Frustrated Obama says he'll withdraw troops from Afghanistan if no security deal is reached

by Ben Reilly Wed Feb 26, 2014 6:50 am

Washington (CNN) -- We're not bluffing, the Obama administration told Afghanistan on Tuesday in announcing for the first time it has started planning for the possible withdrawal of all U.S. troops by the end of the year if no security agreement is signed.

Statements by the White House and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel showed President Barack Obama's impatience with Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai's refusal to sign the agreement that would keep several thousand American troops in the country after combat operations conclude this year.

In a phone call with Karzai on Tuesday to discuss upcoming elections for a new Afghan leader, Obama made clear that time was running out to properly plan for keeping any U.S. forces in the country beyond 2014, the White House said.

Meanwhile, a senior Pakistani official warned that pulling out U.S. troops could have dire consequences, leading to a civil war in Afghanistan.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/25/politics/us-afghanistan-troops/

If I were the praying type, I'd be praying right now that no security deal is reached. Who's to say Afghanistan isn't pretty much already in a state of civil war?

We've been there for nearly a third of my life now.

by Eilzel Wed Feb 26, 2014 6:56 am

It is farcical isn't it. With or without an agreement the Afghan forces are too weak and corrupt, and the Taliban so strong, that the country will go right back to where it was regardless of the situation when troops are withdrawn.

It has been the most distrous and worthless war Britain has been in certainly in my life time, and 13 years almost, longer than both world wars combined. History shows conventional war wont work in Afghanistan Sad

by Ben Reilly Fri Feb 28, 2014 1:36 am

Eilzel wrote:It is farcical isn't it. With or without an agreement the Afghan forces are too weak and corrupt, and the Taliban so strong, that the country will go right back to where it was regardless of the situation when troops are withdrawn.

It has been the most distrous and worthless war Britain has been in certainly in my life time, and 13 years almost, longer than both world wars combined. History shows conventional war wont work in Afghanistan

That is true; I wonder what would work? It's not like everyone there has been happy with the Taliban, but it doesn't seem that the citizenry has been able to do much about it.

by veya_victaous Fri Feb 28, 2014 3:42 am

@ben
nothing that we would consider ethical would work

by Guest Fri Feb 28, 2014 11:58 am

Eilzel wrote:It is farcical isn't it. With or without an agreement the Afghan forces are too weak and corrupt, and the Taliban so strong, that the country will go right back to where it was regardless of the situation when troops are withdrawn.

It has been the most distrous and worthless war Britain has been in certainly in my life time, and 13 years almost, longer than both world wars combined. History shows conventional war wont work in Afghanistan

the strategy failed because of soft heart lefty liberals like yourself caring more about the poor civilians than our own troops

you cannot stomach the reality of what needs to be done so your gang opted for the soft option

afghan and the Taliban and AL-Q could all easily have been scattered and smashed in afghan with limited boots on the ground

we would not have lost so many lives or so much money if we did things the smart way.

of course to be smart you have to be realistic and you lefties aint

by Guest Fri Feb 28, 2014 12:06 pm

Having spent 14 years in the army and served in many theatres, I think they've done a great job out there, the Afghan army and police are huge - whatever happens, good luck to them.

There'll probably be some bloodshed - mainly spilt on the Taliban side - those Afghans aren't held back by liberal do-gooders back at base, but there's bloodshed in most countries in their early stages.

by nicko Fri Feb 28, 2014 12:12 pm

that brings me back to the ira in the seventies,i was there at that time.if the army and special forces had been given a free hand and not been held back by the softies we could have finished them in less than a week!

by Guest Fri Feb 28, 2014 12:15 pm

smelly_bandit wrote:
Eilzel wrote:It is farcical isn't it. With or without an agreement the Afghan forces are too weak and corrupt, and the Taliban so strong, that the country will go right back to where it was regardless of the situation when troops are withdrawn.

It has been the most distrous and worthless war Britain has been in certainly in my life time, and 13 years almost, longer than both world wars combined. History shows conventional war wont work in Afghanistan

the strategy failed because of soft heart lefty liberals like yourself caring more about the poor civilians than our own troops

you cannot stomach the reality of what needs to be done so your gang opted for the soft option

afghan and the Taliban and AL-Q could all easily have been scattered and smashed in afghan with limited boots on the ground

we would not have lost so many lives or so much money if we did things the smart way.

of course to be smart you have to be realistic and you lefties aint

That is incorrect the Taliban was on its knees, but the invasion of Iraq pulled resources away at a crucial time, which they would have finished them off, Instead they had time to regroup and reorganize, so it was a case of bad strategy and a lie, the war in Iraq that fucked up the chances in Afghanistan from the start.

You talk so my bullshit I can even smell it from here

by Guest Fri Feb 28, 2014 12:28 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
smelly_bandit wrote:

the strategy failed because of soft heart lefty liberals like yourself caring more about the poor civilians than our own troops

you cannot stomach the reality of what needs to be done so your gang opted for the soft option

afghan and the Taliban and AL-Q could all easily have been scattered and smashed in afghan with limited boots on the ground

we would not have lost so many lives or so much money if we did things the smart way.

of course to be smart you have to be realistic and you lefties aint

That is incorrect the Taliban was on its knees, but the invasion of Iraq pulled resources away at a crucial time, which they would have finished them off, Instead they had time to regroup and reorganize, so it was a case of bad strategy and a lie, the war in Iraq that fucked up the chances in Afghanistan from the start.

You talk so my bullshit I can even smell it from here

wrong

the Taliban had slunk away since there was no overt military force to fight

its no coincidence that they only kicked off when the uk sent its taskforce out

i was there

you watched it on tv

by Guest Fri Feb 28, 2014 12:37 pm

smelly_bandit wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

That is incorrect the Taliban was on its knees, but the invasion of Iraq pulled resources away at a crucial time, which they would have finished them off, Instead they had time to regroup and reorganize, so it was a case of bad strategy and a lie, the war in Iraq that fucked up the chances in Afghanistan from the start.

