[Closed] A Question for the stw current affairs experts.................

NATO led mission against Taliban and others

[url= http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/OperationsFactsheets/OperationsInAfghanistanBackgroundBriefing1.htm ]OFFICIAL ANSWER[/url]

All there in official language.

How far back do you want to go?

IIRC and not going back too far the Russians invaded and fought a long war, the opposition to them was trained and financed by the USA - the Russians left and the courty remained fractured. The opposition to the russions became the Taliban ( means students) who took over in the power vacuum left. They became a fundamentalist islamic regime. Uk forces invaded under UN auspices to remove the taliban. Now the UK forces are stuck there in a civil war with no winners.

I can't remember what the actual trigger for the UK / nato / Un invasion was

thanks fellas.........

TandemJeremy - Member

I can't remember what the actual trigger for the UK / nato / Un invasion was

Ok - so from that official blurb it was about kicking the shite out of some fuzzy wuzzies in revenge for 11/9

Ton- yesterday on the Jeremy Vine show (radio 2) they had an explanation, giving both sides of the argument.
You can 'listen again' on i-player.

All there in official language.

Except for the truth of course.

Still, they say that the first causality of war is the truth.

The stated intent of military operations was to remove the Taliban from power because of the Taliban's refusal to hand over Osama bin Laden.

It was made absolutely clear to the Afghan leader Mullah Omar, that if Afghanistan cooperated and handed over Osama bin Laden for trial for the attack on the Twin Towers, no military action would take place.

Mullah Omar refused to hand over Osama bin Laden to the US, saying that he would only consider cooperating if Osama bin Laden was to face trial in a neutral country. Though it is debatable whether Mullah Omar was actually in a strong enough position to capture and hand over Osama bin Laden.

The US refused to agree to this, so as a consequence military action was initiated. It is interesting to note that the official propaganda as outlined in the MoD fact sheet doesn't even mention Osama bin Laden's name.

Of course within a matter of weeks everybody had forgotten that the reason for going to Afghanistan was Osama bin Laden's capture, and very quickly nobody bothered asking where he in fact was. Which I have no doubt played a very important part in Tony Blair's decision to go into Iraq. Presumably Blair thought that he could give the capture of WMDs as the reason for going to war in Iraq, and very soon people would not bother asking why they hadn't materialised. Unfortunately for him it didn't quite worked out like that.

Worth remembering also, that it was the Northern Alliance which overthrew the Taliban, [i]not[/i] the US and her stooges.

Uk forces invaded under UN auspices to remove the taliban

Not quite. After 9/11 the US invaded to clear out Al Qaeda who the Taliban had allowed to set up shop in Afghanistan. Whilst clearing out Al qaeda the Taliban were removed from power and are now trying to regain it. The US then instead of clearing up the mess they'd created then bullied NATO into helping out hence our involvement (however British special forces were involved right from the start)

kicking the shite out of some fuzzy wuzzies

Hope you were being ironic there TJ otherwise not very PC

I can recommend the answer given by Harriet Harman today at PMQs to this same question.

If only as an example of how NOT to answer the question.

If you don't take the war to them then they will take theirs to your door step. Simple.

Uponthedowns - just a little bit. Trying to capture the neocolonialist attitude 🙂

Chewk - pleae tell me how afgan peasants are going to invade the UK? Do you really think they were a threat to us?

Its worth noting that the taliban had virtualy eliminated opium poppies as a cash crop but now its bigger than ever before

TJ,

They have already done so on 7/7.

Not the peasants they are mainly growing weed to export.

😯

Chewkw - I don't think they were afganis. British in the main of ****stani descent. Trained in ****stan anyway that was after the uk invasion of afganistan.

do try to have some truth in what you say. Numpty

US invaded to clear out Al Qaeda who the Taliban had allowed to set up shop

Actually it was [u]the United States[/u] which helped Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda set up shop in Afghanistan.

The US built their training camps, armed them with some of the most sophisticated weaponry in the world, trained them, and financed them - in fact they financed Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda with [i]a lot[/i] of money.

Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda were very well established in Afghanistan [i]long before[/i] the Taliban came to power.

Well worth remembering that.

And btw, the Taliban were created and helped to power, by the ****stani state intelligence services - indeed they could never have achieved power without them. That's ****stan - our friend and ally.

