What happens when you oppose Bu$hCo too vigorously

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

bush/blair & safer 5 yrs later.

The U.K. posters don't seem to realise these kinds of wars are restricted by diplomacy and politics. The whole idea that the Afghans or Iraqi could defeat the U.S. in war is basically Dixy land.
During the Cold War, the superpowers both had enough fire-power to destroy each other several times over. Both the USSR and U.S.A. were preparing for war on a massive scale, so the current conflict with the Arab World doesn't even begin to compare. Current losses are mainly due to an imagined need to remain in these countries on the ground to try and encourage democracy e.t.c.
Take the Taleban: They are armed with the most basic and crudest of firearms - mostly old stuff from the former USSR. They can carry out basic hit-and-run tactics with small arms and they know their terrain well. But that's about it. The simple fact is if the U.S. or Russia wanted to take the Taleban out big time, they could turn the whole region into a pile of dust within a couple of hours - just take a look at Chernobyl today.
http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html
However, diplomacy and international relations also figure so the U.S. has to limit and restrict its options. The same in Iraq.
The only Middle Eastern country that could possibly pose a threat to the U.S. is Iran if it gets a nuclear capacity. Even then, Iran would only be able to hit Israel or London with one of its crude ICBM's and still couldn't hope to win a war against a major power.
Collectively, the Arab World has no satellite guidance systems, guided missile technology, genuine air-power or extensive WMD capacity. Added to that, future conflicts may well be dictated in space and there's very little chance the Taleban or Iran is going to have a finger in that particular pie.

Well fortunately for us....your country doesn't lack citizens with expertise on warfare and terrorism that they can pass judgement on a country that is equipped, capable and willing to deal with it.

Hmmm, remember Vietnam had extensive support from the USSR. This is why the U.S. couldn't win that war and why the USSR couldn't finish Afghanistan.
The situation now is different. With no support from a superpower, the Taleban crumbled before a modern army. The same applies to Iraq - there was no hope of winning a conventional war with uniformed troops out in the battlefield.


Apart from the Taliban,obviously.
Despite more than 20 years of war against Russia,the US,NATO and each other they are still fighting,increasing their strength in fact.The US has still not managed to locate ObL or Mullah Omar and the Taliban still have bases in southern Afghanistan.
I guess... the daisy-cutters aren't working?
Despite dropping more bombs on Vietnam than were dropped in WWll on Europe....the bombing obviously didn't scare the Vietnamese either.

Another unwinnable war.

Bill, you're not calm.

Bill, you need to calm down.Lim calm down..Lim you're not calm.

Bill, YOU need to stick to the topic.
Bill, you earlier asserted that Binladen was living in a cave.

When asked to prove this by several posters - YOU tried to change the subject by introducing Iraq and Lebanon, Bill.

You should take your own advice, Bill and stick on topic.Lim, you are the multiple topic king of these forums. Lim, prove OBL isn't living in a cave. Lim, what evidence do you have that he is indeed living in a real residence? Lim, take it easy on Bill.

Bill, Bill.

You suggested that it was your goverment who was calling the shots.
I countered that in fact it is BinLaden's actions which have determined your country's policies since 2001.

Nowhere did I say that I admired Binladen nor did I refer to him as hero.

Glib?
You're the one who's being glib, Bill.Lim, Lim, Lim. It is not so much Bin Ladens actions as it is Bill Clintons "lack of action" that have resulted in the actions that have caused our reaction. You are indeed glib Lim.

Bill.
You suggested that it was your goverment who was calling the shots.
I countered that in fact it is BinLaden's actions which have determined your country's policies since 2001.Lim, see above Lim...


Bill.

Depends on how ones defines terrorism, doesn't it, Bill?

In real terms, my country has had guerilla warfare for over 30 years.
Somewhat more exposure than your country has had, Bill.

The discussion isn't useless, Bill.Lim, how much of a hand have you had in your countries guerrila warfare Lim.... Lim? Lim, what exposure have you had Lim? This discussion isn't useless as long as the arguement isn't glib and condesending...Lim....Lim, Lim, Lim...

The irony here is that Bill's name probably isn't Bill and Lim isn't Lim's name either. :rolleyes:
I can see the next thing is people will be saying, "Wurm, it's not so, Wurm, Wurm it's not, it's really truly not, Wurm, it's not, no it's not!"

