I am going to have to do a backflip. I don't think there is any point of us staying there any longer.
We went there in the aftermath of 9/11 for the reasons everybody knows.
And we all are still there because it has been recognised that this is a primeval state full of primeval people who have to be helped to change.
But they are not going to. We will have to abandon the women to their fate. We will have to let the Taliban come back as they surely will. We will have to let the opium trade flourish again (has it ever reduced?)
And we will have to let it become a base for terrorism again which it might well do.
What other choice is there? Stay there for a hundred years? Would it change in a hundred years?
I doubt it.
You can't win them all.

PS whatever you do afterwards, don't go to Bali.

This a no-win stupid war the yanks dragged Australia into knowing it was a no-win war.

FFS, the Russians were there for 10 years and lost over 100k troops and another100k wounded and disabled before they realised the war in Afghanistan was a no-win war.

Australia is just a stupid dumb-arse country being led around by the nose by the USA and the UN, so unless we start growing some balls, nothing much will change and more young Australians will die in Americas war  for oil and fame.

bogarde73 wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 3:28pm:

I am going to have to do a backflip. I don't think there is any point of us staying there any longer. We went there in the aftermath of 9/11 for the reasons everybody knows. And we all are still there because it has been recognised that this is a primeval state full of primeval people who have to be helped to change. But they are not going to. We will have to abandon the women to their fate. We will have to let the Taliban come back as they surely will. We will have to let the opium trade flourish again (has it ever reduced?) And we will have to let it become a base for terrorism again which it might well do. What other choice is there? Stay there for a hundred years? Would it change in a hundred years? I doubt it. You can't win them all. PS whatever you do afterwards, don't go to Bali.

Actually the Taliban virtually wiped out the opium trade.
Anyone found growing poppies was executed because drugs are against the "Prophets" teachings.
The conspricacy nut in me half thinks that's why the Yanks went in, the CIA needed its fields of gold again to fund their operations.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 4:25pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Jun 1st, 2011 at 3:28pm: I am going to have to do a backflip. I don't think there is any point of us staying there any longer. We went there in the aftermath of 9/11 for the reasons everybody knows. And we all are still there because it has been recognised that this is a primeval state full of primeval people who have to be helped to change. But they are not going to. We will have to abandon the women to their fate. We will have to let the Taliban come back as they surely will. We will have to let the opium trade flourish again (has it ever reduced?) And we will have to let it become a base for terrorism again which it might well do. What other choice is there? Stay there for a hundred years? Would it change in a hundred years? I doubt it. You can't win them all. PS whatever you do afterwards, don't go to Bali. Actually the Taliban virtually wiped out the opium trade. Anyone found growing poppies was executed because drugs are against the "Prophets" teachings. The conspricacy nut in me half thinks that's why the Yanks went in, the CIA needed its fields of gold again to fund their operations.

Did they go in for the drugs, for strategic positioning, or for the minerals?


Quote:

United States officials say a survey has uncovered at least $US1 trillion in mineral deposits in Afghanistan, but there are doubts as to how the war-torn and graft-prone country can manage the windfall. A Pentagon spokesman says the study by US geologists found that Afghanistan had reserves of valuable minerals on a much larger scale than previously believed. The value of the minerals - including lithium, iron, gold, niobium and cobalt - is estimated at nearly $US1 trillion, according to the study. US Colonel Dave Lapan says that is a conservative estimate. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/15/2926822.htm

bogarde73 wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 3:28pm:

I am going to have to do a backflip. I don't think there is any point of us staying there any longer. We went there in the aftermath of 9/11 for the reasons everybody knows. And we all are still there because it has been recognised that this is a primeval state full of primeval people who have to be helped to change. But they are not going to. We will have to abandon the women to their fate. We will have to let the Taliban come back as they surely will. We will have to let the opium trade flourish again (has it ever reduced?) And we will have to let it become a base for terrorism again which it might well do. What other choice is there? Stay there for a hundred years? Would it change in a hundred years? I doubt it. You can't win them all. PS whatever you do afterwards, don't go to Bali.