You talk so my bullshit I can even smell it from here

wrong
Yes you are wrong

the Taliban had slunk away since there was no overt military force to fight
No they were on their knees ripe for the talking the Iraq war pulled resources away from this theater, thus allowing them to regroup and organise

its no coincidence that they only kicked off when the uk sent its taskforce out
and what year was that smelly, take your time?

i was there

you watched it on tv

yeah right, keep dreaming of paint balling again smelly ha ha

by Guest Fri Feb 28, 2014 8:56 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
smelly_bandit wrote:

wrong
Yes you are wrong

the Taliban had slunk away since there was no overt military force to fight
No they were on their knees ripe for the talking the Iraq war pulled resources away from this theater, thus allowing them to regroup and organise

its no coincidence that they only kicked off when the uk sent its taskforce out
and what year was that smelly, take your time?

i was there

you watched it on tv

yeah right, keep dreaming of paint balling again smelly ha ha

oh good more commentary from the arm chair warrior

as for the task force??

there were some troops mostly special forces out there since around 2001 and have been there ever since, at no stage was it ever a full scale war like it is now until around 2005/6

that means that the Taliban were not on their knees since there was no large scale task force to bring them to their knees

camp bastion wasn't even built until 2005/6 so please explain how a large scale task force could have survived and operated successfully without a main operating base??

please explain why the main bulk of casualties only occurred after 2005 if as you claim we were already there fighting a large scale war??

idiot ://?roflmao?/:

by Guest Sat Mar 01, 2014 5:51 am

smelly_bandit wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

yeah right, keep dreaming of paint balling again smelly ha ha

oh good more commentary from the arm chair warrior

as for the task force??

there were some troops mostly special forces out there since around 2001 and have been there ever since, at no stage was it ever a full scale war like it is now until around 2005/6

that means that the Taliban were not on their knees since there was no large scale task force to bring them to their knees

camp bastion wasn't even built until 2005/6 so please explain how a large scale task force could have survived and operated successfully without a main operating base??

please explain why the main bulk of casualties only occurred after 2005 if as you claim we were already there fighting a large scale war??

idiot ://?roflmao?/:

Hilarious, I never said otherwise in regards to ground troops and know it was special forces being as I have studied this quite well, but air support? This went the vast majority from the Afghan theater to the Iraq invasions, thus vital air support was crucial to finishing off the Taliban, sadly this air support was needed in the invasion of Iraq, thus it played a big part in denying air support vital to where the Taliban had fled, into the mountains..So basically by the time of the Iraq war, 15 months after the start of Operation Freedom, the Taliban were on their knees but not finished. We invade Iraq and most of the air support goes to help with the invasion at a crucial time and allows breathing space for the Taliban.

So again you really know bugger all it seems once again smelly, and you claimed to have been there

://?roflmao?/:

DOH

by Guest Sat Mar 01, 2014 9:16 am

PhilDidge wrote:
smelly_bandit wrote:

oh good more commentary from the arm chair warrior

as for the task force??

there were some troops mostly special forces out there since around 2001 and have been there ever since, at no stage was it ever a full scale war like it is now until around 2005/6

that means that the Taliban were not on their knees since there was no large scale task force to bring them to their knees

camp bastion wasn't even built until 2005/6 so please explain how a large scale task force could have survived and operated successfully without a main operating base??

please explain why the main bulk of casualties only occurred after 2005 if as you claim we were already there fighting a large scale war??

idiot ://?roflmao?/:

Hilarious, I never said otherwise in regards to ground troops and know it was special forces being as I have studied this quite well, but air support? This went the vast majority from the Afghan theater to the Iraq invasions, thus vital air support was crucial to finishing off the Taliban, sadly this air support was needed in the invasion of Iraq, thus it played a big part in denying air support vital to where the Taliban had fled, into the mountains..So basically by the time of the Iraq war, 15 months after the start of Operation Freedom, the Taliban were on their knees but not finished. We invade Iraq and most of the air support goes to help with the invasion at a crucial time and allows breathing space for the Taliban.

So again you really know bugger all it seems once again smelly, and you claimed to have been there

://?roflmao?/:

DOH

there are thousands and tens of thousands of Taliban you idiot

and it is a proven fact that air superiority alone cannot win a war - look at Vietnam

you haven't studied anything and you know absolutely nothing about war or strategy or tactics

SF don't fight large scale wars and the Taliban don't exist in large scale armies so air strikes would have been useless in terms of targeting assets and manpower to any degree of degrading effect

when you say the Taliban fled to the mountain i assume you mean the mountains that border Pakistan

you know Pakistan?? an ally of the west where we wouldn't have been able to persecute them and they would have been safe and sound until they came back in force to fight in 2005

you are right the Taliban were on their knees - in a mosque in Pakistan praying safe and sound

by Guest Sat Mar 01, 2014 9:23 am

smelly_bandit wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Hilarious, I never said otherwise in regards to ground troops and know it was special forces being as I have studied this quite well, but air support? This went the vast majority from the Afghan theater to the Iraq invasions, thus vital air support was crucial to finishing off the Taliban, sadly this air support was needed in the invasion of Iraq, thus it played a big part in denying air support vital to where the Taliban had fled, into the mountains..So basically by the time of the Iraq war, 15 months after the start of Operation Freedom, the Taliban were on their knees but not finished. We invade Iraq and most of the air support goes to help with the invasion at a crucial time and allows breathing space for the Taliban.

So again you really know bugger all it seems once again smelly, and you claimed to have been there

://?roflmao?/:

DOH

there are thousands and tens of thousands of Taliban you idiot

and it is a proven fact that air superiority alone cannot win a war - look at Vietnam

you haven't studied anything and you know absolutely nothing about war or strategy or tactics

SF don't fight large scale wars and the Taliban don't exist in large scale armies so air strikes would have been useless in terms of targeting assets and manpower to any degree of degrading effect

when you say the Taliban fled to the mountain i assume you mean the mountains that border Pakistan

you know Pakistan?? an ally of the west where we wouldn't have been able to persecute them and they would have been safe and sound until they came back in force to fight in 2005

you are right the Taliban were on their knees - in a mosque in Pakistan praying safe and sound

Dear me, did you miss every word I said?

I never said air superiority can win a war alone, you really make up so much bullshit and miss the point, but it helps dramatically if you have the means there to support ground troops by which time there was in Afghanistan with the start of the Iraq war. You have no clue of understanding strategy and how one thing can affect others and as seen for years to come. When the Iraq war started the Taliban were on the back foot, they should have continued with the full armed units that had to finish the job. Yes we would not have been able to pursue them into Pakistan, but certainly could control the mountain this side of Pakistan

by Guest Sat Mar 01, 2014 9:52 am

WHAT grounds troops you fucking retard

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

there weren't any significant number of ground troops there until 2005

this is getting funnier and funnier by the second

the Taliban weren't on the back foot they chose to withdraw to Pakistan where they could regroup rearm and relaunch without any interference from the west

control the mountains??

