After all of the fore-going, what is there left to debate? the on-going war in Afganistan is a blatant breach of all the civilized "rules of engagement".
By the time this is sorted out it must have become clear to everyone that war, in whatever guise it is presented, is a manipulating of the common people by polititians for ulterior motives that may never be fully revealed, because they would be condemned on morality and common decency.
As I see it, the right to make war must be taken away from the polititians, where it is misused for personal image building and to firm commercial alliances for commercial gain.
It looks like the only way to get there, though, is to invoke the war-crimes acts and try some of them for the crimes against humanity they are committing, and label every person who kills another person under the guise of war, as a war criminal.
History has taught us many things, but one of the most important we should remember, is that war never solves the problem for which it was started. In the end negotiation always has to clear up the mess it created.
Alfred

War in Afghanistan is a new way of dealing with terrorists. If we leave Afghanistan, it will revert to Taliban control and be a haven for terrorists and training terrorists. If they continue to allow poppy growing, they will have capital as well.

We can't look backwards and say this is different to the civilised way we practiced war in Europe or anywhere else. Every war is new, every war goes through a stage of learning how to prosecute it by both sides. Both sides believe they are right and will eventually be victorious.

Vietnam was lost due to restriction in rules of engagement. If the US forces had been allowed open slather, they could not have lost - they were restricted by political processes. not so here, well, not yet.

Trying to couch this war in UN terms, resolutions, rules and guidelines will get people killed and will drag it out. The politics muddies clear objectives. The UN is a group of political apointees who all have personal vested interests, why anyone deals with them at all amazes me.

Why do people keep asking politicians for exit plans or strategies, they will only reflect what they think their trading partners, or their community thinks, depending on election cycle.

There should be more outrage that we might actually leave this part of the world to become a breeding ground for terrorists, instead we get the hand wringers whining about how we are affecting the lives of simple farmers - the Taliban will fix that, and there will be no next generation of farmers as all the young men will go to jihad.

We stay till the job is done, no leaving till then if it takes 10, 20 or 50 years we stay till the threat from such people is wiped out.

Well rpg you have well and truly been taken in by the Neocon propaganda.
It would be pointless trying to give you the facts on the war in Afghanistan; you would have too closed a mind to analyze them
But the good thing is that your *war to the finish, even if it takes 50 years*, is not going to happen.
The reasons?
Peak oil will stop the US war machine cold in its tracks.
The US economy is going to implode in the near future, dragging down the rest of the world, even China and of course Australia.
Climate change will affect the outcome but take a bit longer as it affects the world population and starvation rears it’s ugly head.
In the meantime a lot more innocent people are going to die or be maimed to continue this farcical war started by a deluded cowboy and his paranoid string pullers.
The speeches we have had so far in the Australian parliament show that the present lot of so-called leaders (except for the Greens and a minority of the others)are obviously not able to comprehend the fact that this is an unwinnable war.

sarnian .. what neocon propaganda?

It's always the resort of the desperate to try to raise a straw man to explain why people think differently isn't it?

This is the reality, I've studied war professionally, have you? Or are you just taken in by leftist propaganda? All your arguments relate to either fantasies or prophesies of doom, probably from leftist blogs eh.

American economy imploding, you wish! It won't happen, they are not stupid people as you seem to think.

Peak Oil, not an issue, we will switch to biofuels as soon as the cost benefit curve crosses decreasing oil. You lot keep forgetting that other substances can be made into fuel. You can "hope and pray" they do not, but it's not a reality.

Climate change, jeez, another fantasy. You'd be better of holding your breath to stop war quite frankly

A lot more people would die in Afghanistan if the Taliban get back into power .. why is that OK? Why is it OK for the Taliban to harbour terrorists? Do you think it will all stop if everyone is nice to each other? Talk about delusions and sucking up leftist propaganda.

It's really the "cowboy" you have a problem with isn't it? Also PM Howard (MOS) I'm sure. If it was President Clinton, would you have the same problem? No I'm sure you wouldn't.

The war in Afghanistan is just a tool for the left to express its outrage, nothing to do with the treatment of women, or anyone else there. For the rest of us, it's a line in the sand that the terrorism and the rolling up of Taliban/sharia law, stops here.

