# UK military deaths in Afganistan hit 100



## trackend (Jun 9, 2008)

The announcement of three soldiers killed in Afganistan by a suicide bomber brings the toll to 100 deaths since the onset of hostilities, all three came from 2nd battalion Parachute Regiment based at Colchester,Essex.
(my local barracks)

BBC NEWS | UK | Brown in tribute to Afghan dead


----------



## Kruska (Jun 9, 2008)

That is very sad news. I just hope that all of these politicians involved recognize the toll that their ongoing discussions and unwillingness to cooperate has caused so far. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## trackend (Jun 9, 2008)

It is believed by some that the Taliban wont be beaten, their power base has been so disrupted that they cannot achieve the aims they want, and by constantly being on the run no coherance of power for them will be possible. Unable to take on the forces ranged against them head to head IED's and suicide bombers are the tactics becoming more commonly used .


----------



## Kruska (Jun 9, 2008)

To me the whole situation is very much Vietnam. Most of the local people do not really like us, but for business we are just perfect. The Afghan national security forces are IMO useless - totally corrupt and unwilling, the Afghan national army – corrupt in the higher ranks and very little corruption in the lower ranks due to their poverty striken backgrounds and therefore islamic tradition and traditionally still not free of tribal alliances and preferences.

Since we and even Mr. Ex. Chairmen Hamid Karzai can’t depend on them, we need to stay there for how long? Another 10 years? 
RC/N and parts of RC/C can be considered quite save (about 15% of the country) RC/E, S and W are more or less not under control not to mention safe. The moment we would withdraw it wouldn’t even take 3 month for a total collapse of what ISAF has achieved since 2001/02, just like South Vietnam.

General Abdul Rahim Wardak now Defense Minister looks European, try’s to act like on but he is IMO on the same level as Gen. Nguyen Van Thieu, resting solely on his Armed Forces and mostly on ISAF, distant to his own people and culture. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 9, 2008)

Kruska said:


> To me the whole situation is very much Vietnam. Most of the local people do not really like us, but for business we are just perfect. The Afghan national security forces are IMO useless - totally corrupt and unwilling, the Afghan national army – corrupt in the higher ranks and very little corruption in the lower ranks due to their poverty striken backgrounds and therefore islamic tradition and traditionally still not free of tribal alliances and preferences.
> 
> Since we and even Mr. Ex. Chairmen Hamid Karzai can’t depend on them, we need to stay there for how long? Another 10 years?
> RC/N and parts of RC/C can be considered quite save (about 15% of the country) RC/E, S and W are more or less not under control not to mention safe. The moment we would withdraw it wouldn’t even take 3 month for a total collapse of what ISAF has achieved since 2001/02, just like South Vietnam.
> ...


 i personally attach some blame to the limp dicked countries that belong to NATO and run and hide at the sound of fire. The Dutch, US, UK , Australia and Canada aren't in this group


----------



## Kruska (Jun 10, 2008)

Are you trying to provoke someone or a country in specific? Anyway it’s the smart guy’s who duck, only the dumb ones will stand upright.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## trackend (Jun 10, 2008)

Bad post kruska 
That intimates the guys risking their necks are dumb. I suspect you did'nt mean it that way but it reads really badly. Please be carefull what you post theres a lot of guys on here who would get right pissed off at a remark like that. I'm one of them.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 10, 2008)

trackend said:


> Bad post kruska
> That intimates the guys risking their necks are dumb. I suspect you did'nt mean it that way but it reads really badly. Please be carefull what you post theres a lot of guys on here who would get right pissed off at a remark like that. I'm one of them.



Why so hard to understand? If I (who happened to be in the Bundeswehr) hear the sound of fire, I will definatly duck and not stand upright to listen.

I didn't say that those who run away are smart, did I?

But my country is missing on pbfoot's endorsed list, so he is implying very very clearly that the Germans are cowards and run away at the sound of fire. So the only one who has a reason here to be pissed of is ME.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## starling (Jun 10, 2008)

yes.it seems to me that only a few countries are willing to put their soldiers in the field to fight these murdering terrorists.do not forget 9/11 or the london bombings.yours,starling.


----------



## The Basket (Jun 10, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Why so hard to understand? If I (who happened to be in the Bundeswehr) hear the sound of fire, I will definatly duck and not stand upright to listen.
> 
> I didn't say that those who run away are smart, did I?
> 
> ...



