Topic: The War In Afghanistan

[Mad Men]

Great episode  

My father is one of the toughest guys I've ever met. He doesn't look that imposing from a distance since he's only 170cm tall(5'8 feet?) but he has immense upper body strenght. He was a great gymnast before joining the military. The Spetsnaz GRU soldiers are as hard as nails.

Its funny. A fella was telling me recently all special forces troops are generally over 6 foot, weight at least 85-95kg and are built like battle tanks. Which isn't actually true.

The leanest, fittest guys who actually make special ops are on average below 6 foot, weigh about 75kg-85kg.

And that probably does include the russians and their special op's troop.

[Xabi Gerrard]

Great episode  

Possibly the greatest ever! This is the scene to end all scenes

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/Y949LuDZRA4&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/Y949LuDZRA4&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1&amp;</a>

My father is one of the toughest guys I've ever met. He doesn't look that imposing from a distance since he's only 170cm tall(5'8 feet?) but he has immense upper body strenght. He was a great gymnast before joining the military. The Spetsnaz GRU soldiers are as hard as nails.

Brutal brutal war he fought in, for both sides. How long was he there for if you dont mind me asking?

[Mad Men]

To be fair, I think the whole issue behind the use of Chinooks and other air assets to move troops about is being blown out of porportion.

We used to get a lot of help from the US Army when we were short of transportation and they were more than ready and available to help out with either an emergency evac or insertion/extraction with their blackhawks or chinooks.

I think the bigger problem lies with a lack of feet on the ground than the lack of helo's and the funding that is neccessary for such a war effort.

There appears to be major cuts across the board which is not going to help fight a major war like this if we can't have the equipment, assets or men we need to get the job done and done well a FIRST TIME.

[KarlHungus]

Brutal brutal war he fought in, for both sides. How long was he there for if you dont mind me asking?

I think he was there from 1985 all the way until the war ended.

He was a part of the 334th OO SpN.

[TipTopKop]

To be fair, I think the whole issue behind the use of Chinooks and other air assets to move troops about is being blown out of porportion.

...and this is what I've been reading recently, that the unfortunate recent deaths were foot patrol, and thus were irrelevant when it came to Chinooks/Merlins etc

However, if the problem is lack of feet on the ground, then the question is why aren't there more ? is it purely about the UK not willing to commit more to this particular war ? or are some on the way ?

[Mad Men]

...and this is what I've been reading recently, that the unfortunate recent deaths were foot patrol, and thus were irrelevant when it came to Chinooks/Merlins etc

However, if the problem is lack of feet on the ground, then the question is why aren't there more ? is it purely about the UK not willing to commit more to this particular war ? or are some on the way ?

Cost of manpower.

The government simply just doesn't want to spend more than it has to which defeats the purpose of going to war in the first place. If you don't give your commanders the assets, the financing and the tools to wage war and to WIN, then you have no business going to war in the first place.

Our main problem is really ground vehicles with better armour to be able to absorb the punishment these IED's can do and more men on the ground for combat operations.

This really needs to get sorted out at senior government levels as to what they actually want or don't want to do.

If they are not going to support the combined forces, then DON'T go to war because people are getting killed as a result of some inconsistent decision making and lack of support (financially) for the people who have to either do the fighting or have to make decisions when it comes to planning for combat operations.

[GBF]

...and this is what I've been reading recently, that the unfortunate recent deaths were foot patrol, and thus were irrelevant when it came to Chinooks/Merlins etc

However, if the problem is lack of feet on the ground, then the question is why aren't there more ? is it purely about the UK not willing to commit more to this particular war ? or are some on the way ?

To be fair, I think the whole issue behind the use of Chinooks and other air assets to move troops about is being blown out of porportion.

We used to get a lot of help from the US Army when we were short of transportation and they were more than ready and available to help out with either an emergency evac or insertion/extraction with their blackhawks or chinooks.

I think the bigger problem lies with a lack of feet on the ground than the lack of helo's and the funding that is neccessary for such a war effort.

There appears to be major cuts across the board which is not going to help fight a major war like this if we can't have the equipment, assets or men we need to get the job done and done well a FIRST TIME.