You think people are pulling the strings do you, are they behind the doors where ever go?

Are they pulling the strings of everyone in our parliament too? Are they at NATO HQ where the war is being led from? Are they everywhere .. horrors!

When you talk about people being deluded, reread your own posts.

Have a good weekend, watch out for people pulling the strings, ok.

I think "leftist propaganda" was enough to know that Sarnian was right.

If our presence is illegal under international law, if the Taliban may have offered Bin Laden, if Opium production has gone UP since we took over, and our troops are dying just to prevent a backwards tribalistic warband conquer the rest of the tribalistic warbands at present run by a corrupt vote-rigging criminal, we should not be there.
Our presence has forced the Taliban to spread outwards into neighbouring Pakistan, and they are in a position to wait centuries for us to leave anyway.

Also rpg, you DO realize that all the terrorists were people that were LET INTO THE COUNTRY TO LAUNCH A DOMESTIC ATTACK?

Also, how do we 'win' this war? How do we get every last "Taliban"- do we merely kill the "Taliban" and suddenly all the other jihad psychos in the world (using this conflict as a recruiting drive) will suddenly, magically disappear too?

THIS is why we should ditch that place- in fact, we should be laying out terms for the Taliban on our withdrawal (and conditions which we will simply launch a bombing run if they defy, and leave).

"Also rpg, you DO realize that all the terrorists were people that were LET INTO THE COUNTRY TO LAUNCH A DOMESTIC ATTACK?"

What on earth are you talking about ..what terrorists and which DOMESTIC ATTACK?

Get your act together and try to write something coherent, please. Just blithering incoherently is not an argument, nor can anyone respond to or understand what you mean.

Our presence is not illegal by international law, even if it was .. so what? Terrorists tend not to be bothered by International Law, why should we when pursuing them .. in fact, most legal system have a clause to allow "hot pursuit", consider this such a pursuit - there are no time limits on such things.

"Also, how do we 'win' this war?" Why do we need to? Why not just stay there forever and deny the terrorists a place to train and hang out bothering the locals. The poppies etc we can deal with once the country is safe and yes, we kill every last Taliban. Why do we have to rush these things, that's when things go wrong ..of course, that's what politics does to war, stuffs it up.

Consider it a police action where we stay once the pests are removed.

You all look at this as if we can just go in, do something and leave and it will all be OK, it is not like that, those days are over - terrorism is a new form of warfare it is "asymmetric", if you don't understand that, go look it up and stop trying to apply old styles of thinking and warfare to a new way of prosecuting terror.

We stay till the job is done, it may take time

GO TO YOUR GAWD LIKE A SOLDIER OF THE QUEEN!

Thank you, Dr Venturini, for your insightful analysis.

For me, at least FOUR big lessons here:

(i) all wars have unintended ( invariably negative) consequences;

(ii) the gift of “democracy” cannot be imposed by force;

(iii) cultural transformation of a traditional society to accept our values is the impossible dream/fatal conceit of armchair generals, politicians, etc; and

(iv) if national foreign policy is driven by so-called “ethical/moral” considerations (as are all crusades, especially the first) one ends up in a mess. If Afghanistan, then why not Somalia, or any number of other countries?

Bismark got in right when he refused to "sort out" the Balkans of his day. “I shall remember them in my prayers,” he said, “but will not leave the bones of a single grenadier in the Balkans.”

Rudyard Kipling’s (satirical/not patriotic?) poem, The Young British Soldier, got it right too, especially its last verse:

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier _of_ the Queen!

Magna est veritas et (hopefully) praevalebit.

Alice

"Which domestic attack?"
How about 911, London Bombings, both Bali attacks, and virtually every single attack by an Islamist on a Western country were all citizens, legal EU passport card holders, or permitted residents of that very country they attacked, and were permitted by the government to actually be there. None of them have actually snuck in.

"Why not just stay there forever and deny the terrorists a place to train and hang out bothering the locals." Yes because they cannot possibly, say, use a different country- one where the people are actually moderates. And you make it sound like all terrorism in the world comes from just this one country and they're going to stay and fight to the last man- which is completely wrong. And personally, that is not worth the life of our soldiers and the instability for the rest of the world as the Islamists missing their utopia try to recreate it elsewhere.

