casualties of war in the eyes of non radicals of other countries. After all they have relatives and friends who've been victims of collateral damage from the US. They may not be right, but it is their perception.


cheers,


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 October 2009)

Stan 101 said:


> From what has been said by several ex US military, CIA and other government US leaders the number one issue this group have is infidels on their holy land. They want the US off the saudi peninsula and other places nearby.




My answer to this would be "tough". We need the oil and are in a stronger bargaining position than they are. We also have some moral boundaries which stop us behaving like the Saudi princelings, drinking , *****ing and lining their pockets. At last count there were 12000 of these bastards extant. Some are Al Qaeda sympathisers. The Saudis will need to be broken economically to the West's benefit. 



Stan 101 said:


> GG, this is unfortunately true in the current climate. The issue with it these people are needlessly dying. Your comment may be in some way justified if there was a result.
> The truth is that after 8 years the Afghanistan affair is in at least the same state. Splinter groups have infiltrated Pakistan and India. Seems like all those civilian casualties were nothing but a waste.




I agree mate. A lack of resolve on the coalition's part has led to low morale amongst the combatants on our side. Give them better ROE and they will fight more effectively. 

Pakistan is a failed state, run by patriarchal playboys and imbeciles. The sooner it goes down the clearer the field will be. We cannot save Pakistan. Its stuffed. Its the poor man's Saudi. 




Stan 101 said:


> So the families of those who died in 9/11 should harden up, too? Those victims were casualties of war in the eyes of non radicals of other countries. After all they have relatives and friends who've been victims of collateral damage from the US. They may not be right, but it is their perception.
> 
> 
> cheers,




We have hardened up mate, and the very fact that I can post a thread like this without the basket weavers banning it is justification for the fact that the wheel is turning.

The Atrocity of 9/11 will be paid for by the perpetrators.

We have hardened up.

gg


----------



## Fishbulb (9 October 2009)

The armed forces are following orders, and no amount of forum opinion will change that policy. Strategies are being changed and developed to fit with current terrorist warfare methodology. 

The whole thing's a learning curve, as this type of warfare is new to not just our forces but those worldwide as well.

Simplistic phrases like "fight hard" won't win this war. A more apt phrase would be "fight smart"


----------



## Calliope (9 October 2009)

Obama is driven by adverse comparisons with Vietnam.



> *US hints may put Al-Qaeda, not Taliban, in crosshairs*
> 
> October 9, 2009 - 1:49PM
> The White House said the Taliban posed less of a threat to US security than Al-Qaeda, raising speculation that President Barack Obama may not opt for a vastly increased counter-insurgency force in Afghanistan.
> ...




http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-new...-not-taliban-in-crosshairs-20091009-gq59.html

As you can see in this article they haven't ruled out *working with the Taliban*


----------



## kitehigh (9 October 2009)

My guess is that the Obama administration is learning towards a drawing down of conventional troops and a increase of SF troops to continue the fight against both AQ and the Taliban.  This will cost a truck load less in both lives and money and probably will end up being more effective than the current operation.  I can't see Afghanistan being a stable democratic country as we know for the foreseeable future.  The best the Western countries can hope for is probably something similar to the present situation in Pakistan.  Eg: a functioning Govt but pockets outside of Govt control and ongoing fighting against the rebels.  Yes its not a perfect situation but expecting to achieve a western model is unrealistic in my opinion.

Those that are bringing up oil as the major reason the US wants control of Afghanistan are ill informed.  There simply is no significant hydro carbons in Afghanistan.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 October 2009)

kitehigh said:


> Those that are bringing up oil as the major reason the US wants control of Afghanistan are ill informed.  There simply is no significant hydro carbons in Afghanistan.




I believe you are correct about the known hydrocarbons in Afghanistan, but the importance of that state to the West is that *any pipeline* from the oil richer Stans further north, Turk etc., would have to go through Afghanistan, to get to the West.

So its the pipeline that is the important point to remember when talking of oil and the present conflict.

gg


----------



## Zird (9 October 2009)

I agree Kitehigh -  the oil is in Iraq.

However there is much info on the web about the US Geological Service searching for oil and finding significant quantities. There is much talk about potential huge reserves and also the massive reserves in countries nth of Afganistan and pipelines from them running through Afg into US ships etc. A US Oil company , in 2005  was given exclusive drilling rights in Afganistan. 

Of course the profits would be shared with the villagers! Uncle Sam  is such a sharing and caring nation. 
*
Iraq proven oil reserves*  112 billion barrels of oil & 110 trillion cf of gas.
90% of Iraq unexplored for reserves only 2000 wells drilled. (1 million wells drilled in Texas)

Iraq 2nd biggest oil producer behind Saudi Arabia. Pre Kuwait war producing 3.5 million barrels/day now about 2.5 mill/day.

