Has Lisa considered that the prime reason for the existence of terrorists is the appalling foreign policy of the USA since WW2?

There is another reason for the US being in Afghanistan.Just above it there is Azerbaijan,Uzbeckistan and Kazakhstan,they have oil and gas reserves comparable to the that of the Persian gulf,but to make it economically viable,a pipline needs to be built to the ocean and Afghanistan/Pakistan is a good route.The threat of terrorism has been over exaggerated to justify the invasion of many countries.

The weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was a lie.Saddham was an USA generated dictator.

All is not what it seems and we should not swallow the tripe peddled by the Corporate media who have other financial interests associated with their companies.

The premise of this article that Afghanistan and Pakistan have been used as a safe haven for terrorists to strike at the US, other European nations, Australia, Indonesia etc., has never been proven.

Colin Powell's white paper proving the guilt of Islamist extremists operating from Afghanistan, promised to the UN in 2001 was never delivered.

The fact that not one single person with a proven link to the 9/11 atrocity has been captured after almost 8 years of occupation of Afghanistan and incursions into Pakistan is surely a very good clue that it is well past time to begin looking elsewhere to find the perpetrators of 9/11.

A very good place to start would be the holding of a proper inquiry into 9/11 in contrast to the sham 9/11 Commission and NIST 'investigations', as 80,000 residents of New York City have asked (see http://nyccan.org).

The 9/11 controversy has been discussed at length on the forum 9/11 Truth at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=83

A more recent discussion occurred on Larvatus Prodeo at http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/09/12/saturday-salon-208/#comment-827284

There can't be too many people left who still swallow the official story about the reason for the invasion of Iraq.

Representatives of the Taliban, who Reagan once hailed as "freedom fighters", were honored guests in Texas while still implicated by association in the attack on the USS Cole and actions in Somalia.

The US knew about their relationship with Al Queda (because they created it) but were prepared to look the other way while it suited them.

After negotiations for the Unacol Gas pipeline failed it was known and reported in the media that the US intended to have troops "on the ground in Afghanistan by October" - some months before the events of September 2001. The post-invasion government appointees had significant ties to that company.

Afghanistan and Iraq have very little to do with national security and almost everything to do with securing energy supplies and distribution.

Has Arjay considered that there wouldn't be break and enters if all those affluent people would stop buying stuff.

And that's the truth!

Afghanistan probably was a haven for terrorism. It probably will be again. Ditto Pakistan. And ditto a whole host of failed states. We can't occupy them all.

However, after getting in a few lucky blows while no one was looking, the terrorists have not shown themselves capable of inflicting serious damage on Western countries. It is now more than 8 years since 9/11 and four years since the London 7/7 bombings. Terrorist networks in Western countries have been disrupted. The security forces have been expanded and keep "persons of interest" under surveillance.

In short domestic security services seem to have done an excellent job of containing the terrorist threat which is probably all you can do.

I am under-whelmed by the threat.

A return of the brutal Taleban would be a tragedy for Afghans, especially Afghan women. But there are many appalling regimes in the world. We can't go and occupy every country that is ruled by bloodthirsty governments.

Under the circumstances I cannot see that Afghanistan is worth the life of one more Australian or NATO soldier or the expenditure of one more dollar. If need be the domestic security services can be given greater resources which would be both cheaper and less costly both in terms of Australian lives and dollars.

And if a new Taleban government does allow Afghanistan to be used as a base for terrorism the West has the power to destroy the government by giving arms and aid to dissident non-Pashtun tribal groups. A clear warning that such a response is on the cards should be enough to deter a new Taleban regime who probably don’t want to another spell in the mountains.

Remember, it was the non-Pashtun warlords that actually overthrew the Talben regime with a bit of aid from the US. Divide and conquer would still work.

In fact arming such non-Pashtun groups would probably keep any new Taleban government occupied with internal security matters.

What is happening?

Afganistan was the good war, ask The Blowtorch Kev07 and Obama's crowd.

I would have thought wars should be won if they are going to fought.