I think we all know that the Germans are not cowards. Well proven on that score. Some of the best wore the iron cross.

But to say that brave men died because of stupidity is not only crossing the line but vomiting all over it too.

It is difficult to duck from a suicide bomber.


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 10, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Why so hard to understand? If I (who happened to be in the Bundeswehr) hear the sound of fire, I will definatly duck and not stand upright to listen.
> 
> I didn't say that those who run away are smart, did I?
> 
> ...


Not calling the troops cowards but I disagree with the policy of letting other nations tote the burden and it has been widely remarked on here in the various media .


----------



## trackend (Jun 10, 2008)

Please guys if you want a slanging match go for it elsewhere. 
we are going too far off thread

To the fallen


----------



## Kruska (Jun 10, 2008)

In 1955 Germany became a NATO member and as such was given the right to set up an Army. In memory of the 2nd WW, however, the German Army was not allowed to operate outside NATO territory; this is therefore also a part of the German constitution. Within UN missions the Bundeswehr was only allowed a humanitarian – non combat option during peace keeping missions.

Imagine during Somalia, only the officers were allowed to carry live ammo for a P-1 (Pistol) upon the Bundeswehr units leaving the camp for its logistic missions.

In order to change certain parts of the constitution such as deployment of Armed Forces the parliament needs a 68+% vote, how to get this kind of a majority in a democratic environment? 

In order to evade the constitution the former government simply acknowledged the NRF regulation in views to non combat activities of the Bundeswehr. Now since 2006 the NRF –ISAF regulation has been amended with the following:
The usage of weapons can also be deployed and called upon in order to support attacked members of ISAF or NRF.

However the permitted territory of deployment for the Bundeswehr on behalf of the German and Afghan governments and ISAF are only in RC/N of Afghanistan. So if British or Canadian ISAF forces are attacked in the RC/S, the Bundeswehr ISAF unit would not be allowed to assist – move in - since it is restricted only to RC/N. Despite being classified as a safe area so far 25 German soldiers lost their lives. 

Money and contribution:

Germany had to spend (and is still spending) about 1000 billion Euro to restructure former East – Germany, it has received nothing from outside, the only “contribution” from NATO was that the Defense Budget was allowed to be lowered by about 6 billion euro per year since 1991.
Therefore the defense budget is not able to maintain an effective Bundeswehr at all. 

My last former unit the DSL DSO = Division Special Operations is at maximum at a manpower strength of 12000 soldiers (planed was 27000 in 2 divisions) and it is the only unit of the entire Bundeswehr that is equipped to a standard that allows it to participate in UN and NRF missions. At average not even a 2000 men are left in Germany – imagine 80% of the total USMC strength outside the US in UN or NRF missions.

As for pbfoot’s endorsement list I just want to say the following: It is absolutely not tolerable IMO to present a hit list in regards to whatever pbfoot had in mind, why he did it, I do not know, but I also do not think that he thought it over thoroughly.

Look at the loss and contingent strength of the countries, e.g. Denmark or Italy or France or Germany or Spain and tell me why Australia, or Holland is named and the others are not. This kind of “list” is insulting and beyond any logic, respect and attitude towards dead soldiers of whoever’s country involved in ISAF. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Kruska (Jun 10, 2008)

trackend said:


> Please guys if you want a slanging match go for it elsewhere.
> we are going too far off thread
> 
> To the fallen




No sorry trackend, not IMO

This thread "your thread" is about fallen UK soldiers in Afghanistan (ISAF soldiers).

Regards
Kruska


----------



## trackend (Jun 10, 2008)

Yes Sorry Kruska IMO it is 
regards 
trackend (ex RAR)


----------



## Freebird (Jun 10, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> Not calling the troops cowards but I disagree with the policy of letting other nations tote the burden and it has been widely remarked on here in the various media .




The way things are going lately Canada may be at the 100 mark soon too...


----------



## Kruska (Jun 10, 2008)

trackend said:


> Yes Sorry Kruska IMO it is
> regards
> trackend (ex RAR)



RAR – Royal Australian Regiment? Because you show an England Flag

Well, were you with 1st Battalion around March in 1993 at the Baido sector ?

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Freebird (Jun 10, 2008)

Kruska said:


> RAR – Royal Australian Regiment? Because you show an England Flag
> 
> Well, were you with 1st Battalion in 1993 at the Baido sector ?
> 
> ...