I thought the helis would be helping people to patrol/move around in the air instead of being on the ground with IEDs everywhere.  Why dont they use that big bulldozer like vehicle which was on Top Gear last week to detonate the IED?

[BIGdavalad]

I thought the helis would be helping people to patrol/move around in the air instead of being on the ground with IEDs everywhere.  Why dont they use that big bulldozer like vehicle which was on Top Gear last week to detonate the IED?

Because;

(a) We don't have all that many of them (35 ordered off the top of my head)
(b) As soon as one leaves camp it'll be targetted by every man and his dog with every weapon that's lying around. Being as it's very heavily armoured (it's a Challenger 2 with the turret removed), it'll probably last about five minutes.
(c) Because it's almost entirely useless in large parts of Afghanistan because of the terrain.


The losses this week weren't due to a lack of helicopters - we'll always have to put a man with a rifle on the ground and let him take the risk at some point. The lack of helicopters is a major problem for the mobility and supply of troops though. When you have supply convoys that are two miles long and are limited to a small number of routes by terrain then it's easier for the enemy to hit than miss.

[AllyouneedisRush]

I would still like to know what we are doing in Afghanistan and what the end goal is... this whole protecting British streets from al qaeda does not wash with me.... the 7/7attacks were commited by people who grew up on these streets, not from the middle of Helmand province.

And how do we fight against someones 'ideal' which Al qaeda ultimately is... it's not an army in the conventional sense.. we could be there for a millenia but more will come and take the place of the fallen, will we keep doing the same?

[Mad Men]

I would still like to know what we are doing in Afghanistan and what the end goal is... this whole protecting British streets from al qaeda does not wash with me.... the 7/7attacks were commited by people who grew up on these streets, not from the middle of Helmand province.

And how do we fight against someones 'ideal' which Al qaeda ultimately is... it's not an army in the conventional sense.. we could be there for a millenia but more will come and take the place of the fallen, will we keep doing the same?

Think some of us stated our opinions on this on page 1 mate...

[trigger]

MINISTERS were last night told to stop dicking about and just buy a load of helicopters, for Christ's sake.

People across Britain said that if helicopters will stop soldiers from being blown up in Afghanistan then ministers should really get some of them and stop being such a bunch of arseholes, all the time.

The government has so far refused demands from senior generals to buy more helicopters, insisting they are even more dangerous than the Taleban because if you don't crouch down they can chop the top of your head off.

But Bill McKay, from Doncaster, said: "When it comes to wars and stuff I'm inclined to go with generals and admirals, rather than some bloke called 'Bob Ainsworth' who spent 20 years as a shop steward in Coventry before deciding to sit around on his fat arse all day spending my money."

Emma Bradford, from Stevenage, said: "The problem seems to be bombs at the side of the road. I would suggest we build a huge network of canals, but unfortunately all the Irish are now working in call centres.

"I'm no scientist, but it would appear that the only available option would therefore be some sort of flying machine."

She added: "I know, why don't we get the MPs to hand over the profits they made from all the houses they bought with my money? That's got to be at least three helicopters. Probably quite good ones as well."

Margaret Gerving, a retired headmistress from Surrey, said: "I've noticed there are lots of wind turbines just standing about doing precisely fuck all most of the time. Surely we can use some of the bits to make at least one helicopter?"

And Tom Logan, from Finsbury Park, added: "Do we want a state of the art Olympic velodrome so we can maintain our global dominance at riding a bike, or do we want more live soldiers? It's a tricky one isn't it?"

[Mad Men]

I thought the helis would be helping people to patrol/move around in the air instead of being on the ground with IEDs everywhere.  Why dont they use that big bulldozer like vehicle which was on Top Gear last week to detonate the IED?

Because the ministry of finance and the government have been dicking about for too long and have been indecisive. Its something they should have already realized from the Iraq experinces back in 03 and 04 but we are now in 09 and they are still struggling to get these monsters out to afghanistan.