The irony here is that Bill's name probably isn't Bill and Lim isn't Lim's name either. :rolleyes:
I can see the next thing is people will be saying, "Wurm, it's not so, Wurm, Wurm it's not, it's really truly not, Wurm, it's not, no it's not!"


I figured Bill's name was Bill and I know Lim's name,which will be kept discreet but I really thought Wurm's name was really Wurm.
I now question my own sanity.

The irony here is that Bill's name probably isn't Bill and Lim isn't Lim's name either. :rolleyes:
I can see the next thing is people will be saying, "Wurm, it's not so, Wurm, Wurm it's not, it's really truly not, Wurm, it's not, no it's not!"The irony here is that Bill's name probably isn't Bill and Lim isn't Lim's name either. :rolleyes:
I can see the next thing is people will be saying, "Wurm, it's not so, Wurm, Wurm it's not, it's really truly not, Wurm, it's not, no it's not!"Crappy, you are so right. Crappy, you got my point. Thanks Crappy, glad to see you are awake. Besides we all know wurmy's name don't we crappy???

Let me use your logic....prove that he is calling the shots. Prove that he is even alive.....:rolleyes:


Prove that Binladen's calling the shots?

Where would you like to start, Bill?
Your country placed a $25m bounty to capture Osama BinLaden "dead or alive" in October 2001.
Has that bounty been claimed - at this time of writing?
No.
Five years is a long time.
If your country was calling the shots - how come the bounty hasn't been claimed?

How about the cost of the Afghan war, Bill?
Your own Treasury Dept has stated that your country spent - in it's military budget - $4.2 billion dollars on trying to eradiciate Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
$4.2 billion is an awful lot of money.
Has that resulted in the capture of Binladen?
No.
Has Binladen and Al Qaeda forced the US to spend money it would otherwise spent on something else?
Yep. $4.2 billion to be exact.
Why has your country spent so much money on this issue - if your country was in control and calling the shots, Bill?

How about the money that your country spent in trying to update security equipment at your country's airports?
Why would your country spend all this money - if your country was calling the shots Bill?

Or the expenditure incurred since in manhours worked by non-military personnel on the Binladen/Al Qaeda issue since 2001?
If your country was calling the shots, Bill, your country wouldn't have to incur these costs either.
How much money has Binladen compelled your country to spend on this?
Hundreds of millions, no doubt.

I don't know if Binladen's alive Bill.
I don't particlarly care if he's alive or dead either.

I do know that his actions have directed your country's policies during the past five years.



Let me take your tact here....Prove that Bin Laden's actions have determined our policy.


See above.


You don't purport to be a mind reader do you...


No I don't. Bill.


Can you prove that he didn't go to war to profit from it.


We know that Bush did go to war under false pretences Bill.
We know that the reasons given to justify his going to war, were lies.

He went to war to get his hands on the Iraqi oilfields.



What can you prove Limerick? Have I proved yet that your prove it argument is positively retarded?



Bill - Binladen's been leading your country on the most expensive, wild goose chase in history.
Literally billions have been spent trying to locate a man who has dominated the political policy formation of your country since 2001.

You're the one who's retarded Bill.



Yes and this proves the fact that you don't have the right to tell another country how to deal with it.



Bill - I'm telling YOU how your country isn't dealing with it.




After 30 years and you still haven't figured out how to stop it then shame on you and your government.



Bill - hate to burst your bubble here.
The war is over. Has been for a long time.

In fact, the people formerly portrayed as "terrorists" now have access to goverment and frequently attend the offices of both the British and Irish goverments.
In fact, they have access to your country's White House too, Bill.
Took the politicians a long time - but they finally realised that dialogue works.

Your country would do well to follow that example.



We aren't willing to turn the other cheek and hope the bad man goes away. If you are then that is your business.


Bill, that's naive!

Your goverment will do what's expedient.
The rhetoric today, reminds me of rhetoric Reagan used about the hostages in Lebanon in the 1980's.
"Hey, we don't do deals with................."
Yeah right.
And we all know that they did deals - despite their words.

Well, 2fast, I don't actually know, Wurmy, 2 fast, I don't, 2fast, no I don't. :D :p :D ;)
This is getting a bit like:
There's a hole in my tube, dear Boogers, dear Boogers there's a hole in my tyre, dear Boogers a hole!
Then fix it, dear Crappy, dear Crappy, dear Crappy then fix it, dear Crappy. Dear Crappy fix it!!!!
But with what should I fix it dear 2Fast, dear 2Fast with what should I fix it dear 2fast with what??

