UK military deaths in Afganistan hit 100

[parsifal]

I agree, its not about oil, but do you think the conduct of operations has been optimal to this point. I think it has been a near total disaster, with no post Saddam strategy in place, and not nearly enough grunts on the ground to control the situation. . This, incidentally is not at odds with what I am saying generally. By having more people on the ground, and acting more like police than an army, there might have been a chance in the first year to stabilize. Now I am very doubtful

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by parsifal

FB

On the basis of your last postback to me, the rest of us should get the hell out of dodge, and let the US achieve its security its own way, and we should secure ours our way. I find your complete lack of concern for the security of your allies disturbing. Australia has backed the US 100% in this war, and virtually every other war since WWII. Is this how your countrymen intend to treat your allies in the future..."so long as the good ol USA is safe, we dont give a S*it!!!". Is that how it is from now on. I know that it isnt, but the attitudes expressed in your post, if adopted as US policy would lead to that. What is disturbing , and normal, is the failure of the US to even listen to any advice or concerns from even its true allies. They just charge at the issue blindly and unthinking, and then expect the rest of the world to follow. And i doubt that many in the US realize (or care) the serious and deep damage this approach is causing in its partners. Australia has recently completed its final pullout from Iraq. Nothing gets said, but I can assure you that Australians are bitterly dissappointed in the leadership shown by the US over this issue. And your allies dont get much closer than Australia. Your country's failure to listen is costing you all of your overseas alliances. Can the US achieve its security alone???

To put some of this into perspective you have to divide the conflicts. It's my opinion that Hussein had to go - but once he was removed the US should of left as well. We've put our forces into a police action, a dis-service to them and the mission there.

As far as my comment, what wrong with prioritizing your commitments??? 1. USA, 2. Her allies???? Tell me if there were 2 ICBMs fired from Iran, One targeting Sydney, the other targeting New York, as you as an Australian could stop one, which would you choose????

Originally Posted by parsifal

And this approach fails to look at the issue objectively. I dont think US security is being enhanced in any meaningful way at all. It is a false sense of security. Far from it. I think the world is filling with despisement of the US and its alliance every day that this is happening, and after we leave, as eventually we must, the terror to our own shores will return tenfold worse than it ever was.

In dealing in Iraq, I could agree, Afganistan is another story...

Originally Posted by parsifal

Successful counterinsurgency, IMO does not succeed by increasing the body count. Thats just a byproduct, and one that should be avoided if possible (because it inevitably generates further resentament and conflict if the casualties are innocent). The US is finally starting to get that, but i think it is far too late now.

This war is not quite a classic counterinsurgency, which leads me to admit that I dont quite know exactly how to deal with it. At its heart is pure evil, IMO. It cannot be reasoned with, and has as its agenda, a desire to kill anything that opposes its warped values. Fear, does not appear to influence it. People that believe in it are religiously driven. The recruitment grounds for its personnel seem to be rooted in the economic and social sense of hopelessness that exist for many Muslims in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

And if the west tries to address this aren't we meddling in a part of the world that hates us already and aren't we doing the very same thing that got us to where were are to begin with??? We need to leave them alone but at the same time let it be known that if they want to display their hatred across their borders they need to be dealt with immediately.....

Originally Posted by parsifal

Having admitted that, the best overall strategy against a creed of that nature is to starve it of its human resources, in other words to make it a better option for the people in its recruitment areas to do other things (like make money) rather than martyr oneself for Allah.

And see above - you're addressing this as if the Muslim world is on the same wavelength as the west. As long as there ware clerics to incite hated there will never be peace.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Kruska

This is were the "smart alecs" - such as myself - come in. The Europeans knew about the Iraq "mentality or habitus" that only an institution such as the Baath Party - headed by Hussein - was able to control all these factions. Therefore they oposed the war against Hussein, setting their strategy on diplomatic actions which in the end could have changed Husseins attitude or replaced him peacefully with a less ambitious dictator - but most important to keep the Baath party alive and in power.

You think the current administration didn't know this? they did and they took a gamble thinking that the volatile factions in Iraq were just going to capitulate, they gambled wrong.

[Kruska]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

You think the current administration didn't know this? they did and they took a gamble thinking that the volatile factions in Iraq were just going to capitulate, they gambled wrong.

Bad to gamble in this part of the world, and it doesn’t make the US look better in the eyes of European governments and its people. So it comes back to the present situation where Europe is becoming more and more unwilling to go along with US politics based on gambling.

No the US really screwed up badly in Iraq and it is about time (actually very urgent) for the US to forward a solid plan together with the Europeans on how to solve this situation and not to carry on its wrong path and show disappointment towards the Europeans for not following suit on the present course.

As for the OIL,
The first Gulf war was for sure not about helping the Kuwaitis to get back their country. It was a necessary war in order to restore the equilibrium of oil supplies to the world, to stop Hussein from getting to much $$ to keep building up his Armed Forces and it was necessary for the US to show and proof solidarity and military support to its Middle East oil suppliers and allies.

Papa Bush stopped too early and did not manage to secure Iraqi oil for the US – maybe he (his government) even had a deal with Hussein in regards to stopping the war – which Hussein might not have kept.
Junior Bush got his hands on the Oil which was already acquitted by the US Puppet Jalal Talabani and the IGC and ORHA in regards to delivery preferences and exploitation rights before the invasion even got started.

Weapons of mass destruction unfortunately could not be found until today – and therefore make the US invasion on Iraq indeed a very “private venture” by Bush, since no one outside the US is willing to “believe” his address of bringing democracy and the ending of a brutal dictator to Iraq.

It’s all about dirty politics, where average people like us don’t get to know anything in regards to the true circumstances. We got Bush and sympathizers on one side and the non Bush sympathizers and Moore on the other so we believe it or not.
But it is not about the Europeans just trying to make Bush look bad without a reason, the present situation in the Arabic world document very clearly that we (our politicians) are on the wrong track.

Regards
Kruska

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Kruska

Bad to gamble in this part of the world, and it doesn’t make the US look better in the eyes of European governments and its people. So it comes back to the present situation where Europe is becoming more and more unwilling to go along with US politics based on gambling.

Agree...

Originally Posted by Kruska

No the US really screwed up badly in Iraq and it is about time (actually very urgent) for the US to forward a solid plan together with the Europeans on how to solve this situation and not to carry on its wrong path and show disappointment towards the Europeans for not following suit on the present course.

I believe the first part of the conflict was the right thing to do - it was the prolonged occupation that went south - we (the US or for that matter Europe) are not going to "democratize" that part of the world.

Originally Posted by Kruska

As for the OIL,
The first Gulf war was for sure not about helping the Kuwaitis to get back their country. It was a necessary war in order to restore the equilibrium of oil supplies to the world, to stop Hussein from getting to much $$ to keep building up his Armed Forces and it was necessary for the US to show and proof solidarity and military support to its Middle East oil suppliers and allies.

OK

Originally Posted by Kruska

Papa Bush stopped too early and did not manage to secure Iraqi oil for the US – maybe he (his government) even had a deal with Hussein in regards to stopping the war – which Hussein might not have kept.

The mandate, agreed by to coalition was to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait, nothing less, nothing more - that was make crystal clear from the beginning.

Originally Posted by Kruska

Junior Bush got his hands on the Oil which was already acquitted by the US Puppet Jalal Talabani and the IGC and ORHA in regards to delivery preferences and exploitation rights before the invasion even got started.

And today the US get only 7% of it's oil from Iraq - do you really think that was the intent, to bring a minuscule amount of oil at the cost of several thousand US soldiers and to the ridicule of the rest of the world?

Originally Posted by Kruska

Weapons of mass destruction unfortunately could not be found until today – and therefore make the US invasion on Iraq indeed a very “private venture” by Bush, since no one outside the US is willing to “believe” his address of bringing democracy and the ending of a brutal dictator to Iraq.

There were WMDs found - no where to the extent advertised, but they were there, and the big word was "were." Where are they now?!?

The Pennsylvania senator, who appeared with Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, outlined six key points contained in the unclassified overview:

(Click to read the declassified portion of the NGIC report in PDF format)


Since 2003 Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.

Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist.

Pre-Gulf War Iraqi chemical weapons could be sold on the black market. Use of these weapons by terrorists or insurgent groups would have implications for Coalition forces in Iraq. The possibility of use outside Iraq cannot be ruled out.

The most likely munitions remaining are sarin and mustard-filled projectiles.

The purity of the agent inside the munitions depends on many factors, including the manufacturing process, potential additives, and environmental storage conditions. While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal.

It has been reported in open press that insurgents and Iraqi groups desire to acquire and use chemical weapons.
"I never doubted for a second that this day would come because we knew [Saddam Hussein] had them," said host Sean Hannity on "Hannity & Colmes." "It's funny to watch liberals [who complain], 'Bush lied! He hyped! He misled!' ... How about liberals now apologize to the country?"

"These are not the weapons that we went to war over," Democrat strategist Laura Schwartz responded. "It does not tell us that Saddam Husssein had an ongoing, active weapons program."

One senior Defense Department official told Fox News the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

Also appearing on Fox News was former U.N. weapons inspector Tim Trevan, who said some of the weapons could still have posed a danger, even in a deteriorated state.

"Sarin could be a danger," he said. "The mustard, the problem is when it sits in the munition for a very long time in these high temperatures, it polymerizes. It goes from a liquid to a gooey mass."

"Probably more important is why has the administration not made this public beforehand," retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Tom McInerny said of the report. "I think the fact is that the Russians moved large stocks [of WMDs] out in the fall of 2002. ... They went into three locations into Syria, in one location in the Bekaa Valley. If you get in there and if you found those weapons and found the precursors, the fingerprints would go back to Russia, China and France. Now those are the three countries that had the most conventional weapons sales to Saddam Hussein. ... I believe they were complicit. So I don't think the administration wants to trash three of the five members of the [U.N.] Security Council."

Originally Posted by Kruska

It’s all about dirty politics, where average people like us don’t get to know anything in regards to the true circumstances. We got Bush and sympathizers on one side and the non Bush sympathizers and Moore on the other so we believe it or not.
But it is not about the Europeans just trying to make Bush look bad without a reason, the present situation in the Arabic world document very clearly that we (our politicians) are on the wrong track.

Regards
Kruska

Agree to a point.....

[Kruska]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

The mandate, agreed by to coalition was to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait, nothing less, nothing more - that was make crystal clear from the beginning.

Correct

And today the US get only 7% of it's oil from Iraq - do you really think that was the intent, to bring a minuscule amount of oil at the cost of several thousand US soldiers and to the ridicule of the rest of the world?

7% would be how many billions$ ? due to the exploitation rights even on every barrel sold to someone else $$ will role in. But let this be my last comments on the oil issue.

There were WMDs found - no where to the extent advertised, but they were there, and the big word was "were." Where are they now?!?

That Iraq possessed poison gas weapons is known since 1988 but not in the context of mass and the missing carriers. The theory in regards to Russia or France having supplied and withdrawn nuclear weapons to Iraq is IMO preposterous and so would be the hiding in Syria. The Israelis would be the first one's to know the exact position to an inch and swoop in since 2003.

Regards
Kruska

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by parsifal

As for the post about America not caring, if you read the whole post, you will see that I am responding to FBs apparent flippant statement about "its okay because America hasnt been attacked since 9-11", which drew a sharp response from both Kruska and myself, to the effect that there have been a large number of attacks outside the US since 9-11. The comments by FB appeared to look like it was okay so long as the US is not in the firing line.

Also, if you read my full post youo will see that I did say (along the lines) " I know this is NOT US Policy...but" I certainly was not intending to be insulting, just pointing out that FBs apparent position was disturbing

Okay but tell me a person from any nation that is not concerned about the safety of his own nation first.

[Kruska]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Okay but tell me a person from any nation that is not concerned about the safety of his own nation first.

Hello D.A.I.G.

Sorry to bud in, but I think that is not the question at all. It was about some one willing to endanger other countries in order to safeguard his own country.

However I do realize what FLYBOY meant to say, so I take that for okay.

Regards
Kruska

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Kruska

However I do realize what FLYBOY meant to say, so I take that for okay.

No worries....

BTW...

Bush embraces Britain's moves on Iran, Afghanistan - Yahoo! News

[Kruska]

Hello FLYBOY,

Yes I had read this news as well; about 230 engineers, logistical staff and military trainers from the UK. Germany’s manpower commitment is far less than that of the UK in Afghanistan – for reasons I have stated in other threads.

However it must be really depressing for Bush to travel to Europe in order to end up getting; criticized for Iraq, a commitment for a more stiff demand by the Europeans towards Iran and 230 Britons to help out in Afghanistan.

To me it actually just sadly shows that no one is really willing to support his policy or him for whatever reason, despite the urgency to react and stabilize this country, besides the Brits who are more into repaying a WW2 dept IMO then maybe actually sharing the same views.

Regards
Kruska

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Kruska

Hello FLYBOY,

Yes I had read this news as well; about 230 engineers, logistical staff and military trainers from the UK. Germany’s manpower commitment is far less than that of the UK in Afghanistan – for reasons I have stated in other threads.

However it must be really depressing for Bush to travel to Europe in order to end up getting; criticized for Iraq, a commitment for a more stiff demand by the Europeans towards Iran and 230 Britons to help out in Afghanistan.

To me it actually just sadly shows that no one is really willing to support his policy or him for whatever reason, despite the urgency to react and stabilize this country, besides the Brits who are more into repaying a WW2 dept IMO then maybe actually sharing the same views.

Regards
Kruska

But again - this must be looked at in two situations.

Iraq - poor judgement and mistakes made no doubt. US policy established by some pretty stubborn and short sided folks....

Afghanistan - some thing different. Run by the US up until a few months ago when it was turned over to NATO leadership. Since that time there have been problems and some setbacks. Recently a whole bunch of Taliban broke out of jail, killed a few solders and even re-captured some small towns. The Coalition forces there are countering his as we speak. There is no doubt in my mind the coalition forces will prevail as they have so in the past.

Here's the question - is Afghanistan really being run that badly? This thread commentated the 100th UK death there but slowly convoluted Iraq and Afghanistan. Personally I think for what was accomplished in both counties is astounding for the amount of people stationed there. I believe the right thing is being done in Afghanistan but I question some of the current leadership which is not solely as "US" show.....

[Kruska]

Hello Flyboy,

Agreed.

As for Afghanistan I do think it is badly run. IMO there is no way for the present ISAF force (in strength and commitment) to stabilize this country, which is large in European point of view (almost 2 times Germany).

One would need about 100,000 – 120,000 troops to sweep this country from one corner to another and eliminate Taliban, Al Quida and all the other mental lunatic resistance within a year. The present German/US/ISAF puppet Karzai and his government is totally unable to rule and forward progress into this country (Come on, half of its GDP consists of Drug trading)-they contribute 92% of the worlds opium trade.

Honestly what kind of government are we westerners building up and supporting??

Germany was ruled-governed by the allies for almost 5 years including local representatives in order to build up the necessary foundation for an “Allied minded” new Germany. And Germany certainly was way ahead of present Afghanistan in regards to managing and ruling a country based on previous history and expertise.

The moment ISAF walked into this country they already established and supported a full government, based on what? Because some of them can speak English and smile at us? The present government even includes Taliban leaders.

IMO the present western commitment in any terms is just a drop of water onto a hot stone. Therefore I still forward my opinion as before, just give the three most powerful groups enough weapons to continue killing and harassing each other in order to avoid a single group that will be certainly a radical drug dealing Muslim group, or really get committed towards Afghanistan.

Regards
Kruska

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Kruska

Hello Flyboy,

Agreed.

As for Afghanistan I do think it is badly run. IMO there is no way for the present ISAF force (in strength and commitment) to stabilize this country, which is large in European point of view (almost 2 times Germany).

One would need about 100,000 – 120,000 troops to sweep this country from one corner to another and eliminate Taliban, Al Quida and all the other mental lunatic resistance within a year. The present German/US/ISAF puppet Karzai and his government is totally unable to rule and forward progress into this country (Come on, half of its GDP consists of Drug trading)-they contribute 92% of the worlds opium trade.

Honestly what kind of government are we westerners building up and supporting??

Germany was ruled-governed by the allies for almost 5 years including local representatives in order to build up the necessary foundation for an “Allied minded” new Germany. And Germany certainly was way ahead of present Afghanistan in regards to managing and ruling a country based on previous history and expertise.

The moment ISAF walked into this country they already established and supported a full government, based on what? Because some of them can speak English and smile at us? The present government even includes Taliban leaders.

IMO the present western commitment in any terms is just a drop of water onto a hot stone. Therefore I still forward my opinion as before, just give the three most powerful groups enough weapons to continue killing and harassing each other in order to avoid a single group that will be certainly a radical drug dealing Muslim group, or really get committed towards Afghanistan.

Regards
Kruska

Agree, and in going full circle here I don't think this country is worth "setting on the straight and narrow" like Germany and Japan was in the post WW2 era. They will never be a bona-fide democracy and will always have drug traffickers and radical muslim extremists in that country. I think we should let the players there decide their own fate with that caveat that if any Al Qaeda type organization is allowed to flourish and export terrorism out of their country, well as Arnold said, "I"LL BE BACK!"

[Kruska]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Agree, and in going full circle here I don't think this country is worth "setting on the straight and narrow" like Germany and Japan was in the post WW2 era. They will never be a bona-fide democracy and will always have drug traffickers and radical muslim extremists in that country. I think we should let the players there decide their own fate with that caveat that if any Al Qaeda type organization is allowed to flourish and export terrorism out of their country, well as Arnold said, "I"LL BE BACK!"

Yes, nothing to be added

Regards
Kruska