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.