Crappy, you are so right. Crappy, you got my point. Thanks Crappy, glad to see you are awake. Besides we all know wurmy's name don't we crappy???

Hmmm, remember Vietnam had extensive support from the USSR. This is why the U.S. couldn't win that war and why the USSR couldn't finish Afghanistan.
The situation now is different. With no support from a superpower, the Taleban crumbled before a modern army. The same applies to Iraq - there was no hope of winning a conventional war with uniformed troops out in the battlefield.

The correct spelling is Taliban.

And in the case of guerilla war - you miss the point entirely.

If the population of a country/region support the resistance, the relative strength of the occupier is immaterial.
One could argue that the popular support for the Taliban is limited perhaps.

But this fails to recognise the point - a foreign military presence in a country, regardless of the best of intentions, is always viewed as an occupier by the indigenous population.

The British Army discusses this very issue and how the British Army and the USA are viewed as occupiers in Afghanistan.


THE former aide-de-camp to the commander of the British taskforce in southern Afghanistan has described the campaign in Helmand province as “a textbook case of how to screw up a counter-insurgency”.

“Having a big old fight is pointless and just making things worse,” said Captain Leo Docherty, of the Scots Guards, who became so disillusioned that he quit the army last month.

“All those people whose homes have been destroyed and sons killed are going to turn against the British,” he said. “It’s a pretty clear equation — if people are losing homes and poppy fields, they will go and fight. I certainly would.

“We’ve been grotesquely clumsy — we’ve said we’ll be different to the Americans who were bombing and strafing villages, then behaved exactly like them.”

Docherty’s criticisms, the first from an officer who has served in Helmand, came during the worst week so far for British troops in Afghanistan, with the loss of 18 men.

They reflected growing concern that forces have been left exposed in small northern outposts of Helmand such as Sangin, Musa Qala and Nawzad. Pinned down by daily Taliban attacks, many have run short of food and water and have been forced to rely on air support and artillery.

“We’ve deviated spectacularly from the original plan,” said Docherty, who was aide-de-camp to Colonel Charlie Knaggs, the commander in Helmand.

“The plan was to secure the provincial capital Lashkar Gah, initiate development projects and enable governance . . . During this time, the insecure northern part of Helmand would be contained: troops would not be ‘sucked in’ to a problem unsolvable by military means alone.”

According to Docherty, the planning “fell by the wayside” because of pressure from the governor of Helmand, who feared the Taliban were toppling his district chiefs in northern towns.

Docherty traces the start of the problems to the British capture of Sangin on May 25, in which he took part. He says troops were sent to seize this notorious centre of Taliban and narcotics activity without night-vision goggles and with so few vehicles they had to borrow a pick-up truck.

More damningly, once they had established a base in the town, the mission failed to capitalise on their presence. Sangin has no paved roads, running water or electricity, but because of a lack of support his men were unable to carry out any development, throwing away any opportunity to win over townspeople.

“The military is just one side of the triangle,” he said. “Where were the Department for International Development and the Foreign Office? “The window was briefly open for our message to be spread, for the civilian population to be informed of our intent and realise that we weren’t there simply to destroy the poppy fields and their livelihoods. I felt at this stage that the Taliban were sitting back and observing us, deciding in their own time how to most effectively hit us.”

Eventually the Taliban attacked on June 11, when Captain Jim Philippson became the first British soldier to be killed in Helmand. British troops have since been holed up in their compound with attacks coming at least once a day. Seven British soldiers have died in the Sangin area.

“Now the ground has been lost and all we’re doing in places like Sangin is surviving,” said Docherty. “It’s completely barking mad.

“We’re now scattered in a shallow meaningless way across northern towns where the only way for the troops to survive is to increase the level of violence so more people get killed. It’s pretty shocking and not something I want to be part of.”

The invasion of Afghanistan was probably to be expected after 9/11. The invasion of Iraq I don't understand. O.K., I'm aware Iraq was the focus of a capitalist power struggle between Russia, France and America - with S.H. threatening to trade only with France and Russia in the future.
Clearly, the Bush Administration used 9/11 as an excuse to overthrow S.H. and hopefully become the main trading partners with Iraq in the future.
Iraq was a red herring. Previous U.S. politicians viewed S.H. as an ally.
As for occupation, the Romans did it very well. No other globla power has ever been as good at it as the Romans. They occupied Britain for centuries, despite resistance. France was even more Romanized.