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

ok general didge crack on and control the mountains

i mean the finest generals in the UK and US haven't managed it but im sure you know something they don't

spare me

by Guest Sat Mar 01, 2014 9:59 am

smelly_bandit wrote:WHAT grounds troops you fucking retard

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

there weren't any significant number of ground troops there until 2005

this is getting funnier and funnier by the second

the Taliban weren't on the back foot they chose to withdraw to Pakistan where they could regroup rearm and relaunch without any interference from the west

control the mountains??

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

ok general didge crack on and control the mountains

i mean the finest generals in the UK and US haven't managed it but im sure you know something they don't

spare me

n 2002, there were approximately 7,000 troops in Afghanistan, including United States Army Rangers, troops from the 10th Mountain Division, 187th Infantry Regt. "Rakkasans" 101st Airborne (Air Assault) and US Marines. Marines of the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit and 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit were among the first conventional forces into Afghanistan

Whoops

Again the air force is used to deploy and help not only US ground forces but also the Afghans also

So again I have exposed you are not in the Royal Marines

by Guest Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:05 am

And now to tear smelly a new arsehole:

American focus on Iraq allowed a ‘defeated’ Taliban to re-emerge - top US diplomat

Mistakes in the United States’ strategy in and outside of Afghanistan in 2002 led to a resurgence of the Taliban there, as well as many more civilian and NATO deaths than necessary, the US special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan said.

James Dobbins, a long-time US diplomat, said that turning to Iraq fractured international support and coalition momentum in securing Afghanistan. He added that the delay in setting up a reconciliation process gave the Taliban the opportunity to recuperate.

“I think we made several mistakes back in 2002,” he said, according to The Telegraph. “I think it was probably a mistake to delay a serious attempt at reconciliation until 2011.”

He said that changing focus to operations in Iraq - which demanded resources and attention - severely hindered coalition ability to seal post-9/11 efforts in Afghanistan.

“So by 2005, 2006 it was clear that much more needed to be done in Afghanistan and we simply didn’t have the resources to do so.”

A distracted US leadership and a NATO effort bereft of certain resources allowed the “defeated and discredited” Taliban to re-emerge.

“I think the insurgency would have been avoided or attenuated. Many lives, Afghan as well as coalition would have been saved,” he said.

Dobbins saw firsthand how international support for a rebuilding effort in Afghanistan evaporated once the United States determined an Iraq invasion was imminent. He served as the US representative at the Bonn conference in 2002 that had succeeded in compiling support from China, Iran, Pakistan, and Russia, in addition to Western countries, to advance the restoration of a post-Taliban Afghanistan.

But failure to keep the outside support engaged badly bruised the establishment of President Hamid Karzai’s new regime, Dobbins said.

http://rt.com/usa/us-mistakes-taliban-resurgence-105/

by Guest Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:08 am

I don't think anybody can claim they are right when talking about Afghanistan. (unless you count rolling emoticons a good measurement of victory)

Was it a success? That is up to you and what you think is a success.

I think we have done a great job there.

by Guest Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:10 am

PhilDidge wrote:
smelly_bandit wrote:WHAT grounds troops you fucking retard

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

there weren't any significant number of ground troops there until 2005

this is getting funnier and funnier by the second

the Taliban weren't on the back foot they chose to withdraw to Pakistan where they could regroup rearm and relaunch without any interference from the west

control the mountains??

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

ok general didge crack on and control the mountains

i mean the finest generals in the UK and US haven't managed it but im sure you know something they don't

spare me

n 2002, there were approximately 7,000 troops in Afghanistan, including United States Army Rangers, troops from the 10th Mountain Division, 187th Infantry Regt. "Rakkasans" 101st Airborne (Air Assault) and US Marines. Marines of the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit and 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit were among the first conventional forces into Afghanistan

Whoops

Again the air force is used to deploy and help not only US ground forces but also the Afghans also

So again I have exposed you are not in the Royal Marines

Afghanistan covers approximately 251,827 sq miles of ground please tell me what 7000 troops are going to achieve??

that's one soldier to cover 35 square miles of ground

where is Pakistan??

its to the south

where are the US forces based??

to the north in kabul

where is Kandahar province???

to the south

when was the first time large scale forces moved into the south??

2005

there are significantly more than 7000 troops there now and we haven't been able to defeat the Taliban for ten years

so please explain what went wrong since you seem to think that we are able to defeat them with a mere 7000 in 2002 but we are failing to do the same now with ten times that number of troops AND all the air support we can muster??

please share you vast war fighting strategic knowledge with us all

"control the mountains"

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

by Guest Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:11 am

BigAndy9 wrote:I don't think anybody can claim they are right when talking about Afghanistan. (unless you count rolling emoticons a good measurement of victory)

Was it a success? That is up to you and what you think is a success.

I think we have done a great job there.

I agree Andy, they have done an excellent job with limited resources and as seen the distraction of Iraq allowed breathing space for the Taliban to regroup

by Guest Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:12 am

PhilDidge wrote:And now to tear smelly a new arsehole:

American focus on Iraq allowed a ‘defeated’ Taliban to re-emerge - top US diplomat

Mistakes in the United States’ strategy in and outside of Afghanistan in 2002 led to a resurgence of the Taliban there, as well as many more civilian and NATO deaths than necessary, the US special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan said.

James Dobbins, a long-time US diplomat, said that turning to Iraq fractured international support and coalition momentum in securing Afghanistan. He added that the delay in setting up a reconciliation process gave the Taliban the opportunity to recuperate.

“I think we made several mistakes back in 2002,” he said, according to The Telegraph. “I think it was probably a mistake to delay a serious attempt at reconciliation until 2011.”

He said that changing focus to operations in Iraq - which demanded resources and attention - severely hindered coalition ability to seal post-9/11 efforts in Afghanistan.

“So by 2005, 2006 it was clear that much more needed to be done in Afghanistan and we simply didn’t have the resources to do so.”

A distracted US leadership and a NATO effort bereft of certain resources allowed the “defeated and discredited” Taliban to re-emerge.

“I think the insurgency would have been avoided or attenuated. Many lives, Afghan as well as coalition would have been saved,” he said.

