http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2013/03/25/3720567.htm


Mission Accomplished?

- Monday 25 March 2013

The plan was simple enough. Drive out Al-Qaeda, install a democratic system of government in Afghanistan, then train police and a military force to protect the country. But when soldiers from the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) pull out of Afghanistan in 2014, will the country's security forces be up to the task of maintaining law and order?

A growing body of evidence says they won't, raising another unpleasant question: what have soldiers from Australia, the US and Britain, along with many other nations, given their lives for?

#####

That would be, ...nothing, obviously.





The video;

http://www.abc.net.au/iview/?series=2303988#/series/2303988


LOL...what a pathetic joke.

Troops out now!

There will still be plenty of mercenaries.......oops! private contractors to take over after the troops pull out.

They're cheaper and we don't have to watch them arrive back with the flag draped over their coffin. No repatriation or funeral costs, no ex military costs associated with returned serviceman and women.

Who are these people?

The same ones who were fighting in uniform a little while ago? the pays better for private contractors though.

Karzai should be worried......very worried  [smiley=shocked.gif]

Obama will still have his drones killing little children, so its a win-win for Amerika.

Who's taking bets on how long before the Taliban starts taking over the cities in Afghanistan?

I give them 6-12 months.

All that for nothing lol!!!!

America are bad at war.....very bad.

A positive narrative can still be constructed around the Afghan war. Just state that they were fighting for ideals that represented the good and the just and that many lessons were learnt for future wars, and then condemn those who oppose them. This way, no one died in vain.

In short, just make sure the positive messages outweighs the negative messages.

The ABC is full of relentless negators, so relying on them for positive messages isn't going to happen.

Fortunately, good historians stick to the truth. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be reviewed by future generations to be exactly what they were.

Fanciful propaganda gets exposed with time.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 11:02am:

America are bad at war.....very bad.

Actually, they're very, very good at war.  It's the occupation and rebuilding that they struggle with.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 11:24am:

Fortunately, good historians stick to the truth. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be reviewed by future generations to be exactly what they were. Fanciful propaganda gets exposed with time.

Propaganda works both ways.
I wish you luck trying to convince people that the Taliban is a better style of government than a Western democracy. Funny how your Human Rights agenda goes out the window when you want to spite the West.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 11:28am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 11:24am: Fortunately, good historians stick to the truth. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be reviewed by future generations to be exactly what they were. Fanciful propaganda gets exposed with time. Propaganda works both ways. I wish you luck trying to convince people that the Taliban is a better style of government than a Western democracy. Funny how your Human Rights agenda goes out the window when you want to spite the West.

No one is suggesting that.

Surely you don't think that the good people of Afghanistan will be left with a western style democratic government when the invasion is halted.

Unlike America, I'm not in favour of assisting the Taliban. There will be no peace between the Taliban and the West, not for a long time.

That western style democracy went very well in Egypt, didn't it? The people have never been more oppressed, it took them back at least 50 years.

Same as in Libya, as the Al Qaeda flag flies above the courthouse, democracy lol!!!

Whenever and wherever America fund terrorist groups, they eventually turn on them.

The middle east have every right to laugh in the face of America, they've been promising peace since 1947, and..................

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 11:58am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 11:28am: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 11:24am: Fortunately, good historians stick to the truth. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be reviewed by future generations to be exactly what they were. Fanciful propaganda gets exposed with time. Propaganda works both ways. I wish you luck trying to convince people that the Taliban is a better style of government than a Western democracy. Funny how your Human Rights agenda goes out the window when you want to spite the West. No one is suggesting that. Surely you don't think that the good people of Afghanistan will be left with a western style democratic government when the invasion is halted. Unlike America, I'm not in favour of assisting the Taliban. There will be no peace between the Taliban and the West, not for a long time. That western style democracy went very well in Egypt, didn't it? The people have never been more oppressed, it took them back at least 50 years. Same as in Libya, as the Al Qaeda flag flies above the courthouse, democracy lol!!! Whenever and wherever America fund terrorist groups, they eventually turn on them. The middle east have every right to laugh in the face of America, they've been promising peace since 1947, and..................

The reason why there will be no democracy in the Middle east has nothing to do with America and everything to do with the 7th century mindset of the populace.
When Allah becomes the centrepiece to guide life, you can be guaranteed there won't be any advances in morals or technology.
Democracy requires that individual choices are respected, to a certain extent. Islam has no such respect for individual rights - it wants submission to Allah; and with that you get an extremely conservative mindset that preserves thinking as it was in the 7th century. Who are the people blowing each other up in Iraq at the moment? The Muslims - two different sects of Muslims. Muslims killing other Muslims.

A whole bunch of muslims and do-gooders will be asking for America to go back in when that scum the Taliban start slaughtering people. Maybe they should of been more supportive in the first place. Once America leaves they won't be back. In fact I'd say that would be the end of any western involvement in the crap-hole part of the world.

Big Dave wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 12:33pm:

Once America leaves they won't be back. In fact I'd say that would be the end of any western involvement in the crap-hole part of the world.

Yes. And I'd say that this is the biggest lesson learnt from the war. It was not totally in vain.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 11:19am:

A positive narrative can still be constructed around the Afghan war. Just state that they were fighting for ideals that represented the good and the just and that many lessons were learnt for future wars, and then condemn those who oppose them. This way, no one died in vain..

Yes, my friend, it is so. No one died in vain.

Lockheed Martin, Boeing, British Aerospace, all. Share price is still good, no?

Also, Hassan & Sons do a good line in Amerikan parade uniform. Clearance sale on now.

Many lessons learnt for future war, my friend.

Like business class in ethics, no one will remember. God is great, no?

Yes karnal and President Hamid Karzai sh1tty pants go for record price at auction.

Gud is great!

shukran  :-?

1.42 million slaughtered Iraqi people - 65% were women, children and the elderly

The Iraqi landscape peppered with Depleted Uranium dust.

Why are the criminals who caused this, namely Bush, Blair, Howard and gang, not behind bars?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 6:20pm:

1.42 million slaughtered Iraqi people - 65% were women, children and the elderly The Iraqi landscape peppered with Depleted Uranium dust. Why are the criminals who caused this, namely Bush, Blair, Howard and gang, not behind bars?

They are protected by the Bilderberg Group, the Rothschilds, the United Nations, NATO, the IMF, the World Bank, the European Union and other power brokers....all in it together to dominate the world.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 6:20pm:

1.42 million slaughtered Iraqi people - 65% were women, children and the elderly The Iraqi landscape peppered with Depleted Uranium dust. Why are the criminals who caused this, namely Bush, Blair, Howard and gang, not behind bars?

Howard really had no choice.

Basically having nothing with which to defend ourselves [the folly of signing nuclear non-proliferation treaties etc]...all we have is the ANZUS alliance/treaty.

America was attacked, Howard rightly invoked ANZUS and we went to war as America's ally...hoping that if we're ever attacked America will do the same and defend us [again].

bambu wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2013 at 6:43am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 1st, 2013 at 6:20pm: 1.42 million slaughtered Iraqi people - 65% were women, children and the elderly The Iraqi landscape peppered with Depleted Uranium dust. Why are the criminals who caused this, namely Bush, Blair, Howard and gang, not behind bars? Howard really had no choice. Basically having nothing with which to defend ourselves [the folly of signing nuclear non-proliferation treaties etc]...all we have is the ANZUS alliance/treaty. America was attacked, Howard rightly invoked ANZUS and we went to war as America's ally...hoping that if we're ever attacked America will do the same and defend us [again].

the USA was not attacked by Iraq - in fact even Afganastan didn't attack the USA

You are a atrocity apologist.

