Note: This is all so terminally depressing because it is so predicable. 
It was obvious before they went into Afghanistan that they would get 
bogged down in a guerrilla situation in a country which is in reality no 
more than a geographical expression. The idea that it can be turned into 
a nation state let alone a liberal democracy is risible.

The future is also utterly predictable. The curs who rule in American 
will continue in Afghanistan until the public heat at home gets too 
severe - probably around another two or three years - and Britain will 
hopelessly hang around in support of the USA as ever more young men are 
killed and horribly maimed.  Eventually America will do what they did in 
Vietnam, claim that the Afghan state is now strong enough to survive on 
its own and withdraw, with Britain trailing away in their wake. RH

Brown: We must not walk away from Afghanistan

Press Association

Friday, 6 November 2009

Paying tribute days ahead of Remembrance Day to the 93 British troops 
who have died in Afghanistan this year, the Prime Minister said: "These 
men are our heroes today."

Mr Brown acknowledged that Britain's strategy was not "without danger or 
risk".

But he warned that al-Qa'ida terrorists continue to plot terror attacks 
on Britain from the region, and said: "This mission must not fail."




-- 
Robert Henderson
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

Isn't it about some oil pipeline, and regional geopolitical
control...........

The invasion, even if unwinnable, is a bargaining chip.

If EUSSR/USASR can't win the war, They can negotiate a withdrawl
settlement, with a favourable oil policy, and instructions to client
warlords to protect the pipeline, under threat of a new invasion....

The ones to be pitied are the ex-soldiers who will make up the
homeless population of future decades.... knowing they've been
"had."............
IMAGE / ex-soldier:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/images/episode/b00b0cms_512_288.jpg
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suicide of Falklands veterans
by
ALUN REES, Mail on Sunday

A shocking little-known toll of the Falklands War is revealed today,
20 years on.
More veterans have taken their own lives since the South Atlantic
conflict ended than the number of Servicemen killed in action.
The alarming statistic emerged in the wake of the horrifying suicide
of Charles 'Nish' Bruce, an SAS hero of the Falklands and one of the
world's top freefall experts, who leapt to his death from a light
aircraft last week.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-94492/Suicide-Falklands-veterans.html

On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 16:43:14 +0000, Robert Henderson
 wrote:

>Note: This is all so terminally depressing because it is so predicable. 
>It was obvious before they went into Afghanistan that they would get 
>bogged down in a guerrilla situation in a country which is in reality no 
>more than a geographical expression. The idea that it can be turned into 
>a nation state let alone a liberal democracy is risible.
>
>The future is also utterly predictable. The curs who rule in American 
>will continue in Afghanistan until the public heat at home gets too 
>severe - probably around another two or three years - and Britain will 
>hopelessly hang around in support of the USA as ever more young men are 
>killed and horribly maimed.  Eventually America will do what they did in 
>Vietnam, claim that the Afghan state is now strong enough to survive on 
>its own and withdraw, with Britain trailing away in their wake. RH
>
>Brown: We must not walk away from Afghanistan
>
>Press Association
>
>Friday, 6 November 2009
>
>Paying tribute days ahead of Remembrance Day to the 93 British troops 
>who have died in Afghanistan this year, the Prime Minister said: "These 
>men are our heroes today."
>
>Mr Brown acknowledged that Britain's strategy was not "without danger or 
>risk".
>
>But he warned that al-Qa'ida terrorists continue to plot terror attacks 
>on Britain from the region, and said: "This mission must not fail."

all very well for you to whinge...
but first you must discern what the real purposes
    or objectives of the police action in afghan

i sure doubt the clown or obarmy have worked it out....
bring back george bush...at least he had intelligence

regards

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 7 Nov, 16:43, Robert Henderson  wrote:
> Note: This is all so terminally depressing because it is so predicable.
> It was obvious before they went into Afghanistan that they would get
> bogged down in a guerrilla situation in a country which is in reality no
> more than a geographical expression. The idea that it can be turned into
> a nation state let alone a liberal democracy is risible.
>
>

Anyone with half a brain could figure out that there's no way the West
would win a war there if the Russians couldn't do it in ten years. How
the fuck Bliar and Bush thought that we could do it only adds
testament to their unsuitability for Office.