Dobbins saw firsthand how international support for a rebuilding effort in Afghanistan evaporated once the United States determined an Iraq invasion was imminent. He served as the US representative at the Bonn conference in 2002 that had succeeded in compiling support from China, Iran, Pakistan, and Russia, in addition to Western countries, to advance the restoration of a post-Taliban Afghanistan.

But failure to keep the outside support engaged badly bruised the establishment of President Hamid Karzai’s new regime, Dobbins said.

http://rt.com/usa/us-mistakes-taliban-resurgence-105/

“So by 2005, 2006 it was clear that much more needed to be done in Afghanistan and we simply didn’t have the resources to do so.”

by Guest Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:13 am

smelly_bandit wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

n 2002, there were approximately 7,000 troops in Afghanistan, including United States Army Rangers, troops from the 10th Mountain Division, 187th Infantry Regt. "Rakkasans" 101st Airborne (Air Assault) and US Marines. Marines of the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit and 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit were among the first conventional forces into Afghanistan

Whoops

Again the air force is used to deploy and help not only US ground forces but also the Afghans also

So again I have exposed you are not in the Royal Marines

Afghanistan covers approximately 251,827 sq miles of ground please tell me what 7000 troops are going to achieve??

that's one soldier to cover 35 square miles of ground

where is Pakistan??

its to the south

where are the US forces based??

to the north in kabul

where is Kandahar province???

to the south

when was the first time large scale forces moved into the south??

2005

there are significantly more than 7000 troops there now and we haven't been able to defeat the Taliban for ten years

so please explain what went wrong since you seem to think that we are able to defeat them with a mere 7000 in 2002 but we are failing to do the same now with ten times that number of troops AND all the air support we can muster??

please share you vast war fighting strategic knowledge with us all

"control the mountains"

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

As seen they were working with the Afghan National Security Forces which I said in my last post

DOH

Read again

Mistakes in the United States’ strategy in and outside of Afghanistan in 2002 led to a resurgence of the Taliban there, as well as many more civilian and NATO deaths than necessary, the US special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan said.

James Dobbins, a long-time US diplomat, said that turning to Iraq fractured international support and coalition momentum in securing Afghanistan. He added that the delay in setting up a reconciliation process gave the Taliban the opportunity to recuperate.

“I think we made several mistakes back in 2002,” he said, according to The Telegraph. “I think it was probably a mistake to delay a serious attempt at reconciliation until 2011.”

He said that changing focus to operations in Iraq - which demanded resources and attention - severely hindered coalition ability to seal post-9/11 efforts in Afghanistan.

“So by 2005, 2006 it was clear that much more needed to be done in Afghanistan and we simply didn’t have the resources to do so.”

A distracted US leadership and a NATO effort bereft of certain resources allowed the “defeated and discredited” Taliban to re-emerge.

“I think the insurgency would have been avoided or attenuated. Many lives, Afghan as well as coalition would have been saved,” he said.

Dobbins saw firsthand how international support for a rebuilding effort in Afghanistan evaporated once the United States determined an Iraq invasion was imminent. He served as the US representative at the Bonn conference in 2002 that had succeeded in compiling support from China, Iran, Pakistan, and Russia, in addition to Western countries, to advance the restoration of a post-Taliban Afghanistan.

http://rt.com/usa/us-mistakes-taliban-resurgence-105/

by Guest Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:15 am

BigAndy9 wrote:I don't think anybody can claim they are right when talking about Afghanistan. (unless you count rolling emoticons a good measurement of victory)

Was it a success? That is up to you and what you think is a success.

I think we have done a great job there.

no it was an abysmal failure

we went to defeat the Taliban

the Taliban are stronger than ever and are now legitimized political representatives

Afghan government officials have proposed reintroducing public stoning as a punishment for adultery, Human Rights Watch said, even though the practice has been denounced both inside and outside the country as one of the most repugnant symbols of the Taliban regime.

The sentence for married adulterers, along with flogging for unmarried offenders, appears in a draft revision of the country's penal code being managed by the ministry of justice.

There are several references to stoning in a translated section of the draft seen by the Guardian, including detailed notes on judicial requirements for handing down the sentence.

"Men and women who commit adultery shall be punished based on the circumstances to one of the following punishments: lashing, stoning [to death]," article 21 states. The draft goes on to specify that the stoning should be public, in article 23.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/25/afghanistan-reintroduction-public-stoning-adulterers

by Guest Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:16 am

PhilDidge wrote:
smelly_bandit wrote:

Afghanistan covers approximately 251,827 sq miles of ground please tell me what 7000 troops are going to achieve??

that's one soldier to cover 35 square miles of ground

where is Pakistan??

its to the south

where are the US forces based??

to the north in kabul

where is Kandahar province???

to the south

when was the first time large scale forces moved into the south??

2005

there are significantly more than 7000 troops there now and we haven't been able to defeat the Taliban for ten years

so please explain what went wrong since you seem to think that we are able to defeat them with a mere 7000 in 2002 but we are failing to do the same now with ten times that number of troops AND all the air support we can muster??

please share you vast war fighting strategic knowledge with us all

"control the mountains"

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

As seen they were working with the Afghan National Security Forces which I said in my last post

DOH

Read again

Mistakes in the United States’ strategy in and outside of Afghanistan in 2002 led to a resurgence of the Taliban there, as well as many more civilian and NATO deaths than necessary, the US special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan said.

James Dobbins, a long-time US diplomat, said that turning to Iraq fractured international support and coalition momentum in securing Afghanistan. He added that the delay in setting up a reconciliation process gave the Taliban the opportunity to recuperate.

“I think we made several mistakes back in 2002,” he said, according to The Telegraph. “I think it was probably a mistake to delay a serious attempt at reconciliation until 2011.”

He said that changing focus to operations in Iraq - which demanded resources and attention - severely hindered coalition ability to seal post-9/11 efforts in Afghanistan.

“So by 2005, 2006 it was clear that much more needed to be done in Afghanistan and we simply didn’t have the resources to do so.”

A distracted US leadership and a NATO effort bereft of certain resources allowed the “defeated and discredited” Taliban to re-emerge.

“I think the insurgency would have been avoided or attenuated. Many lives, Afghan as well as coalition would have been saved,” he said.