And youre correct on Howard - he didn't have a choice. Immoral corrupt Puppets never seem to have a choice

We have to go with America...the only one capable of saving us.

Wanna blame someone for 'Iraq'?
Blame Washington.

Washington obviously had had more than enough of carting its military to the other side of the world every time Saddam massed his army on the border etc [Iraq had already previously invaded Kuwait]...and decided it was time for 'regime change'.

The Taliban/Afghanistan attacked the US...via Al Qaeda, that it was hosting.

bambu wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2013 at 10:54am:

We have to go with America...the only one capable of saving us. Wanna blame someone for 'Iraq'? Blame Washington.

Blame everyone who fell into line, including the media.

It was obvious at the time that Saddam had nothing to do with Sept 11. Blindly following the US into a needless, expensive, and ultimately futile war helps no one.

If more had stood firm in 2003 - particularly Howard and Blair - the US would not be in the debt situation it's in today.

When a friend errs, he doesn't need blind submission, he needs an intervention.

Karnal wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2013 at 11:42am:

bambu wrote on Apr 2nd, 2013 at 10:54am: We have to go with America...the only one capable of saving us. Wanna blame someone for 'Iraq'? Blame Washington. Blame everyone who fell into line, including the media. It was obvious at the time that Saddam had nothing to do with Sept 11. Blindly following the US into a needless, expensive, and ultimately futile war helps no one. If more had stood firm in 2003 - particularly Howard and Blair - the US would not be in the debt situation it's in today. When a friend errs, he doesn't need blind submission, he needs an intervention.

Washington said; "If you're not with us, you're against us".

We simply cannot afford to be against America.
We have nothing with which to defend ourselves if attacked...for longer than about 5 minutes.

Is this the way to win the hearts and minds of the Afghani people?

Twelve civilians, including 11 children killed in Afghan NATO strike

A NATO airstrike has killed 11 children and one woman in the East of Afghanistan, report local officials. A house collapsed during the attack, causing the casualties and leaving six women injured.

The civilians were killed during a joint Afghan-NATO operation late on Saturday night in the Shigal district of Kunar province, which borders Pakistan.

The airstrike had been called in by NATO forces, and not their Afghan allies, he continued.

http://rt.com/news/afghanistan-nato-shrike-children-460/

No,  Afghanistan is not Mission Accomplished,  it is another non-victory that we have come to know so well.

Although Kabul may have a thin veneer of stability, security and even modernity people still sleep on the floor of mud walled houses with open sewers at the door.  Women and girls are still treated abysmally and people are still subject to random acts of lethal violence.

The Taleban are still strong both in Afghanistan and Pakistan too.

What we need is something to take our minds off the mess that is Afghanistan,  how about another war?

What we need is something to take our minds off the mess that is Afghanistan,  how about another war?

So you mean like the mess that was/is Iraq, we were urgently needed in Afghanistan?

I keep asking who next, North Korea was a surprise, I was thinking Iran or Yemen. They'll have to wait a bit longer.....oh well! you can't rush these things.

Well of course the invasion of Iraq happened after 'we' were deep in Afghanistan.

So many places to choose from.......

Perhaps in 3 or 400 years time there might be peace in Middle East but then I am only taking a short term view.

Afghanistan's Central Asia, Red.

With the exception of India and Pakiatan, there WILL be a form of peace when Iran and China get control. If you can call it peace - a Pax Sino-Irania.

The Pax Amerikana has hardly delivered peace to the Middle East, and they've been there since the end of WWII. The Ruskies were much more successful in the Soviet satellites.

Central Asia has been part of one empire or another since Genghis khan. In more recent times, Afghanistan has been unique in this regard. It managed to kick out the British and the Russians, and fool the Amerikans into playing their games.

Peace will only come with contracts. Whoever builds the highways and controls the gas pipelines will run the region. The warlords know which side their bread is buttered. They'll only cause problems if they're kept out of the picture: the contracts, the skim.

The future of Afghanistan is an ever-shifting set of alliances between the warlords, the Pashtun Taliban, the Pakistani Taliban, and states like China and Iran. The warlords will continue to switch teams, based on the highest bid and the relationships they form.

Once, tribal alliances were important. Thanks to the Amerikans, the warlords have become greedy and aspirational. Once they were warriors. Now they all want a compound, rocket launchers and a fleet of Toyotas and Mercedes.

Amerika has spoilt the warlords. Who knows? They may decide to re-join the Taliban when they come back to power.

The future of Afghanistan depends on these alliances. Karzai has his hopes set on a condo in Florida.

We shall see, friends.

Karnal wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2013 at 11:42am:

If more had stood firm in 2003 - particularly Howard and Blair - the US would not be in the debt situation it's in today.

"Regrettably, Iraq continues to not comply fully with the demands of this Council in allowing my Inspectors complete access to all of its facilities....."
Hans Blix, 2003


That's 13 years of non-compliance.
How much longer did he need before we had to act??

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 8^th, 2013 at 1:32pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 2nd, 2013 at 11:42am: If more had stood firm in 2003 - particularly Howard and Blair - the US would not be in the debt situation it's in today. "Regrettably, Iraq continues to not comply fully with the demands of this Council in allowing my Inspectors complete access to all of its facilities....." Hans Blix, 2003 That's 13 years of non-compliance. How much longer did he need before we had to act??

You didn't act, love. Your idea of acting is throwing your hands up in the air and screaming "rape".

Still, if you want your question answered, read the rest of your Hans Blix report. 

Karnal wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2013 at 11:42am:

bambu wrote on Apr 2nd, 2013 at 10:54am: We have to go with America...the only one capable of saving us. Wanna blame someone for 'Iraq'? Blame Washington. Blame everyone who fell into line, including the media. It was obvious at the time that Saddam had nothing to do with Sept 11. Blindly following the US into a needless, expensive, and ultimately futile war helps no one. If more had stood firm in 2003 - particularly Howard and Blair - the US would not be in the debt situation it's in today. When a friend errs, he doesn't need blind submission, he needs an intervention.

I’m always led to remember Blair’s out going speech as PM.

It puts into perspective the decisions the likes of he and Howard had to make. The sleepless nights, dealing with the head/heart, meetings with supporters of and those opposed to the “war”, the right and wrong thing to do.

It was a far cry from “blindly following” (though I have used those words before in hoping we are more cautious next time).

These people make calls on issues we couldn’t fathom the depth and importance of.

More likely they were having sleepless nights lest their lies got exposed too early into the invasion.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Apr 8^th, 2013 at 4:49pm:

More likely they were having sleepless nights lest their lies got exposed too early into the invasion.

That, or just a brain dead response from you.

I'll go the brain dead respose.

Kudos.

FriYAY wrote on Apr 8^th, 2013 at 4:11pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 2nd, 2013 at 11:42am: bambu wrote on Apr 2nd, 2013 at 10:54am: We have to go with America...the only one capable of saving us. Wanna blame someone for 'Iraq'? Blame Washington. Blame everyone who fell into line, including the media. It was obvious at the time that Saddam had nothing to do with Sept 11. Blindly following the US into a needless, expensive, and ultimately futile war helps no one. If more had stood firm in 2003 - particularly Howard and Blair - the US would not be in the debt situation it's in today. When a friend errs, he doesn't need blind submission, he needs an intervention. I’m always led to remember Blair’s out going speech as PM. It puts into perspective the decisions the likes of he and Howard had to make. The sleepless nights, dealing with the head/heart, meetings with supporters of and those opposed to the “war”, the right and wrong thing to do. It was a far cry from “blindly following” (though I have used those words before in hoping we are more cautious next time). These people make calls on issues we couldn’t fathom the depth and importance of.

