Afghanistan: More than 60 Taliban killed in attack on NATO base

[cdnvic]

Removed an off topic post.

Don't you guys ever tire of throwing the same arguments at each other day in, day out?

[maidu]

Amidst all this, somebody has to mention the evils of Taliban rule and the suppression of the people of Afganistan that it involved. From their treatment of women to the prohibition of music of any kind.

People were stoned to death (buried upto their heads and stoned) for "alleged" adultery or less, limbs were hacked off for the most trivial crime, whippings and torture were rife. The prisons were full.

Women were housebound and only allowed out when accompanied by their husband and then they were covered from head to toe in a burkha, with it's small slot for vision. If she travelled in a car, she sat in the open boot. The wife was beaten if the meal was slightly sub-standard or if the husband felt like it. Domestic violence was the norm and she was disposed of if the husband wanted another, or at least kept on as a dredge. She was an object of sex without consent. Homosexualty was punished severely, yet buggery of little boys was commonplace.

There was no such thing as schooling for girls and they had their husband chosen for them at an early age and their genitals mutilated..... {edited for brevity)

I agree. it's important to look back at the reasons the Americans went to war in Afghanistan. It stemmed from a pre-emptive attack on the US mainland. The source was quickly identified. Al Qaeda were being harbored by Afghanistan's Taliban. The Taliban wouldn't give them up. Along came the Yanks with guns blazing. An added reason for the war is to try to stem the tide of fundamentalist Islamist extremists who kill their brethren in order to get their way, and they do a lot of other ugly things, some of which are mentioned in Beechboy's post (they also blow up ancient Buddhist sculptures). The US military is doing the dirty work that many other countries appreciate, but are too timid to do (or other reasons preclude them being active participants). The US isn't clean as the wind-driven snow in this. It's a dirty war, as most wars are. The US could stay at home and let terrorist fiefdoms fester, but they chose to act. It doesn't please everyone (perhaps pleases few), but it's like pumping out a septic tank: it's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it.

The Chinese don't like such wars, as all they care about is making deals and gaining industrial contracts. Even before the dust settles, the Chinese will be in there, smiling and glad-handing contracts. The US does the dirty work, and the Chinese come in and act like everyone's long lost friend. They did the same in Sudan and former Yugoslavia.

[bonobo]

I agree. it's important to look back at the reasons the Americans went to war in Afghanistan. It stemmed from a pre-emptive attack on the US mainland. The source was quickly identified. Al Qaeda were being harbored by Afghanistan's Taliban. The Taliban wouldn't give them up. Along came the Yanks with guns blazing. An added reason for the war is to try to stem the tide of fundamentalist Islamist extremists who kill their brethren in order to get their way, and they do a lot of other ugly things, some of which are mentioned in Beechboy's post (they also blow up ancient Buddhist sculptures). The US military is doing the dirty work that many other countries appreciate, but are too timid to do (or other reasons preclude them being active participants). The US isn't clean as the wind-driven snow in this. It's a dirty war, as most wars are. The US could stay at home and let terrorist fiefdoms fester, but they chose to act. It doesn't please everyone (perhaps pleases few), but it's like pumping out a septic tank: it's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it.

Just for the sake of accuracy, there are many more nations fighting than just the Americans. I received an e-mail today from a Marine buddy who just got in country, and he mentioned seeing troops from France, Spain, Italy, Holland, Greece, Canada, Mongolia, Turkey, the UK, Belgium, and Australia. And I know there are forces from South Korea, Singapore, New Zealand, Azerbaijan, Germany, Romania, Bulgaria, Italy, the Czech Republic, Norway, and probably more I am forgetting.

But you are correct in looking at why the NATO-led forces are there. Some posters here like to use the term "invaders" as if it is a pejorative. Technically, we did invade with a very small force to assist local forces in getting rid of the Taliban in response to them harboring forces which attacked US soil. After, we were asked to stay to support the fledgling government.

You can argue all you want as to the efficacy of our involvement or as to how long we should have or should stay, but the facts on why we got involved are pretty clear-cut.

[philw]

Yes ebb & flow

Yet one has to wonder.....They have been getting some for a long time now no?

Against Forces that are suppose to be the strongest in the world....??

Yet Goliath now over a decade chasing folks who train on jungle gyms & have no navy.

no air force, no kevlar, heck no uniforms right?

I hope the super power never has to fight a real enemy of more equal means.

This smells a lot like Vietnam only this should have been even easier

End result will be the same though...........And for what?