Dobbins saw firsthand how international support for a rebuilding effort in Afghanistan evaporated once the United States determined an Iraq invasion was imminent. He served as the US representative at the Bonn conference in 2002 that had succeeded in compiling support from China, Iran, Pakistan, and Russia, in addition to Western countries, to advance the restoration of a post-Taliban Afghanistan.

http://rt.com/usa/us-mistakes-taliban-resurgence-105/

“So by 2005, 2006 it was clear that much more needed to be done in Afghanistan and we simply didn’t have the resources to do so.”

by Guest Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:17 am

smelly_bandit wrote:
BigAndy9 wrote:I don't think anybody can claim they are right when talking about Afghanistan. (unless you count rolling emoticons a good measurement of victory)

Was it a success? That is up to you and what you think is a success.

I think we have done a great job there.

no it was an abysmal failure

we went to defeat the Taliban

the Taliban are stronger than ever and are now legitimized political representatives

Afghan government officials have proposed reintroducing public stoning as a punishment for adultery, Human Rights Watch said, even though the practice has been denounced both inside and outside the country as one of the most repugnant symbols of the Taliban regime.

The sentence for married adulterers, along with flogging for unmarried offenders, appears in a draft revision of the country's penal code being managed by the ministry of justice.

There are several references to stoning in a translated section of the draft seen by the Guardian, including detailed notes on judicial requirements for handing down the sentence.

"Men and women who commit adultery shall be punished based on the circumstances to one of the following punishments: lashing, stoning [to death]," article 21 states. The draft goes on to specify that the stoning should be public, in article 23.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/25/afghanistan-reintroduction-public-stoning-adulterers

Read again:

Mistakes in the United States’ strategy in and outside of Afghanistan in 2002 led to a resurgence of the Taliban there, as well as many more civilian and NATO deaths than necessary, the US special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan said.

James Dobbins, a long-time US diplomat, said that turning to Iraq fractured international support and coalition momentum in securing Afghanistan. He added that the delay in setting up a reconciliation process gave the Taliban the opportunity to recuperate.

“I think we made several mistakes back in 2002,” he said, according to The Telegraph. “I think it was probably a mistake to delay a serious attempt at reconciliation until 2011.”

He said that changing focus to operations in Iraq - which demanded resources and attention - severely hindered coalition ability to seal post-9/11 efforts in Afghanistan.

“So by 2005, 2006 it was clear that much more needed to be done in Afghanistan and we simply didn’t have the resources to do so.”

A distracted US leadership and a NATO effort bereft of certain resources allowed the “defeated and discredited” Taliban to re-emerge.

“I think the insurgency would have been avoided or attenuated. Many lives, Afghan as well as coalition would have been saved,” he said.

Dobbins saw firsthand how international support for a rebuilding effort in Afghanistan evaporated once the United States determined an Iraq invasion was imminent. He served as the US representative at the Bonn conference in 2002 that had succeeded in compiling support from China, Iran, Pakistan, and Russia, in addition to Western countries, to advance the restoration of a post-Taliban Afghanistan.

http://rt.com/usa/us-mistakes-taliban-resurgence-105/

Backs up much of what I say, showing you were never in the Royal Marines

by Guest Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:17 am

when did i say that things started kicking off??

2005 / 2006

“So by 2005, 2006 it was clear that much more needed to be done in Afghanistan and we simply didn’t have the resources to do so.”

by Guest Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:20 am

smelly_bandit wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

As seen they were working with the Afghan National Security Forces which I said in my last post

DOH

Read again

Mistakes in the United States’ strategy in and outside of Afghanistan in 2002 led to a resurgence of the Taliban there, as well as many more civilian and NATO deaths than necessary, the US special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan said.

James Dobbins, a long-time US diplomat, said that turning to Iraq fractured international support and coalition momentum in securing Afghanistan. He added that the delay in setting up a reconciliation process gave the Taliban the opportunity to recuperate.

“I think we made several mistakes back in 2002,” he said, according to The Telegraph. “I think it was probably a mistake to delay a serious attempt at reconciliation until 2011.”

He said that changing focus to operations in Iraq - which demanded resources and attention - severely hindered coalition ability to seal post-9/11 efforts in Afghanistan.

“So by 2005, 2006 it was clear that much more needed to be done in Afghanistan and we simply didn’t have the resources to do so.”

A distracted US leadership and a NATO effort bereft of certain resources allowed the “defeated and discredited” Taliban to re-emerge.

“I think the insurgency would have been avoided or attenuated. Many lives, Afghan as well as coalition would have been saved,” he said.

Dobbins saw firsthand how international support for a rebuilding effort in Afghanistan evaporated once the United States determined an Iraq invasion was imminent. He served as the US representative at the Bonn conference in 2002 that had succeeded in compiling support from China, Iran, Pakistan, and Russia, in addition to Western countries, to advance the restoration of a post-Taliban Afghanistan.

http://rt.com/usa/us-mistakes-taliban-resurgence-105/

“So by 2005, 2006 it was clear that much more needed to be done in Afghanistan and we simply didn’t have the resources to do so.”

DOH, because the job was not finished in the first place, something you cannot seem to grasp, because Bush was more intent on taking out Saddam and thus the job was not finished and allowed the Taliban to regroup., Listen chap, I study history and know it very well and as seen clearly you do not which is odd when you claim to have served there, so it is always funny when you put your foot in looking daft, for one you did not know conventional forces were deployed on the ground in 2002 and that the problems I described are found in the highest elements of the US.

by Guest Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:23 am

smelly_bandit wrote:when did i say that things started kicking off??

2005 / 2006

“So by 2005, 2006 it was clear that much more needed to be done in Afghanistan and we simply didn’t have the resources to do so.”

And?

All irrelevant to know you knowing what I stated was true, and that now you are asking me things 3 years later down the line when I am talking about consolidating control in Afghanistan in 2002 onward, this shows that in that time the Taliban were allowed to reorganize.
Thus my point is a big point showing where the root problem to the situation today started with the invasion of Iraq

by Guest Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:24 am

that's like a big ole cock in your arse isn't it didge??

does it keep you up at night???

wondering how many of your heroes are now rotting in the ground, compliments of smelly??

by Guest Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:26 am

No smelly I live in the real world, not some mythical fantasy one, where you get a hard on over death and destruction

Never mind I see you have realised how inept you are again by going off debate as usual

Cheers

by Guest Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:27 am

PhilDidge wrote:
smelly_bandit wrote:when did i say that things started kicking off??

2005 / 2006

“So by 2005, 2006 it was clear that much more needed to be done in Afghanistan and we simply didn’t have the resources to do so.”

And?