And who's applying obsolete war standards here? Your approach is to assume we are up against a nation whom we will simply defeat and the problem will be solved.

You clearly are the one who does not understand how this process actually works.

You of course realize that Al Queda were responsible for 911, but the other attacks were organized by completely different Islamists?
Or do you believe that they're all a single organization that will fall apart if Bin Laden dies?

Heh,heh,rpg-I'm sure you know all about war-does rpg stand for 'rocket propelled grenade'?Any wonder you want this unwinnable war to go on. What makes you think that the American Alliance can win when no other power has EVER won a war in Afghanistan. Based on your predictions the Alliance will cease when they have all exhausted their treasuries-great deal for everyone.
Whats with the paranoia about terrorists? Get over it. The Taliban had the place running suitably for the locals and would continue to do so if your warmongers got out from a place they had no right to be in the first place.

"Ive studied war professionally.."
So you are a soldier rpg . Forgive me , but you analyse & think like one too .
Have you ever heard of the old saying -
To a man with a hammer in his hand , everything looks like a nail ?
Youe posts sound like extracts from a vintage John Wane movie fantasy.

If an incompetant and egotistical world power not only forcefully occupied your home country based on impulse for benevolent, deluded, and unjust reasons, but also continued to murder tens of thousands of your fellow civilians… I certainly hope you would be a “terrorist” too.

The illusion that we are conducting a war on terror in Afghanistan is what prevents us from getting out.
As what should now be obvious (but clearly isn't as far as our political leaders are concerned.) is that the terrorism that they are fighting is not located in a place. For those who doubt this consider where the people are coming from who either commit or have been prevented from committing terrorists acts. These people neither take their orders from some sort of central command nor are linked to a particular place.
Meanwhile we are sending our young men and women to their graves in a futile war.

*"Also, how do we 'win' this war?" Why do we need to? Why not just stay there forever and deny the terrorists a place to train and hang out bothering the locals.*

You would need to “Win the war” because the rest of the world is not going to pay for the US empires excesses forever. When the credit is cut off, that will be the end of the US war machine.

*Consider it a police action where we stay once the pests are removed.*

The biggest pests are the invaders that are killing and wounding the inhabitants of a sovereign country that they have no right to be in.

*You all look at this as if we can just go in, do something and leave and it will all be OK, it is not like that, those days are over - terrorism is a new form of warfare it is "asymmetric"*

This not warfare, it’s invasion and subjugation. And for a supposedly military man, you should know that the only guerilla war that has ever been successfully contained is the Malaysian emergency by the British and that was because most of the population was on the side of the British.
This is an unwinnable war.

kh, says "DO realize that all the terrorists were people that were LET INTO THE COUNTRY TO LAUNCH A DOMESTIC ATTACK?

So I asked you to verify what your point was .. did the terrorists indicate on arrival to their target country of their intentions?

So you respond with, ""Which domestic attack?" How about rant rant rant attacked, and rant rant to actually be there. None of them have actually snuck in."

It's just a rant. Who said they "snuck" in? You did, I didn't so what's your point, I ask again.

To the rest of the peaceniks, get over it .. war is and always will be one of the ways things get settled.

So do we fight a guerilla war against guerillas? no, you deal with it by firstly depriving them of a base, stop them terrorizing the local populace and then slowly roll them up.

We can't just abandon the Afghanis to the Taliban. Well, unless you have no morals at all. You all whine about David Hicks and his treatment, but are happy to throw an entire population to a bunch of terrorists.

Either we are part of the world that cares about other people or we are not, if not .. then sure, let's pull out and shut up about the rest of the world, how people get treated, don't quote the UN or Amnesty Int,. ever again .. but you all want to selectively be out there "doing something" when it suits you. You want Australia to "take action" when it suits you .. but only for a little while till you lose interest .. (oh look,, Julia has done her hair differently today! fickle ..)

I reckon the primary reason for being against this war is POTUS Bush and PM Howard, so for your hatred, you'll throw and entire country on the scrapheap .. "too hard!" "John Howard" " George Bush!"

Harden up, tolerating intolerant people is rewarding the very people who make life such a misery for the population.

Rpg who's the "ranter" here?
What makes you think I'm a lefty peacenik?

Where is the terrorist's "base"?
Do they have an international headquarters, where upon its destruction the terrorist "nation" collapses?
Do you think Al Queda operatives are just going to hang around Afghanistan so we can find them?

And you'd be amazed how few enemies one would have when you don't go attacking other countries.

Anyway, detecting terrorists is called policework and detective work- so far, the majority of attempted terrorist attacks were detected and thwarted- and strangely, they were all motivated by our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq!
When they try to get in, we catch them at the border and if we regard them as suspicious, we don't let them in/apply for flying school (and many individuals and detective agencies noticed the 911 people were suspicious- they merely didn't act on it).

So, considering that most attempted terrorist attacks are quite detectable by security agencies, and the prime motive for attacking us is our presence in the middle east, what exactly is our point to be in Afghanistan?

George , good article .
Are you still out there ? Best wishes from an old student .
How many Dr George Venturinis (lawyer , acedemic , now 'retired') can there be ?
One such taught me Commercial Law @ UQ in the mid 60s .
Presumably you are still in Australia & , can still see through fraud & inadequate explainations when you encounter it - whether from double-talking merchant-gansters or double-talking , career-serving, parliamentary gangsters .
We have a problem with the latter on both sides of politics in Australia , as you have noticed .

The war sure seems like a crime. However, what entities can bring charges to the International Criminal Court? Can I as an individual do it? If not, who can do it?

rpg, I agree with much of what you say - particularly with regard to the UN and politicians. With regard to rules of engagement, I am not qualified to comment other than it does seem a nonsense that the West plays by Marquiss of Queensbury rules, and the Taliban by something else. Witness the nonsense presently with three of our soldiers.

I wonder though, if war can ever finish in Afghanistan because so many terrorists retreat into Pakistan and can strike from there at will. I cannot see that this will change and wonder if, in time, politicians will get around to advocating war in Pakistan on the grounds of clearing out terrorists.

In my opinion, the most sensible argument by the writer is the historical one. But when did present-time politicians ever take notice of the lessons of history? If they did, maybe war would not be advocated at any time.

History would teach that the best way to resolve differences before they reach armed conflict is by diplomacy and more diplomacy, after all, that's what we pay diplomats and foreign ministers for. But a mighty flaw lives in this idea - goodwill, or the lack of.

Until politicians and others of less than honourable intentions, realise that innocent lives should never be put at risk on any grounds, nothing will change. It is not good enough to dismiss civilian deaths as colateral damage. In fact, it is amoral.

One feels the abomination of war will always be with us because the types I mention just above will always be with us, as will the lack of good will.

To my mind, the so-called debate on Afghanistan indulged in just recently was as silly as the comments of some about "peak oil" and the financial collapse of the US.

The most sensible comment to come from this indulgence was by Andrew Robb who said that senior military should be held accountable for the results of their decisions which often seem to be in support of politicians rather than what will succeed, or what is right.

ibbit, I agree that to win in Afghanistan looks difficult - but that's only if you look at it from the "old" perspective of wars being limited .. having an entry and an exit.

This war has no exit .. that's the point that people find difficult, it is probably going to now forever worldwide. It has nothing to do with the historical troubles previously in Afghanistan.

It's a holy Islamic war against the west, sure the 9/11 terrorists may have been from various other countries, but they were part of Al Quaida ("the base", so there it is hazza, wherever they are is "the base", when you find them, you have found "the base") Bin Laden in a Saud, so what, terrorists hang out where they can get some relative peace and quiet to regroup, train, and plan .. that's what the Taliban gave them.

You might not like to hear that, but that's what it is .. Bin Laden has said many times that this is a war against the great satan and its allies (us)

Just as in other parts of the middle east, if the people see you are weak, and negotiating is seen as weak, they will kill you. Lying in negotiations to infidels, is not a crime nor a moral issue for them after all, their holy books demands you kill infidels any way you can.

They are not moderates, they are extremists.

If we pull out of Afghanistan, they have won.

If we leave, it will not be over, and next time we engage, and we will, we will have to learn the skills again.

This is not a force on force war, it is asymmetric, force against guerrillas, and whatever the historical context is, we cannot afford to leave or lose this one.

In fact, over time we need to expand it, take out all of Pakistan that is not ruled by government, Kashmir etc, roll them up, if it takes 100 years, so be it.

