8 british troops dead in 24 hours

[Invisible man]

What a spineless bunch of bhes, I feel ashamed of my country with leeches like this in charge

"Labour peer Lord Foulkes also weighed in to the armed forces row.

He suggested Sir Richard and Sir Jock were "undermining our effort in Afghanistan" with their public comments on troop equipment."


"Lord Malloch-Brown, who told a newspaper that troops in Afghanistan do not have enough helicopters has now withdrawn his comments."


Lords FFS!! toadying gobstes more like, and I'd love them to spend a little time fighting the Taliban in Helmand Province armed with a string vest and plastic spoon

Edited by Invisible man on Wednesday 22 July 15:56

[Mondeohdear]

Jimbeaux said:

BruceV8 said:

Jimbeaux said:

Disco_Dale said:

Only one question needs asking here.

How many invading armies have emerged victorious from Afghanistan?

Victorious at what?

A good and IMO the most important point. Historically - and despite what a lot of people think - on the whole British policy in Afghanistan has been successful, given the aims of each particular mission, which were either to counter Russian influence in the region or to secure the Indian Empire's North West frontier. It was never Britain's intention to absorb Afghanistan into the Indian empire

The 1839-42 campaign was a military disaster but the political aims were achieved. The 1878-80 campaign achieved its aims, despite the defeat at Maiwand. On that occassion a British force of 2000 was overrun by an Afghan army 20,000 strong, but that was one battle in an otherwise successful campaign. The border campaigns of 1919-22 (which no one seems to talk about) was completely successful.

In many ways the current campaign has similar aims: To prevent a hostile 'power' - in this case AQ and the Taleban - establishing a power base in the region, because to allow it to do so would threaten the security of the North West Frontier (ie pakistan) and that of the UK itself. To cut and run because of the deaths of some of our servicemen would mean that their deaths would be in vain and would send the wrong message to every other faction or state that has a grievance with us.

Edited by BruceV8 on Monday 20th July 17:37

True. And of further note, the main part of the country is on "our side" as they were under the boot of the Taliban. The Soviet occupation stepped on the whole nation not just one faction.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Wednesday 22 July 16:26

Then how did the Taliban take power in the first place? They appeared as an old fashioned islamic answer to the corrupt tribal warlords and the muhjahadeen

[Jimbeaux]

Mondeohdear said:

Jimbeaux said:

BruceV8 said:

Jimbeaux said:

Disco_Dale said:

Only one question needs asking here.

How many invading armies have emerged victorious from Afghanistan?

Victorious at what?

A good and IMO the most important point. Historically - and despite what a lot of people think - on the whole British policy in Afghanistan has been successful, given the aims of each particular mission, which were either to counter Russian influence in the region or to secure the Indian Empire's North West frontier. It was never Britain's intention to absorb Afghanistan into the Indian empire

The 1839-42 campaign was a military disaster but the political aims were achieved. The 1878-80 campaign achieved its aims, despite the defeat at Maiwand. On that occassion a British force of 2000 was overrun by an Afghan army 20,000 strong, but that was one battle in an otherwise successful campaign. The border campaigns of 1919-22 (which no one seems to talk about) was completely successful.

In many ways the current campaign has similar aims: To prevent a hostile 'power' - in this case AQ and the Taleban - establishing a power base in the region, because to allow it to do so would threaten the security of the North West Frontier (ie pakistan) and that of the UK itself. To cut and run because of the deaths of some of our servicemen would mean that their deaths would be in vain and would send the wrong message to every other faction or state that has a grievance with us.

Edited by BruceV8 on Monday 20th July 17:37

True. And of further note, the main part of the country is on "our side" as they were under the boot of the Taliban. The Soviet occupation stepped on the whole nation not just one faction.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Wednesday 22 July 16:26

Then how did the Taliban take power in the first place? They appeared as an old fashioned islamic answer to the corrupt tribal warlords and the muhjahadeen

For the here and now, which is what matters, the Taliban held the country in fear and was opposed by most Afghan citizens. The Soviets invaded and caused warring factions to work together. The current war was specifically aimed at the Taliban. Difference

[Victor McDade]

British soldier 361 and 362 killed in Afghanistan.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/24/two-br...

I was and still am pro-Afghan war, it was something where we had no choice but to act.

However, I hope those in charge do not make the same mistake again with our latest 'conflict' - Afghanistan was predicted to be a 'bomb for a few months', 'send in troops for a few months more' then install a government, hugs and kisses and get the hell out. And 10 years later......

[audidoody]

Victor McDade said:

I was and still am pro-Afghan war, it was something where we had no choice but to act. .

Come again? There have, in my humble opinion, only been two conflict i n the last 100 years where we had no choice but to act. One was WWII and the other was the Falklands when British sovereignty, territory, and citizens were under direct attack.

Northern Ireland was a policing action , for want of a better description.

