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.

There isn't much of a point...
I mean.
It's possible to win but it wouldn't be by shooting all the bad guys...
I don't think anyone really thought it through...
Shame...

Albatross wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Samus - Actually you are wrong. Afghanistan has been a favoured destination for travellers as recently as the '60s and '70s, and served a similar function as somewhere like Goa, or Bali - it was popular with hippie backpackers. It hasn't always been a cesspool - it used to be comparatively liberal.

Actually a good film on pre-taliban controlled afghanistan, called the kite runner,
And to the original thread? you prob wont pull out b/c its hard to without pissing off a lot of people, namely the US

The Kite Runner is a great book...
The film was also nice... a bit disturbing however...

Joey wrote:Is there really any point in the UK staying in Afganistan? The Taliban will only take over once the troops have left anyway...seems like this landlocked Asian country really isn't worth fighting over. That's how I see it, anyway.
What does dakka think? What do Americans think about it? Vast majority of NATO forces are American, as are the losses.

Get out. Get out now.

Generally speaking the political will to continue the war in Afghanistan isn't really there. The withdrawl is already under way in fact.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

LunaHound wrote:You need to get a clue on how the world works Hyena.
the war did not start on 9-11

It started long ago back when USA used Afghanistan to fight USSR

We supported people fighting the Soviet juggernaut.

Evidently we supported the wrong side.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:

LunaHound wrote:You need to get a clue on how the world works Hyena.
the war did not start on 9-11

It started long ago back when USA used Afghanistan to fight USSR

You mean when Soviet Russia invaded Afghanistan and the US aided and supplied foreign fighters, ultimately leading to the withdrawal of USSR forces and the liberation of Afghanistan? You mean then?

No it didn't. Osama bin Laden being involved with the Mujihadeen was a by-product of the Russian war in Afghanistan, but it was never inevitable that he would mastermind a bunch of guys flying planes into tower blocks. That's just a post hoc fallacy, because not every Mujahid did that. Beneath all the pseudo-philosophical pontificating you do, you actually have a very naive and child-like world view.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Samus - Actually you are wrong. Afghanistan has been a favoured destination for travellers as recently as the '60s and '70s, and served a similar function as somewhere like Goa, or Bali - it was popular with hippie backpackers. It hasn't always been a cesspool - it used to be comparatively liberal.

Jeez I agree completely with Alby, I feel faint. I need to lie down for a while.

Well, from a purely utilitarian standpoint, Afghanistan provides our military with a fairly contained, distant locale to produce combat experienced soldiers; hopefully to a degree that will offset the numerical superiority China has in whatever future war we engage in with them.

Frazzled wrote:IN this context, truth hurts. Nation building doesn't work. they will get what they want. If they want the taliban they will get that.

I think the issue was calling a whole nation of people animals. I mean, can't you see how that's fethed up?

Evidently we supported the wrong side.

It was a good thing to support the Mujahadeen, you just undid most of that good work when you (and the rest of the world) forgot all about Afghanistan after the Soviets withdrew. A failure to rebuild infrastructure and schools left a whole generation entirely under the sway of people who'd been radicalised by war.

Even taking action two decades later the issue wasn't unsolvable, but we put Karzai in charge. The guy runs a government so obnoxious that people turn to the Taliban for easier solutions to their problems.

purplefood wrote:The Kite Runner is a great book...
The film was also nice... a bit disturbing however...

I have a signed copy of that book. It's really a good one.

Bromsy wrote:Well, from a purely utilitarian standpoint, Afghanistan provides our military with a fairly contained, distant locale to produce combat experienced soldiers; hopefully to a degree that will offset the numerical superiority China has in whatever future war we engage in with them.

Armies don't really work like that.

Whatever increase soldiers might get from being in the field is easily countered by the cost of maintaining a force in another country, combat losses and the problem that the war experiences gained from fighting insurgents in Afghanistan would be entirely unlike the expertise needed to defeat another conventional army.

And the problem with it being staggeringly unlikely that open war will ever occur between China and the US, and that if it does the economic ramifications will cripple both countries no matter who wins the fight.

My personal opinion on what they should have been doing since the start of the war would be to deploy small, cheap, well trained troops such as the SAS, green berets or any other special forces. They live with the locals, training them to fight the taliban on there own terms, all the while providing medical attention to the remote villages and farms. Once they have a substantial home grown garrisons and militia let them fight alongside the governent troops to protect there own homes. That way they are being employed yet able to stay in there own villages and not turning to the Taliban who give them 5 dollars to fire a few rounds at convoys. Fight guerillas with guerillas. (Yeah I just imagined two gorillas fight too)

The coalition made a bad move by deploying thousands of ground troops to try and police the country, it's just offering a huge target to foriegn terrorists who want to join in the fight just so they can kill westerners. Afghanistan is now full of foriegn fighters who are well trained and focused on one thing: mayhem.