Dear rpg,

Ideologies and religions change with time. George Kennan, a US cold war theorist, suggested containment rather than confrontation with the Soviet Union. US forces never directly engaged Soviet forces although both Soviet and US forces engaged surrogates of their opponent. Finally, the Cold War was over because the Soviet Union imploded. There was more and more dissatisfaction with communism until the Soviet people got rid of it.

The same can be true of Islam. Modernity and the ideas of a free society are attractive. We need no direct confrontation. We can keep up the pressure by exposing them to our ideas including the separation of religion and state. I was friendly with a Palestinian family in Brisbane. Some Jihadists approached the young men. They were not at all interested. It seemed nonsense to them.

Rather than a continuing confrontation just contain them and expose them to our ideas. Meanwhile get out of Afghanistan and Iraq.

david f, yes, tolerating intolerance has certainly worked well hasn't it .. oh wait

Dear rpg,

I didn't advocate tolerating intolerance at all. I advocate not invading countries whose attitudes don't agree with ours and slaughtering the people there as we have been doing. To you that seems tolerating intolerance. Oh, well. If many have the attitude you have we will continue to waste our substance, our strength and be hated.

david f, that's just emotive language, I don't advocate invading countries to "slaughter" the population, you have verballed me, but I'm used to it on this forum.

So are you saying the only way to defeat terrorists is to make friends and sit down and be nice to them .. they'll kill you, you're soft and deserve no respect if that's your behavior, in their way of life.

They only respect strong men, look at the warlords, their leaders, none of them tolerate weakness for a second.

We can't just overlay our western ideals of negotiation on them, they have a holy book that tells them they are the chosen ones, that we are infidel .. yet it must irritate them to realize we have all the good stuff and they have mud huts .. so much for being the chosen ones.

Mostly I think they turn to terrorism out of sheer embarrassment and envy.

Dear rpg,

Please cite where I said to be nice to terrorists or negotiate with them. They are not going to respect us no matter how brutal we are - no matter how many we slaughter.

They will simply fight harder. We are destroying Afghanistan and its people. If we leave it will not be wonderful in Afghanistan, but we will not be the ones who are slaughtering.

We can offer sanctuary to refugees after we check that they are genuine refugees. We can support resistance to the terror among their own people if there is genuine resistance rather than a corrupt puppet like Karzai. That really is all we can reasonably do.

They are not going to respect us even if we behave like them.

Rpg.
I see that the latest “terror scare” the “bombs” for Chicago, originated in Yemen.
Now, do you advocate invading Yemen or bombing Afghanistan twice as hard, because this is the “base” of terrorism?
In answer to your comments about Peak oil being a nonsense , I offer the following:
Surging price of oil forces US military to seek alternative energy sources 28 October 2010
Fiscal reality is dawning as US jets and warships trial alternative fuels in bid to end military’s costly dependence on oil
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/oct/28/oil-us-military-biofuels

To show that all is not sweetness and light in the US I also offer the information below:

Why Is Indiana Putting Armed Security Guards Into 36 Unemployment Offices Across The State?
October 29th, 2010
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/why-is-indiana-putting-armed-security-guards-into-36-unemployment-offices-across-the-state

Rpg we cannot overlay ANY "Western Ideals" on these people AT ALL unless they wanted to change anyway- and that WAS the only way to "win" the war.
Sending soldiers indefinitely into an always-hostile region to keep the threat under check in only ONE COUNTRY inside an entire world region where the terrorist's ideology is popular is not worth, "winning" what exactly? Higher opium trade? Jihadi numbers spreading outwards into Pakistan? You do also realize that there are perfectly good terrorist training camps in PAKISTAN, don't you?

We show the terrorists we have better weapons, they change tactics and slip into a more politically sensitive country we cannot touch and try to convert it instead- as they are doing right now.

Also, you do realize that all of these terrorists make it explicitly clear that they target countries with troops in "Muslim Holy lands?", and don't seem to attack or even mention Western countries that do not.
So what exactly are we doing there?

Unless of course you think every terrorist on the world works for Al Queda, and the people they recruit sincerely feel they are happy to die to get some strangers from a far-away land to change their religion (yet strangely people like Hilali aren't even brave enough).

