BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: bubblyrat
Date: 08 Oct 08 - 02:53 PM

But on a serious note (for those of you for whom the name Frank Ifield rings no bells,distant or otherwise), I would answer the question thus;
                Vietnam, no----- Armageddon, possibly.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: bubblyrat
Date: 08 Oct 08 - 02:49 PM

Frank Ifield, eh ?? I remember you !!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 08 Oct 08 - 01:30 PM

I forgot to say I was really asking Teribus that question, ard mhacha. But I don't think I'd have got such an intelligent answer from him....

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: ard mhacha
Date: 07 Oct 08 - 06:10 AM

Peter, NO.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Oct 08 - 03:15 AM

Kipling gave us some good songs from those campaigns.
Ford o' Kabul River, Go to your God like a Soldier, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: ard mhacha
Date: 06 Oct 08 - 11:00 AM

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Retreat-From-Kabul.htm , This link will give a good account of the retreat.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: ard mhacha
Date: 06 Oct 08 - 10:06 AM

For further reading on Britains Afghan campaign, Henry Morris`s Pax Britannica Trilogy, Book one Heavens Command gives a terrifying account of the the 1840s campaign.
Out of 16,500 who were forced to retreat only one survivor made it to Jalalabad in India, his name was Surgeon Brydon, the same Dr Brydon 20 years later survived the siege of Oudh during the Indian mutiny, he died in his bed on his estate in Scotland 15 years later. What a story this lucky man had to tell, it would have worth reading.

Britain did return the following year and showed their displeasure by blowing up the great bazarr, the Afghans were forced to submit until the next Anglo-Afghan war and the bloody continuation of hostilities.

Morris in his research in 1960 followed the Army`s route from Kabul, he asked one old Afghan what would happen now if a foreign army invaded his country,"the same" he hissed between the last of his teeth.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: GUEST,LSM
Date: 06 Oct 08 - 08:27 AM

Exactly Mr.Red. And that is currently where the British are taking it.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: Mr Red
Date: 06 Oct 08 - 08:15 AM

No I think it is the next Afghanistan.

Just ask the Russians, and if we want to see history repeat itself yet again - go back to the British up the Khyber Pass.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: ard mhacha
Date: 06 Oct 08 - 07:20 AM

Polly I have just come back from that old cemetery to check out that gravestone inscription, [old memory not too bad but making sure this time], the name was spelt Ibbotson, so it corresponds with your spelling.
Further reading, he served with distinction through the whole of the Afghan campaign of 1842, in 14 engagments, erected by his son William.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 06 Oct 08 - 07:12 AM

In the light of a recently expressed military opinion, perhaps you could share with us your own thoughts (in one word). Is the war against the Taleban winnable?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: GUEST,Polly Brown
Date: 06 Oct 08 - 05:19 AM

Another common name in the Dales is "Ibbotson" possibly a variation.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: ard mhacha
Date: 06 Oct 08 - 04:58 AM

I live in a small town in the north of Ireland, close by is a small cemetery attached to the Catholic church, in it is a grave I have long regarded as a curiosity.
I memory of Colonel J Ibbitison who fought with distinction during the Afghan campaign of the 1850s,is part of the inscription on the gravestone.

How did a man with a Yorkshire surname come to be interred in an out of the way place, [yes, I know he had to be dead first], but importantly [Afghan campaign in the 1850s] tells you something, in 2008 the British Army are still involved in a war which for them is a war with no ending.
A lesson written in stone in a lonely graveyard.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Oct 08 - 04:03 AM

My posting record proves that I never made a bigotted post.
Guest after Guest, different names anyway, came on and said I did.
The moderators did nothing.
I turned the tables on this guest, and the mods come down on me like a tonne of bricks.
Is anyone comparing ISPs of Ifield, Egan and LSM?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Oct 08 - 03:21 AM

Dirty deed?
But it was true!
The only thing dirty was the lying "Guest" refusing to say it himself.
And here we have another Guest.
Or is it another Guest?
Threads are having to be closed because of "Guest" antics.
Why do we put up with them?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Oct 08 - 03:53 PM

I do respect your commitment that gets you posting in the small hours of a Monday morning Frank.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Oct 08 - 03:41 PM

Mushroom Guest Frank Ifield, surely you must be related to Mushroom Guest Egan who posted from an Irish Republican standpoint.
This post fulminates about football terrace thugs in British army uniforms.
detail.cfm?messages__Message_ID=2363070
Just like your post.
Same wording.

He could find no evidence of soldiers involved in football violence though.
All we came up with was a lone soldier who bravely saved a downed policeman from a mob of violent supporters.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: GUEST,Frank Ifield
Date: 05 Oct 08 - 11:25 AM

Attention of Teribus. Listen mate, I don't understand one bloody word of what you just wrote there. Let's just agree we both give this a miss. Your strange.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Oct 08 - 11:19 AM

So you're an Australian are you mushroom guest? And no the term Brit as I've heard it comes mainly from Irishmen who support the republican cause. The other little give-away in your original post was the reference to, ".....his football terrace thugs out there in British uniforms."

Now Armagh, and a few of his compatriots normally equate soldiers serving in the British Army to football terrace thugs.

Australian are you eh guest? Let's see in Australia the winter team sports are in order of popularity Aussie Rules; Rugby League; Rugby Union and Association Football about equal with Field Hockey. So as an Australian you immediately equate "thuggery" with a sport that in Australia has no connotations with crowd violence.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: GUEST,Frank Ifield
Date: 05 Oct 08 - 10:39 AM

I live in Australia Teribus. Why would I know about Ireland ? I have cousins in some part of it. Have you never heard anyone use the term Brit ? do you live in a cave ?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Oct 08 - 10:13 AM

Ah another one post Guest mushroom springs up - GUEST,Frank Ifield.

That little 20ft portacabin container with the PC over there in Norn Iron must really be getting hammered - the methadone wearing off??

Hint don't use phrases like "Brit Officer" dead give-away.

The article reporting what the man actually said puts it in context and gives it perspective, here's the link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7653116.stm

Now this bit, lifted from that article, mushroom guest you would recognise from your own organisations recent demise:

"If the Taleban were prepared to sit on the other side of the table and talk about a political settlement, then that's precisely the sort of progress that concludes insurgencies like this."

After all Guest that is what happened in Northern Ireland wasn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: freda underhill
Date: 05 Oct 08 - 05:32 AM

The Taliban were trained and funded in Pakistan. They continue to be funded by conservative elements in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. They were joined by Pashtuns in Afghanistan, who were previously allied to the Communists in Afghanistan.

The taliban massacred the Hazara minority, kidnapping and brutalising young Hazara males to fight and sending them to their front lines. They were committing genocide and leaving 100s of bodies in mass graves.

Tens of thousands of Hazaras and Tajiks became refugees, and they begged the UN to come and protect them in Afghanistan. Yes, the war has become a disaster, but it began with the promise of protecting some racial groups in Afghanistan from genocide.

Yes, war is wrong, but so is genocide.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: GUEST,Frank Ifield
Date: 05 Oct 08 - 04:39 AM

A senior Brit officer has admitted they aren't gonna win the war out there.

Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith took his head out of his ass and realised that the Taliban are on top of the situation.

He even said we should "lower our expectations" and accept that it would be unrealistic to expect that multinational forces can entirely rid Afghanistan of armed bands. Well isn't he the sharp one !

He added, "We're not going to win this war"

Brig Carleton-Smith said the aim should be to change the nature of the debate in Afghanistan so that disputes were settled by negotiation and not violence. He really should tell that to his football terrace thugs out there in British uniforms.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Sep 08 - 08:05 PM

Exactly Kevin - We'll see

Frank - most of my information comes from my son who is actually out there, if you doubt that well then that is your problem. But the reality is that I would rather believe him than the likes of yourself, fair enough??

Give you a couple of examples Frank - New Year 2006 - I'd called my son on Christmas Day, he said he'd call New Year - he didn't - I didn't hear from him until 8th January - He was there with 42 Commando and they had kicked off "Operation Clay" - The operation to secure the Kajiki Dam. Now in September 2008 he has just taken part in ensuring that the new turbine has been delivered to the dam for the ultimate benefit of the people of Afghanistan.

OK Frank you tell me exactly what in that period 2006 to 2008 that the Taleban, Al-Qaeda or any other of the toss-pot organisations that you seem to support have done for the people of Afghanistan. Come on Frank tell me how many hospitals they have opened. How many schools they have built and equipped. How many irrigation schemes they had opened. How many roads they have built.

Of course according to your creed the people of the country don't need any of that shit - Fair enough Frank tell us exactly what Al-Qaeda and the Taleban have done for Afghanistan - the answer of course is the square root of fuck all, but I am interested in your answer ( Actually Frank I don't think I'll get one).

And Frank if you cannot do that, then please do us all a favour and shut the fuck up on a subject that you patently know fuck all about. Fair enough???

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Sep 08 - 05:35 PM

We'll see, Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 05 Sep 08 - 02:06 PM

Teribus, I really question your sources in what could be viewed as misinformation.   I could take apart your assertions one by one and hold you to sources for these "factoids". There is another problem I'd rather address here.

Mudcatters, there are people we really don't know. Are some of these posters, "moles" or "spies" for right-wing organizations or affiliations with the FBI? I ask this because of
what happened in Minneapolis was that "informants", "moles", "spies" undermined the
cause of the right of free speech and assembly.

Could that be happening here?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Sep 08 - 07:05 AM

Kiwi Guest, the Indians are expressing marked interest in the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan (TAP) Pipeline as their previous preferred option, the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) Pipeline project is now viewd as being too risky a venture.

The is no US involvement in TAP although it was originally a Chevron or Unical idea if I remember correctly, both lost interest a long time ago, well before 911. The project now would be backed by the Asian Development Bank - No US involvement whatsoever.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Sep 08 - 01:57 AM

Oh that explains it all then.

That the pipeline project that the US oil company you mentioned påulled out of years ago?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: GUEST,Kiwi Guest
Date: 05 Sep 08 - 01:38 AM

The only reason the States invaded Afghanistan was to create and secure the gas pipeline that it's multinational company with ties to prominent govt members wanted. The invasion of Afghanistan was planned well before 9/11

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Sep 08 - 01:05 AM

It comes down to misconceptions then Kevin:

Misconception 1: "At some point the occupiers will pull out"

As far as I am aware it is only the Taleban/the anti-Bush/anti-war/the chattering left that hold the opinion that Afghanistan is under occupation, although how a country of 31-odd million people can be "occupied" by about 50,000 defies logic.

Misconception 2: "the people who have been fighting them are likely to be the major element in whatever regime that follows"

As far as Afghanistan goes and the extent of progress achieved they may be an element - they will not however be a major element. The Taleban only ever came into being to counter-balance the excesses of the various warlords in the country. With prosperity and growth comes employment and stability - counter to what many believe war is bad for business - with people left at peace to make a living the Taleban have simply no appeal.

Misconception 3:   That the countries engaged as contributers to either ISAF in Afghanistan or the MNF in Iraq are "at war" - They are not.

True nobody has invaded Russia, but since the advant of atomic/nuclear weapons nobody has to do they? As for Afghanistan "not working out at all well for the current foreign intanglement" - well most of the country is fairly quiet according to what has been reported in the press, even the left biased BBC, much to their chagrin, no longer refer to the "resurgent" Taleban in every news item. The Taleban are having major problems recruiting in Afghanistan Kevin, so they have to rely on recruits from the tribal areas in Pakistan - they are the "foreign element" that are not fairing well in Afghanistan. It will take time and effort, anybody who knew anything about the country, would have realised that. At the end of the day the people of Afghanistan will be the ones that "win" - Anything, anything is better than what has been their lot over the last forty years.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Sep 08 - 08:06 PM

Hopefully, but very likely not.

At some point the occupiers will pull out, and the people who have been fighting them are likely to be the major element in whatever regime that follows. That's how it always works out in these situations.

...since 1945 neither of your dictums holds water./a> How so? Since 1945 no one has invaded Russia, so that one hasn't come into play. As for Afghanistan, getting tangled up there proved disastrous for the USSR, and is not working out at all well for the current foreign intanglement.

...thankfully they are losing. What matters in this kind of war isn't beating the enemy, or outgunning them, or outbombing them, it's outlasting them.

Don't get me wrong, this isn't about what kind of outcome I might like to see. It's about what seems the likely outcome. Pragmatic rather than ideological.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Sep 08 - 11:00 AM

Hopefully modified enough to allow access to education and education for all.

Hopefully modified enough to practice living in this world peacefully and exercising tolerance.

As to exercising war, since 1945 neither of your dictums holds water. Trouble is those on the emotive left yell war whenever any of the Western democracies are involved and peacekeeping whenever Russia wades in. While the Taleban may call what they are engaged in a war in Afghanistan, and undoubtedly what the PIRA called what they were engaged in in Northern Ireland a war, the forces that oppose them in Afghanistan are fighting an insurrection (The Taleban represent no-one but themselves) and the British troops in Northern Ireland provided "Aid to the Civil Power". If the US were at war with Afghanistan it would be all over in 15 minutes - Don't kid yourself that the result would be any different.

In the 1980's the Russians went in in the hope of propping up a puppet regime and lost with three times the number of men. The country was ablze from end to end. ISAF, US Enduring Freedom and Afghan Government troops number about one third of the forces available in the 80's and much of the country is prospering and the Taleban have to hide in Pakistan and recruit there. Yes Kevin, thankfully they are losing.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Sep 08 - 08:50 AM

"...only one basic rule in war - make sure you WIN." And that's what never seems to happen when you break the rules I quoted...
.............................

The Northern Ireland analogy suggests that at some point a modified Taliban will be back in power.

That does seem the likely outcome, sooner or later.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Sep 08 - 12:54 AM

Well, originally on this forum it was Iraq, "Iraqmire", that was being touted as the USA's next Vietnam, but unfortunately for the chorus that didn't pan out. So now it must be Afghanistan.

As for Afghanistan? I'll stick by what I said, "...the Taleban have been defeated, they just do not know it yet." In exactly the same way that in Northern Ireland by 1985 the Provisional IRA knew that they were never going to win (Not my opinion that came from Martin McGuinness) It took the rank and file another eleven years to come to terms with that then another ten years for their Army Council to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement they signed up to.

The biggest mistake that extremists have made was their involvement in the assassination of Benhazir Bhutto. The Pakistan side of the border can no longer be assumed by them to be a "safe haven" anymore.

MGOH, there is only one basic rule in war - make sure you WIN.

ISAF and the US Enduring Freedom Forces currently deployed in Afghanistan number about one third of the forces deployed there by the Russians. The number is about one eighth of the number of US troops deployed in Vietnam at its height. Militarily ISAF and EDF are beating the Taleban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Direct attacks on Afghan Government Forces and ISAF are no longer the tactic, because of the losses being sustained, so the Taleban have regressed to road-side bombs and suicide attacks. Unfortunately they kill more of the people that the Taleban need to support them than they do "the foreign infidels" so the perception amongst the civilian population is that the Taleban cannot deliver peace and security, their very basis for existence.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Sep 08 - 05:24 PM

Two basic rules of warfare:

Don't invade Russia.

Don't get tangled up in Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Sep 08 - 10:44 AM

Here's another one for your consideration Frank:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7594729.stm

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 03:58 PM

Latest in wishful thinking from Stringsinger:

1. "McCaoin presidency would escalate this (Iraq) to the size of Vietnam."

Now where and when has he said that? He was a proponent of the "Surge" but all surge troops have now left Iraq and as far as I know all talk is of reducing troop numbers there. I have not seen, heard or read any article whereby any increase of troops is called for by anybody - I am sure Obama, or somebody in his campaign staff would have said something if McCain intended any escalation.

2. "Actually, it's quite relevant because it's a continuation of US foreign policy, shoot first and ask questions afterward."

Only in your rather fevered imagination Strinsinger, only in your fevered imagination.

3. "Not on a piece of paper but on the Security Council itself by muscling it for political means. What do you think John Bolton represents?"

You claim that the US put pressure on the UN Security Council, care to tell us how? If what you are saying is possible, which it is not, can you exlain why there was no second Resolution? You know the one, the one the French said that they would Veto sight unseen. Or are you trying to tell us all that US pressuring of the UN Security Council is fallible, it only works now and again. For the first resolution 1441 the US managed to pressure all fifteen members of the Security Council including Syria, Russia and China, then when it came to the second they couldn't even pressure France. Lacks consistency, reason and logic Stringsinger.

4. "First of all there is no duly elected sovereign government of Iraq. It's a propped-up puppet government and the head of that government Maliki wants the US out. Maliki says it's an occupation. If it isn't an occupation, then what are American troops doing there with guns pushing the denizens of that country around or committing genocide by ethnic cleansing?"

Now this really is a rabid left-wing rant based on myth isn't it. No duly elected Government eh? Ask Maliki if he doubts if he was duly elected or not - I think that you will find out that he will state quite clearly that he was duly elected by his constituents and then again elected to be Prime Minister by the duly constituted Iraqi Assembly.

That the Iraqis want to see the MNF troops leave, of course they do, it will mean that things have returned to normal. For the MNF troops to be removed all that the Iraqi Government has to do is to tell the UN that they want their troops to leave - So far Stringsinger they have not. The UN will not renew its mandate after 31st december this year, hence the negotiations with the Iraqi Government relating to status of US Forces in country. I do not believe that Maliki has ever referred to the presence of MNF troops as being an "occupation".

Are US troops, or more correctly MNF troops, "pushing the denizens of that country around" with guns? Where are MNF troops engaged in ethnic cleansing or genocide in Iraq? Or are you mistaking the activities of Russian troops in Georgia?

5. "The elections in both Iraq and Afghanistan were adjudged free fair and democratic by the independent UN monitoring teams." - Teribus

"I doubt that very much. You say that this is a fact but this has been disputed." - Stringsinger

Well no Stringsinger I do not state as fact that the elections in both Afghanistan and Iraq were adjudged free, fair and democratic. The people who stated that were the people sent there by the UN to monitor the elections. Now you tell me, should I believe them, the people who were on the ground and witnessed those elections first hand, or should I just take your word for it, a person who was nowhere near either place at the time. Please forgive me but I'll opt for the opinion of the UN Observers. Oh, by the bye Stringsinger, just because a fact is disputed does not necessarily prove that fact false.

6. "These votes may not have been cast legally or democratically. This is analogous to how the elections in the US were cast in 2000 and 2004. There was election fraud here and there was election fraud there."

MAY not have been = WERE, since when? One thing about the elections in both Afghanistan and in Iraq Stringsinger was that they were monitored by the UN, the elections in the US have never been monitored by any independent official body. But I would venture to guess that they are free, fair and democratic. I would also venture to guess that the only elections in the US that in your opinion have ever been subject to electoral fraud are the ones where you didn't agree with the result.

7. "Not true. Iraq is under occupation by armed troops from the US. This is why elections can't be counted as being fair or uncorrupted."

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/sc9207.doc.htm

8. "ObL is from Saudi Arabia. You can doubt where the plans were hatched or when because you simply don't know."

According both OBL and KSM 911 was planned from camps inside Afghanistan, that was where those who took part were trained and selected. As stated previously, I have no cause to doubt that. Where OBL comes from is completely irrelevant. Where he bases his organisation and where he sets up his training camps however is.

9. "There were times in the negotiations (see Scott Ritter) where the Taleban could have handed over OsL but this was rejected by the US Administration. Bush preferred to go after the Taleban instead."

Sorry Stringsinger, nowhere in that sentence of yours does it state that at anytime the Taleban offered to handover OBL to the US Authorities. "...the Taleban COULD HAVE handed over" OBL, bloody right there were times when they COULD HAVE handed over OBL, the significant fact however was that they didn't- Did They??

10. "The Taleban have not been defeated. Bombs were hurled killing innocents at a madrasa and there is an invasion taking place right now under the radar. Just the other day, bombs killed innocent civilians in a Taleban raid."

Oh yes Stringsinger, the Taleban have been defeated, they just do not know it yet. Supposedly the de facto Government of Afghanistan in 2001 to doing what now? Hiding over the border in Pakistan's tribal areas? They have all but given up on direct attacks and ambushes on ISAF, US and Afghan Army troops because they can no longer sustain the losses. They have reverted to planting roadside bombs - No terrorist organisation has ever won using such tactics. Now they are starting to be hit on what they assumed was the "safe" side of the Pakistani border. Here's a little story for you Stringsinger - this cost the Taleban over 200 of their followers:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7593901.stm

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 01:18 PM

"Vietnam - Now that was fire-power displayed on a large scale. At its height the US had upwards of half a million men deployed there. Nothing like the numbers involved in Iraq or Afghanistan - tiny by comparison."

but a McCaoin presidency would escalate this to the size of Vietnam.


"Unfortunately I was responding to Little Hawk's description, so you stringsinger introducing Vietnam is irrelevant."

Actually, it's quite relevant because it's a continuation of US foreign policy, shoot first and ask questions afterward.

"How can the US exert force on a UN Security Council piece of paper?"

Not on a piece of paper but on the Security Council itself by muscling it for political means. What do you think John Bolton represents?

"The US can exert very little pressure on the UN Security Council, the four other permanent members all have veto powers which stop things dead in their tracks."

The fact that they haven't done so is the case in point. The reason they haven't is
because of the influence the US has exerted.

" Nothing that you have said alters the fact that US/ISAF/MNF troops are present in both Iraq and Afghanistan in accordance with a perfectly legal UN Security Council Mandate and at the request of the duly elected sovereign Governments of both those countries, which means stringsinger, that no matter how much you would think it to be, no matter how much you wish it to be - It ain't no "Occupation".

First of all there is no duly elected sovereign government of Iraq. It's a propped-up
puppet government and the head of that government Maliki wants the US out. Maliki
says it's an occupation. If it isn't an occupation, then what are American troops doing there with guns pushing the denizens of that country around or committing genocide
by ethnic cleansing?

"The elections in both Iraq and Afghanistan were adjudged free fair and democratic by the independent UN monitoring teams."

I doubt that very much. You say that this is a fact but this has been disputed.

" Highest voter turn out in the USA since the end of the Second World War has been 65%. In Iraq and in Afghanistan voter turn out was over 70% The way you measure it stringsinger is number of votes cast against electoral rolls."

These votes may not have been cast legally or democratically. This is analogous to
how the elections in the US were cast in 2000 and 2004. There was election fraud here
and there was election fraud there.

"Glad to see that you do not think that Germany, South Korea and Japan are not under US occupation - Neither are Iraq or Afghanistan."

Not true. Iraq is under occupation by armed troops from the US. This is why elections can't be counted as being fair or uncorrupted.

"As to where 911 was hatched up being a guess, I don't think so - KSM and OBL hatched up the plot, or at least that is what both have clearly stated - I have no cause to doubt them."

ObL is from Saudi Arabia. You can doubt where the plans were hatched or when because you simply don't know.

"The Taleban in Afghanistan were asked to give up the leadership of Al-Qaeda and to close down the training camps, they refused to do either, so the US threw its lot in with the Northern Alliance who were fighting the Taleban at the time."

There were times in the negotiations (see Scott Ritter) where the Taleban could have
handed over OsL but this was rejected by the US Administration. Bush preferred to go after the Taleban instead.

"With the help of US air-power the Northern Alliance defeated the Taleban, there was no US "Invasion" of Afghanistan, so how on earth can there be an "occupation"?

The Taleban have not been defeated. Bombs were hurled killing innocents at a madrasa
and there is an invasion taking place right now under the radar. Just the other day,
bombs killed innocent civilians in a Taleban raid.

It's as I said before, Bush foreign policy is to shoot first and ask questions afterward.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 06:33 PM

Vietnam - Now that was fire-power displayed on a large scale. At its height the US had upwards of half a million men deployed there. Nothing like the numbers involved in Iraq or Afghanistan - tiny by comparison. Unfortunately I was responding to Little Hawk's description, so you stringsinger introducing Vietnam is irrelevant.

How can the US exert force on a UN Security Council piece of paper?

The US can exert very little pressure on the UN Security Council, the four other permanent members all have veto powers which stop things dead in their tracks. Nothing that you have said alters the fact that US/ISAF/MNF troops are present in both Iraq and Afghanistan in accordance with a perfectly legal UN Security Council Mandate and at the request of the duly elected sovereign Governments of both those countries, which means stringsinger, that no matter how much you would think it to be, no matter how much you wish it to be - It ain't no "Occupation".

The elections in both Iraq and Afghanistan were adjudged free fair and democratic by the independent UN monitoring teams. Highest voter turn out in the USA since the end of the Second World War has been 65%. In Iraq and in Afghanistan voter turn out was over 70% The way you measure it stringsinger is number of votes cast against electoral rolls.

Glad to see that you do not think that Germany, South Korea and Japan are not under US occupation - Neither are Iraq or Afghanistan.

As to where 911 was hatched up being a guess, I don't think so - KSM and OBL hatched up the plot, or at least that is what both have clearly stated - I have no cause to doubt them.

The Taleban in Afghanistan were asked to give up the leadership of Al-Qaeda and to close down the training camps, they refused to do either, so the US threw its lot in with the Northern Alliance who were fighting the Taleban at the time. With the help of US air-power the Northern Alliance defeated the Taleban, there was no US "Invasion" of Afghanistan, so how on earth can there be an "occupation"?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: kendall
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 04:10 PM

Every enemy we have and ever had were and are of our own creation.We are addicted to war. Fire away, I would love to debate this.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 01:28 PM

Teribus, more misinformation from you.


"Fire power displayed on a very large scale - LH you really do tend to exaggerate, whenever it comes to things relating to the US military. Compared to the firepower they have at their disposal what has been displayed over the period in question has been fairly proportionate to the situation."

Yes, this is what was said about the slaughter of innocents in Vietnam.

"US armed forces "occupy" neither Iraq or Afghanistan - Ask the UN Security Council, US Forces/ISAF/MNF are present in accordance with UN Security Council Mandate - A fact I know that you hate to acknowledge to the point that you never mention it."

This still is an occupation precipitated by a pre-emptive strike on Iraq. It doesn't matter how much influence the US exerts on the Security Council Mandate. They should move the UN building out of the US.

"Set up "Client" regimes? Now how on earth did they set those up LH? Or is this juust another of your inventions? "

Blackwater, KBR and other defense contractors own Iraq. Very little of the oil
money is going to help that country regain its former state.


"The "big bad USA" got all those people out to vote for the people that they (The USA) wanted to get elected?"

You may not be aware of this but there are those in the Republican Administration that
know how to conduct fraudulent elections. Not the USA wanted the elections to go their way but the Pentagon and the defense contractors were the recipients. Elections in Iraq are a joke.


" Another fact that you and your fellow travellers hate to admit about the elections held in both Iraq and in Afghanistan:

1) They were the first democratic elections ever held in either country."

Errant nonsense. They were railroaded by special Bush interests. They were not
true democratic elections in any meaningful sense.

"2) Both elections were adjudged to be full, fair and free by UN monitors present at both."

Also not true. There was no unanimous opinion on this.

"3) A larger proportion of electorate voted in both those elections than ever turn out for elections in either the US or in the UK."

Complete false and flagrant propaganda. There was no way to measure this.

"Oh by the bye LH, US Forces "boots-on-the-ground" look up Germany, South Korea and Japan, are those countries "occupied" as well?"

In that the citizens of those countries are not being pushed around by American troops
in an aggressive and dictatorial fashion, it's not the same thing.

"To Robbie Wilson, true "Afghanistan is not where the SOB's who took out the twin towers came from" - Afghanistan is where they were trained."

Here, they may have been trained but not at the behest of the Afghanistan government or with the unanimous support of the Afghan people. It was a training camp that could
well have been funded by Arab nationals. It was a convenient place to do this because there was no official monitoring.

" Afghanistan is where the plot was hatched, planned and directed from. Now irrespective of where the perpetrators were born, why on earth would you attack any other place than Afghanistan in relation to the attacks of September 11th 2001?"

Because it was the reactionary forces in the Arab Republics, the fundamentalist
religious groups in Egypt and Saudi Arabia that were behind bin Laden to begin with.
Afghanistan just happened to be a convenient locale to form camps. You don't know that these plans were hatched in Afghanistan. That's just a guess.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: MarkS
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 09:03 AM

Draft dodgers don't make good Commanders-in-Chief.

Bill Clinton was a perfect example of this.

At least Obama was too young to be caught up, but hey, Joe Biden,
"where were you, in '62?"

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: RobbieWilson
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 06:47 AM

Well, one reason might be that you want to show you are doing something by kicking some ass, any ass-- these foreigners are all the same anyhow.

Yes Afghanistan was one of the places training took place, but as I remember it most of the training for 9/11 took place in the USofA.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 01:57 AM

Fire power displayed on a very large scale - LH you really do tend to exaggerate, whenever it comes to things relating to the US military. Compared to the firepower they have at their disposal what has been displayed over the period in question has been fairly proportionate to the situation.

US armed forces "occupy" neither Iraq or Afghanistan - Ask the UN Security Council, US Forces/ISAF/MNF are present in accordance with UN Security Council Mandate - A fact I know that you hate to acknowledge to the point that you never mention it.

Set up "Client" regimes? Now how on earth did they set those up LH? Or is this juust another of your inventions? The "big bad USA" got all those people out to vote for the people that they (The USA) wanted to get elected? Another fact that you and your fellow travellers hate to admit about the elections held in both Iraq and in Afghanistan:

1) They were the first democratic elections ever held in either country.

2) Both elections were adjudged to be full, fair and free by UN monitors present at both.

3) A larger proportion of electorate voted in both those elections than ever turn out for elections in either the US or in the UK.

Oh by the bye LH, US Forces "boots-on-the-ground" look up Germany, South Korea and Japan, are those countries "occupied" as well?

To Robbie Wilson, true "Afghanistan is not where the SOB's who took out the twin towers came from" - Afghanistan is where they were trained. Afghanistan is where the plot was hatched, planned and directed from. Now irrespective of where the perpetrators were born, why on earth would you attack any other place than Afghanistan in relation to the attacks of September 11th 2001?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: RobbieWilson
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 01:04 AM

Coming back a little bit to old dude's comments; Afghanistan is not where the SOB's who took out the twin towers came from, that was Saudia Arabia, as was the money behind them. But of course that money and that country is very close to the money behind GWB.

The billions of dollars/ millions of pounds being spent in Afghanistan and Iraq is not leading to the people of Afghanistan or Iraq having any kind of standard of living; it goes largely to the corporate interests who also are closely linked to GWB and his backers.

The Taliban are not some green skinned aliens with the word Taliban tatooed on their foreheads who can be easily rooted out from the people of Afghanistan they are indistinguishable from the people of Afghanistan because they are people of Afghanistan with a particular view of how the world should be run.

Every time a village or a wedding party or even a house is bombed because someone has said they think there might be taliban fighters there more hatred is created and stored up in the general population. This will last for generations. It does not matter how effectively Military Might kicks ass it can never succeed in making the world a safer place, merely drive those who harbour this hatred to more and more desparate measures.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Aug 08 - 05:50 PM

(yawn)

That dry British humour again? The same answer to both questions. Afghanistan and Iraq. The USA isn't the sole foreign military occupier of those lands, but it's the primary one. It has achieved regime change and set up client regimes in those countries, which is the same thing most conquering empires do when they take over a small country. Just consult the years 2001-2008, look for where American firepower has been displayed on a very large scale in that period, and look for where large numbers of American military forces and mercenaries presently have boots on the ground. Afghanistan and Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Aug 08 - 05:14 PM

"vast displays of US firepower" - Where?

"occupation of foreign lands" - Which foreign lands are currently being occupied by US Forces?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Aug 08 - 02:18 PM

They can't really be trusted, period. ;-) Afghanistan's always been a hellhole of competing tribal groups fighting for turf and resisting ANY foreign occupying force, and I expect it always will be. It also stands at a very strategic transit point between several vital regions of central Asia, so further conflicts there between major powers are virtually guaranteed. Excuses will be found to justify those conflicts.

This has true ever since the days of Alexander the Great, if not before. None of it has anything to do with bringing "democracy" to Afghanistan, but it does have to do with creating a client government in Kabul. That's what the Russians were there for too.

And that's what the British were once there for.

And that's what Alexander was once there for.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 31 Aug 08 - 02:14 PM

The object is to create an enemy whether the "global war on terror" or the "global war on communism" and fill the coffers of the military industrial complex and its Republican supporters (some Dems too). The US "Commander-in-Chief" was defined by Bush as a position that has to be seen as being tough to get elected and push bills through congress.
Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and the impending debacle in Iran fit this scenario. These are wars and/or occupations of political expedience and not well-thought out in their execution.

Here's what needs to be done. A realistic assessment of the cultures of Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan (not to mention Pakistan) based on knowledge of the history of these countries and not trigger-happy knee-jerk military actions. I propose that in the next president's cabinet, there should be a department of anthropology that takes this into account.
Diplomacy can't be based on not knowing the difference between Sunni and Shi'a or where the borders of Afghanistan and Iraq lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Afghanistan the next Vietnam?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 31 Aug 08 - 02:02 PM

I quote:

"Not really. Vietnam was all about knee-jerk reaction to a (mostly) imaginary political situation. The US went in there in the first place as part of the "global war against Communism", providing military advisers to the somewhat less than democratic government in the south after Ho Chi Minh declared a war of unification in (I think) 1957."

The pretext for finding Al Quaeda in Afghanistan is because of an ostensible "global war on terror" which has replaced the "global war on communism". The enemy in Afghanistan
is so "well defined" that innocent civilians have been bombed by American forces in the last few days. Does this remind anyone of what was done with napalm in Vietnam?

If Al Quaeda is in Pakistan, what does this have to do with one of the largest exporters of heroin and cocaine in the world? What is the end-game in Afghanistan? Elimination of
Al Quaeda and the Taliban? Is that even possible? Just as in Vietnam, there was no elimination of communism in that country and in fact today the Chinese are doing quite well thank you. I assert that war in Afghanistan is another knee-jerk reaction to a plan that has not been well thought out. For starters, there is no proof that bin Laden is even alive, today. And if the motivation for 911 is vengeance, than what does that say about the US policy for diplomacy? I maintain that the objective is fuzzy as it was in Iraq and Iran.

The tribal leaders extend much farther than the Pashtun regions of the country. The US is presently in negotiations with many of them who really can't be trusted with the best interests of their country.