Bullshit, we cannot afford to give Al Quaeda a safe haven. We cannot afford to give Islamofascists a huge moral boost, especially at a time when their resolve around the world is wavering. We cannot allow these guys to have died in vain.

This is not what the soldiers want, to be let down by the woosies at home when they're risking their all doing a job they love doing and are doing well.

The Russians weren't fighting a ramshackle taliban caught between a rock and a hard place. They were fighting a mujahadeen augmented by a huge influx of wahabists from Arabia and fighting a proxy war between the USA and Russia. What needs to happen is to get the USA out of command and fight the war with European and Russians, the latter are more than willing.  Connect the dots.

http://www.eurasianet.org/node/63421

Hamed Karzai has a nice holiday in Bali. No problem. Sunny beaches, massage, chicken tikka. Karzai even got a tattoo - he got the Chinese character for luck on his shoulder.

Karzai always feels refreshed after a few days in the sun.

Ive fast lost patience in Afghanistan.

The Yanks tanked that operation they day they pull troops to send them to Iraq for oil.

From that point it was NEVER going to be even remotely viable.

all those experts on here again amazing have any of you been there?... fighting I mean or as we are doing now training the Afghans to fight for their rights....

yes I know one of them just took one of our boys... we are not going to win them all. its a cruel part of our lives today.

a time has been set for the withdrawal and I think we need to abide by something this govt has said.. dont you?.. I am fed up to the teeth with this lot backing away and backflipping..we have lost some fine men... in WAR...its their job its what they do.. they kill, and some are killed..

we have to get on with it..

think about running away if you must.. but I tell you what if this WAR was on our soil and our friends were leaving in droves to let us get on with it alone... I cant see you saying that somehow.

WASHINGTON -- As Americans breathe a sigh of relief over finally filing the returns on what they owe (or are owed from) Uncle Sam this Tax Day, the progressive group Rethink Afghanistan wants them to consider how much of their money is funding the war in Afghanistan, now in its 10th year.    :-?

The group, a project of the Brave New Foundation, has created a Cost of War calculator, allowing Americans to figure out how much of their tax dollars are going toward the war, based on their income and filing status.

For example, a single person making $40,000 in 2010 essentially paid $1,694 for the war. A married couple filing jointly and earning a combined $100,000 has $4,757 of their tax dollars going toward the effort.

The United States is spending more than $100 billion a year in Afghanistan, amounting to about $2 billion a week.   :o

The Defense Department received $513 billion in funding in the FY 2011 continuing resolution, approximately $5 billion above last year's level. Another $158 billion is provided for overseas contingency operations (emergency funding). The war in Afghanistan will receive $108 billion of that funding, while the war in Iraq will receive $50 billion.

Last week, a bipartisan group of lawmakers, along with groups like the Liberty Coalition and Sojourners, participated in an event hosted by Rethink Afghanistan on Capitol Hill highlighting the cost of war.

"We can't pay our bills here, yet we're spending $8 billion a month in Afghanistan," Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), one of the event's panelists, recently told The New York Times. "I don't know what our country is trying to accomplish. History says Afghanistan will never be a nation. It will be a country of tribes. We're wearing out the troops and spending money we don't have."   :(

culldav wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 4:06pm:

FFS, the Russians were there for 10 years and lost over 100k troops and another100k wounded and disabled before they realised the war in Afghanistan was a no-win war.

The russians were beaten because the Americans helped the mujahideen.

The stinger missiles were bringing down many russian helicopters full of troops.

In 1982-83 when i lived in the USA there were full page ads in the paper asking for donations to buy bullets to help the Afghans fight the russians.

They can be beaten read the links in my next post from kabul press.

The question is where are the Taliban getting there seemingly bottomless pit of money from. The answer must be Pakistan. We need to take out Pakistan before any real progress in Afghanistan can be made. Screw Pakistan, I honestly wouldn't lose a second of sleep if India nuked that terrorist cesspit into ash.

.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 4:25pm:

Actually the Taliban virtually wiped out the opium trade. Anyone found growing poppies was executed because drugs are against the "Prophets" teachings. The conspricacy nut in me half thinks

If drugs are against the prophets teaching why does the leader(s) of Iran the Ayatollah Ali Khameni have an opium addiction?

http://kabulpress.org/my/spip.php?article3733

Have a look at Kabul Press you might learn how corrupt Karzai is.

The Quran says alcohol is alright if you know so much about Islam tell us why it is haram
http://quran.com/16/67
Click on Pickthall,Yusef Ali and Shakir and read all 3

I, for one, cannot see how it is smart (much less rational) to act in a manner which rapidly and exponentially increases the number of committed enemies your nation has.

Hello, the associated risks are potentially infinite!

I want to say two more things about this. Three in fact.

First, I don't like quitting cods, but I don't think these people can be helped and it will never end. Why sacrifice lives in a futile cause.
And why waste more money on them . . .$5 billion so far.
Maybe they have been taught at least not to make trouble for us again by hosting mischief makers.
Second, I sympathise with Tony Bradshaw's views. Pakistan is at the root of a lot of the trouble. But we can't "take them out". We can sever all relations with them though.
Third, If we can't bring these people into the modern world - and I think that;s clear now - at least we can refuse to have any more of them here. If they won't change at home, what makes anybody think they will change their outlook when they're here and not just be trouble for us. They already have been.
Where will we find a govt with the guts to round these people up and pack them off back where they came from. Give me the power and I'd do it.

What kind of idiot thinks that doGmatic extremists can be dissuaded from pursuing the cause/s that they (and their forefathers) have obsessively-devoted their lifetimes to!?

Hint: that was intended to be a rhetorical statement!

Mebbe we should shoot 100 Afghan asylum seekers for every International Security Assistance Force killed by the dodgy Afghani army. Make it NATO policy.

Extend the scheme to all hellhole countries (pakistan, iraq, iran, lybia): any vicim of terrorism or barbarity over there means 100 of their asylum seekers are shot here.

Peace in 10 minutes.

Soren wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 3:26pm:

Mebbe we should shoot 100 Afghan asylum seekers for every International Security Assistance Force killed by the dodgy Afghani army. Make it NATO policy. Extend the scheme to all hellhole countries (pakistan, iraq, iran, lybia): any vicim of terrorism or barbarity over there means 100 of their asylum seekers are shot here. Peace in 10 minutes.

Your one twisted bugger   WHAT A GOOD IDEA   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Soren wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 3:26pm:

Mebbe we should shoot 100 Afghan asylum seekers for every International Security Assistance Force killed by the dodgy Afghani army. Make it NATO policy. Extend the scheme to all hellhole countries (pakistan, iraq, iran, lybia): any vicim of terrorism or barbarity over there means 100 of their asylum seekers are shot here. Peace in 10 minutes.

Have you been overdosing on Techno again?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwsntHcWiy4

They are refo's because the people who would kill soldiers are the same people trying to kill them.
They'll kill more soldiers so we do their work for them.
But very good keep up that thinking & I may have a position for you in the revolution :D

Hint: that was intended to be a rhetorical statement!

I think it was just intended to be unkind

If you ever wondered what kind of people staffed and ran the concentration camps you need only read forums like this.

bogarde73 wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 3:34pm:

Hint: that was intended to be a rhetorical statement! I think it was just intended to be unkind

Yer, well that too - but it wasn't directed at you! (I agree with most of what you said.)