You are correct.

Exactly what is the point of this adventure ?

UG's comment on terrorists is fine, except that they live there.

I am sure that every British and American widow deeply appreciates the benefits that their pain has brought to Afghanistan and that their loss will result in enduring benefit for Afghan and Western society.................

NOT.

On the eve of Nov 11, maybe it's time for a rethink ???

Perhaps ?

[philw]

I agree. it's important to look back at the reasons the Americans went to war in Afghanistan. It stemmed from a pre-emptive attack on the US mainland. The source was quickly identified. Al Qaeda were being harbored by Afghanistan's Taliban. The Taliban wouldn't give them up. Along came the Yanks with guns blazing. An added reason for the war is to try to stem the tide of fundamentalist Islamist extremists who kill their brethren in order to get their way, and they do a lot of other ugly things, some of which are mentioned in Beechboy's post (they also blow up ancient Buddhist sculptures). The US military is doing the dirty work that many other countries appreciate, but are too timid to do (or other reasons preclude them being active participants). The US isn't clean as the wind-driven snow in this. It's a dirty war, as most wars are. The US could stay at home and let terrorist fiefdoms fester, but they chose to act. It doesn't please everyone (perhaps pleases few), but it's like pumping out a septic tank: it's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it.

Just for the sake of accuracy, there are many more nations fighting than just the Americans. I received an e-mail today from a Marine buddy who just got in country, and he mentioned seeing troops from France, Spain, Italy, Holland, Greece, Canada, Mongolia, Turkey, the UK, Belgium, and Australia. And I know there are forces from South Korea, Singapore, New Zealand, Azerbaijan, Germany, Romania, Bulgaria, Italy, the Czech Republic, Norway, and probably more I am forgetting.

But you are correct in looking at why the NATO-led forces are there. Some posters here like to use the term "invaders" as if it is a pejorative. Technically, we did invade with a very small force to assist local forces in getting rid of the Taliban in response to them harboring forces which attacked US soil. After, we were asked to stay to support the fledgling government.

You can argue all you want as to the efficacy of our involvement or as to how long we should have or should stay, but the facts on why we got involved are pretty clear-cut.

Any evidence that Taliban attacked American soil ???

[cdnvic]

One troll post removed. Bush & Blair are gone. They have nothing to do with this news item.

[bonobo]

I agree. it's important to look back at the reasons the Americans went to war in Afghanistan. It stemmed from a pre-emptive attack on the US mainland. The source was quickly identified. Al Qaeda were being harbored by Afghanistan's Taliban. The Taliban wouldn't give them up. Along came the Yanks with guns blazing. An added reason for the war is to try to stem the tide of fundamentalist Islamist extremists who kill their brethren in order to get their way, and they do a lot of other ugly things, some of which are mentioned in Beechboy's post (they also blow up ancient Buddhist sculptures). The US military is doing the dirty work that many other countries appreciate, but are too timid to do (or other reasons preclude them being active participants). The US isn't clean as the wind-driven snow in this. It's a dirty war, as most wars are. The US could stay at home and let terrorist fiefdoms fester, but they chose to act. It doesn't please everyone (perhaps pleases few), but it's like pumping out a septic tank: it's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it.

Just for the sake of accuracy, there are many more nations fighting than just the Americans. I received an e-mail today from a Marine buddy who just got in country, and he mentioned seeing troops from France, Spain, Italy, Holland, Greece, Canada, Mongolia, Turkey, the UK, Belgium, and Australia. And I know there are forces from South Korea, Singapore, New Zealand, Azerbaijan, Germany, Romania, Bulgaria, Italy, the Czech Republic, Norway, and probably more I am forgetting.

But you are correct in looking at why the NATO-led forces are there. Some posters here like to use the term "invaders" as if it is a pejorative. Technically, we did invade with a very small force to assist local forces in getting rid of the Taliban in response to them harboring forces which attacked US soil. After, we were asked to stay to support the fledgling government.

You can argue all you want as to the efficacy of our involvement or as to how long we should have or should stay, but the facts on why we got involved are pretty clear-cut.

Any evidence that Taliban attacked American soil ???

Read my post please. I wrote that they were harboring forces which attacked US soil.

[Pakboong]

I agree. it's important to look back at the reasons the Americans went to war in Afghanistan. It stemmed from a pre-emptive attack on the US mainland. The source was quickly identified. Al Qaeda were being harbored by Afghanistan's Taliban. The Taliban wouldn't give them up. Along came the Yanks with guns blazing. An added reason for the war is to try to stem the tide of fundamentalist Islamist extremists who kill their brethren in order to get their way, and they do a lot of other ugly things, some of which are mentioned in Beechboy's post (they also blow up ancient Buddhist sculptures). The US military is doing the dirty work that many other countries appreciate, but are too timid to do (or other reasons preclude them being active participants). The US isn't clean as the wind-driven snow in this. It's a dirty war, as most wars are. The US could stay at home and let terrorist fiefdoms fester, but they chose to act. It doesn't please everyone (perhaps pleases few), but it's like pumping out a septic tank: it's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it.

Just for the sake of accuracy, there are many more nations fighting than just the Americans. I received an e-mail today from a Marine buddy who just got in country, and he mentioned seeing troops from France, Spain, Italy, Holland, Greece, Canada, Mongolia, Turkey, the UK, Belgium, and Australia. And I know there are forces from South Korea, Singapore, New Zealand, Azerbaijan, Germany, Romania, Bulgaria, Italy, the Czech Republic, Norway, and probably more I am forgetting.

But you are correct in looking at why the NATO-led forces are there. Some posters here like to use the term "invaders" as if it is a pejorative. Technically, we did invade with a very small force to assist local forces in getting rid of the Taliban in response to them harboring forces which attacked US soil. After, we were asked to stay to support the fledgling government.

You can argue all you want as to the efficacy of our involvement or as to how long we should have or should stay, but the facts on why we got involved are pretty clear-cut.

Any evidence that Taliban attacked American soil ???

Given that we cannot win this war, how many do we have to kill to get our point across? Beachguy makes a point that we want to restore human rights to the Afgans. He used the examples of how their women are treated among others. I seriously believe we have killed far more Afgan women with bombs and rockets fired from Drones than would ever make human rights complaints. I guess we are killing them for their own good, now how much sense does that make? The best part is it will likely cost more than WW2 in today's dollars.

[maidu]

Any evidence that Taliban attacked American soil ???

It's like there were a house in the next neighborhood which harbored the thugs who, a week earlier, had come and killed people in your house. You go to the house and demand they give up the thugs. They don't. You go in the house, and find others inside who are abused. After expelling the house owners, you then choose to expand from the original mission (to shut down the thugs who terrorized your house earlier) to cleaning out the house which is abusing its own residents. The Taliban are like the house owners. They didn't attack American soil, but they harbored and aided those that did.

[Ulysses G.]

They didn't attack American soil, but they harbored and aided those that did.

And refused to hand them over to face justice for their murders.

[GentlemanJim]

I would just like to say a big congratulations to the men involved and their commanders for putting up such an awesome fight. That is a story you can hopefully tell your Grandkids in years to come. Well done for giving them a thorough bruising!

[Steely Dan]

I would just like to say a big congratulations to the men involved and their commanders for putting up such an awesome fight. That is a story you can hopefully tell your Grandkids in years to come. Well done for giving them a thorough bruising!

I'm sure equally the Taliban in their dotage could tell campfire stories to their own Grandchildren of how they threw acid in the faces of schoolgirls, beheaded foreigners for being of a different religion or coercing the easily suggestible or retarded to strap bombs to themselves in order to blow up groups of people more often than not with no military connection.

[Beechboy]

I would just like to say a big congratulations to the men involved and their commanders for putting up such an awesome fight. That is a story you can hopefully tell your Grandkids in years to come. Well done for giving them a thorough bruising!

I'm sure equally the Taliban in their dotage could tell campfire stories to their own Grandchildren of how they threw acid in the faces of schoolgirls, beheaded foreigners for being of a different religion or coercing the easily suggestible or retarded to strap bombs to themselves in order to blow up groups of people more often than not with no military connection.

Well said, my point exactly. If we have the means to stop it (and Nato-USA-UK etc. has) then we should. This is soon to be 2012 and about time all such evil was eradicated for good.

I believe that this was some of the thinking behind both the removal of Sadam Hussein and Ghaddafi, both tyrants who used cruelty (including gassing and torture) as a tactic to control their own people.

Additionally, give these factions too much reign, and eventaully they will acquire nuclear weapons and endanger all those they hate, which is us and our off-spring. The Taliban were already getting a foothold in Pakistan, a nuclear power.

The Taliban recruit young men from poor villages who have little chance of much income without the money they get from them. Increase the prosperity of Afganistan and their support will melt away.

This involves occupation to assist the Afgan Government in this long process. Nato, the USA, UK whatever are not at war with a country, they are more trying to assist that country in removing an evil that prevents it from true prosperity.

Additionally, why we should not be involved in a campaign, as a few have suggested on here, against a group who fund themselves by flooding the World with heroin, defies all logic to me.

Edited November 11, 2011 by Beechboy

[beechguy]

I agree. it's important to look back at the reasons the Americans went to war in Afghanistan. It stemmed from a pre-emptive attack on the US mainland. The source was quickly identified. Al Qaeda were being harbored by Afghanistan's Taliban. The Taliban wouldn't give them up. Along came the Yanks with guns blazing. An added reason for the war is to try to stem the tide of fundamentalist Islamist extremists who kill their brethren in order to get their way, and they do a lot of other ugly things, some of which are mentioned in Beechboy's post (they also blow up ancient Buddhist sculptures). The US military is doing the dirty work that many other countries appreciate, but are too timid to do (or other reasons preclude them being active participants). The US isn't clean as the wind-driven snow in this. It's a dirty war, as most wars are. The US could stay at home and let terrorist fiefdoms fester, but they chose to act. It doesn't please everyone (perhaps pleases few), but it's like pumping out a septic tank: it's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it.

Just for the sake of accuracy, there are many more nations fighting than just the Americans. I received an e-mail today from a Marine buddy who just got in country, and he mentioned seeing troops from France, Spain, Italy, Holland, Greece, Canada, Mongolia, Turkey, the UK, Belgium, and Australia. And I know there are forces from South Korea, Singapore, New Zealand, Azerbaijan, Germany, Romania, Bulgaria, Italy, the Czech Republic, Norway, and probably more I am forgetting.

But you are correct in looking at why the NATO-led forces are there. Some posters here like to use the term "invaders" as if it is a pejorative. Technically, we did invade with a very small force to assist local forces in getting rid of the Taliban in response to them harboring forces which attacked US soil. After, we were asked to stay to support the fledgling government.

You can argue all you want as to the efficacy of our involvement or as to how long we should have or should stay, but the facts on why we got involved are pretty clear-cut.

Any evidence that Taliban attacked American soil ???

Given that we cannot win this war, how many do we have to kill to get our point across? Beachguy makes a point that we want to restore human rights to the Afgans. He used the examples of how their women are treated among others. I seriously believe we have killed far more Afgan women with bombs and rockets fired from Drones than would ever make human rights complaints. I guess we are killing them for their own good, now how much sense does that make? The best part is it will likely cost more than WW2 in today's dollars.

You should do some research on who is responsible for the most civilian deaths, your beliefs are "seriously" wrong.

Edited November 11, 2011 by beechguy

[Beechboy]

There would be one of the biggest bloodbaths in history if the foreign forces were to leave.

Firstly, the Taliban would, with the help of the likes of Iran and Buddha knows who else, defeat the Governement forces as before and then they would reek terrible revenge upon all those who had not supported them all along. This would include all those connected with girls' schools, including the pupils themselves and their parents.

They have indicated as much.

Could the civilised World possibly stand by and let this happen?

They would, once again, own a country and we would be back to the frightening scenario that started all this in the first place.

Edited November 11, 2011 by Beechboy

[webfact]

off-topic post deleted

[Snig27]

Before the Taliban rule , Afganistan was a peaceful, relatively prosperous but factious country that was progressing at it's own rate and in it's own way. There was no hostility towards adopting Western standards such as dress or entertaiment. Schooling was becoming more widespread, for both sexes and old taboos were being eroded, although slowly. Kabul, in particular was developing all the facilities associated with a modern capital.

Nonsense. Before the Taliban the country had been in a long, continuous bloody and brutal civil war. The region (I won't say country because it wasn't one) was a series of warlord controlled fiefdoms who were equally as nasty as the Taliban. One of the reasons the Taliban was initially popular (and indeed still is in huge parts - likely the bulk - of the country) is that they offered a way out of this. In 2001 they had mostly succeeded in doing this, the last rebel zone being the shrinking area controlled by the Northern Alliance.

The Taliban too, have always been inward looking - they did not actively work towards a global caliphate. You are confusing them with their guests, the small grouping called Al Qeada, who were never more than a few dozen, albeit with the ear of Mullah Omar. The US did exactly the wrong thing in 2001 by attacking - it radicalised and dismembered the country and has cost god knows how many lives. That 40,000 dead quoted up-thread is an interesting figure. If it is an accurate number killed the obvious questions are a) are they all Taliban (given suspect US bodycounts in every war since WW2 - unlikely) and b ) since that is far more than the total number of troops or militia we know the Taliban had in 2001 and there is still a very large number of people actively confronting the US/NATO then something must've driven a lot of people to take up arms. It's not just some radical Islamic band versus the USA, the anti-coalition force is far, far broader than that.