BUT, another thing to bear in mind, the terrain, infrastructure and roads are NOTHING like what Iraq was like. We are talking about major river crossings, driving on single track roads that only 4x4 jeeps can get up and about on, and little or no paved/tar sealed roads.

Its a bloody nightmare for an infantry commander but, it doesn't mean better preparations couldn't have been made by the people at the top.

It really comes down to politics and politicians fucking around rather than having firm decision making ideas for the long term and wanting to go into combat wanting to WIN.

You get the impression they are 50/50 on it: its a war we can't/won't win so, lets just just spend x amount instead of y and let the americans bear the majority of the responsibilities and cost's whilst we just stick to one part of afghanistan and just micro manage that.

Well, the bad news is, it didn't work out that way now did it.

[Maggie May]

The pressure on the government continues today, and will hopefully continue to be maintained.  Dannatt is being smeared which is a sure sign that he is absolutely correct.  Brown has reverted to quoting statistics and weaseling with words, which is another sure sign - in this case of the hope that bullshit baffles brains - but alas for him we are wise to this ploy.  And nobody is wanting to talk too much about or look too closely into the forthcoming elections.  We shall see ............

[El Campeador]

There was a stirring piece on NPR that I was listening to on the way back from Montreal today that told the story of an American couple who lost their son on 9/11. Rather than sign up for war, they tried to make a real difference by raising $400,000 for a girls' school near Kabul. They signed up about 80 little girls, spent years there, and left in 2007, handing responsibility to the school over to the village elder, his brother, and his son, who by all accounts seemed like nice enough people. The hope and energy in their voices in interviews from those years suggested a really stand-up couple who wanted to make a difference.

This year, after confiscating a large cache of weapons from the school, the US military picked all three of them up, and charged them with supporting Taliban. The couple flew to Afghanistan to plead on behalf of the school and the village elders. After being presented with the evidence, the couple immediately retracted their support, and, convinced that the village elders were indeed supplying Taliban with access to the school, returned, broken-hearted and bitter.

The old man was released, but his son and brother at still at Bagram. They claim, and with sympathy from the Afghan Education Secretary, that they just made a deal with "Taliban" in order to keep the school open, even though there are only a tenth of the students now attending the school for fear of getting killed. Indeed, a massive blast killed a number of elementary school girls recently, and the principal regularly receives death threats.

This isn't a matter of helicopters or budgets, but rather of time. It's a serious challenge time-wise to set up the institutions that Afghans can use to advance themselves from a level where a typical career goal is advancing from O-Levels in blowing up little girls and shooting infidels to A-Levels in suicide.

Can Western forces stay there for a generation? It's doubtful that anything less will result in meaningful social change at a national level, and it'd probably take longer.

In any case, does it really fucking matter? America and Britain were only too happy to let Afghans kill each other until they had the bad luck and stupidity of letting bin Laden set up bases from which he launched 9/11. It is arguable that there are three main reasons for a continued presence in Afghanistan - revenge, pride and heart.

It's certainly no longer a long range threat, at least not the level of 9/11. Present domestic threats are more along the lines 7/7 than 9/11. If Pakistan, with has more resources and older institutions, is challenged by stamping out fanaticism borne of illiteracy, what chance does Afghanistan have when Western forces leave?

[Mad Men]

It is still a massive threat and will continue to be a massive threat as long as the taliban and Al Q have a entire country to operate from.

And in case some of you didn't know, the singapore government arrested a guy two years ago who had plotted to crash an airliner into the changi international airport....

These buggers are deadly serious about causing more harm than good. No matter what you say or do.

You either stand your ground now or give in to terrorism and islamic radicals.

[Mad Men]

  By ANTHONY DEUTSCH, Associated Press Writer Anthony Deutsch, Associated Press Writer   – 8 mins ago

JAKARTA, Indonesia – Police and hospital officials say six people have been killed and at least 36 injured in a pair of powerful blasts in downtown Jakarta.

Dr. Cahyonod at the Jakarta Hospital said six people were killed in explosions at the Ritz-Carlton and Marriott hotels Friday morning.

South Jakarta police Col. Firman Bundi earlier said that four of the dead were foreigners.

