Putting aside all the conspiracy theories about 911,Prof David Ray Griffin asks some very pertinent questions about our invasion of Afghanistan.http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GR1201006&articleId=19891

Prof Marjory Cohen an expert on international law ,"The bombings of the Afghanis by the US and Uk are illegal." The Clinton administration gave up and offered them a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs.Prior 911 the Taliban had stopped the production of heroine in Afghanistan and there was a global drought.

Now Afghanistan produces 90% of the world's heroine with video of allied soldiers walking amongst the poppy plantations.

Are we just plain stupid or just too corrupt to realise our own foibles?

"Putting aside conspiracy theories ... ".

Anyway, moving straight into another one. So what you saying, is that we are complicit in illegal drug trade out of Afghanistan?.

The unfortunate thing about reality, Arjay, is that things aren't all that black and white. Let's say we actually do aerial spray all the poppy plantations throughout Afghanistan like the yanks wanted to do in 2008, what do the locals do for money, and if there's no money, who do they turn to, us, or the Taliban?. There's been an ongoing effort to get the farmers to grow alternative crops but quite obviously if there's not the same amount of money in it they're going to keep planting out out poppy fields.

The other way you could look at your little conspiracy theory is the supply and demand aspect. If there was no demand, then the supply side would become a non-issue as well.

Read this bit of a book.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=zNzW8clD-M0C&pg=PA122&lpg=PA122&dq=effects+of+taliban+stopping+opium+growing&source=bl&ots=DRxSvhh5nB&sig=o0wYr-tdAD-TwLdFJYW7zNkdRZE&hl=en&ei=6IwmTJKiC82OkQXyos21CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CEkQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=effects%20of%20taliban%20stopping%20opium%20growing&f=false

StG ,Did you even bother to read any of Prof David Ray's essay?I think not.Therefore,how are you qualified to comment? Prof Griffin does not deal here with unsubstanciated theories.He backs them up with facts and references.

Prof Niels Harritt will be coming to Sydney 17/7/10 to present his peer review paper on nano thermite.Proof of explosives used in 911.280 Pitt St Sydney 7.00 pm.Sydney Mechanical School of Arts.You can book StG johnbursill@gmail.com Free call 1300153372.

Perhaps stG you could then remove your shroud of ignorance.

So sorry, I thought this was a site for opinions, debate, and discussion. No, you're right, I didn't read it but then again I wasn't talking to Dr whoever, I was talking to you.

I believe woolies has a sale on al-foil for your hats at the moment Arjay. Luck with the campaign.

So I read it Arjay, and read a few others that I'm considering plagiarising some of the content for a 'stand-up' routine. I particularly enjoyed the one about how there are no actual insurgents or enemies of the allies in Iraq, IT'S ACTUALLY - said as a matter of fact - the CIA and Israel doing all the bombings....*cough*

Just a snippet:

"The Israelis, CIA, US and UK military all regularly assassinate suspected militants along with innocent men, women and children. They consider no-one to be innocent. Nor would false-flag provocations be beyond the US-Israeli axis. On 8 June 1967 the Israelis attempted to sink the USS Liberty in an attack that left 34 American sailors dead and 173 wounded. The American Department of Defence colluded with Israel. It recalled fighter aircraft that had been launched from a nearby carrier to give assistance and probably co-planned the incident. The crew was threatened and warned not to talk about the attack."

Here it tis: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19168

Global Research beautifully summed up the entire website with their disclaimer at the bottom of every article.

"Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article."

IT's opinions, Arjay. There's a difference between opinion and truth.

Another highlight was contacting Global Research media on their Yahoo account. lol

I was 'almost' sucked into giving this 'person' the credit of reading their paper, right up until seeing 'nano-thermite used on 911' and the rest that is.

Afghanistan is probably the biggest test of the last Century, what exactly have we learned?

1.We have learned from the Boer War that removing the civilians from the warzone doesn't work...

2.We have learned from Vietnam that we cannot hope to remove the fighters from the village by bombing them into peace (they have too little to lose for that to work, not PC but true).

So.. We can not remove the civilians or the fighters they support from the status quo, so our only remaining option is to change the status quo.

For the people who struggle with the destruction of the poppies (1) if the farmers revert to growing wheat instead of poppies (as they did under the Taliban), then obviously the farmers were able to exist whilst growing wheat; and (2) the farmers obviously DO NOT NEED TO GROW POPPIES.

Let's get rid of the poppies, the single most destructive influence in the place is the greed they represent. While ever they are there, the place CANNOT change.

What else? Rebuild and set the place up so it is administratively, politically, defensively and economically viable? Cool, take the local people onboard (vetted volunteers only), teach them, let them help to build their future and train them to ensure it for themselves.

That is the only way that they will have enough to lose to resist the Taliban, to resist the slide back into their old lives...

How do I know it WILL work, I don't... I do know any strategy relying upon the people changing without the environment changing is a forlorn hope. Einstein defined "insanity" as doing the same thing, multiple times, hoping for a different result each time...

Neither removing the belligerents nor the civilians from the area works, so the area has to change. Trial and error with people's lives sucks, yes... But in this case, THEY have NOTHING to lose (suicide bombings sorta demonstrate that).

stG all sites have disclaimers as a protection from a litigious society.It means very little.Check out OLO disclaimers
Now put you logic where your mouth is.Start disproving Prof Griffin's points one by one.He backs his assertions with references and facts.You apparently cannot.

Defend your comment "...with video of allied soldiers walking amongst the poppy plantations."

I posted my thoughts on all this. If you aren't going to clarify what you're suggesting then we're done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql9pDAp4Umk You will see US soldiers in these fields patrolling.It also has been in our media.The US could quite easily destroy these poppy fields.They have planted 30 times that existed before occupation.This trade is worth $ billions and the primary producers get a fraction of market value.Pat Tillman was going to fight this corruption but died strangely of multiple headwounds.

So who is really in charge of transporting such huge quantities of heroine out of Afghanistan? With the sophistocated satellite technology the US would know exactly how and where.By destroying the poppy plantations they would cut off the supply of money to the Taliban.For 9 yrs of war they show no signs of wanting to end it.

The oil pipelines have yet to be built from Turkmenistan.They cannot leave now.Hamid Kazi the puppet leader the US installed, used to work for UNOCAL the very oil Co building this pipeline.Surprise the US has now found $trillion in mineral resources in Afghanistan.

The Taliban need the cash to buy arms from international dealers who probably also supply allied forces.It is all about money.They use mercenaries who now pay the Taliban a % of the $3000 per truck to let supplies through to allied forces.

Now you can start disproving Prof Griffins essay.

Mate, I do hate to p1ss in your pot, but the only real mention I can find to the 'supposed' natural resources found in Afghanistan are in, what might be termed 'real' media sources, are AWFULLY slim (with such heavies in the field as Pravda(http://english.pravda.ru/business/finance/17-06-2010/113883-afghanistan-0) & Al Jazeera(http://www.aljazeerah.info/News/2010/June/15%20n/Afghanistan%20is%20$1%20Trillion%20Wealthy%20of%20Minerals,%20Goals%20of%20NATO%20Invasion%20Suspected%20Again.htm), rolls eyes - personally I'd be somewhat dubious, at any rate, it would be a much nicer place to fly over in a light aircraft than the Combo, except for the SAM's anyway)...

That would be a wonderful prop for any future government then (if it is true). Presumptively your point is that the NEO-CONS will reap these benefits? Not for me to argue, I don't like them raping this Countries assets, so I'll stay out of it.

What is necessary in order to claim a win? Well, let's look at why "WE" went in, shall we?

The dominant purpose underlying the "invasion" of Afghanistan was to ensure that (1) the Taliban were deposed (reason being that they had 'reportedly supported Al Quaeda'); and (2) to ensure that the Country did not remain the dominant source of fundamentalist terrorists.

Now, we could technically claim (1) now, the Taliban is NOT IN CONTROL, and in regards to (2), Afghanistan is now the recipient (rather than the supplier) of most of the worlds fundamentalist terrorists, so that right there is a "mission completed" for the cynics, it most certainly is not the dominant 'exporter', Pakistan, Iran, Somalia & Sudan have that title).