And these people seem to be increasingly brazen and confident in their attacks. Shades of Saigon..... they know the US is beatable, it just takes time which they have without limit. It worked in Iraq too where the insurgents essentially won.

The Taliban did awful things in-country as a government and who knows if they would have evolved in a positive way, although in the large parts of the nation they still control they seem to have tempered their ways a little. One thing is certain though, the US coalition can never win this and Kazai will never be in any real sense the ruler of an Afghan nation.

[Ulysses G.]

The US did exactly the wrong thing in 2001 by attacking

Actually. the US did the wrong thing when they did not leave immediately afterwards. The British military have a tactic that they call 'Butcher and Bolt" and that is the best strategy when dealing with rogue nations and terrorists.

Edited November 12, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[Beechboy]

Before the Taliban rule , Afganistan was a peaceful, relatively prosperous but factious country that was progressing at it's own rate and in it's own way. There was no hostility towards adopting Western standards such as dress or entertaiment. Schooling was becoming more widespread, for both sexes and old taboos were being eroded, although slowly. Kabul, in particular was developing all the facilities associated with a modern capital.

Nonsense. Before the Taliban the country had been in a long, continuous bloody and brutal civil war. The region (I won't say country because it wasn't one) was a series of warlord controlled fiefdoms who were equally as nasty as the Taliban. One of the reasons the Taliban was initially popular (and indeed still is in huge parts - likely the bulk - of the country) is that they offered a way out of this. In 2001 they had mostly succeeded in doing this, the last rebel zone being the shrinking area controlled by the Northern Alliance.

The Taliban too, have always been inward looking - they did not actively work towards a global caliphate. You are confusing them with their guests, the small grouping called Al Qeada, who were never more than a few dozen, albeit with the ear of Mullah Omar. The US did exactly the wrong thing in 2001 by attacking - it radicalised and dismembered the country and has cost god knows how many lives. That 40,000 dead quoted up-thread is an interesting figure. If it is an accurate number killed the obvious questions are a) are they all Taliban (given suspect US bodycounts in every war since WW2 - unlikely) and b ) since that is far more than the total number of troops or militia we know the Taliban had in 2001 and there is still a very large number of people actively confronting the US/NATO then something must've driven a lot of people to take up arms. It's not just some radical Islamic band versus the USA, the anti-coalition force is far, far broader than that.

And these people seem to be increasingly brazen and confident in their attacks. Shades of Saigon..... they know the US is beatable, it just takes time which they have without limit. It worked in Iraq too where the insurgents essentially won.

The Taliban did awful things in-country as a government and who knows if they would have evolved in a positive way, although in the large parts of the nation they still control they seem to have tempered their ways a little. One thing is certain though, the US coalition can never win this and Kazai will never be in any real sense the ruler of an Afghan nation.

Nonsense? not so. An attempt at simplifying those issues, may be, but not nonsense. Much of what you say is sweeping generalisation and innacurate.

The present problems started from 1978 when the People's Democratic Party of Afgamistan overthrew the governement of the day and named Afganistan the Democratic Reublic of Afganistan. This was communist and Soviet backed.

The PDA implemented a socialist agenda. It promoted State Atheism and abolished Muslim Laws and encouraged men to cut off their beards. Women were no longer allowed to wear the Burka and mosques were placed off-limits.

It moved to prohibit traditional practises, including bride price and forced marriages. Tribalism was supressed and controlled.

The minimum age for marriage was stressed for both men and women,

In 1988, 40% of doctors were women and 60% of the teachers at Kabul University were women. 440, 000 women were enrollrd in educational institutions.

Western dress was common in cities and many Western traits were adopted. Cinema, radio and the T.V. became avaiable to the Afgan prople, even in the rural areas.

The PDPA invited the Soviets to assist in modernising it's economic and general infrastructue. It was a Golden Age for the country, albeit heavily Soviet backed.

Such reforms, however, were not universally received (especially in rural area) as the imposition of secular Western values was seen to be alien to Afgan Culture an un-Islamic. There was a backlash from tribal and Islamic leaders and also from the Afgan elite who had been ousted.

