Remove this Banner Ad

Play Nice Random Chat Thread VI

  • Thread starter Thread starter DesertRoo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
There's no way even that much went towards building. What exactly did they build? Whatever it was, it took the taliban about a week to completely knock it over.
Personnel sustainment, heavy equipment and operations across 20 years and installations costs money.
 
Personnel sustainment, heavy equipment and operations across 20 years and installations costs money.

Right, so they built the capacity for their military to be there forever, but absolutely nothing to sustain the government once they left? Feels like maybe this was the plan all along, so people will look back to this disaster the next time the U.S. mires itself in a forever war, and think twice about letting it end
 
Pfft. Its actually quite terrible because we were in the process of taking them back. What your saying is digusting.

But sure, leverage it all you want to make a political comment that supports your agenda, I'm sure the lives and livelihoods of Afghan citizens have been used by for much worse political grandstanding - which you will WELL be aware of.
Really? He was told MONTHS ago this would happen and willingly abandoned them.

So we should reserve our outrage at their shitty behaviour to areas that you consider acceptable; you very much.
 
Last edited:
Personnel sustainment, heavy equipment and operations across 20 years and installations costs money.
In 2010, with Australia having about 1000 troops in country, and all the attendant costs of sustaining a support force in the Middle East was about $1.3 billion/year.

So 80 billion or so over 20 years to train and sustain a force of 350k military/police is pretty reasonable in dollar terms.

That they tried to recreate a western military that was reliant on technology is where the failure was. Oh and zero leadership and corruption doesn’t help either.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Right, so they built the capacity for their military to be there forever, but absolutely nothing to sustain the government once they left? Feels like maybe this was the plan all along, so people will look back to this disaster the next time the U.S. mires itself in a forever war, and think twice about letting it end
I think you are underestimating the role incompetence, indecision, ass-covering and arrogance has played along the journey.
 
Hard to disagree with much of that. I am of the opinion that the conditions produced by the events of 1979 onwards made the task of state building and winning hearts and minds near impossible, but I do appreciate the merit of your 2001 making something work argument. Multiple generations have only known war, competing superpowers and corruption. The atrocities and war of the 1979-2001 period alone is enough to scar any national psyche.
I always wondered about the death of Ahmed Shah Massoud on the 9/9/2001 in the context of all that.

Especially with all this hindsight. Perhaps he was the only one really capable of leading Afghanistan after the Taliban.
 
Really? He was told MONTHS ago this would happen and willingly abandoned them.

So we should reserve our outrage at their shitty behaviour to areas that you consider acceptable; you very much.
Australia has been moving people out of there since we closed the embassy in may, before the military withdrawal.

So exactly who in all of military intelligence was expecting this capitulation and timeline - it took 4 days... No-one.

Don't post your left wing anti government guardian diatribe at me, your just continuing to push an agenda.

Your conspiracy theories about our government and the media are total wackjob.

There is no one in the government that wishes people that helped Australia be put at risk, I mean yes they had a process of checks and balances over the past few months and it was a slow stream, but what do you expect, its a hotbed of terrorism and legitimate warfare combatants.
 
That would require the united states to have any interest in making the world a better place. Both wars were waged to set up new client states and pump a shitload of money into the military industrial complex, the client states part hasn't worked out too well long term but they got exactly what they wanted
True.
 
I always wondered about the death of Ahmed Shah Massoud on the 9/9/2001 in the context of all that.

Especially with all this hindsight. Perhaps he was the only one really capable of leading Afghanistan after the Taliban.
1629190850710.jpeg
Massoud’s Circle, sits at the entrance to the Green Zone, which housed NATO and the embassy district.

He is revered still 20 years after his murder. I think you are right, he could have led the country out of barbarism into the 21st century.
 
Australia has been moving people out of there since we closed the embassy in may, before the military withdrawal.

So exactly who in all of military intelligence was expecting this capitulation and timeline - it took 4 days... No-one.

Don't post your left wing anti government guardian diatribe at me, your just continuing to push an agenda.

Your conspiracy theories about our government and the media are total wackjob.

There is no one in the government that wishes people that helped Australia be put at risk, I mean yes they had a process of checks and balances over the past few months and it was a slow stream, but what do you expect, its a hotbed of terrorism and legitimate warfare combatants.
No worries mate, I will of course listen to an apologist rather than the former Chief of Defence, Admiral Barrie.

That you don’t like the reporting mechanism says more about your close minded apologist attitude than reality.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

In 2010, with Australia having about 1000 troops in country, and all the attendant costs of sustaining a support force in the Middle East was about $1.3 billion/year.

So 80 billion or so over 20 years to train and sustain a force of 350k military/police is pretty reasonable in dollar terms.

That they tried to recreate a western military that was reliant on technology is where the failure was. Oh and zero leadership and corruption doesn’t help either.
Where did that money go tho?

It didn't go to Afghanistran to maintain their military. Who did the training and the work on equipment etc etc etc?
 
Watching these scenes coming out of Afghanistan right now makes me think of how important that banner we ran through at the elimination final back in 2015 was.

Bloody horrifying to try to put yourself in these humans’ shoes.
 
A couple of fun facts:

1. The British first occupied Kabul in the First Afghan War, 1839-42 (yep, nineteenth century)

2. Britain repeated the dose in the Second Afghan War 1878-1890. To sustain themselves as winters approached, the British ransacked Afghan villages. When a tribal leader Bahadar Kahn refused to sell corn, because his own people needed it for the winter: "All Bahadar Khan's villages, some ten in number, were marked down to be looted and burnt... The houses were found stored with bhoosa (chaff for fodder), straw, firewood and twigs for the winter as a well as a small quantity or corn, and as there was not time to clear this out, and we could not afford to leave a force for the night in such a dangerous position so near to the hills, orders were given to fire the villages and destroy the houses and their contents. No better men than Sikhs could be found for such work, and in a few minutes Bahadar Khan's villages were in flames, a high wind aiding the fire with frantic earnestness. The villagers had carried off all their portable property,.. but the Sikhs ransacked every place for hidden treasure, and smashed down the earthen corn-bins in hope of gaining a prize' Source: Howard Hensman, The Afghan War of 1879-80, London, 1881

3. This method of 'pacification' was a training ground for the British Army. General Birdwood, commander of something called the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps in 1915, wrote of the 'frontier fighting' in 1908: 'Every valley was subjected to a thorough search by one brigade or the other, and where sections of the tribes had refused to come in, villages and towers were destroyed.'

4. The British first bombed Kabul in 1919, using a Handley Page V1500 bomber designed to bomb Berlin

5. As far as I know, Afghanistan has never invaded the United Kingdom, the United States of America or even Australia.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.


From this movie:


A Swedish businessman named Tomas, his Norwegian wife Ebba, their young daughter Vera, and their preschooler son Harry stay at a luxury resort in the French Alps. On their second day, they see a controlled avalanche as they are having lunch outdoors on the deck of a restaurant. The powder cloud of the avalanche gives the appearance that the snow is rising and will wipe out everyone on the deck. Tomas, who is filming the avalanche on his phone, panics and runs as the deck quickly empties of patrons, leaving Ebba with their children encased in a dense fog. Patrons return to their tables as the fog dissipates, and no one is hurt.
 
View attachment 1208877
Massoud’s Circle, sits at the entrance to the Green Zone, which housed NATO and the embassy district.

He is revered still 20 years after his murder. I think you are right, he could have led the country out of barbarism into the 21st century.
Assassination is an incredibly powerful way to change (or own) the future.
 
Australia has been moving people out of there since we closed the embassy in may, before the military withdrawal.

So exactly who in all of military intelligence was expecting this capitulation and timeline - it took 4 days... No-one.

Don't post your left wing anti government guardian diatribe at me, your just continuing to push an agenda.

Your conspiracy theories about our government and the media are total wackjob.

There is no one in the government that wishes people that helped Australia be put at risk, I mean yes they had a process of checks and balances over the past few months and it was a slow stream, but what do you expect, its a hotbed of terrorism and legitimate warfare combatants.
I'm not one to usually defend B4 and I have defended the government on certain aspects of the coronavirus handling, but I do largely agree with him that things could have been done a bit better, though I probably wouldn't be as harsh in my assessment due to the changing situation on the ground and the desire not to create greater panic.

Not just Australia, but other countries like NZ seemed to lack decent contingency plans that should have been launched as soon as the Taliban offensive started making major gains weeks ago. I do agree with the checks and balances comment, as well as your comment on the sheer rate of advance making things really difficult, but the reality is that we could have done better. Whether that is just pure hindsight on my part, I don't know.


On Monday, the Taliban seized the presidential palace in Kabul after taking control of nearly all of Afghanistan in just over a week. Australia is sending troops and aircraft to Kabul on a rescue mission to evacuate Australians and Afghans who worked alongside the ADF during the decades-long war. But it is not clear when they will be able to land given the unstable situation in the capital at the moment.

The ABC understands around 600 people will be evacuated out of Kabul if the governent's rescue mission goes to plan. That will include 100 Australian permanent residents and citizens and around 100 of their family members, plus 300 to 400 locally engaged employees.

Two C-17 Globemasters and around 250 troops have been sent as part of the operation which, if given the all clear, will see the planes fly directly into Kabul and then transport people to Dubai before returning to the Afghan capital to retrieve more people. Defence Minister Peter Dutton also confirmed to 7.30 that Australia would help evacuate New Zealand citizens as well.

"We've been working very closely with New Zealanders and we will provide assistance to them."


Mr Dutton also said the government was considering the humanitarian visa options for prominent women and Afghan civil servants who feared for their safety and may look to Australia for safehaven.

Scott Morrison said he understood many Australian veterans were concerned about the safety of the locals they had worked with.

"We will continue to do everything we can for those who have stood with us, as we have to this day," he said. "But I want to talk openly to veterans that despite our best efforts, I know that support won't reach all that it should. "On the ground events have overtaken many efforts, we wish it were different."

There were calls before the Taliban regained control of Afghanistan for the government to fast-track visas for local staff who worked with the ADF.

The government has previously said visas for locally engaged employees were being given the "highest priority" and 430 people and their families had been brought back to Australia since April, and a total of over 1,800 since 2013.


Prime Minister Scott Morrison said the government was committed to helping those who had served and helped ADF troops.

"There will be more that will be added," he added. "Not just through the locally engaged program that we have been running with a great sense of urgency, particularly this year. "But in addition to our humanitarian program more broadly, which has the capacity to ensure that we can also take people through those challenges in a very torrid situation like we have in Afghanistan at the moment."


Mr Morrison did not give any further details about when Australian troops and aircraft on their way to Kabul would be able to land. He said he was "optimistic" that it would take place, but made clear the priority was making sure it was done safely. Right now, I'm focused on the very desperate situation that exists in Kabul right now, making sure that the operations that we are mounting are successful," he said. "That those Australians who are involved in those operations are doing it in a way which is both protective of their safety but also getting the mission done."

The National Security Committee is meeting daily to discuss the situation in Afghanistan.


The government also announced that Afghan nationals in Australia would not be forced to return to Afghanistan when their visas expire given the unstable situation in the country. Immigration Minister Alex Hawke said no Afghans on visas, including temporary visas, would be asked to leave and return to Afghanistan "while the security situation there remains dire". However, he did not specify what action the government would take in the future.

Mr Hawke also said that since April 15, 640 visas had been granted to locally engaged employees in Afghanistan and their families, and more than 430 had come to Australia since then.

The move by the government is similar to the action it took last year for Hongkongers in Australia, extending the time on several visas in response to China's crackdown on personal freedoms in the autonomous region.

Refugee advocates welcomed that announcement but said it was largely symbolic because deportations back to Afghanistan had already effectively ceased because of the deteriorating security situation.

Melbourne University academic and refugee advocate Ali Reza Yunespour said he was not aware of any deportations back to Afghanistan from Australia in the last four years.
 
Last edited:
Halliburton services don't come cheap.
That too...

Considering the 300,000 men in their army that need to be equipped with modern weapons and, paid and feed across 20 years, $83 billion is on the light side. Especially when you look at how much our far smaller modern military spends each year.

4327357A-C2F7-458F-92F9-C50D0EC79FF7.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom