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.