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 3:32pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 2nd, 2011 at 3:26pm: Mebbe we should shoot 100 Afghan asylum seekers for every International Security Assistance Force killed by the dodgy Afghani army. Make it NATO policy. Extend the scheme to all hellhole countries (pakistan, iraq, iran, lybia): any vicim of terrorism or barbarity over there means 100 of their asylum seekers are shot here. Peace in 10 minutes. Have you been overdosing on Techno again? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwsntHcWiy4 They are refo's because the people who would kill soldiers are the same people trying to kill them. They'll kill more soldiers so we do their work for them. But very good keep up that thinking & I may have a position for you in the revolution :D

Been reading Suetonius, The Lives of the Twelve Caesars.  They decimated their cowardly or treacherous soldiers. I just adjusted the figure for inflation since Roman times.

Nero punished treason by having the traitor stripped naked, his head held up by a pitch fork and flogged to death.

n the 27 hours after the Australians first attacked the German trenches, (Fromelles) 5533 ANZACs had been killed or wounded. This was twice as many casualties as the landing at Gallipoli. 60,000 Australians lost their lives in WW1 out of a force of over 420,000. The process of repatriation alone cost 238 million Pounds sterling.

Consider that when contemplating just over 20 dead and a total force of 1500. I'm not suggesting going to those lengths again but it makes you wonder. If a jobs worth doing it's worth doing properly and the  Afghanistan campaign is a job worth doing.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 3:32pm:

Have you been overdosing on Techno again? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwsntHcWiy4

Lesson: don't bugger with the blond beast.

(".. all these noble races we cannot fail to recognize the beast of prey, the blond beast splendidly roaming around in its lust for loot and victory. This hidden basis from time to time needs to be discharged: the animal must come out again, must go back into the wilderness...")

If a jobs worth doing it's worth doing properly and the  Afghanistan campaign is a job worth doing.

That's OK as a general proposition Grey, but general propositions don't always apply.
I mean, by that logic, the diggers should in fact have stayed at Gallipoli. It was a great idea to attack the enemy from the south but they should have considered the terrain etc.
The Afghanistan campaign is now the equivalent of Vietnam.
The enemy can move over the border to Pakistan whenever he likes, from where he can also be supplied with impunity.
Or he can melt back into the general population and nobody knows or is willing to say who he is.
You could in theory kill every Afghani but their tribal brothers would just move over the mountains & plains and take up their land and it would go on.
There is no end to it. It's a bottomless pit.

Grey wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2011 at 6:10pm:

n the 27 hours after the Australians first attacked the German trenches, (Fromelles) 5533 ANZACs had been killed or wounded. This was twice as many casualties as the landing at Gallipoli. 60,000 Australians lost their lives in WW1 out of a force of over 420,000. The process of repatriation alone cost 238 million Pounds sterling. Consider that when contemplating just over 20 dead and a total force of 1500. I'm not suggesting going to those lengths again but it makes you wonder. If a jobs worth doing it's worth doing properly and the  Afghanistan campaign is a job worth doing.

17,000 Australians were killed capturing Pozieres on the western front.

It was an Australian Lewis gunner who shot down the Red baron.

At the Menin Gate  the local fire brigade stop all traffic at 8pm and play the last Post they have done this every night since WW1 only stopping during WW2.

http://img803.imageshack.us/img803/2387/dsc00284.jpg

The fire brigade about to play the last post at The Menin Gate.

They do this every night at 8pm its been going on since WW1 ended.

http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/457/digi0309.jpg

Found a video of the Last post at the Menin Gate

www.youtube.com/watch?v=B45nmVdJIT8

The first Aussie to get a VC Albert Jacka.

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


The French were very impressed with the way Aussies performed on the battlefield they made a statue of a Aussie digger bayoneting the German eagle.
Hitler destroyed it in WW2 he found it offensive

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/2711/dsc00242ub.jpg

A sign in a schoolyard at Villers Bretonneux
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/1702/dsc00243em.jpg

bogarde73 wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 2:37pm:

If a jobs worth doing it's worth doing properly and the  Afghanistan campaign is a job worth doing. That's OK as a general proposition Grey, but general propositions don't always apply. I mean, by that logic, the diggers should in fact have stayed at Gallipoli. It was a great idea to attack the enemy from the south but they should have considered the terrain etc. The Afghanistan campaign is now the equivalent of Vietnam. The enemy can move over the border to Pakistan whenever he likes, from where he can also be supplied with impunity. Or he can melt back into the general population and nobody knows or is willing to say who he is. You could in theory kill every Afghani but their tribal brothers would just move over the mountains & plains and take up their land and it would go on. There is no end to it. It's a bottomless pit.