Briefly now. The Mujahideen, "Holy Muslim Warriors" evolved from these factions as a threat to the Soviet backed Democratic Republic of Afganistan. The Russians sent in forces to assist the Goverment..

The period of Russian occupation is well documented and it's failure common knowledge.

When they left the Civil War you mentioned evolved between all the various factions and to over-simplify it, extremists, the Taliban were eventaully to take advantage of the chaos to gain control

Thus after a period of modernisation and relative prosperity, albeit in a generally unstable political environment, the country was plunged back into the dark ages of previous centuries and all the progress of the previous years was undone.

Infrastructure, agricultural advancements, education and social pleasures recently achieved were to be quashed. The slow road to prosperity was blocked by feudalistc oppression.

I take this interest because I briefly worked in Kabul, as a doctor after the Russians left. Yes there was confusion, although there was little danger. The hospitals were modern and well equipped and even the hotels were worthy of a few stars and there were modern shopping areas and places you could get a beer.

I travelled litle outside Kabul, but noticed electricity and running water and evn TVs and that there was a general, but limited prosperity amonst the farming poor. Goodness knows what existed aftera few years of Taliban rule.

I rest my case. Not "nonsense," for sure.

I repeatedly mention "The Kite Runner," by Khalid Husseini, it is an autobiographical novel that reveals the normaity of life in Kabul before the Russian invasion.

[Steely Dan]

Excellent post Beechboy, It underlines graphically how human rights and society in general goes into a nosedive once religious zealots are in charge. I believe they were busy doing this prior to a single U.S soldier setting foot on Afghan soil, perhaps they possessed second sight so they got their retaliation (on the native population) in early.

[koheesti]

I hope the super power never has to fight a real enemy of more equal means.

We are fighting at near equal level. The enemy is using everything they've got and we (sorry, "the super power") are dumbing down almost to their level. If "the super power" had the same war attitude as 70 years ago everything at our disposal would have been used and the Taliban would have been wiped out as well as everything and everyone along the Afghan-Pakistan border. Kabul and Kandahar would have populations of a few thousand at best. The civilian casualties would number around 10-15 million and Afghanistan would be further adavanced a decade after the war started (and ended) then they will likely ever be in today's world.

[koheesti]

The coalition tactics are beginning to pay off.

Thank Gawd....After all it has only been a decade & trillions of $ we did not have not to mention lives that were to young to waste.

Does this mean we can go home soon?

All for What???

To invert your line of reasoning, what would have been the cost of doing nothing? P.S The founding fathers lived in a completely different world than one where religiously motivated zealots desire to set up a global Caliphate taking the entire planet back to the 7th century.

Some of the Founding Fathers also went overseas to fight Muslims....

http://en.wikipedia....rst_Barbary_War

The First Barbary War (1801–5), also known as the Barbary Coast War or the Tripolitan War, was the first of two wars fought between the United States and the North African Berber Muslim states known collectively as the Barbary States. These were the independent Sultanate of Morocco, Algiers and Tripoli, which were quasi-independent entities nominally belonging to the Ottoman Empire (except for Morocco which was always fully independent).

[koheesti]

Well said, my point exactly. If we have the means to stop it (and Nato-USA-UK etc. has) then we should. This is soon to be 2012 and about time all such evil was eradicated for good.

It would almost be a "crime against humanity" to have the power to stop it but allow it to go on and let millions suffer.

[koheesti]

Shades of Saigon..... they know the US is beatable, it just takes time which they have without limit. It worked in Iraq too where the insurgents essentially won.

Unfortunately, unlike us, the countries we fight don't have a free press at home telling the people the war isn't worth it or that they are losing. Imagine the Taleban Times printing editorials and opinion pieces against the Taleban itself?

[koheesti]

I repeatedly mention "The Kite Runner," by Khalid Husseini, it is an autobiographical novel that reveals the normaity of life in Kabul before the Russian invasion.

It is also a film and was nominated for the Golden Globe Award for Best Foreign Language Film in 2007.

[Beechboy]

I repeatedly mention "The Kite Runner," by Khalid Husseini, it is an autobiographical novel that reveals the normaity of life in Kabul before the Russian invasion.

It is also a film and was nominated for the Golden Globe Award for Best Foreign Language Film in 2007.

Thanks for that, somehow it must have slipped through my net. I am not much of a film buff, but I'll look out for that when it reaches TV here.

It would be interesting to see how Husseini's work is portrayed as sometimes these film versions of such significant novels turn into soaps.