But you tell me, which of the two seem most likely to recruit people, and how this would be affected once foreign presence stops?

davidf tell me where I said I wanted to invade and slaughter the inhabitants? Read your own posts about the Palestinian boys. Stop with the emotive "slaughter" language, you are trying to verbal me with emotive language, again .. I'll not bother with you again.

sarnian, yep, Yeman, Pakistan, anywhere they harbor terrorists should go on the list of places to do extreme damage unless they do something to curb the terrorists activities.

If countries enable and give solace to terrorists to base and train there, to act out random acts of violence, then we should hand out to those countries random acts of retribution. Seriously respond out of all proportion, show them who the hard men are, and they will understand, it's a middle eastern thing.

It certainly worked on Libya didn't it? they got the heck out of the supporting terrorist business.

Peak "mineral" oil is what you're talking about, isn't it - why do you deny the existence of other forms of fuel, grassoline, ethanol from sugar and bamboo .. jeez, what a closed and one track mind, what's up? Disappointed the doomsaying is being negated?

Where did I say the US people were nice?

you guys love to verball don't you?

kh all your rants assume one day we have to leave off all this aggression responding to terrorists, as President Bush said, this is not going to end, this is the state of the world now. Eventually we'll wear the terrorists down, if we don't, they will kill us - it's simple.

They are NOT going to let us live in peace, this is what they do, this is their occupation and their goal is an Islamic state worldwide, even the Indon Bashir repeats this.

Remember 9/11? That how this invasion started. Your rants are all over the shop and completely incoherent, don't bother me anymore.

Folks, we either roll up the drawbridge and go for the insulated solitary look, or if we're going to be out int he world, we have to join in the protection of it.

Rpg.
*Peak "mineral" oil is what you're talking about, isn't it - why do you deny the existence of other forms of fuel, grassoline, ethanol from sugar and bamboo . Disappointed the doomsaying is being negated?*

Unfortunately you are now into the “ They will find an answer” stage of your denial.
No I do not deny the existence of other forms of fuel but the trap is that it is not a feasible possibility.
Reason? Well if or should I say when Mineral oil gets too expensive to recover it will not be available to provide:
The diesel to operate farm machinery needed to farm the crop to make the ethanol.
The fertilizer (made from oil & gas) needed to farm the crop to make the ethanol.
The diesel to cart the crop to a manufacturer.
The diesel to cart to fuel to wherever it is going to be used.
But you are going to say, we will use the ethanol to do all this.
Here a little thing called “Energy returned on energy invested” (EROEI) comes into play. Google it.
This means that you would not have enough to run a war or even a civilian country dependent on this alone as below:

Petroleum's EROEI = 10 means that for each ten energy-units
of oil-derived fuels you produce you get to keep 9 energy
units for uses other than fuel production, since you have to
put aside 1 energy-unit to produce the next ten units.

Ethanol's EROEI = 2 means that for every 2 energy units of
ethanol you produce, you get to keep only 1 energy-unit for
uses other than fuel production since you have to put 1
energy-unit aside to produce the next 2 energy-units.

The other problem of course is that to produce a worthwhile amount of fuel, you would have to use so much arable land that you tend to starve as you are doing it. Can’t have food and fuel.

sarnian you're clearly in denial about other forms of fuel .. during WWII there were fuel shortages and people miraculously found ways around it with various forms of home made fuel. Have some faith in all the various substances available to us, if we run short of land for energy crops, we can always go indoors, or up in layers, and after all there is abundant room in Australia for all manner of crops that do not have to be overly water hungry. If they are, we plant them where there is water, the northwest ..

I'm sure you'll have a hysteric exaggerated "DOOM!" laden answer for everything and why I am wrong about it all, but I'll bet we survive.

You measure what we can do in the future by what we have now with no real driver. When "peak Oil" happens as you wish it to, we'll move on, we'll have a driver .. we will adapt, like we will adapt to a warmer earth. have some faith in the resilience of the planet and mankind .. stop panicking, it's untidy. (petrol today is only $1.40 ish a litre .. what's your problem?)

"Unfortunately you are now into the “ They will find an answer” stage of your denial."

I could say the same for you with AGW .. couldn't I?

If you feel that peak oil is inevitable and there's nothing we can do .. what do you think is going to happen, that we all just curl up and die? Of course not, even if there is some relative hardship, life will go on.