So what would the contributors here prefer? A considered approach to an "ACTUAL" solution/strategy? Leaving now & letting them sort it out is not a realistic option, we stuck our head in, now we have taken ownership of the problems.

The reason "we" are there is to score diplomatic points with the US, due to some fear that if we don't some country in South East Asia will invade us for some reason.

The reason America is there- who knows? I'm not even sure they do anymore.

The dominant purpose underlying the "invasion" of Afghanistan was to ensure that (1) the Taliban were deposed (reason being that they had 'reportedly supported Al Quaeda'); and (2) to ensure that the Country did not remain the dominant source of fundamentalist terrorists.

No, the reason for the "invasion" of Afghanistan was to -
1. Build an oil pipeline and
2. Build an oil pipeline.

Colin Powell said months before 911 that the US would have "troops on the ground by October". This was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald at the time and has been confirmed by a member of the Pakistan government.

Remember that this was the man who paraded artists impressions of terrorist facilities such as hollowed-out mountains with air conditioning, elevators and fully equipped missile silos.

The construction of the pipeline was back underway within months of the invasion.

The Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden three times prior to the invasion but was ignored.

Any remaining terrorist training camps have long since disappeared (along with the terrorists).

Opium poppy production was slashed under the Taliban, who paid the farmers - albeit with money from the West.

A US General now admits that only about 10% of the insurgents are Taliban - the rest are hostile warlords simply trying to repel invaders from their territory.

Most of the population outside Kabul refuse to recognise the corrupt and illegitimate government in power that is being propped up by these "invaders".

The focus of the invasion has now moved from trying to install a democratic regime to a much more neutral excuse of trying to maintain stability in the area. Meanwhile, the oil flows.

Eventually we will have to negotiate with some parts of the Taliban in order to attain some sort of solution.

Dear Arjay...

lately you seem to have been infected with some kind of "itus"...

-'I've suddenly found the truth' -itus

but you are manifesting that syndrome by bouncing between wild 911 conpsiracy theory and a trend toward gulping down every available crumb of left wing droppings mate.

I'm sure you didn't do this a few years ago.. did u ?

But you said:

"Are we just plain stupid or just too corrupt to realise our own foibles?"

Welcome to the world of Romans 1-6 Paul argues this point of yours with considable profundity and depth..

I would tend to agree with you on one thing Yes! we ARE too corrupt... or perhaps a better word is 'blind'.

Jesus disciples were whining about 'but we have no bread'...after they had already witnessed Him miraculously feeding 4000 and 5000 on separate occasions. No surprise that Mark in his Gospel places story of a 'blind' man just after Jesus reminder about those incidentds.

You seem to think that "once we 'get' it all... we will suddenly fix ourselves up and bring in social utopia"... commmmmmme ON...old son... you know better than that!

Ever since Abraham and Lot (Gen 13) argued over grazing rights, till now.. 'life and politics' has been about one thing.. RESOURCES.

Now.. don't suddenly be shocked when you find the various war lords fighting proxy wars for China, USA and UK over the newly announced massive resource finds.
Then..if CHINA happens to come out with a few good contracts ... don't be shocked if Australia suddenly becomes an economic backwater as OUR iron ore suddenly does not have the same allure to the Chinese it once had.

ARJAY.. "allied soldiers walking among poppy fields" means virtually NOTHING.. they might have been doing any of a number of things...scoping out how much.. or whatever....

I'm beginning to think ur on drugs. :)

AiR as you may well realise Prof Griffin has his major in theology.He is a person of high integrity.Let's look a one anomoly.How did Mohommad Atta's passport leave his pocket in a fireball of 911 totally unscathed and end up in the hands of the FBI?

Oh dear, there seems to be a conspiracy for everything.
I doubt that it will be possible to get a government installed that
will survive the Taliban's attack for more than a few months after
the foreign troops leave.

It seems to me, not being a military expert, that the best way to stop
the Taliban going back to their alliance with Al Quaider will be to
monitor their activity and attack any base that is set up from the air.
Even cruise missiles could be used. Sure civilians will suffer but that
will be their penalty for allowing the Taliban, their government, to
set up such bases.