What business do we have in Afghanistan? All our terrorists are homegrown and carry UK passports.

[andy_s]

TheForceV4 said:

Personal rant here but the British Army are crying out for troops I have had my ambitions set on joining the Parachute Regiment for half my life I go to uni so I get in as officer. I finish uni after wasting four years there. Get in after passing my preliminary tests well above average (not or PRAC p-coy) Get sworn hand on the bible and all that lark.
Then told the next day sorry no your out because without contact lenses my eyesight isnt good enough.
WTF! I simply cant believe this st! I am appealing with medical evidence though dont hold out much hope.
Crying out for soldiers (infantry especially) my arse. Sorry but you have no idea how many years I have been training for this.

Join the Legion.

Seriously.

[andy_s]

Mondeohdear said:

Then how did the Taliban take power in the first place? They appeared as an old fashioned islamic answer to the corrupt tribal warlords and the muhjahadeen

'Taliban' comes from the arabic for 'student'. They were the Libyan rebels of their day, after an isolated incident involving the rape of 2 girls by the local chief, Moh. Omar (from Khandaha) got together a small group of fellow students* and freed them. 'Stan at that point was feudal, warring tribes waged battle between themselves in a lawless state. The Taliban snowballed, seized power and the rest, as they say, is dysentery.

* A Pakistani sponsored religious school

Edited by andy_s on Thursday 24th March 17:47

[JMGS4]

Good article in todays local german rag, written by a returning german officer who served in their relatively quiet area NE of Kabul.

Most of the Afghanis who they were training could not get to grips with the ideas of things like punctuality, cleanliness, honesty and drug sobriety. Apparently the Afghans often turned up drugged to the eyeballs and totally incapable of patrolling, or when they patrolled they took bribes all the time. He summed up the Afghan mentality as follows.. a tribal warring community that only comes together when they're invaded to fight the invader. When left by the "invaders" they return to their tribal mentality where women are lower than cattle and killing their neighbour or even a family member is "normal".

Nuff said?

We should pull out now and let them continue to chop each others heads off. If the Taliban or Al Quaeda return use Tomahawks to flatten them. A war on the ground will NEVER be won, Alexander the Great was the first to learn this, Mongol invasion was lost, 3 Afghan wars with us (lost or drawn), Russians lost, and now the Coalition?

[Asterix]

audidoody said:

Victor McDade said:

I was and still am pro-Afghan war, it was something where we had no choice but to act. .

Come again? There have, in my humble opinion, only been two conflict i n the last 100 years where we had no choice but to act. One was WWII and the other was the Falklands when British sovereignty, territory, and citizens were under direct attack.

Northern Ireland was a policing action , for want of a better description.

What business do we have in Afghanistan? All our terrorists are homegrown and carry UK passports.

I'd add Bosnia to the above - very worthy if you ask me. I was proud of what we did there.

[Kudos]

TheForceV4 said:

Crying out for soldiers (infantry especially) my arse. Sorry but you have no idea how many years I have been training for this.

Sorry, do you not read the papers - the army is at full capacity. They can pick and choose.

As for the contact lenses, what would happen with you on the front line in a desert and need new lenses sent through every week. They don't arrive, so you aren't much use are you?

[andy_s]

Kudos said:

Sorry, do you not read the papers......

As for the contact lenses.........

Maybe you answered your own question...

[hidetheelephants]

andy_s said:

TheForceV4 said:

Personal rant here but the British Army are crying out for troops I have had my ambitions set on joining the Parachute Regiment for half my life I go to uni so I get in as officer. I finish uni after wasting four years there. Get in after passing my preliminary tests well above average (not or PRAC p-coy) Get sworn hand on the bible and all that lark.
Then told the next day sorry no your out because without contact lenses my eyesight isnt good enough.
WTF! I simply cant believe this st! I am appealing with medical evidence though dont hold out much hope.
Crying out for soldiers (infantry especially) my arse. Sorry but you have no idea how many years I have been training for this.

Join the Legion.

Seriously.

Or if you don't speak french, get them laser-zapped, wait 6 months and reapply.

[southendpier]

andy_s said:

TheForceV4 said:

Personal rant here but the British Army are crying out for troops I have had my ambitions set on joining the Parachute Regiment for half my life I go to uni so I get in as officer. I finish uni after wasting four years there. Get in after passing my preliminary tests well above average (not or PRAC p-coy) Get sworn hand on the bible and all that lark.
Then told the next day sorry no your out because without contact lenses my eyesight isnt good enough.
WTF! I simply cant believe this st! I am appealing with medical evidence though dont hold out much hope.
Crying out for soldiers (infantry especially) my arse. Sorry but you have no idea how many years I have been training for this.

Join the Legion.

Seriously.

Can't you just work in Tesco and get enough money to have a laser op on your eyes (if you want to kill people that much).