What do you think is going to happen if the earth warms, even 5 degrees on average? It won't happen overnight, and we'll adapt, we have no choice.

Cheer up, it could be worse, we could be hit by an asteroid .. or even be ruled by the Green party (now that, would be miserable!).

rpg, My reference to the lessons of history was not to any specific engagement at any time, but to the general impression one is left with about wars from the pages of history - that they are immoral and many - civilians and fighters die for little result.

I undestand the point you make about no end - that is what worries me. You write '..it is an asymmetric force against guerillas ... we cannot afford to lose this one."

Any idea of an attack on Pakistan worries me too, they have nuclear weapons and I would think, not be to restrained in their use - particularly if India joined the fray. There is much hatred between those two countries.

If, as many say, Afghanistan is part of a war against the west, its thinking, religion and so on, where the devil is this to end?

Also, I must say that david f was not advocating tolerance of terrorism. He was making the legitimate point that the freedoms of the west are very attractive to ordinary non-western people who, it is fair to say, would not want to give them up to fight for an ideology of hatred. In that regard they are little different to us.

The mention of Libya is funny, because I recall that Libya- a massive supporter of terrorists- backed down from diplomatic pressure and business/trade sanctions.

"diplomatic pressure" in the form of F-111 fighter bombers in Operation El Dorado Canyon, did have the efect of removing Libya from entertaining and supporting terrorism,in 1986.

To boot, Gaddafi lost a close relative I believe, his stepdaughter and lost his appetite for funding random acts of violence on the west.

Funny about that isn't it, and kh of course is still having selective memories about it .. so sad.

So as I said, people in the middle east only understand extreme violence, it's the way they live and enact "peace" on each other .. but please, do continue to blither about talking and negotiating with them, it's amusing.

Oh well doe RPG- your research skills are amazing.
It's just too bad that your chronology leaves much to be desired- because if you would look more carefully you might have noticed that the Lockerby Bombing occured AFTER that military incident you described- but it was only after the sanctions and diplomatic pressure did Qaddafi change policies, renounce terrorism and relinquish his WMDs.
(this info is coming from the CIA website).

Thus, your theory may be a little hard to prove that it was a military campaign that caused a change in policy for Libya.

kh you're right, the bombing run was a reaction to the Berlin disco bombing .. Libya was hurt by the sanctions, but maintains they had nothing to do with Lockerbie .. have they admitted it?

Let's see how sanctions do against Iran.

I suspect it will get to the stage there of someone getting worried enough to do another "run", heaven help us if they do. If I lived in Israel and had daily threats against me, maybe I'd have a different attitude.

Sanctions against the Taliban, would not work, did not work, they are a primitive society, who respond to hard men, hence all the warlords.

"Let's see how sanctions do against Iran."
For doing what though? They have not attacked anyone, their only crimes are attempting to gain access to nuclear technology, and giving weapons to their ally Syria who, in turn, themselves secretly hand them to the terrorist group Hezbolah.
They try to talk tough about Israel to gain popularity, but they aren't doing much about it.

And if memory serves me correctly, they began taking a more hardline stance ever since they were added on the "Axis of Evil"- just as North Korea resumed its nuclear aggression.
Since, we have been making every attempt to put this nation into a hostile stance.

As for the Taliban- the fact that they ARE primitives is why we are wasting our time there- they will never change, never reform, and they are NOT even needed for other terrorists to launch attacks (and I point out again that terrorists visit numerous other countries anyway- and to attack these countries will only motivate more people to become terrorists as we are presenting ourselves as an unstable aggressive force that they would be very motivated to stop.

And this reflects back on most of the terrorist attacks we have recieved so far- always against a country with a middle east presence, specifically stating a demand for withdrawal.

Staying in Afghanistan only exasperates the problem, and achieves no positives at all

Iran? Well since we find the precautionary principle just dandy for AGW, why aren't we using it here .. they might attack the west, so nuke em now, they might not, so if we nuke em now, no big loss. At the most we take out a few million Iranians, at worst if they attack the west, it could be billions. At least in Iran there are clear infrastructure targets.

Rpg that says a lot, thankyou for your time.

rpg.
Don't call us we'll call you.