Where is this money going? Under US control the Iraqi's have not got enough food/water/medicines - Under Saddam, pre Kuwait it was regarded as a well off country. All you had to do was lick his boots.

. No doubt US tapping into the oil  to pay for the war.

In 2002 USA imported 11.3 million barrels from Iraq
From other countries:


Saudi Arabia - 56.2 million barrels
Venezuela 20.2 million barrels
Nigeria 19.3 million barrels
Kuwait - 5.9 million barrels
Algeria - 1.2 million barrels

L


 .


----------



## Zird (9 October 2009)

To further my point about the Taliban/Alqeida using box cutter knives for 'shock and awe' attack on USA. 

There is no huge army facing the infidels in Afganistan or any need for a huge army, just small bands of fighters firing a few shots here and there, blowing up infrastructure plus occasional  few suicide bombers reeking death and havoc. With 1000s of willing replacements in the mountains. They are just continuing on the fight where Russians left off.

These small bands  living on nothing are causing the US economy to wobble. USA - too much power not enough brain. Hollywood could not have scripted such supidity.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 October 2009)

There is further bad news.

Obama has just been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize.

We are in the middle of a war against the biggest threat to Western civilisation since the Plague, and the liberal media and their hangers on are celebrating the award of a Peace prize for gods sake to Barack.

Perhaps we should have a Nobel War Prize, to be awarded to the best Commander in Chief leading his country and Allies to victory.

That lickspittle Neville Chamberlain would have won a Peace prize while condemning the West to six years of world war.

A Peace Prize for the CIC of the western world, at this time in our history when we are fighting insane godbotherers ready to stick a grenade up their coits to kill our innocent population, and get to heaven.

What a load of cobblers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8298580.stm

gg


----------



## Calliope (10 October 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> A Peace Prize for the CIC of the western world, at this time in our history when we are fighting insane godbotherers ready to stick a grenade up their coits to kill our innocent population, and get to heaven.
> 
> What a load of cobblers.
> gg




It will be interesting to see if this great man of Peace escalates the war in Afghanistan.


----------



## Fishbulb (10 October 2009)

The west isn't all that innocent - mate. Our population is complicit in the west's scramble for oil by its silence, which, to not only the Islamic mind, is one of agreement. 

America, the leader of the "free world" armed to the teeth with a defence budget which is greater than the rest of the world's COMBINED, fights a bunch of goat herders with less than spectacular success. These (basically) goat herders do not want the infidel on their soil, and do not want its brand of democracy. How can it fight such a huge war machine? Terrorism is the only tool at hand. 

I absolutely do not condone terrorism, but an understanding of what's going would be an advantage. Platitudes and the mindset that we here in the west are somehow innocent is absolute bollocks. 
We're energy hungry and we'd do anything to keep our lifestyle. After all, we must have our toys, and we must have our televisions. Anything to keep us from thinking. We've grown used to living in human feed lots. It's comfortable and anything which opposes it must be destroyed.


----------



## nunthewiser (10 October 2009)

Totally agree 

we got the good ole USA wanting to fight stating queensbury rules 

and we got the underdogs happy to fight using "carpark" rules 

while i also do not condone the use of these terrorist tactics , i also understand why they use them ................ how else are they going to win ?

its called WAR and when it comes to the crunch , both sides want/need to win it .


----------



## Mr J (10 October 2009)

Aussiejeff said:


> Don't larf!
> 
> Isn't that what the Egyptians, Greeks & Romans up resorting to as their Empires began to unravel?




Not really, in each case they were just overwhelmed by aggressors. First of all, the greeks were not an empire, and at best were alliances of city-states. I believe the Egyptians were just conquered by superior foes (such as the Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Romans etc). The Eastern Roman Empire fell to the Turks over time, but I'm not familiar with the causes (civil war, economic and then throw in outside pressures like the Turks?). The Western Roman Empire was overrun by germanic tribes, but Rome was in a very weakened state by this stage. As far a I know, in none of these cases was there perpetual war that lead to their downfall, at least no more in a state of war than they had been in their past.

To compare it to a similar situation today, and using the US as our 'empire', it would be like China invading the US, rather than the US getting itself caught up in Vietnams. Eventually, the many small scale wars might bring down the superpower, but historically it has usually been another superpower than has delivered the blow.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (6 November 2009)

Perhaps it is time that Australian troops were pulled back from Afghanistan.

I don't feel the Americans have got the guts for a fight to win there, and our diggers will suffer as a consequence..