It's not Vietnam. Vietnam was a war based on a domino theory that was complete bollocks. It was a war fought in support of fascists not against them. There's no great moratorium marches going on in support of the Taliban is there? Australia committed 60,000 troops to Vietnam not 1500. Australia isn't fighting Afghans to keep Afghanistan as an imperial colony. It's fighting the remnants of Islamofascism in support of the majority of Afghans.

Then we have the scenario of what happens if the Taliban take control again. Apart from the fate of Afghan women, homosexuals and religiously disinclined, we have the breeding ground for international terrorism. A renewed vigor for Islamofascism in Pakistan and world wide. A huge boost for the Moslem Brotherhood in Arab states in flux where their support is waning in the face of modernity. This war is well winnable and must be won.

Bottom line is that war is about will. Kill enough Taliban, show enough resolve, improve life for ordinary Afghans with education, hospitals and training and the Taliban will crumble. After all living under a brutal authoritarian regime is no fun even if you're in the lower ranks of the regime.

Baronvonrort - yes your right, the gratitude is remembered. Wouldn't it be something for Australia's efforts to be remembered in Afghanistan like that? Instead of erazed by a bunch of hysterics.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn80Z36jops

1: 15 ratio In Gurkha favour against taliban wankers. Who'd run from these cowards? Good for throwing acid at school girls, that's all.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12854492

Grey, I don't think you addressed any of the points I made in coming to my change of view.

bogarde73 wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 11:45am:

Grey, I don't think you addressed any of the points I made in coming to my change of view.

Yes I did



Quote:

That's OK as a general proposition Grey, but general propositions don't always apply. I mean, by that logic, the diggers should in fact have stayed at Gallipoli. It was a great idea to attack the enemy from the south but they should have considered the terrain etc.The Afghanistan campaign is now the equivalent of Vietnam.

I made the case quite clearly that Afghanistan is nothing like Vietnam (or Gallipoli)




Quote:

The enemy can move over the border to Pakistan whenever he likes, from where he can also be supplied with impunity.

And we chase them there with drones. And if we surrender Afghanistan the Islamofascists will take Pakistan and move on towards India through Kashmir. And no this isn't MY domino theory this is their stated objectives.


Quote:

Or he can melt back into the general population and nobody knows or is willing to say who he is.

See Video for Australian soldiers ground view opinion.



Quote:

You could in theory kill every Afghani but their tribal brothers would just move over the mountains & plains and take up their land and it would go on. There is no end to it. It's a bottomless pit.

As I've said, we're not fighting 'every Afghan' not by a long chalk, it's a mop up operation that's undermanned certainly but the Taliban and their Al Quaeda brothers are caught between mainstream Pakistan in the South and the Afghan/NATO coalition, they're the ones facing obliteration and their only rescuers are the 'woosies west' coalition.

I don't believe attempting to install a stable democratic government in Afghanistan is possible given the mindset of the majority of the population and while the insurgents are able to use Pakistan as a realtively secure base for their operations. Couple this to the fact that our troops are shackled by unrealistc Rules of Engagement that hand a decided advantage to the enemy and we are on a hiding to nothing.

In the event the ROE were changed to something more realistic I may be convinced we could achieve something, but as it is, and as I have said in another forum, this place is not worth one Australian life.

Grey wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 3:26am:

Baronvonrort - yes your right, the gratitude is remembered. Wouldn't it be something for Australia's efforts to be remembered in Afghanistan like that? Instead of erazed by a bunch of hysterics. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn80Z36jops

Thanks for that Grey its a pretty good video.