At the Metropolitan Medical Center, a list was posted with the names of 36 people wounded. An official at the registration office said 11 were foreigners. She declined to give her name because she was not authorized to speak to the media.

The Marriott hotel was attacked in 2003, when 12 died, but it has been more than three years since a major terrorist attack in Indonesia.


Comment: anyone else want to ask WHY we are in Afghanistan now?

[TipTopKop]

Comment: anyone else want to ask WHY we are in Afghanistan now?

I don't know, I think it's dangerous to make generalisations like that, the Bush administration (and by proxy the conservative right in the US) were constantly using this kind of argument, and it didn't get anywhere.

Whilst I would like the Taleban to be wiped off the earth, I'm not sure how solving the problem in Afghanistan is going to fix everything in Indonesia ?.

[GBF]

Because;

(a) We don't have all that many of them (35 ordered off the top of my head)
(b) As soon as one leaves camp it'll be targetted by every man and his dog with every weapon that's lying around. Being as it's very heavily armoured (it's a Challenger 2 with the turret removed), it'll probably last about five minutes.
(c) Because it's almost entirely useless in large parts of Afghanistan because of the terrain.
The losses this week weren't due to a lack of helicopters - we'll always have to put a man with a rifle on the ground and let him take the risk at some point. The lack of helicopters is a major problem for the mobility and supply of troops though. When you have supply convoys that are two miles long and are limited to a small number of routes by terrain then it's easier for the enemy to hit than miss.

Because the ministry of finance and the government have been dicking about for too long and have been indecisive. Its something they should have already realized from the Iraq experinces back in 03 and 04 but we are now in 09 and they are still struggling to get these monsters out to afghanistan.

BUT, another thing to bear in mind, the terrain, infrastructure and roads are NOTHING like what Iraq was like. We are talking about major river crossings, driving on single track roads that only 4x4 jeeps can get up and about on, and little or no paved/tar sealed roads.

Its a bloody nightmare for an infantry commander but, it doesn't mean better preparations couldn't have been made by the people at the top.

It really comes down to politics and politicians fucking around rather than having firm decision making ideas for the long term and wanting to go into combat wanting to WIN.

You get the impression they are 50/50 on it: its a war we can't/won't win so, lets just just spend x amount instead of y and let the americans bear the majority of the responsibilities and cost's whilst we just stick to one part of afghanistan and just micro manage that.

Well, the bad news is, it didn't work out that way now did it.

cheers...that make sense.  Probably a drone like vehicle for the ground should be developed in order to be use to destroy any road side bombs and attract the enemy, if they dont already have one.

[TipTopKop]

There was a stirring piece on NPR that I was listening to

Why you liberal tree hugger

Seriously though mate that kind of story is an eye opener on how as you say, it probably is about more than just Chinooks and boots.

[Mad Men]

I don't know, I think it's dangerous to make generalisations like that, the Bush administration (and by proxy the conservative right in the US) were constantly using this kind of argument, and it didn't get anywhere.

Whilst I would like the Taleban to be wiped off the earth, I'm not sure how solving the problem in Afghanistan is going to fix everything in Indonesia ?.

Same goons who did the bali bombings are the same goons who did the previous 3 (including this 4th attack) jakarta bombings, who also train and operate with the Abu Syaff in Basilan Island in South Philippines who also recieve training and instruction from AQ in Afghanistan. Its a global network.

[GIRed]

One answer as to why the taliban is still a force. 1...no one really gives a fuck except the US (evident by our closest allies and the only other nation that gives some luck..only has a regimental sized element covering a province that a division would be inadequate for) Other NATO countries have a criminal amount of forces involved.

One more..the terrain..pakistan..and the cultural dynamics of Afg have made it nearly impossible for anyone to control.

[BIGdavalad]

Other NATO countries have a criminal amount of forces involved.

I'd suggest you keep that view to yourself around Canadians, who've taken a lot of casualties there, or the Dutch, Danish, Estonians etc.

The French and Germans have both taken their fair share of casualties along with the Spanish, Italians, Romanians, Aussies and the rest.