The Islamists are so fractured and their ideology so foreign to ours, I reckon we should just let them beat the crap out of each other and then see whats left at the end, and make a decision on whether to re-engage then.

gg


----------



## Julia (6 November 2009)

Agree.  Endure the humiliation and get out.  The invasion should never have occurred in the first place.  Just an appalling waste of life, military and civilian.


----------



## Stan 101 (6 November 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> We have hardened up mate, and the very fact that I can post a thread like this without the basket weavers banning it is justification for the fact that the wheel is turning.
> 
> The Atrocity of 9/11 will be paid for by the perpetrators.
> 
> ...




I'd be inclined to think that the perpetrators paid in advance for 9/11 after the cold war saga and Russia pulled out of there. The Afghanis were used up and spat out after the US had no need to fight Russia any more.
The US think they can decimate countries on a whim and continue on merrily, then whine when pent up rage is released in the way of retaliation years later.

When you live in sand and filth in barren lands, I'd reckon one has a lot of time to think about and plot revenge.

So 3000 odd people died in 9/11. So what? Sure it's 3000 needless dead but it's a drop in the ocean of the blood spilled by the US.


So the US has spent 1 trillion dollars on these two conflicts. I'm no scientist and certainly no economic guru but it seems to me that money could have been spent on alternative fuel source research. It could also have offered transition from economic dependency of big oil to these new technologies.

The power of the middle east suddenly doesn't seem so clear with alternate technologies. Major embargoes and restraints on those "terrorist" countries could be imposed. No Afghani leaves their country for god fearing western countries and they are left to their own devices.



Cheers,


----------



## Stan 101 (6 November 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> while i also do not condone the use of these terrorist tactics , i also understand why they use them ................ how else are they going to win ?
> 
> its called WAR and when it comes to the crunch , both sides want/need to win it .




Well said, Nun. War is war. Win at all costs. I know if some country had been bombing my homeland for the best part of my lifetime I'd seriously contemplate revenge with any means possible.

It's not right but it is human nature. 


cheers, 



cheers,


----------



## Zird (15 November 2009)

This is the stupidity of the US. They could have gone into Iraq or Afganistan and spent 10% of what they have spent -  on things for the people like food, hospitals, education etc and nearly  everyone would have been on there side. And very few casualties. Instead they came in like the SS and are now  despised by the locals who will live a catastrophic life for generations to come.


----------



## Bushman (8 June 2010)

Rest in peace to these two young Diggers killed today by an IED. This on a day when 10 NATO soldiers died at the hands of the Taleban. 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-kills-2-diggers/story-e6frg6nf-1225876897022

No end in site for this guerilla war. The parallel with Vietnam is appropriate.


----------



## wayneL (8 June 2010)

Bushman said:


> Rest in peace to these two young Diggers killed today by an IED. This on a day when 10 NATO soldiers died at the hands of the Taleban.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-kills-2-diggers/story-e6frg6nf-1225876897022
> 
> No end in site for this guerilla war. The parallel with Vietnam is appropriate.



Not good 

I'd like to know what they think might be their exit strategy? I can see nothing in between either some sort of massive blitzkrieg with enormous casualties, or an inglorious withdrawal at some indeterminate point in the future.

Yep, Viet Nam MkII indeed.


----------



## Happy (8 June 2010)

One side has to follow Geneva Convention plus never ending laws of engagement and the other side is free to do whatever they can think of.

Reminds me of local criminals in Australia and the Government here does't win either.

Pitty it has to be that way.


----------



## roland (8 June 2010)

If you pull the media out, then things would get done a lot quicker.


----------



## satanoperca (14 June 2010)

Ah, if it was as simple as you thought you thought wrong.



> U.S. discovers $1 trillion Afghan mineral deposits: report




http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65D0OH20100614?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

Cheers


----------



## Calliope (22 June 2010)

Further deaths and injuries of Australian soldiers in Afghanistan raises the question of what the hell we are doing there. It is quite obvious that it will never be politically acceptable to provide enough troops to actually do the job of containing the Taliban.

The numbers of young Afghan men fleeing to Australia far exceeds the number of troops we send to Afghanistan. Presumably these men are fleeing from the same people that our troops are fighting. Part of our job in Afghanistan is to train an Afghan army.

If these men don't want to stay and fight the Taliban, why should we?


----------



## MACD (22 June 2010)

IMO this is not our war.  It's not our problem so we should not be there, losing men and women fighting for a cause which has nothing to do with Australia.

If the politicians want to be there and show face, then let them go to war and go and fight.  These guys will be the first ones home to run home with their tails between their legs.  Talk is cheap and easy if it doesn't affect you personally.  In the meantime, we continue to lose good soldiers and this not not good for anybody.


----------



## Julia (22 June 2010)

MACD said:


> IMO this is not our war.  It's not our problem so we should not be there, losing men and women fighting for a cause which has nothing to do with Australia.