By having those small elite units who are multitasked with language skills you have a much smaller target and a much happier populace instead of open warfare that makes it feel like an occupation. Those types of troops work with the population allowing their culture to continue and also builds a far better appreciation of its own government rather than the ruthless Taliban.

I believe this option is far cheaper and far more effective, feel free to poke holes through it though, lol.

Albatross wrote:

Castiel wrote:This won't end well.

I think it is a pointless waste of lives now. It's a stalemate, and it is unlikely to break anytime soon. We should cut our losses and pull out.

Wait, are you talking about Afghanistan or this thread?

The thread, but it probably applies to Afghanistan as well.

Frazzled wrote:
Evidently we supported the wrong side.

You sure did.
You should have supported this guy. Ahmed Shah Masood

But your CIA listened to pakistani intelligence, and went with the taliban instead.

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

In spring 2001, Ahmad Shah Massoud addressed the European Parliament in Brussels stating that behind the situation in Afghanistan there was the regime in Pakistan.[51] He also stated his conviction that without the support of Pakistan, Osama Bin Laden and Saudi Arabia, the Taliban would not be able to sustain their military campaign for up to a year, also because the Afghan population was ready to rise against them.[51] Addressing the United States specifically he issued the warning that should the U.S. not work for peace in Afghanistan and put pressure on Pakistan to cease their support to the Taliban, the problems of Afghanistan would soon become the problems of the U.S. and the world.[51][80]

Declassified Defense Intelligence Agency documents from November 2001 show that Massoud had gained "limited knowledge... regarding the intentions of [al-Qaeda] to perform a terrorist act against the US on a scale larger than the 1998 bombing of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania."[58] They also point out that he warned about such attacks.

Private_Joker wrote:My personal opinion on what they should have been doing since the start of the war would be to deploy small, cheap, well trained troops such as the SAS, green berets or any other special forces.

Special forces are the opposite of 'cheap'.

But maybe cheaper in 'points'? They also only take up a troops slot, rather than a Heavy support (missiles/planes etc.)

Those 6 lives lost the other day were such a waste. There was a politician on the radio saying that everyone in the UK should respect the courage and support the soldiers in Afghanistan. And of course we should, but we also need to remember that they are professional soldiers - they will go where the government sends them, and in this case the government has made a big mistake which it continues to compound more than 10 years after is initially began, chasing after a victory that most academics said was impossible before the 'war' had even begun.

I'm sad to say that I don't think most people even think about the soldiers who out there fighting every day. Even in the light of 6 deaths, more than 400 total now (and this is discounting the number of crippled and psychologically damaged soldiers), the headline news today is about the Olympics running over budget. The news got a token mention at best. I worry that the war could be a 'Vietnam' for British soldiers, an 'oh that war, what were you doing there again?' with no discernible ending, that leaves a black mark on the armed forces and that generation of soldiers.

Pacific wrote:But maybe cheaper in 'points'? They also only take up a troops slot, rather than a Heavy support (missiles/planes etc.)

That is a disgusting comparison and I will have none of it.







Everyone knows special forces would be Elites!

Cheaper than deploying and sustaining a much larger force. Not to mention more bang for your buck considering that SAS soldiers have linguistic skills, medical training (they even send these guys to work in hospitals for experience), far better counter- terrorist and insurgency skills, adaptability to enviroment and just a higher caliber of soldiering in comparison to regs.

The only support they would really need is a proper chop shop, air support and crazy contract pilots to pull them outta hotspots. Put an entire battalion in the same situation and all you will have is higher causualties, a bigger supply problem and a pissed off populace.

Mr Hyena wrote:

That is disgusting. Terrorists are evil and vile and deserve absolutely no compassion sent towards them. An underpowered country doesn't deserve any right to fight back if its in the wrong, saying otherwise is insane and allows evil to triumph.

Humans? Humans don't support Terrorism. Humans don't support people who behead soldiers who fight to improve people's lives. Humans don't hide among their own people and use them as meatshields.

So the French and Greek resistance fighters were not Human?

If my country was invaded and occupied I would be straight in the kitchen mixing up boom cake. I wouldn't give a rats posterior what thier motivation was. I have friends and family serving in Afgan. Do I believe they are doing a good job? Yes. Do I believe the BS that politicians tell me about how well things are going? No. Do I think that we are not being told that the whole thing is a mess from start to finish? Yes.