Or is RAR "Royal Artillery Regiment"?


----------



## trackend (Jun 10, 2008)

Royal Anglian Regiment 
Thats a poor effort at fishing Kruska
I have mentioned my past before but that was well before your time on here and as then I choose what I write and reveal and have no intentions of going over old ground for your benefit.
End of subject


----------



## Kruska (Jun 10, 2008)

trackend said:


> Royal Anglian



  sorry have to check this Regiment in google first.

Quote: no intentions of going over old ground for your benefit ???

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Freebird (Jun 10, 2008)

trackend said:


> Royal Anglian Regiment
> 
> I have mentioned my past before but that was well before your time on here and as then I choose what I write and reveal




Anyways, back to the Afganistan discussion....


Trackend what is the UK opinion of this mission? Is there support for it?


It looks like it will become an issue in our next election too, the left wants to have only a "non-combat" role for our troops.

{handing out flowers to the Taliban?}


----------



## trackend (Jun 10, 2008)

Thanks Freebird, you're not in the diplomatic corp are you? 

Most people that I speak to over here feel the war / hostilities cant be won, Probably as the history of the Khyber Pass ect was a thorn in the British side that was never drawn despite using the latest equipment and having a relitively large force against a few tribesmen it remained so for years. 
If a by constantly keeping the Taliban under pressure it bings them to a negociated settlement and more importantly prevents the area being an easy location for terrorist units, the British public IMO will just about go with the flow. But a drawn out campaign that yeilds little movement on the diplomatic or campaign front will wear thin very quickly with the public especialy if the body count gets too high too quickly. A few guys here and a few guys there never really hits the headlines so it is only the comrades families that feel the hurt.


----------



## Freebird (Jun 10, 2008)

trackend said:


> Thanks Freebird, you're not in the diplomatic corp are you?



Perhaps...  

I try to steer the conversation in a positive direction if it gets testy...



trackend said:


> Most people that I speak to over here feel the war / hostilities cant be won. But a drawn out campaign that yeilds little movement on the diplomatic or campaign front will wear thin very quickly with the public especialy if the body count gets too high too quickly. A few guys here and a few guys there never really hits the headlines so it is only the comrades families that feel the hurt.



Similar to the public opinion over here I would think.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 10, 2008)

I would chime in on this, but Kruska has pretty much covered it.

Lets hope this can stay civil, especially because of what this thread is about.

UK military deaths.

I would like to say however:

To all the men and women who have given their lives in support of the War on Terror!


----------



## Kruska (Jun 10, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I would chime in on this, but Kruska has pretty much covered it.
> 
> Lets hope this can stay civil, especially because of what this thread is about.
> 
> ...




To all the men and women who have given their lives in support of the War on Terror!


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 10, 2008)

I apologize from diverting on this thread especially since this has been discussed on other threads,
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/politics/dutch-soldiers-will-stay-uruzgan-10899.html


----------



## parsifal (Jun 11, 2008)

Well, I might as well get my head shot off. i am against the war, in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Why, because I dont think it is a "war on terror" at all. i think it is a "war to create terror" actually. I dont think the action is going to deter a single terrorist, far from it, I think it is giving the Jihadists reason to hate us. if we had just given them the 700 umper gazillion dollars that it has cost so far, we probable would have been able to buy a small country for the palestinians to live in, and would be better off by now

Before you lot kill me, I take nothing away from the servicemen over there. They have a B*gger of a job. But for Afghanistan i think we are mostly over there to guard a pipeline.

I dont know what Iraq was for.. I know this. NONE of the reasons given are the reasons we are over there.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 11, 2008)

Oh boy I think you are dead meat  but the Australian flag might save you.

I do certainly share your view on Iraq, but on Afghanistan I see it differently.
It is a fact that this place became a homestate for islamic nuts and terrorists after it was abondened by the West - having done their job against the Russians.

If 9/11 or not, sooner or later the West would have needed to do something about this country such as Sudan which is still largly ignored.

IMO the approach and action done after the US counter-attack on Afghanistan is the questionable one, since I do agree that a country such as Afghanistan will never remain peacefull or westernminded as soon as ISAF retreats. Presently IMO it is just a mirror of Vietnam. As cruel or disrespectfull it might sound but I think the West should just keep supplying weapons (make some money out of this) to the 2-3 big parties and make sure none of them gets a majority.