They made calls on issues the majority of their populations didn't want, and then saw their judgement calls fail. There were no WMDs. Saddam had been bluffing all along. And there was no popular support - or reason - to invade Iraq.

Still, the depth and importance of such weighty decisions had been analyzed by M15, the CIA and ASIS. Many senior officers resigned when their reports were ignored, "sexed up" or skewed. Andrew Wilkie is now an MP in his own right.

Presidents and Prime Ministers should not make such calls - they have parliaments, cabinets, departmental directors and multilateral organizations like the UN for this very reason. If they had gone through the right channels, Saddam would still be in Iraq, the US would not be in trillions of debt (but still in debt) and who knows? The strange phenomenon of the Arab Spring may never have happened.

It wasn't a lesson. Governments will do the same again and again.

The only lesson of Iraq is that they always forget the lesson. 

FriYAY wrote on Apr 8^th, 2013 at 4:52pm:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Apr 8th, 2013 at 4:49pm: More likely they were having sleepless nights lest their lies got exposed too early into the invasion. That, or just a brain dead response from you. I'll go the brain dead respose. Kudos.

So you still believe the western leaders thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? Typical.

I saw those old combi vans on the news, sitting in the desert, the ones we were told was part of their mobile chemical laboratories........yeah sure they were.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Apr 8^th, 2013 at 5:25pm:

[quote author=Rosco link=1364776395/30#30 date=1365403950][quote author=pansi1951 link=1364776395/29#29 date=1365403798] I saw those old combi vans on the news, sitting in the desert, the ones we were told was part of their mobile chemical laboratories........yeah sure they were.

Marconi hydrogen generator trucks (for weather balloons).

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Apr 1^st, 2013 at 11:02am:

Who's taking bets on how long before the Taliban starts taking over the cities in Afghanistan? I give them 6-12 months.

2 years max. It's inevitable.

The war in Vietnam was lost because the civilian population were sympathetic to the basic tenets of communist ideology ~ and who could blame them?

Same in Afghanistan, but this time it's loyalty to Islam.

Just the ordinary folk are not outraged when a family kills their daughter for 'allowing' herself to be raped.

Battery acid gets thrown into the face of girls sneaking off to a secret school in one of the back alleys.

Homosexuals and those converting from Islam to Christianity have death fatwas called upon them ~ and the general population believe this to be perfectly just and proper.

There isn't a hope in hell that the Taliban won't take control again. They know they only have to win over - or murder - the village elders in the countryside. Thousands of them.

The message will soon be learnt by everyone that cooperation with the Taliban is better than a personal visit from them to correct your errant attitudes.

Two years max ~ with the idiotic politicians of the Western world pouring zillions of taxpayer dollars into the country as a last resort for resist the inevitable.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Apr 8^th, 2013 at 5:25pm:

FriYAY wrote on Apr 8th, 2013 at 4:52pm: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Apr 8th, 2013 at 4:49pm: More likely they were having sleepless nights lest their lies got exposed too early into the invasion. That, or just a brain dead response from you. I'll go the brain dead respose. Kudos. So you still believe the western leaders thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? Typical.

But we all also know they did have and did use WMD on the Kurds, don’t we.

“The Halabja poison gas attack, also known as Halabja massacre or Bloody Friday, was a genocidal massacre against the Kurdish people that took place on March 16, 1988”

We also kow that Iraq refused, for years and years, to comply with useless UN resolutions on allowing in weapons inspections. Plenty of time to shift/hide/destroy any arsenal of WMD.

So while I’ll always agreee that Iraq war was a bad idea and Australia should never have got involved, I’m open minded enough to not think Saddam was some dam saint.

Karnal wrote on Apr 8^th, 2013 at 4:56pm:

FriYAY wrote on Apr 8th, 2013 at 4:11pm: Karnal wrote on Apr 2nd, 2013 at 11:42am: bambu wrote on Apr 2nd, 2013 at 10:54am: We have to go with America...the only one capable of saving us. Wanna blame someone for 'Iraq'? Blame Washington. Blame everyone who fell into line, including the media. It was obvious at the time that Saddam had nothing to do with Sept 11. Blindly following the US into a needless, expensive, and ultimately futile war helps no one. If more had stood firm in 2003 - particularly Howard and Blair - the US would not be in the debt situation it's in today. When a friend errs, he doesn't need blind submission, he needs an intervention. I’m always led to remember Blair’s out going speech as PM. It puts into perspective the decisions the likes of he and Howard had to make. The sleepless nights, dealing with the head/heart, meetings with supporters of and those opposed to the “war”, the right and wrong thing to do. It was a far cry from “blindly following” (though I have used those words before in hoping we are more cautious next time). These people make calls on issues we couldn’t fathom the depth and importance of. They made calls on issues the majority of their populations didn't want, and then saw their judgement calls fail. There were no WMDs. Saddam had been bluffing all along. And there was no popular support - or reason - to invade Iraq. Still, the depth and importance of such weighty decisions had been analyzed by M15, the CIA and ASIS. Many senior officers resigned when their reports were ignored, "sexed up" or skewed. Andrew Wilkie is now an MP in his own right. Presidents and Prime Ministers should not make such calls - they have parliaments, cabinets, departmental directors and multilateral organizations like the UN for this very reason. If they had gone through the right channels, Saddam would still be in Iraq, the US would not be in trillions of debt (but still in debt) and who knows? The strange phenomenon of the Arab Spring may never have happened. It wasn't a lesson. Governments will do the same again and again. The only lesson of Iraq is that they always forget the lesson.

Have you seen the Blair speech?

It is interesting to see him talk about being a new PM, and having all these ideas/ideals for his country and then…..people start flying planes into buildings in the US.

Saddam had and used WMD on the Kurds, why does everyone brush over that little fact?

Ringer wrote on Apr 8^th, 2013 at 5:45am:

What we need is something to take our minds off the mess that is Afghanistan,  how about another war?

Good idea. There's one just around the corner and we might witness it first hand. The yanks have been arriving at "their" bases here by the hordes because they don't want China to take their place as a superpower.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are tragic for the people, but there you go. We have a choice of being ruled by the Jews, the Chinese or the Muslims.

mantra wrote on Apr 9^th, 2013 at 11:11am:

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are tragic for the people, but there you go.

How many civilians did the coalition kill as genuine 'collateral damage' ~ as against how many have been killed as a result of direct and intended slaughter between the sectarian bombers?

For as long as it was America and her allies who were doing the killing, the West's leftwing-majority media kept up a constant barrage of condemnation and abuse, but after the withdrawal, and with the killings still continuing ~ but this time by the Iraqis themselves ~ these self-same media organisations have fallen silent because there's no political capital in condemning these Muslim rock apes. 

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 9^th, 2013 at 11:56am:

How many civilians did the coalition kill as genuine 'collateral damage' ~ as against how many have been killed as a result of direct and intended slaughter between the sectarian bombers? For as long as it was America and her allies who were doing the killing, the West's leftwing-majority media kept up a constant barrage of condemnation and abuse, but after the withdrawal, and with the killings still continuing ~ but this time by the Iraqis themselves ~ these self-same media organisations have fallen silent because there's no political capital in condemning these Muslim rock apes.

There was an international outcry from both the left and right of politics - not just the left. Yes - they might be killing each other now, but we should have left them alone in the first place to sort out their battles. The Coalition of the Willing only used 9/11 and WMD as an excuse for invading. Both excuses have since been proved as just that. No doubt there would have been less deaths if we hadn't bombed the hell out of them and they would still have some decent infrastructure left, but the people of both nations have so much less now.

You can look at the avalanche of boat people as penance for our involvement.