The War in Afganistan is being misrepresented to us as a humanitarian effort. It is in fact a brown storm of mistakes and mismanagement caused by the stupid blue sky expectations of politicians who won't listen to bad news.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Hyena wrote:
Its interesting how you try to compare politicians to terrorists considering they are nothing alike. Soldiers do what they have to do in order to protect people.

You are Naive in the extreme. Soldiers may believe they are protecting but that is rarely what they end up doing.

loki old fart wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Evidently we supported the wrong side.

You sure did.
You should have supported this guy. Ahmed Shah Masood

But your CIA listened to pakistani intelligence, and went with the taliban instead.

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

In spring 2001, Ahmad Shah Massoud addressed the European Parliament in Brussels stating that behind the situation in Afghanistan there was the regime in Pakistan.[51] He also stated his conviction that without the support of Pakistan, Osama Bin Laden and Saudi Arabia, the Taliban would not be able to sustain their military campaign for up to a year, also because the Afghan population was ready to rise against them.[51] Addressing the United States specifically he issued the warning that should the U.S. not work for peace in Afghanistan and put pressure on Pakistan to cease their support to the Taliban, the problems of Afghanistan would soon become the problems of the U.S. and the world.[51][80]

Declassified Defense Intelligence Agency documents from November 2001 show that Massoud had gained "limited knowledge... regarding the intentions of [al-Qaeda] to perform a terrorist act against the US on a scale larger than the 1998 bombing of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania."[58] They also point out that he warned about such attacks.

We did support him. He got capped by Bin Laden right before the Tower attack.

We should leave and leave now. Too many allied soldiers and too many civilians have died in this contemptible and unwinnable war already.

Screw the Taliban but there really isn’t anything more we can do.

Here is why the coalition is not pulling out of Afghanistan as I see it any time soon, Thar's resources to be plundered!
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html?pagewanted=all

pretty much the "Saudi Arabia" of Lithium folks! that what is used in electrical cars to replace all the gas guzzlers! power your MP-3 players and i-Phones. I would also bet that Haliburton will want some of that mineral action!

You obvioulsy have no clue about mining and transportation infrastructure if you think that is why we are there.

Frazzled wrote:

loki old fart wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Evidently we supported the wrong side.

You sure did.
You should have supported this guy. Ahmed Shah Masood

But your CIA listened to pakistani intelligence, and went with the taliban instead.

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

In spring 2001, Ahmad Shah Massoud addressed the European Parliament in Brussels stating that behind the situation in Afghanistan there was the regime in Pakistan.[51] He also stated his conviction that without the support of Pakistan, Osama Bin Laden and Saudi Arabia, the Taliban would not be able to sustain their military campaign for up to a year, also because the Afghan population was ready to rise against them.[51] Addressing the United States specifically he issued the warning that should the U.S. not work for peace in Afghanistan and put pressure on Pakistan to cease their support to the Taliban, the problems of Afghanistan would soon become the problems of the U.S. and the world.[51][80]

Declassified Defense Intelligence Agency documents from November 2001 show that Massoud had gained "limited knowledge... regarding the intentions of [al-Qaeda] to perform a terrorist act against the US on a scale larger than the 1998 bombing of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania."[58] They also point out that he warned about such attacks.

We did support him. He got capped by Bin Laden right before the Tower attack.

The United States provided Massoud with close to no support. Part of the reason was that it permitted its funding and arms distribution to be administered by Pakistan, which favored rival mujahideen leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. In an interview Massoud expressed: "We thought the CIA knew everything. But they didn't. They supported some bad people [meaning Hekmatyar]."[citation needed] Primary advocates for supporting Massoud instead were State Department's Edmund McWilliams and Peter Tomsen, who were on the ground in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Others included two Heritage Foundation foreign policy analysts, Michael Johns and James A. Phillips, both of whom championed Massoud as the Afghan resistance leader most worthy of U.S. support under the Reagan Doctrine.[21][22]

Neighboring Pakistan exerted strong influence over the Taliban. A publication with the George Washington University describes: "Initially, the Pakistanis supported ... Gulbuddin Hekmatyar ... When Hekmatyar failed to deliver for Pakistan, the administration began to support a new movement of religious students known as the Taliban."[30] Many analysts like Amin Saikal describe the Taliban as developing into a proxy force for Pakistan's regional interests which the Taliban decline.[26] The Taliban started shelling Kabul in early 1995 but were defeated by forces of the Islamic State government under Ahmad Shah Massoud.