It just seems to be that the people there are unable to govern
themselves with reasonable governments.
Perhaps if they gave their religious fanatics the push they might be
able to live reasonable lives, but altimately it is up to them.
If they cannot set up a government that does not cause problems for
other countries then they will have to wear the consequences.

Pakistan need to wipe em out in the north for it all to end.

Dear Arjay...

as to your question about Atta's passport..I don't have a clue, but stranger things have happened.

I might also ask you about the network which Atta was a part of...how various international law enforcement agencies..not American alone, have connected the dots.. does your conspiracy theory answer that ?

I'm sure it does, but I doubt it would be convincing.

THE WAR IS ILLEGAL ? I have a good look at the essay, and it's structure is of interest. It refers to peoples opinions and uses wild phrases such as "although it was by then widely accepted that the war in Iraq was illegal" ...er..widely accepted by...WHO ?

A bunch of left wing long haired flea bitten acid tripping hippie greens with an anti American axe to grind ? (some of whom might be skilfully disguised as 'academics' in tweed jackets with elbow patches and smoking a pipe these days) Perhaps like the bomber terrorist communist scum Bill Ayers ?

Diatribe and rant aside.. the key point in the alleged 'illegality' of the war is the concept of 'NATION'... when a NATION attacks..etc.

All this means is that the UN/Geneva concention is OUT OF DATE...and rather than waiting for it to catch up with reality.. the Americans acted in the interests of their self preservation.

Men make laws..and Conventions..based on circumstances of the day.
Those same men can change them when needed. It does not make responses to terrorism illegal...it just makes them a bit ahead of their time.

The poppies are back because there is now a market for them again, the farmers HAVE NO MARKET unless the market is built, the Taliban & the Warlords have done so... Why? Lemme see, how did they beat the Russians? Oh yeah, that's right, Heroin...

The majority of the fighters in Afghanistan now are not Afghans, they are 'Jihadi warriors' entering from Pakistan and Iran, they have no interest in anything but killing coalition soldiers, they don't give a rats for the inhabitants of the villages they are fighting in and around.

So lets cut the crap about oil pipelines and all the rest, does noone here have any interest whatsoever barring "Neo-Con" conspiracies & "Anti-Israel Propaganda"?

For the love of god, we are IN A WAR, I really don't care what made us get into it, Australian Soldiers ARE DYING in it. Let's get a little bit of focus please? How in gods name do we get out of it with a win - leaving the place better than we found it, is a win as far as I am concerned, in fact, that is the only WIN that matters.

HAS ANYONE GOT ANY IDEAS, or just more friggin drivel?

I know Kharzi is hated with a passion, that is no suprise. Central Government in Afghanistan has never been successful, EVER. There are too many warlords, too many cultural groups, ethnic groups, and all the rest for Central Government to be IMPOSED upon them successfully. The yanks have NO CHANCE of working this out, the USMC and the US Army have a p1ss-poor record with anything like this, we however won the Konfrontasi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesia%E2%80%93Malaysia_confrontation) and in East Timor (touchy as it is still).

At the same time, the US managed to lose the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese by imposing a seriously corrupt central government upon the people (sound remotely similar yet?). Merely pointing out that the US Money Making machine is in operation yet again doesn't change squat, Neo-Cons made plenty in Vietnam too, that doesn't change the fact we are in a WAR FFS

Well ALGOREisRICH,

Another typical right-wing extremist response.

When you're backed into a corner and don't have the facts on your side you ignore those inconvenient facts and start calling people names.

You can only defend the indefensible some of the time. You can always make some sort of argument for pre-emptive attacks but that doesn't make them right or just.

The fact remains that most of the population of the countries concerned were and still are against this invasion and all we've been hearing for almost the last ten years from those with vested interests is "mission almost accomplished - we'll be home by Christmas".

I'm personally quite content with the idea that the US stays there for another 50 years because it reduces the chance of them invading somebody else in the meantime.

By the way, Atta was an Egyptian and most of the alleged attackers were Saudis. The Saudis obviously have something to do with the funding of terrorism generally so why have they been completely left out of the entire scenario? Not a peep about them since.

It's like the US invading Mexico in response to the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbour.

As someone happily obsessed with about various high-level international conspiracies and a supporter of fascism generally, why can't you see the obvious?

Actually Custard, we're technically not in a war. War was never formally declared on Afghanistan - only a military engagement - because we are not in conflict with the recognised government of that nation. The last war declared by US congress was WW2 and we're just along for the ride.

Opium production was indeed used to fund weapons to be used against the Russians but those weapons and the establishment of those training camps came from the West. It's also one of the few remaining viable crops that provide many Afghanis with an income in what's left of their country.

The only way out now seems to be by negotiating with the Taliban to come up with some sort of truce or power sharing arrangement and probably with a long-term foreign military monitoring presence (probably unlikely).

They say there are probably only about 100 Al Quaeda fighters left there now but I think most are the same local warlords that have been defending their own turf for decades.

I agree that it's a tragic mess.

One thing is for certain - we can't use the same thinking that got us into it in the first place but there are too many powerful interests making a lot of money out of the situation to give it up easily.

Ohhhh_no....Rache is in 'pitbull with lippy' mode :)

Aah Rache.. not really a 'right wing extremist' response.. just a bit of bluster to those (like Arjay) who think there is an identifiable 'bad guy' and worse a 'good guy' somewhere out there. In all honesty, you should know my true position by now "All have sinned" that includes both sides of politics.

'High level' conspiracies? they are just a collection of like minded people on the make.They exist on both sides -"Haliburton"...how much have you heard about that lately ? Same war....same players.. 'mute' from the left.

One could get the distinct impression that they only cared about Haliburton to the extent it would advance their 'get rid of Bush' campaign.

I'm all for getting rid of Bush.. he was a dill in my view. Anyone who says 'It's teachings are peaceful' about a religion which I won't name.. is a moron. He and Blair both said that.. 2 x morons.
But for a marxist like Obama to replace Bush ? yikes.. that boggles the mind.

You only need to look at Obama's own network of people he surrounded himself with..his own statements "I surrounded myself with marxists" to get the heebie jeebies.

Van Jones...William Ayers (weather underground, bomber terrorist)

//Obama and Ayers first met in 1995 when Ayers and Dohrn hosted a small gathering at their home in the Hyde Park section of Chicago, the neighborhood in which the Obamas lived, at which then-state Senator Alice J. Palmer introduced Barack Obama to the group as her chosen successor for the 1996 Democratic primary.//

Can you imagine.. just imagine if you replaced "Ayers" with KKK David Duke and Obama with BUSH ? ? ? the left would go ballistic and hysterical.

Nuff said :)

Beck is good value. I check what he says, and if there is dubious connections I reserve judgement.
This is from him.
"Al Gore" is on the make from 'Climate Change'

1/ http://www.generationim.com/about/team.html
2/ http://www.climateexchangeplc.com/investor-relations/shares-in-issue-top-10-holders
see 4th entry down list.

Factual or... not ? Looks like 100% spot on to me.

Good article Arjar and Prof David Ray Griffin makes some very good points that many, especially in the US, are also asking. Griffin’s baffling qualms aren’t that surprising given the US’s long history of bellicosity and creative flare in engineering international or domestic political and corporeal circumstances which it can then openly address by way of its military without arousing too much suspicion regarding overt manipulation for self benefit or outright duplicity in its religious belief of “manifest destiny”, to be the bulwark of nations on earth. For me the subject is not about romantic and overly-sentimentalised rhetoric relating to valiant men in arms, it’s pertaining to civilian political skullduggery (as per Canberra’s most recent example) and not related to or questioning of the soldier in the field who does as all soldiers do, what he is told to do after all is that not his prime raison d'être?