FriYAY wrote on Apr 9^th, 2013 at 10:21am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Apr 8th, 2013 at 5:25pm: FriYAY wrote on Apr 8th, 2013 at 4:52pm: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Apr 8th, 2013 at 4:49pm: More likely they were having sleepless nights lest their lies got exposed too early into the invasion. That, or just a brain dead response from you. I'll go the brain dead respose. Kudos. So you still believe the western leaders thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? Typical. But we all also know they did have and did use WMD on the Kurds, don’t we. “The Halabja poison gas attack, also known as Halabja massacre or Bloody Friday, was a genocidal massacre against the Kurdish people that took place on March 16, 1988” We also kow that Iraq refused, for years and years, to comply with useless UN resolutions on allowing in weapons inspections. Plenty of time to shift/hide/destroy any arsenal of WMD. So while I’ll always agreee that Iraq war was a bad idea and Australia should never have got involved, I’m open minded enough to not think Saddam was some dam saint.

There were No Fly zones in Iraq in the north to protect the kurds and in the south to protect the shia muslims from Saddam.

These no fly zones were setup to stop Saddam killing his Iraqi residents with his air force.

Can any leftist retards say how long were these No Fly Zones in place before Saddam was removed?

mantra wrote on Apr 9^th, 2013 at 12:37pm:

Yes - they might be killing each other now, but we should have left them alone in the first place to sort out their battles.

Huh? They lived under a Police State dictatorship which had its unmarked mass-graves, its genocidal gassings,
and its official torture chambers.

There was no option for sorting out their differences.

It was only when Western intervention removed the threat of Saddam's firing squads that these medieval religious psychopaths felt free enough to demonstrate just what murderous neanderthals they really are.

It's hardly America's fault that by removing a brutal dictatorship it also removed the rock under which these Islamic cretins had been kept neutralised by Saddam's notorious secret police.   


Quote:

The Coalition of the Willing only used 9/11 and WMD as an excuse for invading.

Nonsense.

The only result for America from their invasion has been thousands of their own soldiers killed and wounded; zillions of dollars drained away from the national economy; and imported oil costs being just as expensive as before.

I agree the Americans shouldn't have invaded. Saddam Hussein and his murderous and oppressive regime was exactly what was required to keep those Muslim rock apes under strict control.

As for infrastructure ~ the Iraqis have never been so lucky. America, Britain and a dozen other nations have been pouring money into Iraq for the past 10 years to finance an army of contractors, materials and equipment for building a lot more than was there before the bombing.


Quote:

You can look at the avalanche of boat people as penance for our involvement.

The penance is at the hands of our own government who stupidly grant refugee status to these fraudulent country-shoppers.

Within a couple of years of securing their Australian residency papers ~ they fly back to Iraq to spend holidays with their relatives and friends.

There's not a genuine refugee amongst the whole damn lot of them.

Even when they riot in our detention centres and trash these to the tune of a million dollars ~ our pathetic politicians and judiciary grant them permission to stay in Australia.

FriYAY wrote on Apr 9^th, 2013 at 10:28am:

Have you seen the Blair speech? It is interesting to see him talk about being a new PM, and having all these ideas/ideals for his country and then…..people start flying planes into buildings in the US. Saddam had and used WMD on the Kurds, why does everyone brush over that little fact?

Tony Blair was the PM of Britain. A few Saudi and British nationals fly planes into the US in 2001, and Bush and Blair want to invade Iraq because Saddam used gas on the Kurds in 1980?

It is always interesting to hear Blair talk, but his judgement on Iraq was wrong. He spent all his political capital encouraging his party to support the invasion of Iraq, and used up his popularity with the British people, who came to see him as a neo-con stooge, not a strong, idealistic leader. He then wasted his good standing with Europe and the UN, and for what?

Blair's failings in Iraq now define his legacy. His vision for a strong, multilateral security force to defeat tyrants was destroyed by his alliance with the US in a pointless, imperialistic war. This is Blair's real failing - not so much the failure of Iraq, but the failure of his vision, which could have been historic.

Just think - the League of Nations and the UN both failed to establish a security force that could establish peace around the world, enforce demilitarization, and prevent world war. After Serbia, and then Rwanda, there was a window of opportunity and political will. This is what drove Blair, and many in the US and UN at the end of the cold war.

If Blair had listened to his own party, his own people, and the UN, he may well have made some progress on this vision. Instead, he followed the agenda of naked US aggression and self-interest. In the end, of course, it wasn't the politics that did him in, but the military failure.

For Blair, Iraq was meant to be the start of a new international "coalition of the willing". This is an age-old European project, going back to the end of the Napoleonic wars and, following WWI, the establishment of the League of Nations. The League failed to get the US to join, and it failed to establish an international security force. Ultimately, it failed to prevent the rise of the Nazis. With the establishment of the EU, the end of the Cold War, the success of the new international court in Brussels, and Clinton's eventual willingness to engage in Serbia, the signs were right.

But then Blair went and joined Bush. He believed, of course, that this favour would be quid-pro-quo, but he was used in the US's own game. When Iraq turned nasty, everyone realized how futile such a project of international peacekeeping through war could really get - and how long. Twelve years on and we're still in Afghanistan.

Blair had a noble objective, but history - and the world - was against him. He should have listened.

Now, Europe is floundering, and the world is on an isolationist path again. Blair - and the world - missed the opportunity of creating a viable international peacekeeping force.

And this is the real failure of Iraq.

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 9^th, 2013 at 1:57pm:

It was only when Western intervention removed the threat of Saddam's firing squads that these medieval religious psychopaths felt free enough to demonstrate just what murderous neanderthals they really are. It's hardly America's fault that by removing a brutal dictatorship it also removed the rock under which these Islamic cretins had been kept neutralised by Saddam's notorious secret police.

   

Prior to UN intervention - Iraq was an advanced civilisation. Since the Gulf war it has been left in tatters and sanctions have ensured the unnecessary death of thousands of children. When they started to rebuild - we invaded them again on the pretext of saving them. They haven't recovered.

You just admitted that the "democracy" imposed on them has failed. Saddam might have been a dictator, but since his slaughter - these so called murderous neanderthals are no longer on a tight leash and can do what they please without restraint. For a country with so much wealth in oil reserves, today they don't even have access to basic amenities.


Quote:

[quote]The Coalition of the Willing only used 9/11 and WMD as an excuse for invading.

Nonsense.

The only result for America from their invasion has been thousands of their own soldiers killed and wounded; zillions of dollars drained away from the national economy; and imported oil costs being just as expensive as before.

I agree the Americans shouldn't have invaded. Saddam Hussein and his murderous and oppressive regime was exactly what was required to keep those Muslim rock apes under strict control.

As for infrastructure ~ the Iraqis have never been so lucky. America, Britain and a dozen other nations have been pouring money into Iraq for the past 10 years to finance an army of contractors, materials and equipment for building a lot more than was there before the bombing[/quote].

What we do know that most of that money ended up in the hands of the unscrupulous. To this very day - hospitals are unfinished and ill equipped. The same goes for schools. Drinking water and food is scarce and disease and violence is rampant.


Quote:

The penance is at the hands of our own government who stupidly grant refugee status to these fraudulent country-shoppers. Within a couple of years of securing their Australian residency papers ~ they fly back to Iraq to spend holidays with their relatives and friends.

Really! I wasn't aware that Iraq had become a holiday destination, but I can believe they would fly back sometimes to check whether family members are still alive.


Quote:

There's not a genuine refugee amongst the whole damn lot of them. Even when they riot in our detention centres and trash these to the tune of a million dollars ~ our pathetic politicians and judiciary grant them permission to stay in Australia.