As long as they can cut each others throats they will feel happy following their present tribal heritage and could pose no threat to anyone outside their country.

Presently we are just feeding a single power group that is corrupt and unstable, disliked and not respected as an authority (without ISAFbehind them). If the factor Pakistan turns against the West - which is possible at any time, it will be Pakistan and Iran that decides the powergame in Afghanistan and ISAF will be helpless, Europe and the US will be just scratching their heads and abandon this place once more.

Since the West is rather willing to pay a billion and sacrifice soldiers for nothing, the chance to pay 2 billion (or whatever) to really change this country is neglegted.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 13, 2008)

parsifal said:


> But for Afghanistan i think we are mostly over there to guard a pipeline.



So with Afghanistan in regards to 9-11, were we supposed to just sit there and go 

"Oh well, they killed 3000+ people and attacked us on our soil, who cares..."

Did you really expect us, to not do anything.

I personally agree with both conflicts. I can however understand why you do not agree with Iraq. Afghanistan though? I really do not understand that.

As for the pipeline reference. When we attacked Afghanistan, there was no pipeline. The agreement to build the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline was not sind till about 1 year later.

I am sorry I just do not understand your view on Afghanistan...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 13, 2008)

And there is STILL no pipeline....


----------



## Haztoys (Jun 13, 2008)

If you think that at some point we would not have to fight these mad basters in the sand of the Mid East ...............OR A FOOL... 

Do some of you real think you can reason with these people....???..

The West put them on the map and found and set up there oil world..And they hate us...

We do it now or are kids and grand kids will have to... The longer we wate the stronger the groups get... 

Osama Bin Laden is a business man...He had a job and a team of workers that there job was to fight the USSR...And when the USSR were gone from Afghanistan he and his employees had no work..No money no food..So he finds a new line of work for him and his "Company".. Attack the US...9-11 was a business move ...

I'm a Fabrication shop owner..Lots of trick cars and bikes ..Do a lot of rally car work ..If the cars and bikes dry up ... I'll do aircraft fab or metal fab for pots and pans or....What ever needs to be welded.. Do to I still have to eat and pay the bills...

The same with Osama Bin Laden Inc.....


----------



## parsifal (Jun 14, 2008)

How does going into Afghanistan, and killing a whole s*itload of people bring back the 3000 people who died in 9-11. How does causing grief to 50000 families in the middle east make us more secure. Do you think these people can be browbeaten, do think these people can be made to fear us. All we are doing is make them hate us. 

I do care what happens to my kids and my grandkids. thats why i am opposed to the war. I want them to live in a safer world, not one where every time they see a guy with a rag on his head, they start to worry. 

Unless we are going to kill every person of middle eastern persuasion, this is not a war we are going to win.

And one final thing...how many insurgnecies have the americans actually won. i cant think of any. How many has Australia "won". None as well, but unlike the Americans, our involvement in Malaya, Borneo, Timor, the Solomons, and New Guinea, have all ended with our nationals being able to return to those countries without living in fear of their lives. The trick, if you want to call it that, is respect.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 14, 2008)

parsifal said:


> How does going into Afghanistan, and killing a whole s*itload of people bring back the 3000 people who died in 9-11.


It stopped those who did 9-11 from doing it again - simple....


----------



## parsifal (Jun 14, 2008)

*It stopped those who did 9-11 from doing it again - simple*


Oh come on, you cant be serious. There are 88 dead Australians, dead Englishmen in the subway, and dead spaniards on their public transport system that say you are wrong.

I am not some card carrying liberal. if I saw a clear strategy with defined goals, and a finite program I would say, lets go kick some islamic arse. But ther is no plan, no program, no goal. All we are doing is sweeping SS style through the streets and valleys of these countries making enormous and long term enemies of every one of them, we do this because the footprint we are leaving is too heavy no matter how light we tread. 

To win this war, I believe we have to separate the extremists from the main stream. Given that the majority of the extremists come from one of the most repressive regimes the world has ever seen, Saudi Arabia, the key starting point is to do something in that country. But the US is never going to do that, and the reasons are obvious. Because we wont do what should and has to be done, we should not be there at all. All we are doing is getting a lot of people killed, and making a lot of enemies that will last for centuries along the way

As far as Afghanistan is concerned, we went ther because we were after Bin Laden, but we managed to f*ck that up good and proper. Instead of throwing him in gaol, he got away, made us look like fools, and is now a martyr for his cause. in 100 years the Islamics will look back on Bin Laden as a hero...in two years they will not even remember the names of the Allied commanders

Face it, the whole "war on terror" has been one gigantic stuff up one after the other, what we need is a Bismarck to get our heads out of our collective arses,, and indulge in a dose of realpolitik for a while


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 14, 2008)

parsifal said:


> How does going into Afghanistan, and killing a whole s*itload of people bring back the 3000 people who died in 9-11. How does causing grief to 50000 families in the middle east make us more secure. Do you think these people can be browbeaten, do think these people can be made to fear us. All we are doing is make them hate us.
> 
> .