The correct spelling is Taliban.

And in the case of guerilla war - you miss the point entirely.

If the population of a country/region support the resistance, the relative strength of the occupier is immaterial.
One could argue that the popular support for the Taliban is limited perhaps.

But this fails to recognise the point - a foreign military presence in a country, regardless of the best of intentions, is always viewed as an occupier by the indigenous population.

The British Army discusses this very issue and how the British Army and the USA are viewed as occupiers in Afghanistan.


THE former aide-de-camp to the commander of the British taskforce in southern Afghanistan has described the campaign in Helmand province as “a textbook case of how to screw up a counter-insurgency”.

“Having a big old fight is pointless and just making things worse,” said Captain Leo Docherty, of the Scots Guards, who became so disillusioned that he quit the army last month.

“All those people whose homes have been destroyed and sons killed are going to turn against the British,” he said. “It’s a pretty clear equation — if people are losing homes and poppy fields, they will go and fight. I certainly would.

“We’ve been grotesquely clumsy — we’ve said we’ll be different to the Americans who were bombing and strafing villages, then behaved exactly like them.”

Docherty’s criticisms, the first from an officer who has served in Helmand, came during the worst week so far for British troops in Afghanistan, with the loss of 18 men.

They reflected growing concern that forces have been left exposed in small northern outposts of Helmand such as Sangin, Musa Qala and Nawzad. Pinned down by daily Taliban attacks, many have run short of food and water and have been forced to rely on air support and artillery.

“We’ve deviated spectacularly from the original plan,” said Docherty, who was aide-de-camp to Colonel Charlie Knaggs, the commander in Helmand.

“The plan was to secure the provincial capital Lashkar Gah, initiate development projects and enable governance . . . During this time, the insecure northern part of Helmand would be contained: troops would not be ‘sucked in’ to a problem unsolvable by military means alone.”

According to Docherty, the planning “fell by the wayside” because of pressure from the governor of Helmand, who feared the Taliban were toppling his district chiefs in northern towns.

Docherty traces the start of the problems to the British capture of Sangin on May 25, in which he took part. He says troops were sent to seize this notorious centre of Taliban and narcotics activity without night-vision goggles and with so few vehicles they had to borrow a pick-up truck.

More damningly, once they had established a base in the town, the mission failed to capitalise on their presence. Sangin has no paved roads, running water or electricity, but because of a lack of support his men were unable to carry out any development, throwing away any opportunity to win over townspeople.

“The military is just one side of the triangle,” he said. “Where were the Department for International Development and the Foreign Office? “The window was briefly open for our message to be spread, for the civilian population to be informed of our intent and realise that we weren’t there simply to destroy the poppy fields and their livelihoods. I felt at this stage that the Taliban were sitting back and observing us, deciding in their own time how to most effectively hit us.”

Eventually the Taliban attacked on June 11, when Captain Jim Philippson became the first British soldier to be killed in Helmand. British troops have since been holed up in their compound with attacks coming at least once a day. Seven British soldiers have died in the Sangin area.

“Now the ground has been lost and all we’re doing in places like Sangin is surviving,” said Docherty. “It’s completely barking mad.

“We’re now scattered in a shallow meaningless way across northern towns where the only way for the troops to survive is to increase the level of violence so more people get killed. It’s pretty shocking and not something I want to be part of.”

The invasion of Afghanistan was probably to be expected after 9/11. The invasion of Iraq I don't understand. O.K., I'm aware Iraq was the focus of a capitalist power struggle between Russia, France and America - with S.H. threatening to trade only with France and Russia in the future.
Clearly, the Bush Administration used 9/11 as an excuse to overthrow S.H. and hopefully become the main trading partners with Iraq in the future.
Iraq was a red herring. Previous U.S. politicians viewed S.H. as an ally.


That was the point I made.
The USA had a lot of goodwill toward it in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 and countries co-operated on an unprecedented level to aid America in the overthrow of the Taliban.
James Rubin stated on Monday that countries like Iran co-operated with the USA in the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001.

That goodwill became squandered when the USA lied about WMD, lied about Saddams connection to 9/11, lied about his involvement in terrorism and lied about his involvement with Al Qaeda.
Our friend tried to spread out the blame by stating that France, Germany etc backed the Iraq invasion.
They didn't back the invasion.
In fact the international community opposed that invasion.