Of course some of them are ratbags - but the majority of them are genuine asylum seekers. We can thank Bush, Howard & Co. for this predicament. Do you really believe that Abbott will disobey his Trilateral masters and stop the boats? Howard might have had some success in defying UN conventions, but then he had George Bush on his side and "terrorism" was the slogan of the day.

Abbott will have to get permission off Obama before he starts shooting at the boats and that's not likely to happen.

More imperialistic militarism on behalf of fascist western corporatism

Invade, thieve resources, set up military bases, support dictators, resist grass roots democratic movements and democracy in general

....the standard US mantra - global fascism via the Corporate slave vehicle.

DO AS YOU ARE TOLD PEOPLE or suffer the consequences

Even the great Obama corporate fake fascist clown puppet will hunt you down with his drones and illegal assassinations

We live in a global tyranny 

Karnal wrote on Apr 9^th, 2013 at 2:09pm:

FriYAY wrote on Apr 9th, 2013 at 10:28am: Have you seen the Blair speech? It is interesting to see him talk about being a new PM, and having all these ideas/ideals for his country and then…..people start flying planes into buildings in the US. Saddam had and used WMD on the Kurds, why does everyone brush over that little fact? Tony Blair was the PM of Britain. A few Saudi and British nationals fly planes into the US in 2001, and Bush and Blair want to invade Iraq because Saddam used gas on the Kurds in 1980? It is always interesting to hear Blair talk, but his judgement on Iraq was wrong. He spent all his political capital encouraging his party to support the invasion of Iraq, and used up his popularity with the British people, who came to see him as a neo-con stooge, not a strong, idealistic leader. He then wasted his good standing with Europe and the UN, and for what? Blair's failings in Iraq now define his legacy. His vision for a strong, multilateral security force to defeat tyrants was destroyed by his alliance with the US in a pointless, imperialistic war. This is Blair's real failing - not so much the failure of Iraq, but the failure of his vision, which could have been historic. Just think - the League of Nations and the UN both failed to establish a security force that could establish peace around the world, enforce demilitarization, and prevent world war. After Serbia, and then Rwanda, there was a window of opportunity and political will. This is what drove Blair, and many in the US and UN at the end of the cold war. If Blair had listened to his own party, his own people, and the UN, he may well have made some progress on this vision. Instead, he followed the agenda of naked US aggression and self-interest. In the end, of course, it wasn't the politics that did him in, but the military failure. For Blair, Iraq was meant to be the start of a new international "coalition of the willing". This is an age-old European project, going back to the end of the Napoleonic wars and, following WWI, the establishment of the League of Nations. The League failed to get the US to join, and it failed to establish an international security force. Ultimately, it failed to prevent the rise of the Nazis. With the establishment of the EU, the end of the Cold War, the success of the new international court in Brussels, and Clinton's eventual willingness to engage in Serbia, the signs were right. But then Blair went and joined Bush. He believed, of course, that this favour would be quid-pro-quo, but he was used in the US's own game. When Iraq turned nasty, everyone realized how futile such a project of international peacekeeping through war could really get - and how long. Twelve years on and we're still in Afghanistan. Blair had a noble objective, but history - and the world - was against him. He should have listened. Now, Europe is floundering, and the world is on an isolationist path again. Blair - and the world - missed the opportunity of creating a viable international peacekeeping force. And this is the real failure of Iraq.

OK, was just wondering if you’d seen that speech.

Don’t know WTF the 1st paragraph is all about.

Are you denying SH had and used WMD?

I never said his (or anyone else’s) judgment on Iraq was right.

I thought his speech shed light on what others just blather on about on forums.

I hate murderous dictators as much as the next person, but this is much worse than anything Saddam Hussein ever did.

The people of Iraq are not better off post Saddam.

Like the people of Britain regarding the death of Thatcher, the people of Iraq will surely be celebrating when the last American troop flies out.
.......................................................................



‘Iraq's environmental catastrophe worse than Hiroshima’

http://rt.com/files/opinionpost/1e/a5/d0/00/iraq-environmental.si.jpg

Ten years ago, invading American troops and their allies deliberately tested all sorts of weapons, contaminating Iraqi the environment for hundreds of years to come and reducing citizens' life expectancies to 30 years, an Iraqi doctor told RT.

Over the ten years of occupation, Iraqi citizens have been developing alarmingly growing numbers of medical conditions, the Iraqi cardiologist, Dr. Omar al-Kubaisi, told RT’s Arabic-language sister channel Rusiya Al-Yaum.

http://rt.com/op-edge/iraq-environmental-catastrophe-hiroshima-533/

True, Pansi. This is what modern war does. What it also does is mobilize populations against aggressors. Wars like Iraq and Afghanistan lead to terrorism, just as the military occupation of Europe in WWII fostered partisans.

There are wars, however, that are just. If Europe had been able to prevent Germany mobilizing in the 1930s, this would have been a monumental judgement call, but it failed through competing, sovereign interests. This is how military hegemonies arise, and it's why military powers like the US and ex-USSR become global sheriffs. In some cases, the fewer politicians the better.

You can't depose military dictators without a struggle - Saddam turned out to be a piece of cake. Mind you, it's who replaces them that's the problem. It's why George H W Bush left Saddam in power in the first Gulf War.

The Taliban were easy to depose because they're not united. But they are not easy to prevent for the same reason. Militarily, Afghanistan is a very tricky country to rule and wage war. The various tribes that made up the so-called Northern Alliance held their own mountains for years. The Taliban couldn't touch them.

12 years on and the situation is reversed. Many of those tribes have joined the Taliban. Some have joined the government. Others have become warlords in their own right, holding lawless territories even the US won't cross.

As the USSR and US have proven, even military global hegemonies can't defeat such forces. Some situations require military solutions. Others require political solutions. And others need to be left well alone (on paper, anyway - it's best that covert action does not leave a paper trail).

The US will never achieve military hegemony through its drone program. To achieve this sort of geopolitical presence, you require troops, and you need to be prepared to use them. There is only one country today with a centralized form of decision-making, a huge surplus population, very deep pockets, and the capacity, technology and industrial power to eventually rival the US.

The US will not go in our lifetimes, but I believe we will see the return of a bi-polar world in a very short space of time.

Yes, friends, China is the next cab off the rank.

The Mission will never be accomplished in Afghanistan, a nation of warring tribes whose history goes back centuries.

Some mad f....p is sure to seize power at some point and then it starts all over again just like in Upsy Down Town.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Apr 9^th, 2013 at 3:34pm:

I hate murderous dictators as much as the next person, but this is much worse than anything Saddam Hussein ever did. The people of Iraq are not better off post Saddam.

Nor were the English immediately upon the signing of the Magna Carta.

If the Iraqis can't handle democracy, then perhaps the US should appoint another Police State dictator to rule over them.

The Iraqis will do okay once they grow up and learn how to live in a secular democracy.

It's a bit like releasing long-term prisoners out into the community. It takes time to develop self-discipline and the maturity to be self-reliant without resorting to criminal activities.


Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Apr 9^th, 2013 at 3:34pm:

Like the people of Britain regarding the death of Thatcher, the people of Iraq will surely be celebrating when the last American troop flies out.

Don't be fooled by the UK and Australia's leftwing press and TV news services. The vast majority in the UK are thankful for what she did to pull Britain out of the economic doldrums.

Iraq now has a chance to develop into a First World country just the same as Israel did. It's up to them. You can lead a horse to water ...

For myself, I think they're way too brainwashed with the cult of Islam to do themselves much good. Same with Afghanistan. And Turkey has been reverting back to theocratic rule for some years now.


Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Apr 9^th, 2013 at 3:34pm:

Ten years ago, invading American troops and their allies deliberately tested all sorts of weapons, contaminating Iraqi the environment for hundreds of years to come and reducing citizens' life expectancies to 30 years, an Iraqi doctor told RT. Over the ten years of occupation, Iraqi citizens have been developing alarmingly growing numbers of medical conditions, the Iraqi cardiologist, Dr. Omar al-Kubaisi, told RT’s Arabic-language sister channel Rusiya Al-Yaum.

That has all yet to be independently verified.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Apr 9^th, 2013 at 3:34pm:

I hate murderous dictators as much as the next person, but this is much worse than anything Saddam Hussein ever did. The people of Iraq are not better off post Saddam. Like the people of Britain regarding the death of Thatcher, the people of Iraq will surely be celebrating when the last American troop flies out. ....................................................................... ‘Iraq's environmental catastrophe worse than Hiroshima’ http://rt.com/files/opinionpost/1e/a5/d0/00/iraq-environmental.si.jpg Ten years ago, invading American troops and their allies deliberately tested all sorts of weapons, contaminating Iraqi the environment for hundreds of years to come and reducing citizens' life expectancies to 30 years, an Iraqi doctor told RT. Over the ten years of occupation, Iraqi citizens have been developing alarmingly growing numbers of medical conditions, the Iraqi cardiologist, Dr. Omar al-Kubaisi, told RT’s Arabic-language sister channel Rusiya Al-Yaum. http://rt.com/op-edge/iraq-environmental-catastrophe-hiroshima-533/

The bit you left out with your link pansi-

Quote:

Greenpeace activists stand in front of a uranium oxide mixing vat outside the grounds of the Tuwaitha nuclear facility,30 km south of Bagdad, where it was allegedly dumped after being stolen by looters

Greenpeace have found Iraqi farmers washing radioactive barrels in the Tigris river, google greenpeace radioactive Iraq and read the links from Greenpeace on how radioactive materials were stored in schools.

Red, have you even seen the "left wing media’s" reports on Thatcher?

Everybody’s been kissing her arse. Repeatedly.

Another thing: how do prisoners learn "self discipline" when they’re released from jail? They’ve just spent their sentence learning how to make shivs and cover their arses in the showers and spend 18 hours each day in cells.

How much more self discipline do you need to learn?

I’d say Muslims have no chance of ridding themselves of the cult of Islam - what do you think? I’d say no one’s going to brainwash them otherwise. The missionaries didn’t have much luck. Do you think the imams will do it?

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=273954

http://www.blacklistednews.com/20%2C000_U.S._M-16s_Stolen_from_Unguarded_Warehouse_in_Kuwait/25294/0/38/38/Y/M.html

20,000 U.S. M-16s Stolen from Unguarded Warehouse in Kuwait
April 12, 2013

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/M16a1m16a2m4m16a45wi.jpg

Part of the Syria op?

Via: World Tribune:

Kuwait has reported the theft of a massive amount of U.S. weapons. The Interior Ministry said thieves broke into a warehouse and stole a huge amount of firearms and ammunition. The ministry said 20,000 U.S.-origin M-16 assault rifles and 15,000 rounds for 9mm pistols were stolen.

“There were no guards during the break-in,” the ministry said on April 7.

On the physical plane, Kuwait is a long way from Afghanistan, Light.

Is there an esoteric Freemasonic connection there?

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Apr 9^th, 2013 at 3:34pm:

I hate murderous dictators as much as the next person, but this is much worse than anything Saddam Hussein ever did. The people of Iraq are not better off post Saddam. Like the people of Britain regarding the death of Thatcher, the people of Iraq will surely be celebrating when the last American troop flies out. ....................................................................... ‘Iraq's environmental catastrophe worse than Hiroshima’ http://rt.com/files/opinionpost/1e/a5/d0/00/iraq-environmental.si.jpg Ten years ago, invading American troops and their allies deliberately tested all sorts of weapons, contaminating Iraqi the environment for hundreds of years to come and reducing citizens' life expectancies to 30 years, an Iraqi doctor told RT. Over the ten years of occupation, Iraqi citizens have been developing alarmingly growing numbers of medical conditions, the Iraqi cardiologist, Dr. Omar al-Kubaisi, told RT’s Arabic-language sister channel Rusiya Al-Yaum. http://rt.com/op-edge/iraq-environmental-catastrophe-hiroshima-533/

Jeez, Russian Muslims telling us about the downside of invasions by non Arabs.

Never mind that islam spread by invasion. What matters is that 'muslim lands' are left to brutalise, oppress and debase their people any which way they like.
Sovereignty, innit.

Soren wrote on Apr 13^th, 2013 at 10:12pm:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Apr 9th, 2013 at 3:34pm: I hate murderous dictators as much as the next person, but this is much worse than anything Saddam Hussein ever did. The people of Iraq are not better off post Saddam. Like the people of Britain regarding the death of Thatcher, the people of Iraq will surely be celebrating when the last American troop flies out. ....................................................................... ‘Iraq's environmental catastrophe worse than Hiroshima’ http://rt.com/files/opinionpost/1e/a5/d0/00/iraq-environmental.si.jpg Ten years ago, invading American troops and their allies deliberately tested all sorts of weapons, contaminating Iraqi the environment for hundreds of years to come and reducing citizens' life expectancies to 30 years, an Iraqi doctor told RT. Over the ten years of occupation, Iraqi citizens have been developing alarmingly growing numbers of medical conditions, the Iraqi cardiologist, Dr. Omar al-Kubaisi, told RT’s Arabic-language sister channel Rusiya Al-Yaum. http://rt.com/op-edge/iraq-environmental-catastrophe-hiroshima-533/ Jeez, Russian Muslims telling us about the downside of invasions by non Arabs. Never mind that islam spread by invasion. What matters is that 'muslim lands' are left to brutalise, oppress and debase their people any which way they like. Sovereignty, innit.

You mean with western clearance and support

How long was Saddam on the US books for?

How is that wonderful example of democracy going - the GREAT SAUDI ARABIA

The great friend of the USA

the war in afghanistan has produced this

through the division that is war brought about unto you

by the military industrial complex..

http://www.news.com.au/technology/sci-tech/baes-superdrone-taranis-to-be-tested-at-woomera/story-fn5fsgyc-1226619892302

BAE's superdrone Taranis to be tested at Woomera
by: Ian McPhedran, Defence Writer
From: News Limited Network
April 14, 2013 12:00AM


http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2013/04/13/1226619/727870-taranis.jpg

The unmanned stealth combat aircraft Taranis, made by BAE systems, which is being tested at Woomera. Picture: Supplied Source: Supplied
THE most secretive piece of airspace in Australia - the RAAF-run Woomera flight test range in South Australia - will make history later this year when the world's first unmanned supersonic stealth combat aircraft makes its maiden test flight above the desert.
Extreme secrecy surrounds the joint British-French project and the drone called a Taranis, named after the Celtic god of thunder and built by a British/French consortium led by aerospace giant BAE Systems.
Resembling an insect and using the delta-shaped "flying wing'' technology favoured by modern-day stealth aircraft such as America's B-2 stealth bomber, Taranis is designed to fly above the speed of sound over long distances undetected by enemy radars to attack targets with an array of precision missiles and bombs.
Unlike current generation attack drones such as Predator and Reaper, that are used extensively to attack insurgent targets in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen, Taranis will carry the latest in remote defensive technology so it can also evade missiles and hostile manned aircraft.
Unmanned drones are unlikely to ever engage in a dog fight with a manned fighter jet, but the technology is being developed. A more likely future scenarios a long-range missile fight between combat drones.
The Woomera restricted area has already played host to a number of world firsts including the maiden flight of a scram jet engine that could power aircraft to speeds in excess 8500 kmh or Mach 7 - seven times the speed of sound.
That would enable future passenger jets to fly a sub-orbital trajectory from Sydney to London in two hours.
The rocket range is the second busiest launch pad in the world after NASA's Cape Canaveral in  Florida.
In 2009 BAE Systems flew a propeller driven drone known as a Mantis at Woomera.
The military regularly uses the range to test missiles and foreign governments use the vast test site for a variety of top-secret test missions.
The company said Taranis was designed to utilise the most advanced means possible of achieving low observability.
"This includes both the systems and technology inside the aircraft as well as the shape, design and finish of the exterior of the aircraft. This does mean that there are aspects of the exterior design of the aircraft which remain classified,'' it said.
Other details such as range and top speed are also top-secret.
The development of pilotless combat aircraft is controversial and many regard the risks of mistakes associated with removing humans from the kill chain as unacceptable.
Several American companies are also developing unmanned fighters and helicopters for land and sea based operations.
A senior American aerospace executive told News Limited that the fifth-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, being purchased by the RAAF, will be the last manned fighter built in the US.