Western foreign policy has much to answer for. Specially foreign policy from the Reagan/Thatcher era.

Wasn't Ho Chi Min (sp?) a CIA operative, then years later the US is fighting The Vietnam War against him.

I believe US did give Ho Chi Min some support when his forces were fighting both the French Vichy government and the Japanese. When Ho Chi Min eventually declared independence from France, he basically took the American Declaration of Independence and substituted the words 'United States and Britain' for 'Vietnam and France' ....... the guy was a smart operator 😉

and oh ....... I don't think Ho Chi Min could have been described as a 'CIA operative' - I believe that he was a founding member of the Communist Party of France 😯

[i]Its worth noting that the taliban had virtualy eliminated opium poppies as a cash crop but now its bigger than ever before [/i]

It's also worth noting that both the Afghan Govt, and the Taliban are collecting taxes from and the actual heroin crop now though

Ernie-Lynch,

I wouldn't say the Northern Alliance overthrew the Taliban as such. Until the yanks rocked up they were getting their arses handed to them on a daily basis and were losing what little ground they still controlled very quickly. Plus they lost their commander days before the US invasion which was going to lead to even more disastrous results. (Blown up by a suicide bomber with explosives hidden in his TV camera)

US forces used the NA as expendable infantry, guides, and to hold recently cleared terrain etc etc but the overwhelming damage to the Taliban was caused by US air power and SF.

Many books written post-invasion have argued that if the US had told the NA to stay put and sent in an equivalent amount of their own infantry then more effective ops etc could have taken place and the chance of catching senior Taliban and AQ personnel would have been higher. However this was weighed against the chances of the NA going "bad" and the PR benefits of having an Afghan face on the operation.

I wouldn't say the Northern Alliance overthrew the Taliban as such.

Well there you go

.........I would.

The Taliban didn't fall as a result of US bombing.

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1653137.stm ]Kabul falls to Northern Alliance[/url]

Whilst clearing out Al qaeda the Taliban were removed from power and are now trying to regain it. The US then instead of clearing up the mess they'd created then bullied NATO

Nope, NATO/OTAN announced invocation of the article V of the charter if attack was proven to be from abroad, this was confirmed a few weeks later, prior to an invasion.

http://www.nato.int/docu/update/2001/1001/e1002a.htm

(article V being an agreement that an attack against one was an attack against all)

Funny how before the US turned up they were getting a right spanking yet afterwards they got their shit together. And iirc (and I do) the Taliban had left Kabul in the face of the expected arse raping heading their way in the form of a shedload of B-52s and the NA alliance waltzed into Kabul with little actual fighting taking place.

The entire US plan was to hammer the Taliban from the skies, get SF doing all kinds of sneaky stuff on the ground and pay the NA to clean up the mess (under the supervison of US "advisors"). Just because the NA "took" a position it doesn't mean it did the dirty work.

So we'll have to agree to disagree.

As I see it, the fundamental reason for occupation is/was to deny the extremist factions of certain religions being able to freely train in all things terror. These people are normally one of two types; Criminal factions looking to further their personal ends or proper fruitcake nutjob religious zealots who will not rest until only people of a certain religion exist in the world and the rest have converted or are dead.
The poppy growth is absolutely down to Terry nowadays as they are the ones who buy it, do not try to pretend otherwise. TJ, there are people to whom the terms ****stani and afghan mean nothing neither do borders, so there is often little distinction. Ernie, the beeb can try to spin it how they like but terms like

Troops were backed by rockets and US bombing

The entire US plan was to hammer the Taliban from the skies

Great plan. Only it doesn't win wars.

They tried the "shedload of B-52s" strategy in Vietnam.

Great plan. Only it doesn't win wars.

It certainly doesn't win asymmetric wars with high concentrations of civilians mixed with a non uniformed enemy.

Is that why the massive and relentless Allied bombing of Germany didn't topple the Nazi regime either ?

I think we've also missed the obvious, it's also about oil.....

[i]The second option is to build a pipeline south from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean. One obvious route south would cross Iran, but this is foreclosed for American companies because of U.S. sanctions legislation. The only other possible route is across Afghanistan, which has of course its own unique challenges. The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades, and is still divided by civil war. From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company.[/i]

From here; [url] http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/oil.html [/url]

I've no idea if this is a good source or not, but it seemed to fit my quick research needs...