In the meantime, Afghanistan festered and now we have the Taliban back in the ascendency.
Although it appears to be news to some people














The Taliban is increasing in strength?

I figured Bill's name was Bill and I know Lim's name,which will be kept discreet but I really thought Wurm's name was really Wurm.
I now question my own sanity.

It is Mr. Wurm to you...:p

Yeah...courageous....strapping bombs onto their children and sending them into Israel.

Courageous.

If OBL is so courageous...why doesn't he volunteer for martyrdom and poke his head up out of the rat hole?Bill, I didn't say that he was right (I don't believe that anyone whose objectives are wanton destruction is right), or that his actions were / are courageous in themselves (although I would contend that leaving the safety of Saudi to fight with the MH in Afghanistan could be construed as an action slightly beyond that of a Mummy's boy). I was merely pointing out that the image of him cowering in a cave is possibly an incorrect one. I don't think he is overly afraid of death, if he is, in fact, still alive. The people I saw might seek cover from incoming, but that is not the cowering you suggest. If OBL was a timid person, I doubt if he would've taken up a career which exhibits such a poor safety record.
Again, I repeat, having seen inhabitants of Afghanistan under fire, an image of people cowering does not come to mind. The only person I saw cower over there was myself. Please relate your experiences of these people, Bill.
Suicide bombings are (as with all methods of inflicting death and destruction) terrible actions. It makes me wonder how bleak things have to be in your living world to contemplate such an action. Certainly an abundance of virgins on offer would not seem enough to convince me. Does it make you wonder, too, Bill? Poverty and insecurity are terrible things, and can make alternatives (unimagineable to us) seem like a good option.
Some people in this World are not as well off as you and I (I'm making assumptions based on you having access to a computer). Have you ever thought about what would happen if the incredible amount of money that has been spent on carrying out this war-with-no-end were spent on ensuring that the people who form the cannon-fodder received the basic needs for food, shelter and education? Granted, this would not remove the extremists, but it would serve to evaporate their power base. Not as fun and glorious as going to war, though, is it? Nothing like having some flag-draped coffins returning home to convince us that we're somehow doing the "right" thing.

Like most stories and memories from years ago...I would suspect that it got embellished over time.

Besides...a few daisy cutters and that will scare the toughness right out of just about anything. :DBill - "scare" is not a word I would associate with this people. I spent 1 year working in the Northwest Frontier Province and neighbouring Afghanistan. These people have spent their whole lives shooting and being shot at. They ain't scared of shite. How about you and I go and share a few nights in the tribal areas of the Hindukush and you can tell me whether the tracer and rocket-fire scares you morte than them? I've watched them blowing the shite out of each other each and every night. A Daisy-cutter is just one more way to go. The Russian's MiL Gunships certainly didn't have them quivering in their sandals.
If you want to learn more about these people, try reading some of the accounts from Kipling. There are very few people who have fought in the 'Kush who don't have some form of respect for the toughness of these people. If you know better, please relate your experiences / evidence.

Hmmm, remember Vietnam had extensive support from the USSR. This is why the U.S. couldn't win that war and why the USSR couldn't finish Afghanistan.
The situation now is different. With no support from a superpower, the Taleban crumbled before a modern army. The same applies to Iraq - there was no hope of winning a conventional war with uniformed troops out in the battlefield.Carrera - Not quite. The North Vietnamese victory may have been expedited by assistance from the USSR, but it was not the prime force of the victory. Ho Chi Minh pointed out very early on in the fight against Colonialist powers that victory was assured, it was merely a matter of time. When your children's children will continue the fight, you offer an undefeatable force, as you are not prepared to accept that it is over until you have won. Few Americans at the time of engagement with the North Vietnamese would have said "You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who will tire of it" - Ho Chi Minh.
The massive military forces of the West are not well suited to the ethereal nature of guerilla warfare. As soon as the targets are routed from one place, they reappear in another, and they have greater abilities at coercing / co-opting the populace.
I remember the day that 9/11 happened, and how, straight away, there was talk of going in to Afghanistan to roust the perpetrators. Without thought to the rights and wrongs of such an action, my first thoughts were Vietnam, Part 2. It is a mistake to think that the people there are divided into friendly and foe. Allegiances in Afghanistan have always been temporary trades - The USA surely learnt that when the MH turned following removal of the Russians.
Aside from Carrera's ridiculous nuke-'em theories, there is no known way of militarily removing 'insurgency' in Afghanistan. It is a fundemental tradition of the land. 5 years on, peace is restored and it is a Tourist paradise? I don't think so.