McKevvy

On 7 Nov, 17:41, abelard  wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 16:43:14 퍍, Robert Henderson
>
>
>
>  wrote:
> >Note: This is all so terminally depressing because it is so predicable.
> >It was obvious before they went into Afghanistan that they would get
> >bogged down in a guerrilla situation in a country which is in reality no
> >more than a geographical expression. The idea that it can be turned into
> >a nation state let alone a liberal democracy is risible.
>
> >The future is also utterly predictable. The curs who rule in American
> >will continue in Afghanistan until the public heat at home gets too
> >severe - probably around another two or three years - and Britain will
> >hopelessly hang around in support of the USA as ever more young men are
> >killed and horribly maimed.  Eventually America will do what they did in
> >Vietnam, claim that the Afghan state is now strong enough to survive on
> >its own and withdraw, with Britain trailing away in their wake. RH
>
> >Brown: We must not walk away from Afghanistan
>
> >Press Association
>
> >Friday, 6 November 2009
>
> >Paying tribute days ahead of Remembrance Day to the 93 British troops
> >who have died in Afghanistan this year, the Prime Minister said: "These
> >men are our heroes today."
>
> >Mr Brown acknowledged that Britain's strategy was not "without danger or
> >risk".
>
> >But he warned that al-Qa'ida terrorists continue to plot terror attacks
> >on Britain from the region, and said: "This mission must not fail."
>
> all very well for you to whinge...
> but first you must discern what the real purposes
>     or objectives of the police action in afghan
>
> i sure doubt the clown or obarmy have worked it out....
> bring back george bush...at least he had intelligence
>
> regards
>
> --
> web site atwww.abelard.org- news comment service, logic, economics
>  energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------->   all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
>   the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
>   good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
>                     only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------So, what do you suggest? Kill everybody in Afghanistan? Sure,you could
wipe out the Taleban and Al Khieda. Actually, much as I dislike paying
taxes, I thought the idea was that taxes are there to pay for the
defence of my country. Has Afghanistan declared war on UK? Are they
really a threat? I don't think so.

On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 12:30:01 -0800 (PST), Pete L
 wrote:

>On 7 Nov, 17:41, abelard  wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 16:43:14 +0000, Robert Henderson
>>
>>
>>
>>  wrote:
>> >Note: This is all so terminally depressing because it is so predicable.
>> >It was obvious before they went into Afghanistan that they would get
>> >bogged down in a guerrilla situation in a country which is in reality no
>> >more than a geographical expression. The idea that it can be turned into
>> >a nation state let alone a liberal democracy is risible.
>>
>> >The future is also utterly predictable. The curs who rule in American
>> >will continue in Afghanistan until the public heat at home gets too
>> >severe - probably around another two or three years - and Britain will
>> >hopelessly hang around in support of the USA as ever more young men are
>> >killed and horribly maimed.  Eventually America will do what they did in
>> >Vietnam, claim that the Afghan state is now strong enough to survive on
>> >its own and withdraw, with Britain trailing away in their wake. RH
>>
>> >Brown: We must not walk away from Afghanistan
>>
>> >Press Association
>>
>> >Friday, 6 November 2009
>>
>> >Paying tribute days ahead of Remembrance Day to the 93 British troops
>> >who have died in Afghanistan this year, the Prime Minister said: "These
>> >men are our heroes today."
>>
>> >Mr Brown acknowledged that Britain's strategy was not "without danger or
>> >risk".
>>
>> >But he warned that al-Qa'ida terrorists continue to plot terror attacks
>> >on Britain from the region, and said: "This mission must not fail."
>>
>> all very well for you to whinge...
>> but first you must discern what the real purposes
>>     or objectives of the police action in afghan
>>
>> i sure doubt the clown or obarmy have worked it out....
>> bring back george bush...at least he had intelligence

>So, what do you suggest? Kill everybody in Afghanistan?

you suggested that...to what purpose i cannot devine

> Sure,you could
>wipe out the Taleban and Al Khieda. Actually, much as I dislike paying
>taxes, I thought the idea was that taxes are there to pay for the
>defence of my country. Has Afghanistan declared war on UK? Are they
>really a threat? I don't think so.

threat in what terms...
afghan is merely real estate

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert Henderson wrote:
> Note: This is all so terminally depressing because it is so predicable. 
> It was obvious before they went into Afghanistan that they would get 
> bogged down in a guerrilla situation in a country which is in reality no 
> more than a geographical expression. The idea that it can be turned into 
> a nation state let alone a liberal democracy is risible.
> 
> The future is also utterly predictable. The curs who rule in American 
> will continue in Afghanistan until the public heat at home gets too 
> severe - probably around another two or three years - and Britain will 
> hopelessly hang around in support of the USA as ever more young men are 
> killed and horribly maimed.  Eventually America will do what they did in 
> Vietnam, claim that the Afghan state is now strong enough to survive on 
> its own and withdraw, with Britain trailing away in their wake. RH
> 
> Brown: We must not walk away from Afghanistan
> 
> Press Association
> 
> Friday, 6 November 2009
> 
> Paying tribute days ahead of Remembrance Day to the 93 British troops 
> who have died in Afghanistan this year, the Prime Minister said: "These 
> men are our heroes today."
> 
> Mr Brown acknowledged that Britain's strategy was not "without danger or 
> risk".
> 
> But he warned that al-Qa'ida terrorists continue to plot terror attacks 
> on Britain from the region, and said: "This mission must not fail."
> 

Another echo from Vietnam is the parting legacy for the children and the 
childrens' children - Dioxin (agent orange) in the case of Vietnam and 
Depleted Uranium in Afghanistan and Iraq... not to mention unexploded 
munitions.
Mothers will be weeping long after the invaders have left.

j

In article ,
Robert Henderson   wrote:
>Mr Brown acknowledged that Britain's strategy was not "without danger or 
>risk".
>
>But he warned that al-Qa'ida terrorists continue to plot terror attacks 
>on Britain from the region, and said: "This mission must not fail."

Can anyone explain to me how fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan
is meant to prevent or even deter Al-Qa'ida from plotting terror
attacks on Britain (the main stated aim of the strategy)? 

Francis

Francis Burton wrote:
> In article ,
> Robert Henderson   wrote:
>> Mr Brown acknowledged that Britain's strategy was not "without danger or 
>> risk".
>>
>> But he warned that al-Qa'ida terrorists continue to plot terror attacks 
>> on Britain from the region, and said: "This mission must not fail."
> 
> Can anyone explain to me how fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan
> is meant to prevent or even deter Al-Qa'ida from plotting terror
> attacks on Britain (the main stated aim of the strategy)? 
>

It stops them having training and planning centres in a secure environment.

It is very difficult to operate a network/organisation/spy system 
devoted to anything clandestine if you don't have a safe place from 
which to plan and finance your projects.

If you've got to keep hiding from or fending off the local security 
organisation it takes up a lot of your time.

I'm not sure if any terrorist organisation ever managed a successful 
campaign without a secure area for planning and training.

The Jews in Palestine are about the only ones I can think of,  but they 
had access to a huge pool of trained manpower from WWII.

-- 
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of 
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat 
single handed with a quarterstaff.

On 8 Nov, 15:17, William Black  wrote:
> Francis Burton wrote:
> > In article ,
> > Robert Henderson   wrote:
> >> Mr Brown acknowledged that Britain's strategy was not "without danger or
> >> risk".
>
> >> But he warned that al-Qa'ida terrorists continue to plot terror attacks
> >> on Britain from the region, and said: "This mission must not fail."
>
> > Can anyone explain to me how fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan
> > is meant to prevent or even deter Al-Qa'ida from plotting terror
> > attacks on Britain (the main stated aim of the strategy)?
>
> It stops them having training and planning centres in a secure environment.
>
> It is very difficult to operate a network/organisation/spy system
> devoted to anything clandestine if you don't have a safe place from
> which to plan and finance your projects.
>
> If you've got to keep hiding from or fending off the local security
> organisation it takes up a lot of your time.
>
> I'm not sure if any terrorist organisation ever managed a successful
> campaign without a secure area for planning and training.
>
> The Jews in Palestine are about the only ones I can think of,  but they
> had access to a huge pool of trained manpower from WWII.
>
> --
> William Black
>
> "Any number under six"
>
> The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
> Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
> single handed with a quarterstaff.

I don’t know. I did think that in 2001 but feel it has not had that
effect. Afghanistan is a tribal society with complicated ethnic and
clan systems westerners or ignorant of. It is also a vast country. Its
neighbour, Pakistan was once considered a stable moderate country but
is now enduring daily large-scale bombings and hardening anti-western
public opinion. I hope for the best but it does not look promising at
the mo. Terrorism thrives where there is lawlessness it seems.

None whatsoever, the greater risk is within Britain. On this day of 
remembrance I feel particularly sorry for the waste of our young people in a 
futile mission, already abandoned by Russians in the past.

William Black wrote:
> Francis Burton wrote:
>> In article ,
>> Robert Henderson   wrote:
>>> Mr Brown acknowledged that Britain's strategy was not "without danger
>>> or risk".
>>>
>>> But he warned that al-Qa'ida terrorists continue to plot terror attacks
>>> on Britain from the region, and said: "This mission must not fail."
>>
>> Can anyone explain to me how fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan
>> is meant to prevent or even deter Al-Qa'ida from plotting terror
>> attacks on Britain (the main stated aim of the strategy)?
>>
>
> It stops them having training and planning centres in a secure
> environment.

Apart from South Waziristan, you mean?

Steve Walker wrote:
> William Black wrote:
>> Francis Burton wrote:
>>> In article ,
>>> Robert Henderson   wrote:
>>>> Mr Brown acknowledged that Britain's strategy was not "without danger
>>>> or risk".
>>>>
>>>> But he warned that al-Qa'ida terrorists continue to plot terror attacks
>>>> on Britain from the region, and said: "This mission must not fail."
>>> Can anyone explain to me how fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan
>>> is meant to prevent or even deter Al-Qa'ida from plotting terror
>>> attacks on Britain (the main stated aim of the strategy)?
>>>
>> It stops them having training and planning centres in a secure
>> environment.
> 
> Apart from South Waziristan, you mean? 

South Waziristan isn't a secure environment for anyone much,  and it 
never has been.

It's a wilderness with a low population and next to no infrastructure.

It is also populated by just about the most hostile bunch of evil louts 
on the planet, and they'll murder you for being friendly with the people 
in the next village.

Plus,  no phones,  no electricity,  no roads and the Pakistani 
government bombs it now and again,  when they're not shelling it.

No,  I think I'd prefer a nice quiet suburb in Kabul for the offices, 
with a training camp twenty miles outside the city,  thank you very much...

-- 
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of 
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat 
single handed with a quarterstaff.

On Nov 8, 3:47 pm, Claire  wrote:

> Terrorism thrives where there is lawlessness it seems.

And this is the crux.

We see it in Somalia.

We see it in the Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon.

We have seen it in Libya, in Iraq, In Jordan and in the Yemen.

Recent policy centred upon forced regime removal followed by the
introduction of western style democracy. The results thus far have not
been exactly spectacular if only because as RH says, some of these
places are not really countries, certainly not in the national sense,
at all. It probably goes much deeper than this.

It's going to be a long haul, perhaps success cannot be guaranteed but
what alternative is there? To retreat back within our own borders a la
Dunkirk does not appear much of an option either. As terrorists are so
keen to tell us, we don't want to die whilst they expect to die. We
have to be lucky every time, they have to be lucky just once and 9/11,
7/7, Madrid or even worse with inevitably worse to follow.

On Nov 8, 3:48 pm, "Phister"  wrote:

> None whatsoever, the greater risk is within Britain. On this day of
> remembrance I feel particularly sorry for the waste of our young people in a
> futile mission, already abandoned by Russians in the past.

And Britain along with every other country in the world these days.
The perpetrators of such incidents or attempted incidents in the UK
may well have been UK born but closer examination soon reveals links
back to these other places. It's as WB says these organisations need
their bases. You cannot rid your garden of wasps by swatting the odd
individual. Somewhere there is a nest that needs to be dug out.

On Nov 8, 7:02 am, fbur...@nyx.net (Francis Burton) wrote:
> In article ,
> Robert Henderson   wrote:
>
> >Mr Brown acknowledged that Britain's strategy was not "without danger or
> >risk".
>
> >But he warned that al-Qa'ida terrorists continue to plot terror attacks
> >on Britain from the region, and said: "This mission must not fail."
>
> Can anyone explain to me how fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan
> is meant to prevent or even deter Al-Qa'ida from plotting terror
> attacks on Britain (the main stated aim of the strategy)?
>
> Francis

We are told that the training camps were there. This is where they
planned the downfall of the evil empire remember - the USA.
Besides, what they don't want is Militant Islam spreading anywhere at
all. Iran is pretty bad but fairly civilised. The Taliban are like
1500 years out of date. None of our business of course but that's the
reason.


Hardy

In message , abelard 
 writes
>
>i sure doubt the clown or obarmy have worked it out.... bring back 
>george bush...at least he had intelligence

On a par with the computational capacity of a 1947 valve computer in the 
Bonkers 9000 series... RH
-- 
Robert Henderson
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

Robert Henderson wrote:
> In message , abelard 
>  writes
>>
>> i sure doubt the clown or obarmy have worked it out.... bring back 
>> george bush...at least he had intelligence
> 
> On a par with the computational capacity of a 1947 valve computer in the 
> Bonkers 9000 series... RH
Nah!,Shrub was never that bright:-)

On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 15:00:47 +0000, Robert Henderson
 wrote:

>In message , abelard 
> writes
>>
>>i sure doubt the clown or obarmy have worked it out.... bring back 
>>george bush...at least he had intelligence
>
>On a par with the computational capacity of a 1947 valve computer in the 
>Bonkers 9000 series... RH

several orders better than a hatstand then

regards

-- 
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics 
 energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  all that is necessary for       []     walk quietly and carry
  the triumph of evil is that     []           a big stick.
  good people do nothing     []    trust actions not words
                    only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <hd6ndt$jkj$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
William Black   wrote:
>Francis Burton wrote:
>> Can anyone explain to me how fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan
>> is meant to prevent or even deter Al-Qa'ida from plotting terror
>> attacks on Britain (the main stated aim of the strategy)? 
>
>It stops them having training and planning centres in a secure environment.

Would such 'centres' be detectable with aerial surveillance?
If so, couldn't they be the target of surgical strikes?

Francis

Francis Burton wrote:
> In article <hd6ndt$jkj$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> William Black   wrote:
>> Francis Burton wrote:
>>> Can anyone explain to me how fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan
>>> is meant to prevent or even deter Al-Qa'ida from plotting terror
>>> attacks on Britain (the main stated aim of the strategy)? 
>> It stops them having training and planning centres in a secure environment.
> 
> Would such 'centres' be detectable with aerial surveillance?
> If so, couldn't they be the target of surgical strikes?

Any modern office building can function as a planning and operational 
centre.

All you need is electricity,  computers and a reasonably reliable 
communications system.

Training facilities look like military establishments everywhere.

As a general rule they're designed with someone who doesn't approve of 
the activities going on there dropping bombs on them now and again.

Walk around one of the bigger military museums built on a WWII base (In 
Europe,  your headers say you're in the USA which is rather different) 
and you'll notice that they're designed to be survive a reasonable 
amount of bomb dropping...



-- 
William Black

"Any number under six"

The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of 
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat 
single handed with a quarterstaff.

In message , abelard 
 writes
>>>i sure doubt the clown or obarmy have worked it out.... bring back
>>>george bush...at least he had intelligence
>>
>>On a par with the computational capacity of a 1947 valve computer in the
>>Bonkers 9000 series... RH
>
>several orders better than a hatstand then
>


I see its owner is still engaging in GIGO... RH

>regards

-- 
Robert Henderson
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk

On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 09:15:44 -0800 (PST), Mel Rowing
 wrote:

>On Nov 8, 3:48 pm, "Phister"  wrote:
>
>> None whatsoever, the greater risk is within Britain. On this day of
>> remembrance I feel particularly sorry for the waste of our young people in a
>> futile mission, already abandoned by Russians in the past.
>
>And Britain along with every other country in the world these days.
>The perpetrators of such incidents or attempted incidents in the UK
>may well have been UK born but closer examination soon reveals links
>back to these other places.

No it doesn't, there is no evidence that any attack on the UK was
orchestrated from abroad. The Bond super villan pulling the strings
idea is a complete falacy spread by people that cant admit to
themselves that we are trying to shoot and bomb an idea.



> It's as WB says these organisations need
>their bases. You cannot rid your garden of wasps by swatting the odd
>individual. Somewhere there is a nest that needs to be dug out.


Mohamad Sidiq Kahn was not from any nest in Afghanistan so your
analogy is bogus.

On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 10:14:09 -0800 (PST), HardySpicer
 wrote:

>On Nov 8, 7:02 am, fbur...@nyx.net (Francis Burton) wrote:
>> In article ,
>> Robert Henderson   wrote:
>>
>> >Mr Brown acknowledged that Britain's strategy was not "without danger or
>> >risk".
>>
>> >But he warned that al-Qa'ida terrorists continue to plot terror attacks
>> >on Britain from the region, and said: "This mission must not fail."
>>
>> Can anyone explain to me how fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan
>> is meant to prevent or even deter Al-Qa'ida from plotting terror
>> attacks on Britain (the main stated aim of the strategy)?
>>
>> Francis
>
>We are told that the training camps were there. This is where they
>planned the downfall of the evil empire remember - the USA.
>Besides, what they don't want is Militant Islam spreading anywhere at
>all. Iran is pretty bad but fairly civilised. The Taliban are like
>1500 years out of date. None of our business of course but that's the
>reason.
>
>
>Hardy

There were training camps there but they were training fighters to
fight in Chechnya, thoes camps are gone and now Russia has that
country under control. Russia has been the big winner in all of this
without lifting a finger!