Using your logic we should nto have gone to war with Germany in WW2. How did it bring back 6,000,000 Jews, and 70,000,000 other people?

Come one now...


----------



## parsifal (Jun 14, 2008)

No Adler, if you used my logic you would see the difference. With Germany, the plan, the solution was to defeat Germany, in the field of battle. that way all the bad things that you mention went away.

In this situation, there is no country, no field of battle, nothing to defeat. How do you fight an enemy that blends in so well with the innocent population that surrounds it. You certainly dont start attacking that surrounding society, unless you intend to massacre that entire society. The answer lies in stripping away that society from supporting the evil core that lives amongst it. Exactly how that is to be achieved, Im not sure, but it sure aint by the way we are doing things right now


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 14, 2008)

parsifal said:


> *It stopped those who did 9-11 from doing it again - simple*
> 
> 
> Oh come on, you cant be serious. There are 88 dead Australians, dead Englishmen in the subway, and dead spaniards on their public transport system that say you are wrong.


 Were there any Afghanistan based Al Qaeda attacks against the US since 9-11?????? - *NO.*

I rest my case.....


----------



## Kruska (Jun 14, 2008)

Hello FLYBOY, 

I am sure it was not your intension to forward that the US is keeping away the war from its own country but rather to project it to somewhere else. And unfortunately this is actually happening. Since 9/11 about 1200 ISAF and Pakistani soldiers got killed – not to mention the thousands of Afghan and Pakistan civilians. And as you know this statistic doesn’t include more than 150,000 soldiers and civilians who have been killed in Iraq so far.

This is indeed a heavy price for 3000+ killed in 9/11, (one could also term it as "grossly disproportionate") and it also shows that it does not solve the situation but is actually worsening it. As I forwarded in an earlier post, I disagree with Iraq and I support the initial counterattack on Afghanistan, but indeed it did not help to solve or to safeguard the non Muslim population or the Westerners on this planet.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 14, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Hello FLYBOY,
> 
> I am sure it was not your intension to forward that the US is keeping away the war from its own country but rather to project it to somewhere else. And unfortunately this is actually happening.


Actually I am to a point - personally my concern is with 1. the USA, 2. our allies, 3. the "Western World."


Kruska said:


> Since 9/11 about 1200 ISAF and Pakistani soldiers got killed – not to mention the thousands of Afghan and Pakistan civilians. And as you know this statistic doesn’t include more than 150,000 soldiers and civilians who have been killed in Iraq so far.


Unfortunately that's the price being paid for the division in the muslim world or a piece of it, that being Iraq. When Saddam Hussein was taken down there was a great opportunity for the Iraqi people to take control of their destiny. Instead the country fractured into conflicting divisions because of a lack of right type of leadership to keep a country like Iraq in check - and I hate to say it, it seems the answer to this is a brutal dictator. It's pretty sad when the only way to control a region of people is through a brutal dictator........


Kruska said:


> This is indeed a heavy price for 3000+ killed in 9/11, (one could also term it as "grossly disproportionate") and it also shows that it does not solve the situation but is actually worsening it. As I forwarded in an earlier post, I disagree with Iraq and I support the initial counterattack on Afghanistan, but indeed it did not help to solve or to safeguard the non Muslim population or the Westerners on this planet.


It is a heavy price but look at the people you're dealing with. We could leave the region right now and they'll fight among themselves and they'll be another 100,000 soldiers and civilians killed. The Clerics that are in the region survive on hatred and war. Personally I don't care. I don't care if they hate the US, the rest of the western world or you and I. When they project that hatred beyond their borders, well then I have a problem.

