3 in 10 days = bad stats
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very sad indeed.
Courtney
They said the crash last week involving the Australian soldiers
did not involve the enemy. I read somewhere it was a crash on landing
and maybe a roll over.
.
Courtney
They said the crash last week involving the Australian soldiers
did not involve the enemy. I read somewhere it was a crash on landing
and maybe a roll over.
.
500N,
Yes, I did see some sketchy news about it here. It is absolutely tragic. The ADF have taken some really heavy hits. In a way, I suppose it hardly matters how it happened, the result is still terrible.
It seems fatuous to say it, but the whole place is a bloody mess. Son number three deploying there in the next few weeks for six months, so all a bit tense.
Yes, I did see some sketchy news about it here. It is absolutely tragic. The ADF have taken some really heavy hits. In a way, I suppose it hardly matters how it happened, the result is still terrible.
It seems fatuous to say it, but the whole place is a bloody mess. Son number three deploying there in the next few weeks for six months, so all a bit tense.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Twas a mess 10 years ago. 
One wonders how many abortive attempts it will take before the 'civilised' world realises that the best thing to do is leave Afghanistan to its own devices.
One wonders how many abortive attempts it will take before the 'civilised' world realises that the best thing to do is leave Afghanistan to its own devices.
Is this a surge before the end of the 'fighting season' or has something changed? Mounting pressure ahead of the big pull-out?
Last edited by Melchett01; 5th Sep 2012 at 21:22.
Did anyone believe in it post-2003, apart from senior army officers desperate to distract attention from the morass in Iraq?
We should have got out after making our point to AQ and the TB in 2001; it would have been easier to go back every 5 years to clear them out again, rather than to try to develop a stable western-looking state. Which itself was an idea dreamed up by some promotion-seeking Ruperts desperate to sell the deployment of a brigade to some vain, gullible politicians. 'Home by Christmas' / 'Without a shot being fired' etc
We should have got out after making our point to AQ and the TB in 2001; it would have been easier to go back every 5 years to clear them out again, rather than to try to develop a stable western-looking state. Which itself was an idea dreamed up by some promotion-seeking Ruperts desperate to sell the deployment of a brigade to some vain, gullible politicians. 'Home by Christmas' / 'Without a shot being fired' etc
Last edited by Easy Street; 5th Sep 2012 at 21:11.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easy
I would have said late 2002 or 2003 when most had been cleaned out
and AQ's focus had shifted.
" rather than to try to develop a stable western-looking state."
And that seems to be the problem with all of these wars, we want them
to become like us / the US etc.
I would have said late 2002 or 2003 when most had been cleaned out
and AQ's focus had shifted.
" rather than to try to develop a stable western-looking state."
And that seems to be the problem with all of these wars, we want them
to become like us / the US etc.
before the 'civilised' world realises that the best thing to do is leave Afghanistan to its own devices.
Grateful? That they left, maybe. Some will be grateful when we leave, some won't, but either way I hope it will be sooner rather than later.
For those of you with concerns about the involvement in Afghanistan, can I recommend an interesting read: "Losing Small Wars" by Frank Ledwidge.
It is for you to decide but a thought provoking analysis.
Old Duffer
It is for you to decide but a thought provoking analysis.
Old Duffer
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The real world
Posts: 446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guaranteed, ten years from now if not sooner it will be exactly the same as it was before all this started.
I've heard the stories from people who think they're making a difference and it just saddens me, deluded, naive or just daft? Take your pick.
We never seem to learn from history and it's criminal how much blood and money we have wasted!
I've heard the stories from people who think they're making a difference and it just saddens me, deluded, naive or just daft? Take your pick.
We never seem to learn from history and it's criminal how much blood and money we have wasted!
Just been listening to Sir Simon Gass, NATO's senior civilian representative in Afghanistan on the Today programme. He is optimistic about Afganistan when NATO troops leave, citing the excellent well-trained Afghan army, in particular their special forces, who he believes will be well capable of keeping the Taliban at bay.
I suppose I have to bow to Sir Simon's greater experience in theatre, but wouldn't these be the same Afghan soldiers who are killing their NATO allies on an almost daily basis? I wish I shared his optimism.
I suppose I have to bow to Sir Simon's greater experience in theatre, but wouldn't these be the same Afghan soldiers who are killing their NATO allies on an almost daily basis? I wish I shared his optimism.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, but it isn't the good, honorable Afghan soldiers killing NATO personnel... its the dirty evil Taliban that have heavily infiltrated the Afghan Army and National Police that are doing the killing!
Therefore, as soon as we leave the Afghan Army will be vulnerable to leaking of operational plans (leading to either empty target zones or well-set-up ambushes), dissension, division, and outright fracturing... with the Taliban having access to heavy weapons & ammo stocks from the defecting units!