The Taliban's early victories in 1994 were followed by a series of defeats that resulted in heavy losses.[32] Pakistan provided strong support to the Taliban.[26][40] On September 26, 1996, as the Taliban with military support by Pakistan and financial support by Saudi Arabia prepared for another major offensive, Massoud ordered a full retreat from Kabul.[41] The Taliban seized Kabul on September 27, 1996, and established the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Massoud and his troops retreated to the northeast of Afghanistan

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf - then as Army Chief of Staff - was responsible for sending thousands of Pakistanis to fight alongside the Taliban and their ally Osama Bin Laden against the forces of Massoud.[1][40][46][47] In total there were believed to be 28,000 Pakistani nationals fighting inside Afghanistan against the forces of Massoud.[1] 20,000 were regular Pakistani soldiers either from the Frontier Corps or army and an estimated 8,000 were militants recruited in madrassas filling regular Taliban ranks.[48] The estimated 25,000 Taliban regular force thus comprised more than 8,000 Pakistani nationals.[48] A 1998 document by the U.S. State Department confirms that "20-40 percent of [regular] Taliban soldiers are Pakistani."

really ?

shasolenzabi wrote:Here is why the coalition is not pulling out of Afghanistan as I see it any time soon, Thar's resources to be plundered!
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html?pagewanted=all

pretty much the "Saudi Arabia" of Lithium folks! that what is used in electrical cars to replace all the gas guzzlers! power your MP-3 players and i-Phones. I would also bet that Haliburton will want some of that mineral action!

It's not like oil in the Nigerian Delta caused problems, or anything. I'd be surprised if those resources were seriously recoverable beyond a half dozen or so tightly guarded mining facilities.

CptJake wrote:You obvioulsy have no clue about mining and transportation infrastructure if you think that is why we are there.

I am quite aware that we went in way back, 2001 for Bin laden and his Taliban allies, we took 11yrs to get him, and the Tali's are still running about causing trouble. This is from 2010, so now that we or rather the Corporates know the stuff is there, I suggested that Haliburton who makes it a business of Infra-structure building where it has been not before, or utterly destroyed such as Iraq had would make a bundle setting things up there as long as the place get's quieted down. Part of what our forces do there is attempts at such, and the Talis keep burning down or blowing up schools.

But once it is supposedly calm enough, Haliburton would be quite happy, for a substantial fee, to set up such for the mining companies to ship those lovely minerals out for mass production. in Iraq, their truckers made a heck of a lot more than did our soldiers with the addition of combat pay. Add the cost of Mercs and there you go, protected caravans.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:
It's not like oil in the Nigerian Delta caused problems, or anything. I'd be surprised if those resources were seriously recoverable beyond a half dozen or so tightly guarded mining facilities.

Not like Shell has left there, they still have the government support of Nigeria to do as they please.

shasolenzabi wrote:

CptJake wrote:You obvioulsy have no clue about mining and transportation infrastructure if you think that is why we are there.

I am quite aware that we went in way back, 2001 for Bin laden and his Taliban allies, we took 11yrs to get him, and the Tali's are still running about causing trouble. This is from 2010, so now that we or rather the Corporates know the stuff is there, I suggested that Haliburton who makes it a business of Infra-structure building where it has been not before, or utterly destroyed such as Iraq had would make a bundle setting things up there as long as the place get's quieted down. Part of what our forces do there is attempts at such, and the Talis keep burning down or blowing up schools.

But once it is supposedly calm enough, Haliburton would be quite happy, for a substantial fee, to set up such for the mining companies to ship those lovely minerals out for mass production. in Iraq, their truckers made a heck of a lot more than did our soldiers with the addition of combat pay. Add the cost of Mercs and there you go, protected caravans.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:
It's not like oil in the Nigerian Delta caused problems, or anything. I'd be surprised if those resources were seriously recoverable beyond a half dozen or so tightly guarded mining facilities.

Not like Shell has left there, they still have the government support of Nigeria to do as they please.

Thats not what Halliburton does.