All irrelevant to know you knowing what I stated was true, and that now you are asking me things 3 years later down the line when I am talking about consolidating control in Afghanistan in 2002 onward, this shows that in that time the Taliban were allowed to reorganize.
Thus my point is a big point showing where the root problem to the situation today started with the invasion of Iraq

its irrelevant??

PMSL

i said 05/06 and the article you post up to disprove me states the same date

seems pretty relevant to me

by Guest Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:31 am

smelly_bandit wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

And?

All irrelevant to know you knowing what I stated was true, and that now you are asking me things 3 years later down the line when I am talking about consolidating control in Afghanistan in 2002 onward, this shows that in that time the Taliban were allowed to reorganize.
Thus my point is a big point showing where the root problem to the situation today started with the invasion of Iraq

its irrelevant??

PMSL

i said 05/06 and the article you post up to disprove me states the same date

seems pretty relevant to me

://?roflmao?/:

Irrelevant to my point on the root cause of the issue today in Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq

DOH,

The article backs my points and not your points on the failings, so again what does it matter if it was not realised until 2005/6, that was again because of the distractions with the attention all with Iraq, thus again that is why 2005/6

DOH

Seriously, you clutch so badly at straws at times, it beggars belief

by Guest Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:33 am

PhilDidge wrote:No smelly I live in the real world, not some mythical fantasy one, where you get a hard on over death and destruction

Never mind I see you have realised how inept you are again by going off debate as usual

Cheers

there is no debate

you have zero knowledge of Afghanistan which is so complicated a situation that even western forces on the ground struggle at the best of times to understand the vast amount of political,tribal regional and religious divides that exist

but you a civilian who is so poorly educate that he doesn't even know the difference between "no" and "know" and probably couldn't point to Afghanistan on a map,is now telling the finest generals and military analysts in the world how it is and where they went wrong

"control the mountains" you shriek

only a person who has never trained in the mountains would think that mountains could be controlled

you're an idiot and you've backed yourself into a corner, so much so that you are no longer even arguing for yourself but have had to seek help from else where to do your arguing for you

i said 05/06

your article identified 05/06 as a significant date

go away little man

by Guest Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:35 am

PhilDidge wrote:
smelly_bandit wrote:

its irrelevant??

PMSL

i said 05/06 and the article you post up to disprove me states the same date

seems pretty relevant to me

://?roflmao?/:

Irrelevant to my point on the root cause of the issue today in Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq

DOH,

The article backs my points and not your points on the failings, so again what does it matter if it was not realised until 2005/6, that was again because of the distractions with the attention all with Iraq, thus again that is why 2005/6

DOH

Seriously, you clutch so badly at straws at times, it beggars belief

the article doesn't back your point

your point was that the Taliban were on their knees, they weren't, they were relocated in Pakistan and in the south were there was no military forces

by Guest Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:40 am

smelly_bandit wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:No smelly I live in the real world, not some mythical fantasy one, where you get a hard on over death and destruction

Never mind I see you have realised how inept you are again by going off debate as usual

Cheers

there is no debate

you have zero knowledge of Afghanistan which is so complicated a situation that even western forces on the ground struggle at the best of times to understand the vast amount of political,tribal regional and religious divides that exist

but you a civilian who is so poorly educate that he doesn't even know the difference between "no" and "know" and probably couldn't point to Afghanistan on a map,is now telling the finest generals and military analysts in the world how it is and where they went wrong

"control the mountains" you shriek

only a person who has never trained in the mountains would think that mountains could be controlled

you're an idiot and you've backed yourself into a corner, so much so that you are no longer even arguing for yourself but have had to seek help from else where to do your arguing for you

i said 05/06

your article identified 05/06 as a significant date

go away little man

Hilarious

Yes but you ignore the root cause to the Taliban, I do not deny problems within the cultures and tribes, so again this is more about your pride being hurt that again I know more facts than you.
Thus if the center of attention had not been on Iraq, most of the resources would have been used in Afghanistan and would the Taliban been able to reform?
That is what you miss, I am not denying problems with cultures and tribes ect my point has always been on the Taliban not being completely defeated. Thus by 2005 the Taliban had by then regrouped, because most of the resources were tied up in Iraq

Again you know bugger all about history are an ignorant racist, and hate that I constantly show you up for being so ignorant, so when you say educated it just cracks me up with the bullshit you come out with .

So I have no need to go away, which is odd that you had to from SA

Smile

by Guest Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:44 am

I'd say it's not so much a case of frustration on Obama's part but panic. He's having to cut the armed forces, the country's nearly bankrupt, and now we have a ratcheting up of tension with Russia in Ukraine.

by Guest Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:46 am

As to mountains, do you want me to educate you on the mountain area of Jebel Akhdar smelly or do you want to dig a bigger hole for yourself?

he area was controlled by the Beni Riyam tribe under Shaikh Suleyman. The tribes must have considered the mountain fortress unpenetrable by outside forces and considered themselves safe on the Saiq plateau.

In January 1959 the Jebel was cleared by British forces including marines seconded to the Sultan's Army, with the assistance of 22nd SAS, who where on their way back from Malaya.

by Guest Sat Mar 01, 2014 5:33 pm

PhilDidge wrote:As to mountains, do you want me to educate you on the mountain area of Jebel Akhdar smelly or do you want to dig a bigger hole for yourself?

he area was controlled by the Beni Riyam tribe under Shaikh Suleyman. The tribes must have considered the mountain fortress unpenetrable by outside forces and considered themselves safe on the Saiq plateau.

In January 1959 the Jebel was cleared by British forces including marines seconded to the Sultan's Army, with the assistance of 22nd SAS, who where on their way back from Malaya.

cleared yes

controlled no

next

by Guest Sat Mar 01, 2014 5:38 pm

smelly_bandit wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:As to mountains, do you want me to educate you on the mountain area of Jebel Akhdar smelly or do you want to dig a bigger hole for yourself?

he area was controlled by the Beni Riyam tribe under Shaikh Suleyman. The tribes must have considered the mountain fortress unpenetrable by outside forces and considered themselves safe on the Saiq plateau.

In January 1959 the Jebel was cleared by British forces including marines seconded to the Sultan's Army, with the assistance of 22nd SAS, who where on their way back from Malaya.

cleared yes

controlled no

next

So what happens when you clear something, are you then not in control or implement measures to control routes through the mountains?

How will you know, the opportunity was lost in 2003 with the Iraq war

by Guest Sat Mar 01, 2014 5:49 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
smelly_bandit wrote:

cleared yes

controlled no

next

So what happens when you clear something, are you then not in control or implement measures to control routes through the mountains?