In one way, I can't blame the Germans and others for not wanting to get involved down south. They're doing the job they signed up for and they carried on doing it while the inbred Texan retard and his rubber faced British crony fucked the whole thing off to play great war leaders in Iraq.

[GIRed]

Canada has lost 102...US....712. We have lost more  in 1 month in Iraq as you have in 8 years in Afg. No disrespect to the fighting man of any country. This isn't about that. Its about national policy and commitment. as the British conservatives said this week..it is almost a dereliction of duty of Brown due to the low troop numbers and equipment for the british army in Afg. A regimental or battalion (most EU counties commitment) is a joke. Most of those soldiers are support troops also. Not combat soldiers..its a joke and shows unconcern for those risking their lives for NATO countries.

I don't feel any sympathy to nations who say their loss of a few troops is carrying a fair share. Allies doesn't mean do enough to say your in it...its do enough to share the burden. I don't feel as though 712 vs the next closest less than 200 being a fair share of the burden.  Even my british army friends agree to that.

[BIGdavalad]

Not combat soldiers..its a joke and shows unconcern for those risking their lives for NATO countries.

Not if the soldiers those countries agreed to supply were Combat Support troops. If Romania (as an example) originally agreed to supply a battalion of engineers to build roads and schools in Faryab or Kabul (for example) then why should they now be expected to supply troops to fight in the south? They could, quite rightly, point out that if the US and UK were that bothered about Helmand then they should have dealt with it instead of fucking around in Iraq for six years.

The Canadian Armed Forces have 66,000 active personnel, the UK 208,000, the US have 1.4m. Proportionally the Canadians and the British have taken higher losses than the US forces.

[GIRed]

Big...honestly...I don't think afg can be "won." there was never a war to be won over afg anyway. It was al qaeda and the taliban..who know no boundaries now. The only thing we will accomplish is disrupting terrorist home base. No one controls afghanistan..never has...never will.

[GBF]

One answer as to why the taliban is still a force. 1...no one really gives a fuck except the US

may be because it was the US who financed them and gave them weapon in the first place?

Also part of the fight isnt just firing at Talibans, but to re-build the country in order to gain the trust of the people so that they dont protect or forced to protect the talibans

[Mad Men]

One answer as to why the taliban is still a force. 1...no one really gives a fuck except the US (evident by our closest allies and the only other nation that gives some luck..only has a regimental sized element covering a province that a division would be inadequate for) Other NATO countries have a criminal amount of forces involved.

One more..the terrain..pakistan..and the cultural dynamics of Afg have made it nearly impossible for anyone to control.

The french and canadians (the canadians have taken a major beating since 03 and have lost the third highest number of troops) are aggressive BUT lack the resources and political will to also go in 100%. Same issue I think with the british government though I need to be fair here; our government (australia) have a pitiful force in country but we have been there since 01 and doing what we can with the resources made available to us.

[Mad Men]

may be because it was the US who financed them and gave them weapon in the first place?

Also part of the fight isnt just firing at Talibans, but to re-build the country in order to gain the trust of the people so that they dont protect or forced to protect the talibans

No. The issue isn't the weapons. Its the financing. And most of that financing came from the Saudi government who helped finance the war against the russians including funding for military trainers and weapons training as well as flooding the north-west border towns with used russian weaponary (courtesy of the Egyptians and Israeli's).

It wasn't entirely the fault of the US.

[GBF]

No. The issue isn't the weapons. Its the financing. And most of that financing came from the Saudi government who helped finance the war against the russians including funding for military trainers and weapons training as well as flooding the north-west border towns with used russian weaponary (courtesy of the Egyptians and Israeli's).

It wasn't entirely the fault of the US.

it was through the saudi because US were close to the petrol geezers and the talibs were more comfortable to deal with another muslim than a western nation.  Also Osama was saudi. 

[Monkey Red]

Canada has lost 102...US....712. We have lost more  in 1 month in Iraq as you have in 8 years in Afg. No disrespect to the fighting man of any country. This isn't about that. Its about national policy and commitment. as the British conservatives said this week..it is almost a dereliction of duty of Brown due to the low troop numbers and equipment for the british army in Afg. A regimental or battalion (most EU counties commitment) is a joke. Most of those soldiers are support troops also. Not combat soldiers..its a joke and shows unconcern for those risking their lives for NATO countries.