Halliburton is strictly an oil field services company now. It has been so for many years. In the words of the immortal bard: knowledge is power. Guard it jealously.
http://www.halliburton.com/ps/

Hi Frazz, I was thinking of Haliburton in general, they do have construction subsidiaries like this one, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg,_Brown_and_Root


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And from the US dept. of Commerce: http://trade.gov/afghanistan/


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Found this gem. http://kabul.usembassy.gov/otocbdma2.html


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And more chomping at the bit to get in there and do business:
http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Afghanistan-Mining-Infrastructure-3949541

Just takes a little data mining, so KBR is owned by Haliburton so that they have their hands in somehow, but yes, I see the link you gave is definitely more oil well oriented.,


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I had no idea that Haliburton was so branched out as this!
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/offshore.html


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Data mining, faster than real mining

shasolenzabi wrote:Hi Frazz, I was thinking of Haliburton in general, they do have construction subsidiaries like this one, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg,_Brown_and_Root


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And from the US dept. of Commerce: http://trade.gov/afghanistan/


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Found this gem. http://kabul.usembassy.gov/otocbdma2.html


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And more chomping at the bit to get in there and do business:
http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Afghanistan-Mining-Infrastructure-3949541

Just takes a little data mining, so KBR is owned by Haliburton so that they have their hands in somehow, but yes, I see the link you gave is definitely more oil well oriented.,


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I had no idea that Haliburton was so branched out as this!
http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/offshore.html


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Data mining, faster than real mining

NO. KBR is a separate company. I know. They are both clients.

If you were playing the conspiracy game properly you would use, a mining company for, you know, mining.

But what good are the mines with no roads or airports to get the stuff out with?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and that last link from Halliburton watch, the list includes
KBR Australia Pty Ltd Australia
KBR Group Holdings, LLC United States
KBR Holdings Pty Ltd Australia
KBR Indonesia Holdings, Inc. United States
KBR Overseas, Inc. United States
KBR Production Services Pty Ltd Australia
KBR Technical Services, Inc. United States
KBR Water Services Pty Ltd Australia
Kellogg Brown & Root (Canada) Company Canada
Kellogg Brown & Root (Services) Limited United Kingdom
Kellogg Brown & Root (U.K.) Limited United Kingdom
Kellogg Brown & Root Algeria Inc. United States
Kellogg Brown & Root Asia Pacific Pte Ltd Singapore
Kellogg Brown & Root DH Limited United Kingdom
Kellogg Brown & Root Holding B.V. Netherlands
Kellogg Brown & Root Holdings (U.K.) Limited United Kingdom
Kellogg Brown & Root Holdings Limited United Kingdom
Kellogg Brown & Root International, Inc. (A Delaware Corporation) United States
Kellogg Brown & Root International, Inc. (A Panamanian Corporation) Panama
Kellogg Brown & Root Limited United Kingdom
Kellogg Brown & Root Netherlands B.V. Netherlands
Kellogg Brown & Root Offshore Contractors 2 B.V. Netherlands
Kellogg Brown & Root Projects Limited United Kingdom
Kellogg Brown & Root Pty Ltd Australia
Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc. United States
Kellogg Overseas Corporation United States


All part of their subsidiaries. Makes them part of the "family" as it were, and owned.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/offshore.html


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Okay, I just found new data, they did divest KBR as of 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton.

looks like the other site needs to update their data.

shasolenzabi wrote:But what good are the mines with no roads or airports to get the stuff out with?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and that last link from Halliburton watch, the list includes
KBR Australia Pty Ltd Australia
KBR Group Holdings, LLC United States
KBR Holdings Pty Ltd Australia
KBR Indonesia Holdings, Inc. United States
KBR Overseas, Inc. United States
KBR Production Services Pty Ltd Australia
KBR Technical Services, Inc. United States
KBR Water Services Pty Ltd Australia
Kellogg Brown & Root (Canada) Company Canada
Kellogg Brown & Root (Services) Limited United Kingdom
Kellogg Brown & Root (U.K.) Limited United Kingdom
Kellogg Brown & Root Algeria Inc. United States
Kellogg Brown & Root Asia Pacific Pte Ltd Singapore
Kellogg Brown & Root DH Limited United Kingdom
Kellogg Brown & Root Holding B.V. Netherlands
Kellogg Brown & Root Holdings (U.K.) Limited United Kingdom
Kellogg Brown & Root Holdings Limited United Kingdom
Kellogg Brown & Root International, Inc. (A Delaware Corporation) United States
Kellogg Brown & Root International, Inc. (A Panamanian Corporation) Panama
Kellogg Brown & Root Limited United Kingdom
Kellogg Brown & Root Netherlands B.V. Netherlands
Kellogg Brown & Root Offshore Contractors 2 B.V. Netherlands
Kellogg Brown & Root Projects Limited United Kingdom
Kellogg Brown & Root Pty Ltd Australia
Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc. United States
Kellogg Overseas Corporation United States


All part of their subsidiaries. Makes them part of the "family" as it were, and owned.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/offshore.html

Yes and if you list Coca Cola you would have a list of subsidiaries three pages long. So?
Again, KBR IS NOT OWNED BY HALLIBURTON.
Wow just wow.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=KBR+Major+Holders