No, I don't think that WW2 qualifies as asymetric.
Do you remeber something called the blitz, and that the luftwaffe was 4 times the size of the RAF? That at one point that the RAF were down to less that 100 aircraft/pilots? I really don't see your point.
Couldn't be more different.

Backhander - my point was that chewk was saying we had to go into afganistan because of the 7/7 bombers - I pointed out they were british and had been trained in ****stan. Nothing to do with afghanistan.

... and, ton, wait til he asks you about 'LESBIANS, DAD, WHAT ARE THEY THEN?' in the Post Office queue...

No, I don't think that WW2 qualifies as asymetric.

LOL ! .... exactly my point !

This great plan of 'hammering the enemy from the skies' simply doesn't win wars - including 'conventional wars' It needs a lot more than that.

it's also about oil....

Pretty minor consideration imo. The plan was much more ambitious - that of 'Full-Spectrum Dominance' as formulated by the once highly influential, and yet now strangely quiet, Project for the New American Century.

Hence having the NA (and "advisors") wandering in afterwards to literally pick up the pieces... Do you not remember watching the bbc et al interviewing NA commanders as they watched the USAF go to town? They were chuffed as **** to see the bombs falling as they knew that without air support there was no way in hell they were going to win - the last few years had proven that.

Air power doesn't win wars - but it helps. And not having air power is a good way for conventional forces to go about losing a war. (And during the NA Vs Taliban fighting prior to 9/11 the fighting was mostly conventional)

So if not the the yanks how do you explain the massive overnight improvement in the effectiveness of the NA?

Absolutely IvanDobski, the Taliban had driven the Northern Alliance into just a small enclave from where they were completely unable to mount any counter-offensives. What turn things round for the Northern Alliance was the fact that acquired themselves an airforce - ie the US airforce. The Taliban didn't really stand any chance once the Northern Alliance had got themselves an airforce. It was still the Northern Alliance which toppled the Taliban though. The fact that they got help doesn't change anything.

See, we're seeing the same thing from a slightly different perspective.

I see it as the USAF and friends "won the war" and the NA took the glory and did the marching into abandoned positions bit. (a la the Kuwaitis in GW1 and the French in WW2)

You see it as the NA won the war with the help of the USAF.

Fair enough, but the yanks could've done just as good a job on their own had they paid the NA to stay in bed and sent in their own infantry. Might have cost a bit more cash and a few more lives but it would've still happened. The NA would've gotten another spanking if they hadn't had the USAF onside.

(Obviously the taliban have since changed their tactics and moved away from mass charges of gunned up toyota pick-ups...)

and the NA took the glory

What exactly are you talking about ? It's the United states which has taken all the glory.

[i]"and the French in WW2"[/i] LOL .... so how do you explain the French causalities then ?

French casualties in WW2 were 1.35% of the population, as opposed to 0.94% of the UK population, and 0.32% of the US population.

.

BTW, this comment by backhander made me smile : "[i]Ernie, the beeb can try to spin it how they like[/i]" ..... because of course everyone knows that the BBC is paid by the Northern Alliance to act as their spin-doctors for them 😀

TandemJeremy: "Backhander - my point was that chewk was saying we had to go into afganistan because of the 7/7 bombers - I pointed out they were british and had been trained in ****stan. Nothing to do with afghanistan."

Now now calm down TJ ... they are just hiding in both countries so better go to Afghanistan first since Taliban is crying out loudest with their "guest" the Osama.

Besides, now that ****stani govt knows snakes do bite back if not careful, so let's get it over and done with.

"Chewkw - I don't think they were afganis. British in the main of ****stani descent. Trained in ****stan anyway that was after the uk invasion of afganistan.

do try to have some truth in what you say. Numpty"

LOL! you used the word numpty.

So who do you think give the order to suicide bomb London? After all it was not ****stan that was bombed by Nato, it was the Taliban in Afghanistan. So why did these suicide bomber have to blow themselves up for Afghanistan? I bet someone living in the caves gave the order. Therefore, the only way is to go to the mountain to look for them.

Ts! Ts! Ts!

🙄

From a western point of view the yanks got the glory but not as far as the Afghans were concerned - the NA got the glory of walking into Kabul etc and telling the newly free locals that they scared the taliban away and had the USAF under its direct command. (Edit: obviously things have changed a bit since then) In much the same way as the French army got to liberate Paris, and the Kuwaiti army got to liberate Kuwait City. Most of the hard work had been done by other people and they got to do the marching, waving and looking brave bit. Yes they played a part but in all 3 cases the so called "liberators" actually provided a negligible amount of the total combat power involved in the liberation.

As for the stats of casualty figures - all that proves is that they lost more people, not how much they contributed. Possibly due to the fact it was played at home.

Anyway, it's past my bedtime so I'll agree to disagree again!

BTW, this comment by backhander made me smile : "Ernie, the beeb can try to spin it how they like" ..... because of course everyone knows that the BBC is paid by the Northern Alliance to act as their spin-doctors for them

What turn things round for the Northern Alliance was the fact that acquired themselves an airforce

In answer to ton's OP, I suspect the concise answer for the lad is "it's complicated, and probably too early to say". 🙂

"and the French in WW2" LOL .... so how do you explain the French causalities then ?

French casualties in WW2 were 1.35% of the population, as opposed to 0.94% of the UK population, and 0.32% of the US population.

Of 563,000 French deaths in WWII, 350,000 were civillian casualties. A huge proportion of these would now be termed collateral damage, being victims of allied bombardment during the battle of Normandy.
I think there's a little more to military victory than being the first unit to plant their flag in conquered soil as IvanDobski is making out.
Just as with the French in WWII, it's the Afghan people that will be the winners or losers in this war, not the combatants.

I can't remember what the actual trigger for the UK / nato / Un invasion was

9/11

I reckon I'm as well read as most on the subject of our military incursions, having been a pretty keen amateur military historian most of my life. However, I have to admit I haven't got the first idea what we are doing in Afghanistan. It fails pretty much all the tests for becoming involved in a miltary engagement, including clear objectives and a clear exit strategy.

Whilst I am a great believer in not bleating about military casualites, on the basis that it is incumbent on the volunteers in our armed forces to read the job description, which does apparently include the liklihood of going to far off strange places, meeting strange people and being killed by them. Having said that I do think that this particular adventure is not reasonable on many levels, and in the absence of a very good explanation I for one do find it hard to justify the loss of the best part of 200 young mens lives.

Of 563,000 French deaths in WWII, 350,000 were civillian casualties.

So that's 213,000 military casualties then. Which seems a huge amount for a country's military which allegedly didn't do much fighting. Of course also many of the civilians who died in France during WW2 died whilst fighting the occupation.

To put the military casualties into some sort of context, by the end of the war the French Forces of the Interior was an army 1.2 million strong, so the 213,000 dead represents roughly one fifth of that total.

.

Are you suggesting that the beeb have no political agenda of their own?

Breathtakingly stupid as that comment is, I'm going to take it that you are [i]actually[/i] being serious and not trolling.

So you think the BBC has a "political agenda of their own" in reporting the war in Afghanistan - separate to everyone else's including the government's. And who exactly maps out the BBC's 'own political agenda' - the Afghan warlords ? ffs

I bet you think Princess Diana was murdered.

Any conspiracy theories about 9/11 ?

Much as I often find fascinating what occurs in the cavernous heads of those who make idiotic comments like that, thanks - but no thanks - I really can't be arsed to waste my time.

I'm not entirely certain why you seem to be persisting with the frankly ludicrous idea that the proportion of casualties suffered by a country or army give an indication of how much impact that country/army had. During GW1 the British lost a significently greater proportion of blokes than the US. However the combat power provided by the US was roughly 10x more... Equally the Kuwaitis lost more than the UK but our combat power far outweighed theirs.

If anything higher casualty rates are demonstrative of a lack of combat power - why lose 100 men assaulting a position when you can flatten it from afar and have 30 blokes stroll in afterwards in relative safety?

The French Resistance had very little direct military impact, if anything they were a net loss to the forces landing at Normandy. If they hadn't resisted then a lot of the German troops could have gone to the Eastern Front and been chewed up by the Red Army. Instead they tied down a lot of troops which subsequently opposed the invasion and led directly to UK, US and Canadian casualties. This might have been a price worth paying for French pride etc etc but as far as military value is concerned it was probably a bad deal. None of this is intended to disrespect any of those who fought for their countries etc but is simply a dispassionate assessment of what combat power actually is.