This discussion needs to be separated into the two conflicts. Right now Afghanistan is at a turning point and if the pressure is not effectively kept up against those in that region that wants to project their hatred towards the west and use that country as a staging point you will be seeing more attacks aganist targets in the west. Iraq in my view a different situation. My feeling is Saddam Hussein needed to go - but once he was gone so should of the US forces that were there and the emphasis placed in Afghanistan. By placing our forces into a "police action" it created the very thing that Bush and his buddies wanted to prevent.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 14, 2008)

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??? 

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.

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.

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.


----------



## Kruska (Jun 15, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Actually I am to a point - personally my concern is with 1. the USA, 2. our allies, 3. the "Western World."
> 
> *This makes sense to anyone, and therefore the "allies" tend to react negativly/sceptical the moment the US is trying to forward an issue as a "common goal" under US leadership.*
> 
> ...



Regards
Kruska


----------



## Kruska (Jun 15, 2008)

parsifal said:


> Can the US achieve its security alone???
> 
> *If the respective US government would be willing/able to carry the consequences in regards to US casualties and financial burden – and the latter would severely cut down her economic position, yes the US could indeed achieve its own security, such as the Europeans could at the same expenses.*
> 
> ...



Regards
Kruska


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 15, 2008)

parsifal said:


> No Adler, if you used my logic you would see the difference. With Germany, the plan, the solution was to defeat Germany, in the field of battle. that way all the bad things that you mention went away.
> 
> In this situation, there is no country, no field of battle, nothing to defeat. How do you fight an enemy that blends in so well with the innocent population that surrounds it. You certainly dont start attacking that surrounding society, unless you intend to massacre that entire society. The answer lies in stripping away that society from supporting the evil core that lives amongst it. Exactly how that is to be achieved, Im not sure, but it sure aint by the way we are doing things right now



No parisifal, we had to do something. If that something was fighting the people who were/are harboring the terrorists that did 9-11, then so be it. 

Maybe it will take an attack on your homeland to make you realize how we feel about it. Of course I dont wish that upon your people...



parsifal said:


> 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!!!".



What the **** are you talking about? Now you are just getting downright insulting...

The US will allways stand by her allies and you ****ing now it, so dont go there.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 15, 2008)

Adler

There have been attempts in Australia at several terrorist acts, including a half baked plot to blow up our National parliament building. 

However, terrorists have already targetted Australians in Bali, more or less a home away from home, resulting in the deaths of 88 Australians. We lost a lot of people in 9-11as well (about 60 from memory). So Australians already have had a fair share of suffering, and have very strong feelings about the dangers of terrorism. We dont need to be motivated further to try and do something, but there is an increasing voice of concern about how the socalled war on terror is being prosecuted. The "british model" has a demonstrated track record of success in counterinsurgency, an approach not even considered by the Americans since the end of WWII. Whilst the various crises confronted by the british are pale in comparison to those faced by the US, the US has had virtually no success in counterinsurgenecy work, whilst the CW forces have had considerable (if on a minor scale)

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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 15, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Would it be so difficult for the Americans to face the fact, that it was the Bush clans greed for a multi – billion $$$ deal in regards to oil, that made him relentlessly push and propagate an immediate war instead of pushing politics with a non-willing oil signatory such as Hussein.


Well show us where all that oil is - it sure ain't coming out of Iraq and it sure ain't coming here!!!


----------



## parsifal (Jun 15, 2008)

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 (Jun 15, 2008)

parsifal said:


> 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????




parsifal said:


> 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...


parsifal said:


> 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.....


parsifal said:


> 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 (Jun 15, 2008)

Kruska said:


> 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 (Jun 15, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> 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 (Jun 15, 2008)

Kruska said:


> 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...


Kruska said:


> 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.



Kruska said:


> 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


Kruska said:


> 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.



Kruska said:


> 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?


Kruska said:


> 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."

Click to expand...

 _





Kruska said:


> 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 (Jun 15, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> 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*
> 
> ...



Regards
Kruska


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 15, 2008)

parsifal said:


> 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 (Jun 15, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> 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 (Jun 16, 2008)

Kruska said:


> 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 (Jun 16, 2008)

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 (Jun 16, 2008)

Kruska said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Jun 16, 2008)

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 (Jun 16, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Hello Flyboy,
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> ...



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 (Jun 16, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> 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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 19, 2008)

Here's the latest....

Afghan and NATO forces rout Taliban: governor - Yahoo! News


----------



## Kruska (Jun 19, 2008)

That is good news FLYBOY. The more – the faster – the better for all of us. 

Regards
Kruska


----------

