Fighting On The Front Line - Choppers.
Discussion
This programme made my f**king blood boil, and depressed me as well !!
What the hell are we doing firing £70k missiles to kill one bloody rag head ?
Then if we don't quite manage to kill them, we risk a helicopter and a medical team to go and rescue the b
ds !!
We are working within rules of engagement that the Russians would laugh at, and they couldn't win there so why do we think that we can.
We are busy bankrupting ourselves, and maiming thousands of our young guys every year, to achieve what ??
I just don't get it, if we are going to pull out in 2015 regardless, why don't we just pull out now ??
Honestly I could rant on about this all day
What the hell are we doing firing £70k missiles to kill one bloody rag head ?
Then if we don't quite manage to kill them, we risk a helicopter and a medical team to go and rescue the b
ds !!We are working within rules of engagement that the Russians would laugh at, and they couldn't win there so why do we think that we can.
We are busy bankrupting ourselves, and maiming thousands of our young guys every year, to achieve what ??
I just don't get it, if we are going to pull out in 2015 regardless, why don't we just pull out now ??
Honestly I could rant on about this all day
Scooby72 said:
What the hell are we doing firing £70k missiles to kill one bloody rag head ?
Higher probability of a kill, so actually cheaper in the end.Scooby72 said:
Then if we don't quite manage to kill them, we risk a helicopter and a medical team to go and rescue the bds !!
Geneva Convention states that enemy casualties have to be afforded the same standard and level of treatment as one's own troops and, once wounded, can no longer be regarded as combatants. 'Course we could ignore the GC and just let them bleed to death, but not only is that illegal, it also sends out all the wrong messages and the campaign ends up being an out and out tit-for-tat bar brawl but with guns. You could argue that the TB don't bother with the GC. This is true. There's quite a lot they don't bother with, like education, medicine, running water, electricity, equal(ish) rights for women, and so on, which is another reason why we're there.ds !!Also worth noting that a dead IED bomber isn't very good at telling you where he's planted other IEDs or where they get the bits from.
Scobby72 said:
We are working within rules of engagement that the Russians would laugh at, and they couldn't win there so why do we think that we can.
The Ruskies tried to fight a traditional large-scale war of attrition on their own. We're fighting a much more refined multi-national campaign on many fronts with the full cooperation of the Afghan Govt (allegedly). There is no "win", but there is a "not as bad as when we arrived".Scooby72 said:
We are busy bankrupting ourselves, and maiming thousands of our young guys every year, to achieve what ??
To restore internal stability and security to Afghanistan and help it back to the point where it can govern itself through democratic process instead of terrorism and religious extremism, and in turn bring greater stability to the region as a whole.Scooby72 said:
I just don't get it, if we are going to pull out in 2015 regardless, why don't we just pull out now ??
Those are the terms agreed with the Afghan Govt. To pull out early would a) damage the process of rebuilding the country and b) tarnish the UK's reputation for getting the job done.Happy(er) now?
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 26th September 09:15
Scooby72 said:
We are busy bankrupting ourselves, and maiming thousands of our young guys every year, to achieve what ??
I read somewhere that this was one of the objectives of Osama Bin laden, to draw the US into conflict(s) in the ME that they couldn't easily win but which would weaken them financially. You have to wonder whether the US/UK would be in the financial pickle we currently are if we hadn't become involved in Iraq / Afghanistan.Mr_B said:
The old boy trying to outrun a hellfire missle ....
That woman was lucky, they built up that footage and sound and had me thinking she was next, but then looked like she dumped the weapon in a river ?
Apparently (according to my 16yr old) water drops are quite normal, the guns work fine after immersion and in fact it's a recognised surprise tactic to dip into a puddle and hoist up a Heckler & Koch. 'It's not 1930 y'know,' he told us. That woman was lucky, they built up that footage and sound and had me thinking she was next, but then looked like she dumped the weapon in a river ?
Countdown said:
Scooby72 said:
We are busy bankrupting ourselves, and maiming thousands of our young guys every year, to achieve what ??
I read somewhere that this was one of the objectives of Osama Bin laden, to draw the US into conflict(s) in the ME that they couldn't easily win but which would weaken them financially. You have to wonder whether the US/UK would be in the financial pickle we currently are if we hadn't become involved in Iraq / Afghanistan.Big E 118 said:
I believe the total cost of the Afghan conflict to date is only a small fraction of benefit spending in the UK. It always used to be a theory that war was good for an economy due to the increased injection of money into the economy by the government. I'm not sure how true this is now, do we still research/design/manufacture weapons on a large scale in the UK or is all the money going abroad?
Where do you think that injection of money comes from ?Government have NO money. If they want to spend on anything, they either take it directly out of your pocket through taxes, or print the money creating inflation, ie. a stealthy tax because it devalues the money in your pocket.
War is not good for an economy, it is very very bad. They may seem to give a short term boost, but it's got to be paid for at some point.
Virtually every powerful empire through history has, lost it's No1 place because of massive spending on wars, and that include the British empire.
Crossflow Kid said:
Scooby72 said:
What the hell are we doing firing £70k missiles to kill one bloody rag head ?
Higher probability of a kill, so actually cheaper in the end.Scooby72 said:
Then if we don't quite manage to kill them, we risk a helicopter and a medical team to go and rescue the bds !!
Geneva Convention states that enemy casualties have to be afforded the same standard and level of treatment as one's own troops and, once wounded, can no longer be regarded as combatants. 'Course we could ignore the GC and just let them bleed to death, but not only is that illegal, it also sends out all the wrong messages and the campaign ends up being an out and out tit-for-tat bar brawl but with guns. You could argue that the TB don't bother with the GC. This is true. There's quite a lot they don't bother with, like education, medicine, running water, electricity, equal(ish) rights for women, and so on, which is another reason why we're there.ds !!Also worth noting that a dead IED bomber isn't very good at telling you where he's planted other IEDs or where they get the bits from.
Scobby72 said:
We are working within rules of engagement that the Russians would laugh at, and they couldn't win there so why do we think that we can.
The Ruskies tried to fight a traditional large-scale war of attrition on their own. We're fighting a much more refined multi-national campaign on many fronts with the full cooperation of the Afghan Govt (allegedly). There is no "win", but there is a "not as bad as when we arrived".Scooby72 said:
We are busy bankrupting ourselves, and maiming thousands of our young guys every year, to achieve what ??
To restore internal stability and security to Afghanistan and help it back to the point where it can govern itself through democratic process instead of terrorism and religious extremism, and in turn bring greater stability to the region as a whole.Scooby72 said:
I just don't get it, if we are going to pull out in 2015 regardless, why don't we just pull out now ??
Those are the terms agreed with the Afghan Govt. To pull out early would a) damage the process of rebuilding the country and b) tarnish the UK's reputation for getting the job done.Happy(er) now?
Edited by Crossflow Kid on Monday 26th September 09:15
Great to see our boys and girls getting stuck into the cowardly b
Scooby72 said:
Crossflow Kid said:
Scooby72 said:
What the hell are we doing firing £70k missiles to kill one bloody rag head ?
Higher probability of a kill, so actually cheaper in the end.Scooby72 said:
Then if we don't quite manage to kill them, we risk a helicopter and a medical team to go and rescue the bds !!
Geneva Convention states that enemy casualties have to be afforded the same standard and level of treatment as one's own troops and, once wounded, can no longer be regarded as combatants. 'Course we could ignore the GC and just let them bleed to death, but not only is that illegal, it also sends out all the wrong messages and the campaign ends up being an out and out tit-for-tat bar brawl but with guns. You could argue that the TB don't bother with the GC. This is true. There's quite a lot they don't bother with, like education, medicine, running water, electricity, equal(ish) rights for women, and so on, which is another reason why we're there.ds !!Also worth noting that a dead IED bomber isn't very good at telling you where he's planted other IEDs or where they get the bits from.
Scobby72 said:
We are working within rules of engagement that the Russians would laugh at, and they couldn't win there so why do we think that we can.
The Ruskies tried to fight a traditional large-scale war of attrition on their own. We're fighting a much more refined multi-national campaign on many fronts with the full cooperation of the Afghan Govt (allegedly). There is no "win", but there is a "not as bad as when we arrived".Scooby72 said:
We are busy bankrupting ourselves, and maiming thousands of our young guys every year, to achieve what ??
To restore internal stability and security to Afghanistan and help it back to the point where it can govern itself through democratic process instead of terrorism and religious extremism, and in turn bring greater stability to the region as a whole.Scooby72 said:
I just don't get it, if we are going to pull out in 2015 regardless, why don't we just pull out now ??
Those are the terms agreed with the Afghan Govt. To pull out early would a) damage the process of rebuilding the country and b) tarnish the UK's reputation for getting the job done.Happy(er) now?
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 26th September 09:15
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff