Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The main thing I noticed was that certian nations, as usual endup risking their servicemen and women, military asests and spending vast sums of money in the process.

The vastly wealthy Arabian dictatorships do nothing as far as I can see either militaryily or indeed paying for the war in their back garden.

Other European "allies" and "partners" sit on the sidelines and whine................and again provide little military and even less finincial support.

At the same time we have the UK economy in a dire state and large proposed cuts of our armed forces.

Make those nations wanting our nations to act on their behalf to pay for it.................or let them do something other than sell their oil, oppress their populations and count their money.

AndrewC wrote:Avatar, what is Gadaffi going to target? The rebels are mainly civilians.

Believing something to be a military base does not make it one, mistakes will be made.

Cheers

Andrew

You first question makes no sense considering the context. WE are doing the bombing now, not that loony, and we are not targetting civillians, so...

Did I say believing something was a military base made it one? No. Bombing a suspected military base gives the bombers an excuse for collateral damage; either it was not bomb it, save a few civillians now but possibly have a functional military base there waiting to retalliate (most likely causing more damage and death) or bomb it and possibly deny Gaddafi a base to use against us.

Well, gadafi is threatening us now.. hurray ! thank you for the intervention!

The main thing I noticed was that certian nations, as usual endup risking their servicemen and women, military asests and spending vast sums of money in the process.

The vastly wealthy Arabian dictatorships do nothing as far as I can see either militaryily or indeed paying for the war in their back garden.

Other European "allies" and "partners" sit on the sidelines and whine................and again provide little military and even less finincial support.

At the same time we have the UK economy in a dire state and large proposed cuts of our armed forces.

Make those nations wanting our nations to act on their behalf to pay for it.................or let them do something other than sell their oil, oppress their populations and count their money.

I couldn't agree more. Hey look Italy is allowing us to use air bases I mean even France is pitching in with combat planes, when did the Germans turn into such pansies?

I think that is why the US sat on it's hands for so long. We waited until someone else lead the charge, we are tired of being first in last out in these affairs, all the while (many, not all) of our "Allies" give us the finger and incur little cost and less blame. If this was so important to the UN, it should have been done weeks ago, but you know they figured the US would charge in as usual and they would not have to do anything.

What happened to those arab league jets?

I just wish the Fuel companies would stop using these events to price-gouge us during times of disaster...

Seriously, since Xmas our fuel prices have jumped from below AUD $1.30 to $1.50 this weekend...

Then when the price per Oil barrel drops, the price of fuel doesnt drop due to "lead (think lag) times"...

Yet, those with any economic or business knowledge will know that they buy their annual quota in advance of these occurences at a set price...

Just as Airlines and other businesses in industries that require petroleum/diesel to operate...

Total BS...

Andrew1975 wrote:

I couldn't agree more. Hey look Italy is allowing us to use air bases I mean even France is pitching in with combat planes, when did the Germans turn into such pansies?

The Germans have been panseis for a long time now, they still have the ww1(even though they didnt start it), ww2 ghosts in their closet. Its nothing new.

sexiest_hero wrote:DO not compare Iraq or Afghanistan with this, it shows a great lack of knowledge of well, anything.

Lets take Iraq, Their country wasn't on the brink of civil war, Their leader wasn't killing civies They were pretty stable, wern't asking for help, and the world was against it. It was a bad war based on lies. You see how this is different? The war in Afghanistan was lost because we spit our forces for the above mentioned war. Well you know what Bush and his mad men are gone. Yeah we screwed up but that doesn't mean we give up. For every Image of an Flag burning, there is a hundred people who were saved from ethic cleansing by America and it's Allies.

We can either cry over past mistakes pick up our ball and sell our army on ebay. Or pick ourselves up, man up and do the right thing.

Just a quick one, great lack of knowledge?, be careful banding a statement like that around. Especially when Saddam Hussein did attack his own people with Chemical weapons, did oppress and murder his own people, oh and had a conflict with the Marsh Arabs, and the kurds within his own country which could be construed as a Civil War if not a Civil Conflict. The Northern Region of Iraqi was Quasi Autonomous for last 10 years of his reign.

Be aware that the context for the 2003 Invasion and "Liberation" was different to this, but nothing in this should be taken in isolation. The Pretext was flimsy, and at that time no country would say no to the US on the Basis of being called "Terrorists or supporters of Terrorists" in the post 911 period. SH was a nasty piece of work and deserved Death, as does Qaddafi.

I wondered how long it would be before the 'Debbie Downer' Brigade put in an appearance....

The tedium level of this thread has seriously spiked over the last two pages.

Albatross wrote:I wondered how long it would be before the 'Debbie Downer' Brigade put in an appearance....

The tedium level of this thread has seriously spiked over the last two pages.

Just because you are a "Suzie sunshine" doesn't make your opinions any more important/valid.

This is a discussion board.

A one-sided discussion is just a bunch of guys giving each other hand jobs and high fiving, which is about as tedious as it gets...

@Avatar, The pretext of the No-Fly zone is to protect innocent civilians from harm. The rebels are civilians, who else is Gaddafi going to be shooting at? Take away the rifle that they were holding and suddenly we have an 'innocent' bystander. Israel has been targetting civilian areas under the pretext of a suspected 'military' target for years, with no repercussions, yet Gaddafi does it and he's now a pariah and should be removed from power? The confusion lies in your earlier post with the comment about not targetting civilians, I wasn't sure whether you were talking about CG or us. I assumed CG.

@ sexiest_hero, please explain how attacking one side in a civil war is a humanitarian effort? All you've told me is that Afghanistan was an invasion on a country to apprehend one man, who wasn't a citizen, had no official role in the government and wasn't actually resident in any of their cities. A brilliant reason for the invasion! And while you may have went through hell doing so, it does not make the reason right, justifiable or true. Based on that reason, we should now be invading Pakistan.

Yes we should learn from our past mistakes. We should not be in or attacking Libya, it is a civil war not our war.

Cheers

Andrew

You are not a pragmatist. We can't make the world perfect but let's do what we can when the opportunity presents itself.

Here we have UN resolution support in favour of supporting a popular national movement, passive support from the Arab League, and the Chinese and Russians have kept their hands out of the pie.

Will the world be a better place with no Colonel Gaddaffi in it? Unqualified yes.

Let's do the deed. The Libyans can guide their own destiny once the nutter gangster has gone.

The Taliban rulers Were ordered to hand over Bin Ladin. Had they done so, there would have been no war. They said "Feth Off". They were attacked. They could have not harbered him after 9/11. I feel sorry for Iraq, but the Taliban chose their own fate.

"Israel has been targetting civilian areas under the pretext of a suspected 'military' target for years, with no repercussions, yet Gaddafi does it and he's now a pariah and should be removed from power?"

Lots of people kick up a stink about Israel. We should do something about that too.

Oh and +1 to Killkrazy

Anti-semtism is banded around if you start to critcism Israel. That said i don't know what it is like to be surrounded on all sides by enemies and only exist as a nation for 70 years. The issues surrounding the Levant are difficult, but if you take issue with Israel then you must take issue with the India, Pakistan, kashmir and bangladesh.

We do need to make the World a better place, but there is no magic wand. If we went mad and built huge militaries and went round bashing everyone into line we would end up with more instability and enemies. Slow and steady is the best way forward, incremental change, gentle not this highly charge and sweeping change across the middle east. This sweeping change will leave, weakened institutions and government and possible leave the countries open to failing and become "Failed States". The Libyan People need to stand up for themselves to a degree, look at the US, it stood upto a Tyrant and the Brits bit off more than we could chew, next thing you know the US was born in the midst of the Conflict.

I do think however we should help, unfortunately we have left it too late and to try to rectify this will cause death, derision and much heart ache. Damn Qaddafi and his supporters, and damn our Western Leaders dallying and doing little but debate until such point as action is inevitable and the overall cost is multiplied. Qadaffi has been on the Radar as a PITA for a bloody longtime (think IRA, Lockerbie etc etc) If you find Cancer you should cut it out immediately lest it fester and spread.

CT GAMER wrote:

Albatross wrote:I wondered how long it would be before the 'Debbie Downer' Brigade put in an appearance....

The tedium level of this thread has seriously spiked over the last two pages.

Just because you are a "Suzie sunshine" doesn't make your opinions any more important/valid.

What are my opinions on this matter? Also, I don't think many people would consider me a 'Suzie Sunshine'....

This is a discussion board.

Cool. Let's look at some of the 'discussion':

I look forwards to months of chaos. Does anyone think that the Western supported rebels will be any less corrupt than the current regime? or even more stable?

The west deserves everything it is is going to get, in spades.

Typical self-flagellating leftist nonsense. You're speculating, but it seems like you actually want it to go badly. Tedious.

This is not going to go well for us, Gaddafi has a better AA than Saddam...

Arm-chair generalship, and unsupported. Tedious.

From news reports, civilian targets it appears....

Unsupported, but I bet you hoipe civilians have been targeted so you can complain about how bad the west is. Seriously, if you want to impress the chicks on campus, join a band. Tedious.

I say again this will not end well, we're supposedly enforcing a no fly zone, why are we destroying tanks, and attacking supply lines? Why are we destroying fuel depots? Why are we destroying transportation methods/routes?

It's all covered by the UN resolution. Not that it matters when you want something to be outraged about. Tedious.

Are we working on third time lucky here? Okay we failed in Iraq and Afghanistan, so we'll get it right in Libya?

Yes, because this situation is exactly the same. Oh wait, no it isn't, you just think like a right-on teenager. Tedious.

See I told you they had oil over there. They planned the 911 so they could accuse the "terrorists". But really they wanted the oil!!

This thread is sucking my will to live.

"look at the US, it stood upto a Tyrant and the Brits bit off more than we could chew, next thing you know the US was born in the midst of the Conflict."

Hey the French came to help us win that. Guess who was first to step forward again.

sexiest_hero wrote:The Taliban rulers Were ordered to hand over Bin Ladin. Had they done so, there would have been no war. They said "Feth Off". They were attacked. They could have not harbered him after 9/11. I feel sorry for Iraq, but the Taliban chose their own fate.

Ordered? Sir, you make a crucial mistake with your terminology, namely that the Taliban have to do anything the US wants them to do. Which they don't. I'm afraid this preconception that the rest of the world has to jump when America whistles is one that America has been sadly disabused of over the past ten years, and should it choose to continue with that mentality, will be shown up many a time again in the future....

Ketara wrote:

sexiest_hero wrote:The Taliban rulers Were ordered to hand over Bin Ladin. Had they done so, there would have been no war. They said "Feth Off". They were attacked. They could have not harbered him after 9/11. I feel sorry for Iraq, but the Taliban chose their own fate.

Ordered? Sir, you make a crucial mistake with your terminology, namely that the Taliban have to do anything the US wants them to do. Which they don't. I'm afraid this preconception that the rest of the world has to jump when America whistles is one that America has been sadly disabused of over the past ten years, and should it choose to continue with that mentality, will be shown up many a time again in the future....

"Ordered" is the wrong word, but the way the request was originally termed made it pretty clear that if the Taliban didn't cut ties with Bin Laden and make it clear that they hadn't endorsed his actions--they were going down with him.

Kanluwen wrote:

Ketara wrote:

sexiest_hero wrote:The Taliban rulers Were ordered to hand over Bin Ladin. Had they done so, there would have been no war. They said "Feth Off". They were attacked. They could have not harbered him after 9/11. I feel sorry for Iraq, but the Taliban chose their own fate.

Ordered? Sir, you make a crucial mistake with your terminology, namely that the Taliban have to do anything the US wants them to do. Which they don't. I'm afraid this preconception that the rest of the world has to jump when America whistles is one that America has been sadly disabused of over the past ten years, and should it choose to continue with that mentality, will be shown up many a time again in the future....

"Ordered" is the wrong word, but the way the request was originally termed made it pretty clear that if the Taliban didn't cut ties with Bin Laden and make it clear that they hadn't endorsed his actions--they were going down with him.

Endorsed? Half the terrorist groups in the Middle East 'endorsed his actions', yet you'll note America isn't invading countries over the likes of Hamas. As for going 'down with him', well, last time I checked, Bin Laden was still at large, and the Taliban was still fighting. And this is how many years on? I mean, sexiest_hero says they 'chose their own fate', but to be frank, seems to me that what's happening to America is just what happened to the Soviet Union, and the British Empire before them, in attempting to exert control over that region of the world.

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/20/gadhafi-vows-long-war-after-us-allies-strike/?icid=maing|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk2|50872
Apparently they attacked it with 100 cruise missiles O.o

Albatross wrote:
Cool. Let's look at some of the 'discussion':

I look forwards to months of chaos. Does anyone think that the Western supported rebels will be any less corrupt than the current regime? or even more stable?

The west deserves everything it is is going to get, in spades.

Typical self-flagellating leftist nonsense. You're speculating, but it seems like you actually want it to go badly. Tedious.

This thread is sucking my will to live.

Hang on. I'm leftist because I see this intervention as a cluster feth?

I hope this current action allows the rebels to get rid of Qaddafi and his tribe but,yeah, maybe I will sit smugly in my armchair whilst this police action a) radicalises a portion of Libyas Arab populace against the west AND B) Ends up alienating the rebels and pro democratic rebels due to expedient political hand wringing 'Here, have some planes flying over head but you can sort out the head hunters on the ground, who ever is left we will talk to about exploitation rights'.

Maybe, Alby, your idea of debate is WHOO HOO feth those don't use terms like that on Dakka please , napalm them to paradise! if so then I hope the rebel Rag heads slaughter the Qaddafi don't use terms like that on Dakka please. Maybe they will forget about the wests lack of effort.

Mr. Burning wrote:

Albatross wrote:
Cool. Let's look at some of the 'discussion':

I look forwards to months of chaos. Does anyone think that the Western supported rebels will be any less corrupt than the current regime? or even more stable?

The west deserves everything it is is going to get, in spades.

Typical self-flagellating leftist nonsense. You're speculating, but it seems like you actually want it to go badly. Tedious.

This thread is sucking my will to live.

Hang on. I'm leftist because I see this intervention as a cluster feth?

Not necessarily. THAT just makes you an idiot, because it's only Day 2 of the military intervention and you're itching for it to fail. You don't know how it will go, you only think you do - and THAT really isn't based on anything other than some perverse desire to see the Allies fail. See below:

I hope this current action allows the rebels to get rid of Qaddafi and his tribe but,yeah, maybe I will sit smugly in my armchair whilst this police action a) radicalises a portion of Libyas Arab populace against the west AND B) Ends up alienating the rebels and pro democratic rebels due to expedient political hand wringing 'Here, have some planes flying over head but you can sort out the head hunters on the ground, who ever is left we will talk to about exploitation rights'.

Maybe, Alby, your idea of debate is WHOO HOO feth those guys, napalm them to paradise! if so then I hope the rebel Rag heads slaughter the Qaddafi guys.

That's total crap, and I've reported you for the use of racist language.

Maybe they will forget about the wests lack of effort.

It must have took a lot of effort to type that, certainly more than the RAF and RN are putting in over in North Africa...

Albatross wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Albatross wrote:I wondered how long it would be before the 'Debbie Downer' Brigade put in an appearance....

The tedium level of this thread has seriously spiked over the last two pages.