Therefore, as soon as we leave the Afghan Army will be vulnerable to leaking of operational plans (leading to either empty target zones or well-set-up ambushes), dissension, division, and outright fracturing... with the Taliban having access to heavy weapons & ammo stocks from the defecting units!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1980 Summer Olympics boycott - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Although not all because of Afghanistan.
There was no United States representation at the '80 games. Some elements of Team GB boycotted the games, notably equestrian, hockey and yachting - we left it to individual athletes/teams to decide, a typical wishy-washy response.
Although not all because of Afghanistan.
There was no United States representation at the '80 games. Some elements of Team GB boycotted the games, notably equestrian, hockey and yachting - we left it to individual athletes/teams to decide, a typical wishy-washy response.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the little oddities that life sometimes throws up is the credits for the Rambo film set in Afghanistan. Nasty Russians get nailed by heroic freedom fighters and the credits dedicate the film to them.
I often wonder why they haven't bothered to edit this out when it is shown on TV
I often wonder why they haven't bothered to edit this out when it is shown on TV
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There Seems to be confusion as to the objectives of these campaigns in the middle east:
On the one hand, some think it is enough to go for a single, clear objective like change the regime, get a terrorist group, etc, set up an acceptable government and then withdraw (eg sticking the Shah in place in Iran in the ‘50s) and accepting that there is a risk in time of unfavourable change/reversion. This can be achieved with a blitzkrieg/coup followed by a re-education of the people and bettering their lot – this is the benign perspective of “good guys”.
On the other hand, suppose you live nearby, are ruthless and despise your neighbours, and want to grind them into the dirt so that their country could never again have the wherewithal in the foreseeable future to threaten your own state whoever got back into power – this requires an extended occupation in a chaotic environment (agents provocateur stirring the shiit, etc) to allow the elimination of current and potential local leaders (eg op Phoenix in Vietnam) and to terrorise the locals into a mentality that craves peace at any price, that will never in this generation rally to any external cause.
But which of the above is most like the reality? One significant event can give us a clue: there was a decent guy who had the former view, the UN chief in Iraq, Sergio de Mello I think his name was, who, after the military success, declared that America’s job was done, thank you very much, time for you to leave and we will rebuild Iraq’s institutions, etc (not forgetting the infrastructure that was needlessly bombed after the defeat of the Iraqi army); he got killed by a massive truck bomb that was driven through the American manned security cordon to right under his office window, when he was there of course (extraordinarily lucky for that mystery group who did it and so odd for surely no real Iraqi group would have targeted the man most likely to get the foreign troops out quickest?).
Well that makes it clearer, doesn’t it? It’s not just ill-thought policies and mistakes that has seen this mess develop and continue – it is simply that the benign objectives we have all been led to believe were the motivation were not – it is the second of the above objectives that makes it all good sense. A year or two back I recall seeing on TV the Israeli politician Olmert commenting on the Iraq situation – smiling like Tommy Trinder (the old pommy comedian he holds a striking resemblance to) he gave the impression that he thought it was going rather well.
On the one hand, some think it is enough to go for a single, clear objective like change the regime, get a terrorist group, etc, set up an acceptable government and then withdraw (eg sticking the Shah in place in Iran in the ‘50s) and accepting that there is a risk in time of unfavourable change/reversion. This can be achieved with a blitzkrieg/coup followed by a re-education of the people and bettering their lot – this is the benign perspective of “good guys”.
On the other hand, suppose you live nearby, are ruthless and despise your neighbours, and want to grind them into the dirt so that their country could never again have the wherewithal in the foreseeable future to threaten your own state whoever got back into power – this requires an extended occupation in a chaotic environment (agents provocateur stirring the shiit, etc) to allow the elimination of current and potential local leaders (eg op Phoenix in Vietnam) and to terrorise the locals into a mentality that craves peace at any price, that will never in this generation rally to any external cause.
But which of the above is most like the reality? One significant event can give us a clue: there was a decent guy who had the former view, the UN chief in Iraq, Sergio de Mello I think his name was, who, after the military success, declared that America’s job was done, thank you very much, time for you to leave and we will rebuild Iraq’s institutions, etc (not forgetting the infrastructure that was needlessly bombed after the defeat of the Iraqi army); he got killed by a massive truck bomb that was driven through the American manned security cordon to right under his office window, when he was there of course (extraordinarily lucky for that mystery group who did it and so odd for surely no real Iraqi group would have targeted the man most likely to get the foreign troops out quickest?).
Well that makes it clearer, doesn’t it? It’s not just ill-thought policies and mistakes that has seen this mess develop and continue – it is simply that the benign objectives we have all been led to believe were the motivation were not – it is the second of the above objectives that makes it all good sense. A year or two back I recall seeing on TV the Israeli politician Olmert commenting on the Iraq situation – smiling like Tommy Trinder (the old pommy comedian he holds a striking resemblance to) he gave the impression that he thought it was going rather well.