I don't feel any sympathy to nations who say their loss of a few troops is carrying a fair share. Allies doesn't mean do enough to say your in it...its do enough to share the burden. I don't feel as though 712 vs the next closest less than 200 being a fair share of the burden.  Even my british army friends agree to that.

So youŽd feel better if the British and other Nato allies lost as many as the US? Would that redeem us in your eyes? Could this deficit also be down to the US Army being a tad more gung ho than the rest of us? Give me fucking strength!

[GIRed]

Somebody....agreed. This is a tough fight. We have even slouched off on Afg until last year. Nothing short of an Afghan economic enlightenment will solve the Afghan problem. No nation, including one that was led by Alexander the Great could  cure Afghanistan through military prowess.

I didn't even mention Pakistan...whole other issue. Its looking like mission impossible to stand up an effective Afghan gov. Its going to take at least another 10 years..and that's only if the EU steps up economically. 

[GIRed]

Monkey..I don't wish the death of any NATO soldier...but wouldn't you question the loyalty of your friends if it seemed like it was only you getting punched in the face in most. Fights? Your friends walked away with bloody noses while you keep getting bones broken? Simplistic analogy...but it should make sense.  This is supposed to be an equal partnership..not "we'll let America do the heavy lifting"

[The Gulleysucker]

I don't feel any sympathy to nations who say their loss of a few troops is carrying a fair share. Allies doesn't mean do enough to say your in it...its do enough to share the burden. I don't feel as though 712 vs the next closest less than 200 being a fair share of the burden.  Even my british army friends agree to that.

It's a tad insulting to the fallen of all participating countries, to use these numbers as some kind of proof as to the level of a countries commitment in this nasty little conflict. The dead and wounded of all nations who have been involved deserve more than that.

The number of troops deployed is surely in relationship to what the planners and intelligence perceive as the the requirements for a modern sophisticated and high firepower equipped contingent to contain and defeat the rag tag but highly motivated force opposing them, the Taliban fighters. How many Taliban fighters are there in Afghanistan? Last I heard was maybe around 20,000 max, concentrated primarily in just some areas and operating in a backdrop of uneducated indifference and terror.

Now increasing the number of coalition deployed forces and perhaps in some cases equipping them with better assets, might have a temporary effect, but it's not a guarantee of permanently defeating this pernicious and nasty hydra which seems to have a never ending source of new recruits. And increasing the numbers of coalition troops deployed will also assuredly provide more targets and potential casualties, probably in direct relation to coalition numbers deployed, and lead to more searching questions as to what it is all for.

As for questioning these individual coalition countries contributions, you have to examine their respective long term policies, and respect them.
While the initial overthrow of the Taliban regime was welcomed by almost all civilised people, including probably most enlightened people here in the UK, some mission creep seems to have occurred since. The US seems to have developed a strategic imperative to have considerably more troops deployed than any other coalition member but it's questionable how much it is to do with defeating the Taliban, but more if it's about containment to acceptable levels and establishing a permanent US military presence and ensuring regional influence.

I believe it is vital if any popular commitment and support to sustain this valiant effort is to be continued, that the aims and objectives, a joint "Why we fight" declaration like the Allies had in the second world war, that is clear cut and unambiguous and describes the moral arguments for continuing to have a military presence and attendant inevitable casualties in Afghanistan, is stated by the coalition to the public. Once that argument has been clearly stated and (re?)won, then a proper debate on numbers deployed and tactics to be employed to do the job well and with minimal casualties and finish it once and for all and in as short a time as possible, can start to sensibly take place and be quantified and politically and economically justified, and maybe, we will be able to see some light at the end of what is currently looking like a very long and dark tunnel.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

GIRed, I actually agree with Gulleysucker that to dwell overly on the numbers is offensive to each soldier killed and each family left grieving. However, as you want to play the numbers game:

Manpower:
US Army - 1,000,000
British Army - 100,000

Troops in Afghanistan
US army - 53,000 (5.3% of total availability)
British Army - 8100 (8.1% of total availability)

US Casulaties - 712  (0.07% of total, 1.3% of troops committed)
British casualties - 185  (0.18% of total, 2.3% of troops committed)

So who is proportionately making the biggest sacrifice?  Not that that is a question that should really ever need to be answered.