Just because you are a "Suzie sunshine" doesn't make your opinions any more important/valid.

What are my opinions on this matter? Also, I don't think many people would consider me a 'Suzie Sunshine'....

This is a discussion board.

Cool. Let's look at some of the 'discussion':

I look forwards to months of chaos. Does anyone think that the Western supported rebels will be any less corrupt than the current regime? or even more stable?

The west deserves everything it is is going to get, in spades.

Typical self-flagellating leftist nonsense. You're speculating, but it seems like you actually want it to go badly. Tedious.

This is not going to go well for us, Gaddafi has a better AA than Saddam...

Arm-chair generalship, and unsupported. Tedious.

From news reports, civilian targets it appears....

Unsupported, but I bet you hoipe civilians have been targeted so you can complain about how bad the west is. Seriously, if you want to impress the chicks on campus, join a band. Tedious.

I say again this will not end well, we're supposedly enforcing a no fly zone, why are we destroying tanks, and attacking supply lines? Why are we destroying fuel depots? Why are we destroying transportation methods/routes?

It's all covered by the UN resolution. Not that it matters when you want something to be outraged about. Tedious.

Are we working on third time lucky here? Okay we failed in Iraq and Afghanistan, so we'll get it right in Libya?

Yes, because this situation is exactly the same. Oh wait, no it isn't, you just think like a right-on teenager. Tedious.

See I told you they had oil over there. They planned the 911 so they could accuse the "terrorists". But really they wanted the oil!!

This thread is sucking my will to live.

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Albatross wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:

Albatross wrote:I wondered how long it would be before the 'Debbie Downer' Brigade put in an appearance....

The tedium level of this thread has seriously spiked over the last two pages.

Just because you are a "Suzie sunshine" doesn't make your opinions any more important/valid.

What are my opinions on this matter? Also, I don't think many people would consider me a 'Suzie Sunshine'....

I was speaking in general terms when I said "you", and Frankly I'm not all that concerned or interested in your specific opinions, but have a nice day...

Ketara wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Ketara wrote:

sexiest_hero wrote:The Taliban rulers Were ordered to hand over Bin Ladin. Had they done so, there would have been no war. They said "Feth Off". They were attacked. They could have not harbered him after 9/11. I feel sorry for Iraq, but the Taliban chose their own fate.

Ordered? Sir, you make a crucial mistake with your terminology, namely that the Taliban have to do anything the US wants them to do. Which they don't. I'm afraid this preconception that the rest of the world has to jump when America whistles is one that America has been sadly disabused of over the past ten years, and should it choose to continue with that mentality, will be shown up many a time again in the future....

"Ordered" is the wrong word, but the way the request was originally termed made it pretty clear that if the Taliban didn't cut ties with Bin Laden and make it clear that they hadn't endorsed his actions--they were going down with him.

Endorsed? Half the terrorist groups in the Middle East 'endorsed his actions', yet you'll note America isn't invading countries over the likes of Hamas. As for going 'down with him', well, last time I checked, Bin Laden was still at large, and the Taliban was still fighting. And this is how many years on? I mean, sexiest_hero says they 'chose their own fate', but to be frank, seems to me that what's happening to America is just what happened to the Soviet Union, and the British Empire before them, in attempting to exert control over that region of the world.

"Half the terrorist groups in the Middle East" weren't legitimate governments when 9/11 happened.

The Taliban, however, wasn't a terrorist group--but an actual (loosely using the term here) legitimate government that was sheltering him, knowingly.
The Taliban government was presented with two options. Turn him over and decry his actions or side with him and get removed from power.

They chose the latter. And while the Taliban is "still fighting" and Bin Laden is "still at large"--the Taliban is no longer in control of Afghanistan, and Al Qaeda no longer can operate brazenly in the open with the overt backing of a government like they did in Afghanistan.

Hey, look the Arab league is already grumbling that we are over reaching the mission goals. How long until they throw us under the bus?

How many Tomahawks has the US launched in this operation? Look even though the UN dragged the US into this "Action" it looks like the US is still going most of the work. Typical!

Kan, you seem to missing the point here. Which is that the world doesn't revolve around what America wants, and Uncle Sam and his apple pie/revolver going charging in doesn't necessarily result in things turning out the way America wants.

Sexiest_hero's terminology indicated a mildly amusing/shocking view of the world, in which America can 'order' other nations about, and failing to comply with aforementioned orders leaves them deserving their 'fate'.

Such a view is nonsensical, because as I've just demonstrated with the continued existence of the Taliban as a fighting force and the continued evasion of Bin Laden, the world doesn't work like that. America has failed to bring peace to Afganistan, and failed to procure Bin Laden. I personally doubt they'll achieve either, and will slink out of the region neither goal completed in the next five years or so.

Before anyone says, 'But you Brits are there too!' as if its a counterargument, yeah, sure we are. That doesn't change the fact that it was madness to go in there in the first place. No government has ever controlled all of Afganistan, and attempting to impose a national mentality on the place is doomed to failure.

Lord Harrab wrote:You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

While I have enjoyed the discussion, this is my favorite post out of the whole thing.

Ketara wrote:Kan, you seem to missing the point here. Which is that the world doesn't revolve around what America wants, and Uncle Sam and his apple pie/revolver going charging in doesn't necessarily result in things turning out the way America wants.

It's funny because that's not how the opening days of Afghanistan were. But no, I got your point--as terribly asinine as it was.

Sexiest_hero's terminology indicated a mildly amusing/shocking view of the world, in which America can 'order' other nations about, and failing to comply with aforementioned orders leaves them deserving their 'fate'.

Yes because backchannel calls for them to hand over Bin Laden, no questions asked, is "ordering" other nations about.
There was, however, an ultimatum issued after the backchannels didn't work so I'll grant you that part at least.

Such a view is nonsensical, because as I've just demonstrated with the continued existence of the Taliban as a fighting force and the continued evasion of Bin Laden, the world doesn't work like that. America has failed to bring peace to Afganistan, and failed to procure Bin Laden. I personally doubt they'll achieve either, and will slink out of the region neither goal completed in the next five years or so.

And while Sexiest_hero's terminology was pretty crummily done, your example in replying to mine was just as poorly worded.

The Taliban, while still existing as a fighting force, are no longer an established government. That's the point I was making, which you seem to gloss over.
The Taliban has gone from being an absurdly brutal regime to being increasingly isolated and ineffective insurgents whose only reprieve is that they can still hurt the people they once ruled. While America has failed to bring peace to Afghanistan, it sure as hell didn't fail in removing the Taliban from being a major player in the Jihadist scene.

The continued evasion of Bin Laden is bad, sure. But simply by removing Afghanistan from the equation, we damaged his ability to do anything as serious as 9/11 again.
Could he still do it? Probably, if he tried hard enough. As it is though, I don't think any of the nations suspected of harboring him would be too okay with them

Before anyone says, 'But you Brits are there too!' as if its a counterargument, yeah, sure we are. That doesn't change the fact that it was madness to go in there in the first place. No government has ever controlled all of Afganistan, and attempting to impose a national mentality on the place is doomed to failure.

Er no. Going to Afghanistan was far from madness. Going to Iraq before Afghanistan was restabilized and an actual governmental framework was put into place was madness, but that's beside the point.

The problem with "no government has ever controlled all of Afghanistan" is that little "attempting to impose a national mentality on the place" part.
You don't win hearts and minds by trying to brute-force them all into one generic national title. Especially not in a region whose entire existence is really one great experiment in empire building adventure.
In a perfect world:
Afghanistan would be protected from the outside world and left to develop its own national identity.

But that won't happen. Iran and the Jihadi groups see Afghanistan as the perfect opportunity to strike at "The Great Satan" West, and the country really wasn't properly rebuilt the way it should have been following the collapse of the Taliban.

Kanluwen wrote:It's funny because that's not how the opening days of Afghanistan were. But no, I got your point--as terribly asinine as it was.

Ifg you get it, why are you nitpicking and continuously erecting strawmen? I'm not attacking GW here, honest!

Yes because backchannel calls for them to hand over Bin Laden, no questions asked, is "ordering" other nations about.
There was, however, an ultimatum issued after the backchannels didn't work so I'll grant you that part at least.

You'll note Sexiest_hero was the one who originally mentioned 'ordering'. You're getting who said what a little mixed up here.
But you'll allow issuing of an ultimatum to count as an order? That it to say, a statement of the imperative type? My word! You are too kind sir!

The Taliban, while still existing as a fighting force, are no longer an established government. That's the point I was making, which you seem to gloss over.

Because its irrelevant. I'm talking about Americas perceived right to give 'orders', not its capability to militarily destroy a goverments capability to adminster its territory. Is that a strawman, you misunderstanding my point despite having declared you udnerstood it, or you wanting to argue about something else?

The Taliban has gone from being an absurdly brutal regime to being increasingly isolated and ineffective insurgents whose only reprieve is that they can still hurt the people they once ruled. While America has failed to bring peace to Afghanistan, it sure as hell didn't fail in removing the Taliban from being a major player in the Jihadist scene.

That's because they spend their time shooting up US servicemen instead. I'm not certain this is a notable improvement, but YMMV.

The continued evasion of Bin Laden is bad, sure. But simply by removing Afghanistan from the equation, we damaged his ability to do anything as serious as 9/11 again.
Could he still do it? Probably, if he tried hard enough. As it is though, I don't think any of the nations suspected of harboring him would be too okay with them

I somehow doubt Bin Laden was solely responsible for all of Al Quaeda's actions. And even if he were, taking out one of his erstwhile allies hardly puts a crimp in his schemes. Places like Iran are still more than happy to give Islamic terror groups money and arms, they just do it less overtly than the Taliban did.

Regardless of which, this is irrelevant to the main point I made, which is the mentality that America has a percieved right to give orders.

The problem with "no government has ever controlled all of Afghanistan" is that little "attempting to impose a national mentality on the place" part.
You don't win hearts and minds by trying to brute-force them all into one generic national title. Especially not in a region whose entire existence is really one great experiment in empire building adventure.
In a perfect world:
Afghanistan would be protected from the outside world and left to develop its own national identity.

But that won't happen. Iran and the Jihadi groups see Afghanistan as the perfect opportunity to strike at "The Great Satan" West, and the country really wasn't properly rebuilt the way it should have been following the collapse of the Taliban.

Sure. Whatever. I could argue this, but not only is it irrelevant to me what you think, its also way waaaay off topic now.

I made a statement about the mentality that led to the style of anothers members posting. You want to have some debate about the success of the Afghanistanian venture. Start a new thread and argue it with someone who is seriously interested in having a discussion on the issue, as opposed to warping someone else's discussion with strawmen.

Again, nothing stands in isolation our collective experience (US &UK) in Afghanistan and Iraq shape our Policy in Libya. Hence the reluctance to put troops on the ground, because it is dangerous, costly and to be honest I think the public in both Countries is tired of seeing coffins with flags drapped over them. After 10 years of near constant conflict post 911, both countries are War weary. The current fiscal climate being what it is, we could all do with not having to spend Billions diposing a mentally ill dictator (despite the fact he probably deserves it).

There is no quick fix, and the only one we had has already expired. To our American Friends please don't disengage from the world, i understand it shouldn't have to be you...But frankly it is, thats the price of Leadership and most countries look to you in all things.

To everyone who is America bashing, knock it off, I don't see your respective countries doing much and trying to help or policing the World. Its easy to criticise, get off your arse and do something.

Lead, follow or get out of the way.