Breathtakingly stupid as that comment is

Political correspondent Andrew Marr said that "The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias".[5] These comments were reported in the UK national press a couple of weeks later.

Did you just quote the mail?

<send him to the front line and be quick about it>

MTT, I'm not a reader of the mail just the first google result hence the wiki reference.

It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias

❓ I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. ❓

I'm not entirely certain why you seem to be persisting with the frankly ludicrous idea that ......

And I'm not entirely certain why you seem to be persisting with the frankly ludicrous idea that a country may sustain heavy casualties by simply, in your words, "marching into abandoned positions". The Soviet Union lost 10 million military casualties in WW2, to a certain degree that reflects the level of fighting which the SU was engaged in.

And still you maintain the ludicrous notion that 'shed loads of B52s' is what toppled the Taliban. Despite the fact that much much bigger 'shed loads of B52s' were used in Vietnam. And yet the US failed to topple the North Vietnam government.

I don't know what to say about your comment that on the one hand the 'French Resistance had very little direct military impact', and on the other, that they kept troops occupied which were desperately needed by the Germans on the Eastern Front. How you come to the conclusion that the Germans based their decisions on troop numbers, not on the threat of an eminent Allied seaborne invasion of France which they were clearly expecting, but on Resistance activity, is frankly beyond me.

is frankly beyond me.

Are you seriously telling me that you think that the bbc reporting is balanced and unbiased?

I am seriously telling you that the BBC does not have an agenda which involves acting as some sort of spin doctor for the Afghan Northern Alliance. And I am seriously telling you that anyone who thinks they have, is imo, an idiot.

HTH

Just because a lot of troops died it doesn't automatically follow that they made an impression on the final outcome. The French lost x amount - so what? The impact of French military activity was significently below that of the UK and US. Dead soldiers don't win wars - working tanks, aircraft, ships, logistic chains and troops do. (or if you prefer, dead insurgents don't win wars, working smuggling routes, functioning IEDs, RPGs and insurgents do)

Afghanistan is not Vietnam, let it go. You've already admitted that the NA only won when they got an airforce. You lost that argument last night.

The Russians traded men and space (of which they had lots) for time. Time to re-arm, re-organise and generally sort itself out. Once they had done this then the Germans were screwed. Proper screwed. There was sod all they could do about the massive industrialised war machine heading towards them. Even taking 90% of the occupied countries garrisons and sending them east would not have helped, once the Russians were geared up for war and massively outproducing the Germans then the outcome was inevitable. However if the Germans had moved troops to the Eastern Front early on in the war, before an allied invasion was even remotely possible and when they were garrisoned simply to run the country and keep the resistance under control etc then they may have made it into the industrial heartlands of Russia in time to prevent the reorganisation happening.

Basically - the Germans allowed the situation in the east to go bad because they didn't take enough troops early enough. Once they realised it had gone bad then they had an invasion to worry about...

An invasion where UK/US forces both provided more firepower than the French, and were both responsible for more dead Germans than the French. In the same way the overwhelming amount of firepower in the operation against the taliban post 9/11 was provided by the yanks.

It has not been suggested by anyone that the bbc is the NAs own personal publicity broadcaster. It has been suggested and demonstrated that the beeb has a political agenda.

Afghanistan is not Vietnam, let it go

And yet Afghanistan [b][i]is[/i][/b] WW2.

It all makes perfect sense now.

.

You've already admitted that the NA only won when they got an airforce.

That is correct - the Northern Alliance only won when they had an airforce (ie the US airforce) I have no problem with that. It has always been pretty clear the Northern Alliance could not have toppled the Taliban government without that help.

So then ....... you agree that the Northern Alliance won against the Taliban then ? Cool 8)

It has not been suggested by anyone that the bbc is the NAs own personal publicity broadcaster.

Your response to this link :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1653137.stm

Was this :

backhander - Member

Ernie, the beeb can try to spin it how they like

So you think the BBC has a "political agenda of their own"

Not the same comparison I'm afraid. You're using Vietnam to highlight why air power had no impact in Afghanistan. Which you later reversed your position on. I'm using WW2 to highlight the flaw in your bizarre assertion that the country which has most casualties is somehow bringing the most combat power.

And yes, the NA won and Taliban lost. However the US won and defeated the taliban, which the NA didn't. Remember, that's the important bit - you said the NA defeated the Taliban and not the US. Which is, to be fair, wrong.

Your willingness to continue the argument far outweighs your grasp of modern military conflict but fair play to ya, you keep trying!

i am sat watching a spider climb up a wall in my living room..
8)

Bet it's more interesting than this!

The bits of this thread that ernie's ego-pedantry were asleep for are pretty interesting. 🙄 🙂

I'll hold my hands up to getting a bit "involved" as well!

So I'll bid you all adieu and let him argue on his lonesome...

Which you later reversed your position on.

I suggest that you copy and paste to show where I have 'reversed' my position. No 'reversing' has taken place.

.

I'm using WW2 to highlight the flaw in your bizarre assertion that the country which has most casualties is somehow bringing the most combat power.

Again, copy and paste where I made an assertion that [u]the country which has most casualties brings the most combat power[/u].

Clearly I did not say that, but in a desperate attempt to win an argument, you are now making up things which you claim I have said.

And no mate, you are not 'using WW2 to highlight' anything. I brought WW2 onto this thread when I said, quote :

[i]"Is that why the massive and relentless Allied bombing of Germany didn't topple the Nazi regime either ?[/i]"

You still have not answered the question ^^^

And BTW, the fact that you don't appear to be aware of what has been said on this thread during the last 24 hours, hardly inspires a confidence on your grasp of history.

ernie, big brother, c4..... 😆

Ton, have you read all this to your lad or is be currently de-legging the spider?

DD, he read tootall's official answer 28 hours ago.
it satisfied him..... 😉

Phew, that's a relief. What's his opinion on whether it's justified comparing WW2 to Afghanistan to Vietnam? Also, how does he feel about casualty percentages wrt to involvement in a conflict? 😕

he said something along the lines of ' why don't we come home, and drop a bomb on the place and blow em all to bits'...........kids eh?? 😯

he said something along the lines of ' why don't we come home, and drop a bomb on the place and blow em all to bits'..

I reckon he picked up that idea from your suggestion on how to deal with the G20 protesters, eh ton ?

BTW, you can tell him that his idea is a non-starter as bombing people doesn't win wars - it's the troops on the ground which win the wars.

I [i]think[/i]....... everyone has agreed on that

ernie, bombing the japs won ww2 for us, so your wrong........... 😉

Ah, indeed ton. Dropping nuclear bombs is where my argument falls apart. There is no doubt that nuclear weapons can win a war. Only the nuclear option is not an option.

I think ww2 was pretty much won wasn't it by the time the nukes were dropped wasn't it? It was those pesky Japanese who wouldn't stop fighting.

That's funny cos I'm sure when I said the US plan was to hammer the taliban from the skies and let the NA do most of the donkey work you said "Great plan only it doesn't win wars" and yet later said "The taliban didn't stand a chance once the NA got themselves an airforce"

Sounds to me like you acknowledged that the US airpower was a war winning capability.

Yes you bought up WW2 first, nobody said you didn't. Doesn't change the fact that I was using it to highlight arguments I was making. I said that the US provided more combat power than the French, you replied by arguing that French casualty figures were higher than American. If this wasn't to counter my argument why did you bring it up in reply?

Allied bombing? Didn't realise the question was directed at me to be fair, as I'd not made any such analogies either implicitly or explicitly. FWIW though I'd say the allied bombing helped slow down the growth of the German military-industrial complex through the destruction of factories, attrition of skilled personnel etc with a consequent negative impact on front-line fighting strength. Anybody saying it was going to cause the overnight collapse of the Nazis was clearly misguided. (oh and yes I am aware that for the most part German war production increased throughout the war but it would've been a lot more efficient if it had been left untouched.) Bombing civillian centres was militarily dubious but quite popular with the home fans. Still not sure why you brought it up when comparing it to the goings-on in post 9/11 Afghanistan though.

And what have I missed that was said in the last 24hrs which somehow makes my arguments against your assertions void? Actually, don't tell me - I don't care

And finally whilst I have no doubt you'll continue your argument with some more "you said that i said that he said that I said but what he actually said I said was..." I'm going to attempt to set a good example to tons kid and leave this one alone from now on. So please, feel free to have the last word - it clearly means a lot to you.