A couple of pertinent quotes from Kipling...
"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
and the women come out to cut up what remains,
Then you roll to your rifle and blows out your brains
and you goes to your Gawd like a soldier."

"...You're a better man than I am,Gunga Din!".

"If any question why we died...
tell them,because our fathers lied."

"Take up the White Man's burden
and reap its old reward,
The blame of those ye better,
the hate of those ye guard."

If that were true, Julius Caesar never would have occupied the British Isles for hundreds of years and the Iceni tribe and allied tribes would have pushed the Romans out completely. However, they didn't. Or the Chechnyans would have driven Russia out of Chechnya e.t.c. Or the French would have driven the Nazis out without the need for Russia to get involved and the attack on Berlin.
You need to be a bit wary of assuming that just because the Americans have lost conflicts in the past, this automatically means all modern armies can't get the better of inferior, poorly armed opponents.
The Americans are well known to be not particularly good in ground conflict which is why they should have avoided ever getting into ground wars in the first place. What they do have is vastly superior technology so you ask yourself why they bother fighting the kind of war they're now engaged in.
All this talk about how great the Taliban is supposed to be is simply misguided They're essentially a bunch of non-uniformed, disorganised hit-and-run tribal lords, no different than the Celtic tribes the Romans had to combat in forests and woodland after they invaded Britain. The Celts swords and bows were really no use against the machinery and discipline the Roman legions had to offer. The Zulus spears were really not much use against muskets.
The day wars are decided in space using satellites, you can bet the Taliban won't be involved in any of it.

Carrera - Not quite. The North Vietnamese victory may have been expedited by assistance from the USSR, but it was not the prime force of the victory. Ho Chi Minh pointed out very early on in the fight against Colonialist powers that victory was assured, it was merely a matter of time. When your children's children will continue the fight, you offer an undefeatable force, as you are not prepared to accept that it is over until you have won. Few Americans at the time of engagement with the North Vietnamese would have said "You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who will tire of it" - Ho Chi Minh.
The massive military forces of the West are not well suited to the ethereal nature of guerilla warfare. As soon as the targets are routed from one place, they reappear in another, and they have greater abilities at coercing / co-opting the populace.
I remember the day that 9/11 happened, and how, straight away, there was talk of going in to Afghanistan to roust the perpetrators. Without thought to the rights and wrongs of such an action, my first thoughts were Vietnam, Part 2. It is a mistake to think that the people there are divided into friendly and foe. Allegiances in Afghanistan have always been temporary trades - The USA surely learnt that when the MH turned following removal of the Russians.
Aside from Carrera's ridiculous nuke-'em theories, there is no known way of militarily removing 'insurgency' in Afghanistan. It is a fundemental tradition of the land. 5 years on, peace is restored and it is a Tourist paradise? I don't think so.

I agree the Iraq war was an act of political madness. It had more to do with exploiting 9/11 in the belief U.S. companies could expand into Iraq and push France, Germany and Russia out. Bush was esentially playing with fire. You simply can't afford to undermine former allies who posed no real threat.
Iraq under SH was, to some degree, stable. Women could be educated and comparatively free. So, why on earth has Bush strengthened the Shia in this country, thereby allying Iraq with Iran?
This guy simply doesn't have a clue what he's doing. I think Hilary Clinton would have done a better job of it.

That was the point I made.
The USA had a lot of goodwill toward it in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 and countries co-operated on an unprecedented level to aid America in the overthrow of the Taliban.
James Rubin stated on Monday that countries like Iran co-operated with the USA in the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001.

That goodwill became squandered when the USA lied about WMD, lied about Saddams connection to 9/11, lied about his involvement in terrorism and lied about his involvement with Al Qaeda.
Our friend tried to spread out the blame by stating that France, Germany etc backed the Iraq invasion.
They didn't back the invasion.
In fact the international community opposed that invasion.

In the meantime, Afghanistan festered and now we have the Taliban back in the ascendency.
Although it appears to be news to some people

The Zulus spears were really not much use against muskets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Isandlwana
Battle of Isandlwana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia