# Afghan fighting was "fruitless and expensive".



## Mindful (Oct 27, 2014)

Too few British troops were sent, too lightly armed, without sufficient helicopters to do the job, argues Sky's Sam Kiley.

Two men, successive commanders of the Special Air Service, gave the same advice to their superiors.

One even drove the length of Helmand in an unarmoured Land Rover to seek out the truth.

The first to conduct the reconnaissance, in late 2005, met with tribal elders, drug khans and ordinary farmers, and reported back with these words: "There isn't an insurgency in Helmand - but we can give you one."

The next, who also toured the southern Afghan province where opium farmers quietly produced some 70% of the world's heroin base, came back more specific advice.

Afghan Fighting Was Fruitless And Expensive


----------



## gtopa1 (Oct 27, 2014)

Mindful said:


> Too few British troops were sent, too lightly armed, without sufficient helicopters to do the job, argues Sky's Sam Kiley.
> 
> Two men, successive commanders of the Special Air Service, gave the same advice to their superiors.
> 
> ...



By 2005 the Taliban was defeated and the drug lords ruled. I wonder if they still do?

Greg


----------



## Mindful (Oct 27, 2014)

*Eight Lessons we won't learn fromAfghanistan.*

*1. Never invade Afghanistan*
This was Britain’s fourth war in Afghanistan – and really the lesson should have been learned after the first one in 1842 when at least 16,000 British servicemen, women, children were butchered, froze to death, or were captured on the ignominious retreat from Kabul.

The point about the Afghans – and if the British imperial experience didn’t remind us of this, the more recent Soviet one should have done – is that war is their national sport and they will always win in the end. As the Taliban famously boast: “You have the watches. We have the time.”

2. Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them.


Eight lessons we won 8217 t learn from Afghanistan 8230 James Delingpole


----------



## member (Oct 28, 2014)

_*"afghan fighting was fruitless and expensive..."*_

who's surprised:











it's been hard for them -- the afghani's -- to 'adapt' -- or get used to living in he 21st century....they still scoop out food from their bowls with their fingers.........that's how osama liked to do it --- plus, those who scoop, are the ones in charge of the whole country.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Nov 23, 2014)

Not for the corporations who sold the US military everything they used during combat operations. Was very fruitful indeed. But then, that's how war works now, it's a business.


----------



## Sonny Clark (Dec 27, 2014)

Mindful said:


> Too few British troops were sent, too lightly armed, without sufficient helicopters to do the job, argues Sky's Sam Kiley.
> 
> Two men, successive commanders of the Special Air Service, gave the same advice to their superiors.
> 
> ...


The so-called Afghan war was never a war. Afghanistan was just like VietNam and Iraq. Since the early 60's, American has not fought a war as war. We will "cut n run" from Afghanistan just like did in VietNam and Iraq. After many lives lost, both military and civilian, and countries destroyed and torn apart, we have a habit of walking away with absolutely nothing accomplished. We spend astronomical sums of money, leave multi-$Billions in equipment behind, bury tens of thousands of our young men and women in uniform, and just casually pick up our marbles and go home. All for what? The U.S. government should be ashamed, and held accountable for the lives lost and the destruction of nations. America has lost respect around the world. We are no longer feared, and are laughed at by those that once respected us.

Beginning with VietNam, we considered war as diplomacy, diplomatic engagements, and basically police actions. Our soldiers were told to only fire their weapons if they were fired upon first. As we all know now, diplomacy failed, and countries were returned to basically pre-war status. While our brave men and women of the armed forces were being killed and wounded, we shelved untold $Billions in weaponry, technology, and advanced military defense systems. We allowed our soldiers to fight basically as soldiers fought in WWII, and kept highly advance weapons and systems on shelves collecting dust. In reality, the U.S. government has blood on its hands, and is directly responsible for the destruction of property, and in some cases, whole cities. The big question is "what did we accomplish that made it worth the lives and other cost"? As an American, an ex-Marine ( 1967 - 1970 ), and a concerned citizen, I am ashamed of what we've done while calling our actions war. War should be fought as war, nothing less. If one can find a reason to go to war, then one can find a reason to fight all out war. Lives have value, and diplomacy doesn't replace lives.


----------



## Mindful (Dec 27, 2014)

Sonny Clark said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Too few British troops were sent, too lightly armed, without sufficient helicopters to do the job, argues Sky's Sam Kiley.
> ...



Wasn't there stuff going on with the French  before the Americans? Maybe you can bring me up to speed with that. There is always some sort of historical context. Nothing starts in a vacuum.

The French are known for leaving a mess behind them.


----------



## Sonny Clark (Dec 27, 2014)

Mindful said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


I'm sure others engaged in wars, or attempted to before we entered those countries. You have to remember that the Middle East has been in turmoil for centuries. I'd have to check, but I believe the Middle East has had continuous unrest for at least a couple of thousand years. But, the history shouldn't dictate nor justify what we do in that region. Also, speculation, whether justified or not, has implied that we entered the Middle East due to their rich oil reserves and opportunities for American companies to gain an advantage on the energy front. Many have speculated as to why we continue to go to war under the claims of freedom and democracy, when in reality, our motives are usually based on greed and providing tremendous wealth opportunities for defense contractors and others. War is a money maker for some, while very costly for others. History of other countries entering other nations for various reasons, and engaging in war, can be readily researched. But, our focus should be on the senseless invasion of other countries under the lies and pretense of freedom and democracy. Where have we established democracy, and ensured freedom? We don't even have freedom and democracy here in our own country.

We send our men and women of the armed forces to fight and die, all in the name of freedom and democracy, when in reality, they have neither here in their own country. Go figure. War, as we know it today, is not war as war should be. Fighting on diplomatic fronts while soldiers are dying on the battle field is not war. We sacrifice lives while playing politics and making some very wealthy due to war. Our beneficial accomplishments generated through so-called wars, concerning VietNam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, are nil, zero, zilch. We lost 60,000 lives in VietNam for what? We lost over 5,000 lives in Iraq for what? And, how many lives have we lost so far in Afghanistan, and all for naught? Justification? There is none. Is VietNam better off? Is Iraq better off? And, what about Afghanistan, better off? Have we made enemies? Yes. Have we lost the respect from our allies? Yes. Are we safer and more secure here in America? No, not at all.


----------



## Mindful (Dec 27, 2014)

Did American isolationism in the 1930's bring anything? Apart from Pearl Harbour?


----------



## Sonny Clark (Dec 27, 2014)

Mindful said:


> Did American isolationism in the 1930's bring anything? Apart from Pearl Harbour?


I don't know. Sorry. I'd have to do some research in order to answer that. I'm not a history scholar by any stretch of the imagination. I'm sure it could be researched on the internet.


----------



## Mindful (Dec 27, 2014)

Sonny Clark said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Did American isolationism in the 1930's bring anything? Apart from Pearl Harbour?
> ...



If you're interested, I'll post a link. Don't want to impose.


----------



## Desperado (Dec 27, 2014)

Mindful said:


> Did American isolationism in the 1930's bring anything? Apart from Pearl Harbour?


American Isolationism might have worked if we actually had a President that would have backed that policy.  Instead FDR wanted US involvement in the War in Europe. 
Pearl Harbor Hawaii Was Surprised FDR Was Not
A warning in the paper even predicted the attack so how could Washington not know?


----------



## rdean (Dec 27, 2014)

It's not fruitless.  Right Wing Americans have made a LOT of money from Iraq and Afghanistan.  So what if a few thousand Americans died?  Right?  Wasn't it worth it to make the friends of Cheney and Bush rich?


----------



## longknife (Dec 27, 2014)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Not for the corporations who sold the US military everything they used during combat operations. Was very fruitful indeed. But then, that's how war works now, it's a business.



War has *always* been about business. Someone always provides the arms and supplies armies need in their activities. From the earliest times until now, nothing has changed.

Surprisingly, with advanced availability of information, the corruption has decreased a bit because the crooks can no longer get away with it in secret.


----------



## longknife (Dec 27, 2014)

Mindful said:


> Did American isolationism in the 1930's bring anything? Apart from Pearl Harbour?


After the farce of the Treaty of Versailles, the USA left the world scene and left it up to Britain and France to determine the world status. Their colonialism also allowed for subjugation of entire peoples in the form of impossible and illogical boundaries. 

American "isolationism" had nothing to do with Japan attacking the US. It was a matter of *$$$$$* - as always


----------



## Mindful (Dec 27, 2014)

longknife said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Did American isolationism in the 1930's bring anything? Apart from Pearl Harbour?
> ...



I didn't say it did. I was pointing out that America was still dragged into stuff, despite trying to keep out of it.


----------



## Menerva Lindsen (Jan 3, 2015)

You are absolutely right. Afghanistan was not even a war. It was like a shameful campaign to serve the purposes of the BIG BUSINESS. We sent our forces to fight with terrorism. However Taliban claimed a victory in December 2014. We tried to stop drug cartels in Afghanistan but production of heroin increased. I agree It's a good comparison with Vietnam.


----------



## bianco (Jan 5, 2015)

Menerva Lindsen said:


> You are absolutely right. Afghanistan was not even a war. It was like a shameful campaign to serve the purposes of the BIG BUSINESS. We sent our forces to fight with terrorism. However Taliban claimed a victory in December 2014. We tried to stop drug cartels in Afghanistan but production of heroin increased. I agree It's a good comparison with Vietnam.



Bin Laden was killed, then turned into fish food.
Maybe not possible except for the war in Afghanistan.

Seems to me that no one really tried to stop heroin production in Afghanistan...the poppies were swaying in the breeze year after year after year..."the people's only source of income".

If there has to be a next time...all the "Taliban strongholds" should be simply turned into ash.
This wandering around the dustbowl that is Afghanistan trying to shoot the Taliban terrorists one at a time is totally ridiculous.


----------



## bianco (Jan 5, 2015)

Mindful said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...



Sooner or later America was going to be dragged in WW2 one way or another.
When Japan, Germany, Italy etc...now US'/Allies' best friends...LOL...had finished with Europe they would've gone after America at home.
German U boats were already lurking around US waters?


----------



## Rambunctious (Jan 19, 2015)

I see some of you have finally realized that the President that most of you voted for has lost this war....purposely. If this war is going poorly you need to look at the American leadership over the last 7 years. Right?


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Jan 27, 2015)

Mindful said:


> Too few British troops were sent, too lightly armed, without sufficient helicopters to do the job, argues Sky's Sam Kiley.
> 
> Two men, successive commanders of the Special Air Service, gave the same advice to their superiors.
> 
> ...



Whole justification for Iraq and Afganistan was 9/11. Yet if seeking vengeance for New York we should have invaded KSA since the overwhelming majority of hijackers were Saudi nationals.


----------



## Mindful (Jan 27, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Too few British troops were sent, too lightly armed, without sufficient helicopters to do the job, argues Sky's Sam Kiley.
> ...



So why are we sucking up to Saudi royalty? Bowing and scraping? Kissing hems? Flying flags at half mast?


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Jan 28, 2015)

Mindful said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...



Like being able to drive your car without pausing and asking if the journey's worth the expense? That's why.


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 28, 2015)

member said:


> _*"afghan fighting was fruitless and expensive..."*_
> 
> who's surprised:
> 
> ...


Epic fail!


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 28, 2015)

Mindful said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


Oil and diamonds are countries best friend...


----------



## Mindful (Jan 28, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...



I'll try to unravel this piece of philosophy(?)


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 28, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...


I'd just be glad there was no kids asking if we are there yet...


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 28, 2015)

Mindful said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Mindful said:
> ...


need a peeler?


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 28, 2015)

Mindful said:


> Did American isolationism in the 1930's bring anything? Apart from Pearl Harbour?


An era of good feeling as the good neighbor....


----------



## Moonglow (Jan 28, 2015)

What did we get from Afghanistan, the knowledge from a Pentagon estimate reveal mineral deposits of 7 trillion and the security to let other nations extract the minerals for profit...


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Jan 28, 2015)

Pearl Harbor came about because the US had openly sided against Japan with China, embargoed Japan's oil import ability, and had done everything to provoke Japan short of shooting at them. Pearl Harbor was perfectly justified. Wasn't some random unprovoked attack out of the blue. Even by modern standards, embargoeing a country's oil imports is an act of war.


----------



## gipper (Jan 28, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Pearl Harbor came about because the US had openly sided against Japan with China, embargoed Japan's oil import ability, and had done everything to provoke Japan short of shooting at them. Pearl Harbor was perfectly justified. Wasn't some random unprovoked attack out of the blue. Even by modern standards, embargoeing a country's oil imports is an act of war.



It was not the US.  At the time, a vast majority of Americans demanded we stay out of WWII. It was FDR who single-handedly and deceitfully positioned Japan to make the attack, all the while having foreknowledge of their actions.  He also deceptively proclaimed over and over again to American mothers, that he would not send American boys to war, in the campaign of 1940.


----------