I'd like to see all our troops withdrawn from Afghanistan.
However, to say it's 'not our war' is not completely fair.

Let's remember that the Coalition of the Willing (stupid name) invaded Afghanistan following the 9/11 attack.  The rationale for this was supposed to be that Bin Laden was being sheltered there.
How that was allowed to become a reason for bombing the **** out of civilian occupied cities etc is beyond me.
But western forces have created a hell of a mess and probably have some moral obligation to do some rebuilding.

The notion that the Taliban will be beaten, though, seems entirely fanciful.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (16 March 2012)

Julia said:


> I'd like to see all our troops withdrawn from Afghanistan.
> However, to say it's 'not our war' is not completely fair.
> 
> Let's remember that the Coalition of the Willing (stupid name) invaded Afghanistan following the 9/11 attack.  The rationale for this was supposed to be that Bin Laden was being sheltered there.
> ...




Whether one feels or not that the Taliban can be beaten is immaterial at the moment. It is essential that we get our Diggers out of Afghanistan as quickly as possible.

This iteration of the war against medievalism is over. There is no longer a need to stay there.

Despite having suffered a number of baton licks from overzealous coppers during one or twenty anti-Vietnam marches, I am of a mind to take to the streets again, to get our troops home.

Karzai is a double dealing onanist more suited to being the coat boy in a Kings Cross brothel,than President of a state. Whatever result can be anticipated in two years, will be no different next week should we pull out immediately rather than then.

The Afghans should be left to attempt grow their opium and their labours twarted by high level drone destruction of their crops.

Some folk cannot be saved from themselves.

gg


----------



## Ferret (17 March 2012)

Can’t say I disagree with you, GG.  There is no doubt we’re not welcome there and our efforts to build a peace are not appreciated.  I fear no matter how long we stay, within a few years of the west pulling out, the government will fall.  

As you say, it will then go back to being a training ground for militants planning attacks against the west and supported by the export of drugs.   Drone attacks might hamper this, although I don’t know where they’d be launched from, and they will fuel further resentment around the world.  

There is no answer that I can see.  

I think the biggest mistake was made 30 years ago when the US funded the Afghans resistance to the Russians.  If the US had left things alone then, just maybe a more stable Afghanistan would exist now.


----------



## Glen48 (17 March 2012)

The Taliban is the best fighting army the world has ever seen and can't be stopped.
They sent thousands of Russian troop back home as drug addicts and now Russia is still fighting the war as the Taliban sit back and employ kids to do their dirty work.

Aussie troop have this to look forward to:


On the 18th of August 1966 at Long Tan, Vietnam,

D Company of the 6th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment,

mainly made up of Australian National Servicemen,

and at that time located to support the American Army,

fought a battle against the Viet Cong.

In this action D Company lost 18 men killed, and 24 injured.

The Viet Cong dead numbered in excess of 245.

The Australian lines were never crossed.

The Viet Cong withdrew.







American President Johnson and US Army Staff recognised the achievement

by awarding the Unit Citation of Gallantry on 30th May 1968.

The Award was formally accepted by Queen Elizabeth in 13th June 1968.

Prime Minister John Gorton made the formal presentation of this

American Citation to the Battalion at Lavarack Barracks,

Townsville on 18th August 1968.






On the 31st of March 2010,

D Company of the 6th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment

were belatedly awarded the Australian version of

"Unit Citation for Gallantry" (UCG),

honouring their extraordinary deeds at Long Tan.



The Government however refused to approve travel payment

for the surviving Unit Members or their families,

including the families of deceased Unit Members,

in order that they be present at the

UCG Presentation Ceremony

presided over by the Governor General of Australia.




In February 2011 the same Government of Australia

footed the Funeral Bill to bury the illegal boat people,

who tragically perished on Christmas Island.

This included flying surviving family illegals and survivors

to and from Sydney and Xmas Island,

accommodating them, etc etc.,

plus a Coach tour of Sydney thrown in.







The Canberra Politburo had waited 45 years

to publicly acknowledge the bravery and sacrifice

of these Sons of Australia,

and then immediately s*#&t on their memory by wetting themselves,

to appease the feelings of boat illegals forcing entry into our country.






Now we witness what can only be described as attempted political face saving,

by this same Government, sponsoring a TV Documentary,

to celebrate our Armed Forces accomplishments at Kapyong, Korea in 1951.

This will see our Prime Minister, and the entire Priministerial Entourage,

fly in a RAAF plane to Korea to mark this 60th Anniversary.



What Bloody Hypocrisy!!!

What a Blatant Affront to the feelings

of our Nation's serving Armed Forces,

Past and Present.

Shame, Shame, Shame,


----------