How will you know, the opportunity was lost in 2003 with the Iraq war

clearing and dominating (controlling) areas are two separate things in terms of military ops CIVILIAN

it would take all the man power we have in the entire afghan area weeks just to effectively clear the mountains, it would then take more manpower than we have there to hold and control it

you're a civilian, an idiot civilian and you know sod all about military strategy or tactics

so please spare yourself some embarrassment and stop trying to pretend you know more about how to handle Afghanistan,than the best generals and military planners of the UK and US military's combined

by Guest Sat Mar 01, 2014 5:53 pm

smelly_bandit wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

So what happens when you clear something, are you then not in control or implement measures to control routes through the mountains?

How will you know, the opportunity was lost in 2003 with the Iraq war

clearing and dominating (controlling) areas are two separate things in terms of military ops CIVILIAN

it would take all the man power we have in the entire afghan area weeks just to effectively clear the mountains, it would then take more manpower than we have there to hold and control it

you're a civilian, an idiot civilian and you know sod all about military strategy or tactics

so please spare yourself some embarrassment and stop trying to pretend you know more about how to handle Afghanistan,than the best generals and military planners of the UK and US military's combined

So say all the man power collected for Iraq then would have cleared this in way less time then and to secure it, which backs my point further on Iraq being the root cause to all the issue thanks ha ha
Again clearing the mountains this side would be key and it would be difficult to keep controlled after, but possible to control to a certain degree and now stop any resurgence of the Taliban.
So you really got schooled big time and you claim to be serving, hilarious
Thanks for proving my point further and no, I study military history smelly, thus I understand many things better than you

by Guest Sat Mar 01, 2014 6:03 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
smelly_bandit wrote:

clearing and dominating (controlling) areas are two separate things in terms of military ops CIVILIAN

it would take all the man power we have in the entire afghan area weeks just to effectively clear the mountains, it would then take more manpower than we have there to hold and control it

you're a civilian, an idiot civilian and you know sod all about military strategy or tactics

so please spare yourself some embarrassment and stop trying to pretend you know more about how to handle Afghanistan,than the best generals and military planners of the UK and US military's combined

So say all the man power collected for Iraq then would have cleared this in way less time then and to secure it, which backs my point further on Iraq being the root cause to all the issue thanks ha ha
Again clearing the mountains this side would be key and it would be difficult to keep controlled after, but possible to control to a certain degree and now stop any resurgence of the Taliban.
So you really got schooled big time and you claim to be serving, hilarious
Thanks for proving my point further and no, I study military history smelly, thus I understand many things better than you

::smthg:: ::smthg::

WHAT manpower???

the seven thousand men in kabul??

you don't seem to grasp that there wasn't any major task force committed to Afghanistan that could be diverted to iraq you retard

camp bastion the main staging base for helmand wasn't built until 05

you've just created and imaginary scenario where we have been waging full war with all our resources since 2002 and then in 2003 pulled all forces out to go to Iraq and then in 2005 put them all back and that in between 2003 and 2005 the Taliban somehow magically restored themselves to full fighting capability that we haven't been able to defeat in 10 years

amazing that back in 2003 we managed to smash them in less than a year with only 7000 men but since 2005 with ten times that many men we are still struggling ten years later to achieve the same thing we did ten years ago with less than we have now

you're an utter clown ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg::

by Guest Sat Mar 01, 2014 6:10 pm

smelly_bandit wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

So say all the man power collected for Iraq then would have cleared this in way less time then and to secure it, which backs my point further on Iraq being the root cause to all the issue thanks ha ha
Again clearing the mountains this side would be key and it would be difficult to keep controlled after, but possible to control to a certain degree and now stop any resurgence of the Taliban.
So you really got schooled big time and you claim to be serving, hilarious
Thanks for proving my point further and no, I study military history smelly, thus I understand many things better than you

::smthg:: ::smthg::

WHAT manpower???

the seven thousand men in kabul??

you don't seem to grasp that there wasn't any major task force committed to Afghanistan that could be diverted to iraq you retard

camp bastion the main staging base for helmand wasn't built until 05

you've just created and imaginary scenario where we have been waging full war with all our resources since 2002 and then in 2003 pulled all forces out to go to Iraq and then in 2005 put them all back and that in between 2003 and 2005 the Taliban somehow magically restored themselves to full fighting capability that we haven't been able to defeat in 10 years

amazing that back in 2003 we managed to smash them in less than a year with only 7000 men but since 2005 with ten times that many men we are still struggling ten years later to achieve the same thing we did ten years ago with less than we have now

you're an utter clown ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg::

Not an imaginary one smelly just finishing the one that was not completed in the first place and as seen on all fronts you do not see that.
The fact of the matter is Bush was already geared up to invade Iraq and pushed through lies to do so and thus had his eye solely on Iraq neglecting the fact the Taliban were routed but not truly beaten .
The point you also miss is by the time we did start to send more numbers they had reorganized and were causing major problems, which has clearly gone over your head in the first place.
Thus showing the priority should have to finish the job first in Afghanistan and thus the full resources could have been provided to rebuild and strengthen the country to the point you have eliminated the Taliban to an ineffective force. However they were able to spring from the point of death and establish themselves as a serious threat, thanks to Bush

You really know bugger all chap

by Guest Sat Mar 01, 2014 6:19 pm

finished the first job in Afghanistan??

its been more than ten years and we still haven't finished the job you fool

you don't seem to grasp the fact that you're claiming we were able to cripple the Taliban with a mere seven thousand men in less than a year

but two years reprieve allowed the Taliban to build themselves into a super power that ten times the men and times the resources hasn't managed to reduce to the same state they were in after TEN years of fighting

how after more than ten years we have failed to do what you claim we did before with less men and resources in less time??

go ahead general didge

explain how it went wrong

lol!

by Guest Sat Mar 01, 2014 6:26 pm

I already did explain what went wrong you though won;t accept the truth. I never claimed we crippled them with 7000 men, when already the ANSF were fighting and we were assisting them, so your assumptions as per usual are absurd again you need to read, so utterly funny. Thus Bush has his eye on Iraq and starts to prepare for for this with false claims, when he should have deployed vastly more resources to help strengthen the country. Anyway, the sad fact was you got schooled on many points from not knowing conventional troops were there before 2005, how others see the failing with Iraq, showing the civilian has showed you up again

Mistakes in the United States’ strategy in and outside of Afghanistan in 2002 led to a resurgence of the Taliban there, as well as many more civilian and NATO deaths than necessary, the US special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan said.

James Dobbins, a long-time US diplomat, said that turning to Iraq fractured international support and coalition momentum in securing Afghanistan. He added that the delay in setting up a reconciliation process gave the Taliban the opportunity to recuperate.

“I think we made several mistakes back in 2002,” he said, according to The Telegraph. “I think it was probably a mistake to delay a serious attempt at reconciliation until 2011.”

He said that changing focus to operations in Iraq - which demanded resources and attention - severely hindered coalition ability to seal post-9/11 efforts in Afghanistan.

“So by 2005, 2006 it was clear that much more needed to be done in Afghanistan and we simply didn’t have the resources to do so.”

A distracted US leadership and a NATO effort bereft of certain resources allowed the “defeated and discredited” Taliban to re-emerge.

“I think the insurgency would have been avoided or attenuated. Many lives, Afghan as well as coalition would have been saved,” he said.

Dobbins saw firsthand how international support for a rebuilding effort in Afghanistan evaporated once the United States determined an Iraq invasion was imminent. He served as the US representative at the Bonn conference in 2002 that had succeeded in compiling support from China, Iran, Pakistan, and Russia, in addition to Western countries, to advance the restoration of a post-Taliban Afghanistan.

http://rt.com/usa/us-mistakes-taliban-resurgence-105/

Right have fun smelly, as always, it has been fun

by Guest Sat Mar 01, 2014 6:33 pm

you haven't explained anything

you do what you always do when you're outclassed

you quote someone else

you still cannot explain how 7000 men with limited resources could achieve in a year what ten times that number of men and resources haven't been able to do it ten years

if 7000 men were able to defeat the Taliban once then why can ten times that number not do it a second time??

by Guest Sat Mar 01, 2014 6:40 pm

Again smelly is unable to understand or learn.

The issue with Iraq took precedent to pool majority of sources to invade, thus starving Afghanistan of resources to help not only finish the job but consolidate.
Now see if you can finally understand, if the decision had not been taken to go to war with Iraq, which was decided a long time before the actual invasion, then the resources collated in readiness to use against Iraq would have been free to help the ANSF in Afghanistan clear out the Taliban and consolidate control,

So it is not even my point to show what 7000, could do you numpty ha ha, even though you neglect the ANSF. Try understanding the points being made as to what went wrong more so with not finishing off the Taliban, clearly you are finding to difficult to understand, no suprise there.

by Original Quill Sat Mar 01, 2014 6:42 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Eilzel wrote:It is farcical isn't it. With or without an agreement the Afghan forces are too weak and corrupt, and the Taliban so strong, that the country will go right back to where it was regardless of the situation when troops are withdrawn.

It has been the most distrous and worthless war Britain has been in certainly in my life time, and 13 years almost, longer than both world wars combined. History shows conventional war wont work in Afghanistan

That is true; I wonder what would work? It's not like everyone there has been happy with the Taliban, but it doesn't seem that the citizenry has been able to do much about it.

Muslim countries have an ideology that glorifies violence, even though they are not very good at it. It's pure folly to try to amend their ways merely because we can impose more force than they can. As you can see, as soon as you turn your back they snap right back into their old ways.

For the record andy and smelly, this war was started in Washington, not in Westminster. An Iraqi invasion was on the books far before 9-11. Cheney and Rumsfeld just took advantage of an opportunity that presented itself on September 11th. The Muslim War (allow me the license to rename both the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts) was a part of a movement started at the University of Chicago, by the noted professor of political science, Leo Strauss. It was later called the Neocon movement, short for neoconservative. It's core principle was American Exceptionalism: the belief that America started the worldwide movement for freedom and democracy, and hence it was America's to spread the ideology throughout the world--once the Russian Bear had been defeated, of course. Pawns in the influence of the cold-war victor, the British had very little choice in the matter.

The period of the GW Bush administration will go down as the worst in American history. It is the classic paradigm of the ignorant being led/manipulated by those who have no responsibility, and intend not to acknowledge their responsibility, should it come to that. It is the story told by Shakespeare with Iago and Othello, and Cassius and Brutus. In that vacuum came the amoral era of renewed Nazism, accompanied by kidnapping, rape, torture, and murder, along with destruction of the notion of Constitutional rights and true freedom, and escorted in the worst economic debacle since the 1929 crash. That is the great triumph of the RW, and it will go down in history as their legacy: never let the wealthy have time to think too much.

Barack Obama--perhaps the third greatest president of the US ever--has done an excellent job of picking up the pieces. He avoided a renewed crash of the economy in October 2008, He accomplished the quite simple task of ridding the world of Osama bin Laden--something that GWB was too inept to do--he has wound down these two farces of a war, and he has managed us through the great deficit in which the RW has left the world. He has done all of this amongst the rubble of the racist Republicans, who have vowed to commit sedition rather than work with an African.

The responsible Americans left, maintain a fervent commitment to the notion that the Republican Party has so damaged itself that it will lay down and simply die. In its ashes, it is hoped that a more reasonable, less dogmatic group with bring the RW back to the realm of responsibility.

by Guest Sat Mar 01, 2014 6:48 pm

For the record andy and smelly, this war was started in Washington, not in Westminster

Yeah I know.

This whole thread is hilarious. Not your bits - the didge and smelly bits. Once you've made your point well enough (in your eyes) - walk away, don't make a fool of yourself arguing with a fool.

That goes for both of you!

by Guest Sat Mar 01, 2014 8:44 pm

PhilDidge wrote:Again smelly is unable to understand or learn.

The issue with Iraq took precedent to pool majority of sources to invade, thus starving Afghanistan of resources to help not only finish the job but consolidate.
Now see if you can finally understand, if the decision had not been taken to go to war with Iraq, which was decided a long time before the actual invasion, then the resources collated in readiness to use against Iraq would have been free to help the ANSF in Afghanistan clear out the Taliban and consolidate control,

So it is not even my point to show what 7000, could do you numpty ha ha, even though you neglect the ANSF. Try understanding the points being made as to what went wrong more so with not finishing off the Taliban, clearly you are finding to difficult to understand, no suprise there.

what majority of resources??

you said there were only 7000 men in Afghanistan before Iraq,and those were only some, of some American units

7000 men is not the majority of US and UK forces and resources

by Sponsored content