I don’t for one second believe that Australia should follow the US around on its military adventures like a puppy dog. It is unfortunate that Howard happened to be in Washington on 9/11 and witnessed the smoke rising from the Pentagon from his hotel room window after the missile hit. He was overwhelmed, completely mesmerised by the US war rhetoric after the events and the euphoria was sealed in with his trip on the Presidential air force one from Washington to California to hook up with RAAF VIP Fleet mini air force one for the trip back down under. Soon as he was back in Canberra he activated the provisions of the ANZUS Treaty and committed Australian troops to Afghanistan. As the treaty is a standing actionable document, he didn’t need the scrutiny or debate of the Parliament, his action to advise the GG to order a deployment is all that is required. I believe the treaty to be defunct since the US expelled NZ some years ago, but I’m not a lawyer. The treaty is one sided to the advantage of the US as it commits Aust and NZ to defend the US but not vice a versa

Ajay,
You talk about OUR invasion of Afghanistan - this is nonsence. Such statements reflect your political agenda. We are there at the pleasure of and to protect the Afgani citizens in their own country against religious bigotry by extremists who cut the throats of dissidents who refuse to bow to Taliban views of Islam. It is these people who otherwise become fleeing refugees to democratic nations.

Sadly another good thread and good issue by Arjay- now swamped under layers of indoctrinated assumptions and superficial excuses and attitudes.

There are a lot of questions I'd like to ask but at the moment I can't be bothered, as I have a feeling nobody will want to answer but try to segue onto some pet issue.

rache,Westralis, our detractors talk about agendas but fail to confront the facts.Not one point of Prof Griffin's essay proven wrong.

2 yrs ago I believed the offical conspiracy theory of 911.Then a saw World Trade Centre Building 7 which took over 6 yrs for an official Govt report to be released,that was a sham.Even NIST as Prof Griffin says it cannot explain freefall.NIST withdraws a previous statement and admits by default that it was impossible for fires to destroy a building in such a fashion.

The difference between myself and my detractors is that I've made the effort to meet people like Prof Steven Jones mentioned in Prof Griffin's article.Prof Jones has his degree in physics and there is no room for equivocation or error.WTC 7 486m tall came down in 6.5 sec and for 2.5 sec it was absolute freefall as in a vacuum.This means that the building had not structural integrity what so ever.It was impossible for it to stay erect for an instant,let alone for 30yrs. http://ae911truth.org/ since 2007 when it was formed has now over 1200 professional architects and engineers demanding a new independant investigation into 911.I met Richard Gage its founder last year when we had an international conference in Sydney.Luke Rudowski the founder of http://wearechange.org/ was also there.

Prof Niels Harritt is coming to Sydney on 17/7/10 to present his paper on nano thermite,the highly sophistocated explosive found in the dust and rubble of 911.Dr Frank Legge( the Australian rep) will also be there who was one of the 9 international scientists who did the research and published the peer reviewed paper,proving the use of explosives.Book; johnbursill@gmail.com

After 911,George Bush brought in presidential orders that negate Congressional authority.The Patriot Act circumvents habeous corpus and you may be detained indefinitely on the mere suspicion of being a terrorist.Obama has been worse by the official presidential order of the assassination of suspected terrorists without trial.

We have entered an era in which the large corporates that JFK warned about,the Military Industrial Complex,now control Congress through the power of money.

Obama's a Marxist??
Beck also calls him a racist (among other things).

I suppose when you listen to the rantings of all those fascist extremists, everybody else is way off to the left - even those crazies in the middle.

As for your Glenn Beck worship, here's a conspiracy generator you can use -

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bl-glenn-beck-conspiracy.htm?PS=855%2C447%2C642%2C291%3A1

Ahh, fear and loathing - the Conservative's weapons of choice.

What can be done about Haliburton here anyway? Unlike AWB, it's not our problem but like Blackwater, CIC, KBR and Dyncorp plus a host of other companies on the make over there, it's a problem that the US has to address if it wants some sort of solution.

Let's try an experiment:
A race actually!
Who can be the first person to turn this thread BACK on topic?
That being, WHY are we in Afghanistan and should we STAY?
Not
-911 conspiracies
-Socialism

The invasion/war/bombing etc of Afghanistan was supported by UN Security Council Resolutions, including http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/sc7212.doc.htm.

Unlike Iraq, the US and UK did not breach International Law.

It is important that we identify who is being bommed and why they are being bommed. The Allied troops are not bomming a country to acquire land for self interest; so there is no invasion of the country of Afganistan. Such a view is a propagander lie. They are there specifically targeting the Taliban who wish to impose their will on the whole population of Afganistan by death to discenters.

For the troops to leave would mean treachery and wholesale bloodshed on the population until the Afganistan armed forces are able to maintain order by themselves.

Why are we in Afghanistan? Hard to say, we followed blindly with the USA into sending ground troops into the one Country on earth where ground troops ought never have been sent for any reason. History tells us why, not conspiracy theories, history.

That said, we are there now, we have Australian Troops on the ground and in order to find a way out of the morass we have to work out what is needed in order to achieve a "WIN".

What is a "WIN"? I recall asking this on another thread, nobody wants to answer...

The least realistic is some-power sharing arrangement with the Taliban, all we are doing there is choosing a different set of unwanted central rulers, that the majority of Afghans dislike intensely (no more intensely than Khazi though).

We are avoiding the main issue - that the Afghans have no reason to trust central Government, we have to work up to that point. Until the various ethnic groups/etc. come to learn to trust and rely upon local/regional Government, then it is unrealistic to expect central Government "COULD" work.

We are involved in a Country that is so badly fractured into small regional cliques, whose only real historical experience with centralized Government is horrific, be it under the British Raj, the Afghan Government, the Soviets, the Taliban and now under Khazi...

It is irresponsible in the extreme to try and slide out of the place with the proposed "power-sharing" agreement with the Taliban. There are pros, I concede that, but we are abandoning people who have supported us to a fate worse than death (and in many cases, ending in death).

All this because we are too intellectually bereft, communally, to come up with an alternative that will work. That is the greatest backstab in history on our part (if we go along with it).

Well Custard it's only what you define as a "win" that it boils down to.

Your version is to destroy the enemy as per the original intentions to enter and get the country to become a moderate self-sufficient nation with no tribalistic or theological tyrannies, seemingly at any cost.

My version of winning is to cease helping (and sacrificing our soldiers for) a country that doesn't seem to be improving, nor even tried much to move away from the deeply religious tribal discourses, cutting down the black market opium trade with a method that works- as opposed to a theory, and giving the shariah enthusiasts back the country that really was never anything else, as opposed to leaving them to eye other states to fill in the vacuum. We could possibly negotiating a withdrawal from neighbouring countries in exchange for our own withdrawal- if one side breaks this agreement so will the other- and cease continually giving terrorist groups a reason to bomb us, as opposed to a place they might leave us for.

If we cite that our withdrawal was simply because the country does not seem to be improving or incorporating our introduced systems, and not the taliban or terrorists, extremists worldwide will hardly feel emboldened to pursue militant action. Occupying the nation will however, tell them we are actively trying to suppress them and will give them little reason NOT to take up arms.

Personally I believe that 9 years is enough time to have provided or changed whatever we can, and I'm not to thrilled that we're sacrificing our soldiers for it.

I feel this is more 'win' for us than the alternative- and there is a lot more feasibility to it working out as planned

"What is a win?" Well we hear on the news today that Afghanistan not only has one $ trillion in resources,it has many $ trillions.It obiviously had to be invaded like Iraq since it had too much energy and resources.Zimbabwe is a basket case but alas has not the resources so it cannot be saved.

The heroine trade in Afghanistan is said to be worth $40 billion pa.These are real reasons for invading Afghanistan.The locals get a small portion of the street value and the middle men clean up.The Taliban use drug money to buy arms from the same dealers who supply our troops.Surely the US Military and intelligence services would know who the middle men are since their soldiers patrol the poppy fields and satellites can track the movement of the drugs.

This is corporate/Govt corruption on an enormous scale.If we in the West think that it is OK to invade other countries and kill people to shore up our share market,then we are in the zone total moral decay.

Agree Arjay. Not to mention it SHOWS across the world and reduces the chance of peace.
Of course, the people who benefit and the people who get bombed are never the same.

Yes king Hazza.in the realm of disproving the facts,the silence from our detractors is deafening.

Not to mention the substance of the reasons for being there (including to justify the fact that we invaded in the first place).