[GBF]

It get ridiculous when someone compare who has more death in his army.  1 is already too many. 

GIRed, did you have a bad experience with allies forces?  It seems you have strong views on any non-US forces.

[tomred]

It get ridiculous when someone compare who has more death in his army.  1 is already too many. 

GIRed, did you have a bad experience with allies forces?  It seems you have strong views on any non-US forces.

1 is already too many is a bit like saying "why can't we all live happily ever after?"

[GBF]

1 is already too many is a bit like saying "why can't we all live happily ever after?"

It was already getting on that path when this page was getting into "I have more dead soldiers"...."No I have more"




Come I give you a hug there big boy!

[Mad Men]

I think the canadians, italians, french, our own aussie troops and other coalition troops are doing a tough job in a tough environment. If the problem is going to be solved, it has to be about:

1) Improving the infrastructure, not only in afghanistan but also in the border regions of pakistan
2) Improving job opportunities not only for farmers but youngsters and adults who see no future other than alliances or alligence to a war lord, AQ/Taliban or madrasses.
3) Creating an economic council with representatives from both countries and getting the UN involved with micro-lending schedmes to help small farmers and traders start Small-medium enterprises with low repayments and low interest rates.
4) Improving border security, and encouraging both pakistani and afghan's to increase the number of police and military personel in the region from its current numbers.
5) Establish a religious department solely to monitor content of education at madrasses who must have a license to operate and must follow set rules and regulations on age of students and material's vetted by qualified islamic moderate scholars.

Anyways, just my own thoughts on how to help improve the situation.

[Degs]

I think the canadians, italians, french, our own aussie troops and other coalition troops are doing a tough job in a tough environment. If the problem is going to be solved, it has to be about:

1) Improving the infrastructure, not only in afghanistan but also in the border regions of pakistan
2) Improving job opportunities not only for farmers but youngsters and adults who see no future other than alliances or alligence to a war lord, AQ/Taliban or madrasses.
3) Creating an economic council with representatives from both countries and getting the UN involved with micro-lending schedmes to help small farmers and traders start Small-medium enterprises with low repayments and low interest rates.
4) Improving border security, and encouraging both pakistani and afghan's to increase the number of police and military personel in the region from its current numbers.
5) Establish a religious department solely to monitor content of education at madrasses who must have a license to operate and must follow set rules and regulations on age of students and material's vetted by qualified islamic moderate scholars.

Anyways, just my own thoughts on how to help improve the situation.

I appreciate that, it's a well thought out plan to help stabilise the country.

But let's be honest it won't happen, as soon as all of the western troops pull out it's up shit creek again. The same with Iraq, a huge power vacuum is going to be filled by the next person to shout "I hate America" the loudest.

After all they've even just come close to legalising rape even when big brother is still stationed there.

[Mad Men]

I appreciate that, it's a well thought out plan to help stabilise the country.

But let's be honest it won't happen, as soon as all of the western troops pull out it's up shit creek again. The same with Iraq, a huge power vacuum is going to be filled by the next person to shout "I hate America" the loudest.

After all they've even just come close to legalising rape even when big brother is still stationed there.

Yes, and there remain many other issues that need the attention of the appropriate authorities.

There was one other important issue I forgot to add: the palestine-Israeli conflict. That one needs a solution sooner rather than later if we are to have any hope in the coming year's of peace amongst all religions and moderates/radical muslims.

This seems to be the one issue which continues to unite both moderate and radical muslims and needs a person like Obama to draw a line and to say enough is enough and to find a solution that may not be a fantastic solution for both sides but, a solution that will allow the palestinians to finally have opportunities at statehood and being able to grow economically and a land they can call their own.

It has to happen or else I fear these problems with terrorist groups like AQ will just keep going on and on.