TARANIS: The future of air combat
* World's first supersonic (above speed of sound) stealth unmanned combat aircraft
* Flying delta wing design 12 metres long with 10-metre wingspan
* Flies on pre-programmed flight path guided by on-board computer
* Stealth technology makes it virtually invisible to enemy radars
* Can select its own targets but final 'kill' decision taken by mission command
* Destroy targets with onboard missiles and provides intelligence back to command
* First flight to follow hundreds of hours of ground testing and one million man hours

it_is_the_light wrote on Apr 13^th, 2013 at 10:48pm:

the war in afghanistan has produced this through the division that is war brought about unto you by the military industrial complex.. http://www.news.com.au/technology/sci-tech/baes-superdrone-taranis-to-be-tested-at-woomera/story-fn5fsgyc-1226619892302 BAE's superdrone Taranis to be tested at Woomera by: Ian McPhedran, Defence Writer From: News Limited Network April 14, 2013 12:00AM http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2013/04/13/1226619/727870-taranis.jpg The unmanned stealth combat aircraft Taranis, made by BAE systems, which is being tested at Woomera. Picture: Supplied Source: Supplied THE most secretive piece of airspace in Australia - the RAAF-run Woomera flight test range in South Australia - will make history later this year when the world's first unmanned supersonic stealth combat aircraft makes its maiden test flight above the desert. Extreme secrecy surrounds the joint British-French project and the drone called a Taranis, named after the Celtic god of thunder and built by a British/French consortium led by aerospace giant BAE Systems. Resembling an insect and using the delta-shaped "flying wing'' technology favoured by modern-day stealth aircraft such as America's B-2 stealth bomber, Taranis is designed to fly above the speed of sound over long distances undetected by enemy radars to attack targets with an array of precision missiles and bombs. Unlike current generation attack drones such as Predator and Reaper, that are used extensively to attack insurgent targets in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen, Taranis will carry the latest in remote defensive technology so it can also evade missiles and hostile manned aircraft. Unmanned drones are unlikely to ever engage in a dog fight with a manned fighter jet, but the technology is being developed. A more likely future scenarios a long-range missile fight between combat drones. The Woomera restricted area has already played host to a number of world firsts including the maiden flight of a scram jet engine that could power aircraft to speeds in excess 8500 kmh or Mach 7 - seven times the speed of sound. That would enable future passenger jets to fly a sub-orbital trajectory from Sydney to London in two hours. The rocket range is the second busiest launch pad in the world after NASA's Cape Canaveral in  Florida. In 2009 BAE Systems flew a propeller driven drone known as a Mantis at Woomera. The military regularly uses the range to test missiles and foreign governments use the vast test site for a variety of top-secret test missions. The company said Taranis was designed to utilise the most advanced means possible of achieving low observability. "This includes both the systems and technology inside the aircraft as well as the shape, design and finish of the exterior of the aircraft. This does mean that there are aspects of the exterior design of the aircraft which remain classified,'' it said. Other details such as range and top speed are also top-secret. The development of pilotless combat aircraft is controversial and many regard the risks of mistakes associated with removing humans from the kill chain as unacceptable. Several American companies are also developing unmanned fighters and helicopters for land and sea based operations. A senior American aerospace executive told News Limited that the fifth-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, being purchased by the RAAF, will be the last manned fighter built in the US. TARANIS: The future of air combat * World's first supersonic (above speed of sound) stealth unmanned combat aircraft * Flying delta wing design 12 metres long with 10-metre wingspan * Flies on pre-programmed flight path guided by on-board computer * Stealth technology makes it virtually invisible to enemy radars * Can select its own targets but final 'kill' decision taken by mission command * Destroy targets with onboard missiles and provides intelligence back to command * First flight to follow hundreds of hours of ground testing and one million man hours

and excellent tool for the modern western corporate terrorist

you don't even need to leave home

you can slaughter your own civilians and civilians in other nations from an air conditioned padded room

Obama will love this little toy

What a bunch of thumb-sucking self-hating bed-wetters we have here.

"boo-hoo-hoo ... America and her allies are the Evil Empire, and all those virtuous Middle Eastern dictatorships that still march in lock-step with 7th century social values are the poor downtrodden victims of Western military imperialism ... boo-hoo-hoo ... 's'not fair!" (rapidly stamps feet before blowing nose with red-coloured handkerchief).

Wake up to yourselves, you simpering leftwing morons. 

If you still haven't worked out who the good guys and the bad guys are, then you people should be registered with the federal police as a risk to public safety.

Anti-intuitive idiots.
 

The bad guys are the invaders.
The smart collaborators are the ones appearing off-shore to xmas island now.
The dumb collaborators will be the ones appearing in multitudes on australian shores after the evil ones withdraw.
The slow collaborators........

AaLF wrote on Apr 14^th, 2013 at 6:34pm:

The bad guys are the invaders. The smart collaborators are the ones appearing off-shore to xmas island now. The dumb collaborators will be the ones appearing in multitudes on australian shores after the evil ones withdraw. The slow collaborators........

Bullshit! Where are the links?  8-)

Afghanistan is sunni islam plus a minority of shia.  These shia are the mafia, the warlords.  You remember them as the northern alliance.

And after the poo floats away from the shore (you) all they (the N.A.) will be is a memory unless they hunker down and say they're sorry.

Massoud, former leader of the Northern Alliance was a Sunni Muslim.

Karzai and the CIA.....oh dear!

With Bags of Cash, C.I.A. Seeks Influence in Afghanistan

KABUL, Afghanistan — For more than a decade, wads of American dollars packed into suitcases, backpacks and, on occasion, plastic shopping bags have been dropped off every month or so at the offices of Afghanistan’s president — courtesy of the Central Intelligence Agency.

All told, tens of millions of dollars have flowed from the C.I.A. to the office of President Hamid Karzai, according to current and former advisers to the Afghan leader.



“We called it ‘ghost money,’ ” said Khalil Roman, who served as Mr. Karzai’s chief of staff from 2002 until 2005. “It came in secret, and it left in secret.”

The C.I.A., which declined to comment for this article, has long been known to support some relatives and close aides of Mr. Karzai. But the new accounts of off-the-books cash delivered directly to his office show payments on a vaster scale, and with a far greater impact on everyday governing.

Moreover, there is little evidence that the payments bought the influence the C.I.A. sought. Instead, some American officials said, the cash has fueled corruption and empowered warlords, undermining Washington’s exit strategy from Afghanistan.

“The biggest source of corruption in Afghanistan,” one American official said, “was the United States.”

The United States was not alone in delivering cash to the president. Mr. Karzai acknowledged a few years ago that Iran regularly gave bags of cash to one of his top aides.

At the time, in 2010, American officials jumped on the payments as evidence of an aggressive Iranian campaign to buy influence and poison Afghanistan’s relations with the United States. What they did not say was that the C.I.A. was also plying the presidential palace with cash — and unlike the Iranians, it still is.

American and Afghan officials familiar with the payments said the agency’s main goal in providing the cash has been to maintain access to Mr. Karzai and his inner circle and to guarantee the agency’s influence at the presidential palace, which wields tremendous power in Afghanistan’s highly centralized government. The officials spoke about the money only on the condition of anonymity.

It is not clear that the United States is getting what it pays for. Mr. Karzai’s willingness to defy the United States — and the Iranians, for that matter — on an array of issues seems to have only grown as the cash has piled up. Instead of securing his good graces, the payments may well illustrate the opposite: Mr. Karzai is seemingly unable to be bought.

Over Iran’s objections, he signed a strategic partnership deal with the United States last year, directly leading the Iranians to halt their payments, two senior Afghan officials said. Now, Mr. Karzai is seeking control over the Afghan militias raised by the C.I.A. to target operatives of Al Qaeda and insurgent commanders, potentially upending a critical part of the Obama administration’s plans for fighting militants as conventional military forces pull back this year.

But the C.I.A. has continued to pay, believing it needs Mr. Karzai’s ear to run its clandestine war against Al Qaeda and its allies, according to American and Afghan officials.

Like the Iranian cash, much of the C.I.A.’s money goes to paying off warlords and politicians, many of whom have ties to the drug trade and, in some cases, the Taliban. The result, American and Afghan officials said, is that the agency has greased the wheels of the same patronage networks that American diplomats and law enforcement agents have struggled unsuccessfully to dismantle, leaving the government in the grips of what are basically organized crime syndicates.

The cash does not appear to be subject to the oversight and restrictions placed on official American aid to the country or even the C.I.A.’s formal assistance programs, like financing Afghan intelligence agencies. And while there is no evidence that Mr. Karzai has personally taken any of the money — Afghan officials say the cash is handled by his National Security Council — the payments do in some cases work directly at odds with the aims of other parts of the American government in Afghanistan, even if they do not appear to violate American law.

Handing out cash has been standard procedure for the C.I.A. in Afghanistan since the start of the war. During the 2001 invasion, agency cash bought the services of numerous warlords, including Muhammad Qasim Fahim, the current first vice president.

“We paid them to overthrow the Taliban,” the American official said.

The C.I.A. then kept paying the Afghans to keep fighting. For instance, Mr. Karzai’s half brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, was paid by the C.I.A. to run the Kandahar Strike Force, a militia used by the agency to combat militants, until his assassination in 2011.

A number of senior officials on the Afghan National Security Council are also individually on the agency’s payroll, Afghan officials said.

While intelligence agencies often pay foreign officials to provide information, dropping off bags of cash at a foreign leader’s office to curry favor is a more unusual arrangement.

Afghan officials said the practice grew out of the unique circumstances in Afghanistan, where the United States built the government that Mr. Karzai runs. To accomplish that task, it had to bring to heel many of the warlords the C.I.A. had paid during and after the 2001 invasion.

cont:

By late 2002, Mr. Karzai and his aides were pressing for the payments to be routed through the president’s office, allowing him to buy the warlords’ loyalty, a former adviser to Mr. Karzai said.

Then, in December 2002, Iranians showed up at the palace in a sport utility vehicle packed with cash, the former adviser said.

The C.I.A. began dropping off cash at the palace the following month, and the sums grew from there, Afghan officials said.

Payments ordinarily range from hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars, the officials said, though none could provide exact figures. The money is used to cover a slew of off-the-books expenses, like paying off lawmakers or underwriting delicate diplomatic trips or informal negotiations.

Much of it also still goes to keeping old warlords in line. One is Abdul Rashid Dostum, an ethnic Uzbek whose militia served as a C.I.A. proxy force in 2001. He receives nearly $100,000 a month from the palace, two Afghan officials said. Other officials said the amount was significantly lower.

Mr. Dostum, who declined requests for comment, had previously said he was given $80,000 a month to serve as Mr. Karzai’s emissary in northern Afghanistan. “I asked for a year up front in cash so that I could build my dream house,” he was quoted as saying in a 2009 interview with Time magazine.

Some of the cash also probably ends up in the pockets of the Karzai aides who handle it, Afghan and Western officials said, though they would not identify any by name.

That is not a significant concern for the C.I.A., said American officials familiar with the agency’s operations. “They’ll work with criminals if they think they have to,” one American former official said.

Interestingly, the cash from Tehran appears to have been handled with greater transparency than the dollars from the C.I.A., Afghan officials said. The Iranian payments were routed through Mr. Karzai’s chief of staff. Some of the money was deposited in an account in the president’s name at a state-run bank, and some was kept at the palace. The sum delivered would then be announced at the next cabinet meeting. The Iranians gave $3 million to well over $10 million a year, Afghan officials said.

When word of the Iranian cash leaked out in October 2010, Mr. Karzai told reporters that he was grateful for it. He then added: “The United States is doing the same thing. They are providing cash to some of our offices.”

At the time, Mr. Karzai’s aides said he was referring to the billions in formal aid the United States gives. But the former adviser said in a recent interview that the president was in fact referring to the C.I.A.’s bags of cash.

No one mentions the agency’s money at cabinet meetings. It is handled by a small clique at the National Security Council, including its administrative chief, Mohammed Zia Salehi, Afghan officials said.

Mr. Salehi, though, is better known for being arrested in 2010 in connection with a sprawling, American-led investigation that tied together Afghan cash smuggling, Taliban finances and the opium trade. Mr. Karzai had him released within hours, and the C.I.A. then helped persuade the Obama administration to back off its anticorruption push, American officials said.

After his release, Mr. Salehi jokingly came up with a motto that succinctly summed up America’s conflicting priorities. He was, he began telling colleagues, “an enemy of the F.B.I., and a hero to the C.I.A.”

Mark Mazzetti contributed reporting from Washington.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/29/world/asia/cia-delivers-cash-to-afghan-leaders-office.html?emc=eta1&_r=3&pagewanted=all&

Ah, aunty, Karzai is a good man. He is one of us!

In the Presidential Palace, the Mind of Afghanistan, Karzai calls out to the Angel of Darkness.

"Mother! Mistress! Angel of Death! Speak to me, habibi. Tell me what to do!"

But the Angel - like the Taliban - is silent.

All things, it seems, come to those who watch and wait.

British Journalist James Furgusson did a number of interviews amongst the taliban (or former taliban) core - as well as some other anti-Karzai leaders. What was most surprising is how willing nearly all of these leaders are to negotiate with Karzai. The stereotype we are used to in the west about these people is that they hate the occupiers, but the occupier's puppets are the lowest of the low. Not so. There is actually some respect for Karzai, on account of him being Afghan and - surprisingly in their minds - a patriot. The overwhelming sense amongst the leaders is the first priority is to get rid of the occupiers, then they can all sit down and talk - as Afghanis, with the interests of Afghanistan in mind.

Karzai knew he wouldn't be assassinated by the Taliban for as long as he made sure there were enough poppy-fields to grow the heroin from which they funded their activities.

There has always been a mutual understanding between both parties that it is to the advantage of all to keep the heroin trade going, and the various war lords happy, and everyone profiting mightily from the West's utter foolishness in thinking it could destroy fundamentalist Islam at the point of a gun.

Karzai ... the Taliban ... and the various war lords have been laughing their nuts off at the sheer ignorance and stupidity of the US and her lap-dogs.

They found fools in the West to come and deposit zillions of dollars in their Swiss bank accounts for doing pretty much FA.