8 british troops dead in 24 hours

[Muntu]

Fittster said:

Muntu said:

Yup, the world would be a much better place without the ultra-violent primitive religious strains that seem prevalent these days

Ultra-violent Christians are fine?

Re-read my post.

[Gargamel]

Is this really the standard of debate on PH these days, my how times have changed.


Let us not go down the American route of changing policy when the bodybags mount up. We have a number of strategic objectives in Afghanistan and we must remain committed to the mission even in hard times.

1. Prevent the Taliban from returning to power, offering shelter and training to extremists.
2. Reduce the supply of Heroin
3. Provide stability to the Elected government and allow them time to develop new infrastructure, a functioning government and hold democratic elections with the support of all the people.


My anger is reserved not for the mission, nor for our "European Partners" who are behaving disgracefully. But I feel so annoyed that we have not provided sufficient troop helicopters or the correct equipment to our soldiers and sailors.

I would dearly like to see the Labour Defence minister who declared that we would be out of Afghanistan without firing a shot (back in 2001) brought back before the House of Commons and asked to explain himself. I would also like to see a special hour long broadcast by the Government explaining the mission, showing what has been achieved and what remains to be done. It could be as jingoistic or even outright propagande as long as it clearly explained to people what was happening out there.

[tinman0]

Fittster said:

Nice line in casual racism there. They are dying while trying to tell the population of a state that they should live their lives on Western principles whether they like it or not. Unsurprising the locals aren't keen on being told what to do and are doing what they can to resist.

Do you really think the average Afghan wanted to live under the Taleban? Have you ever read what the Taleban ever did whilst they had power?

[Nick_F]

tinman0 said:

Fittster said:

Nice line in casual racism there. They are dying while trying to tell the population of a state that they should live their lives on Western principles whether they like it or not. Unsurprising the locals aren't keen on being told what to do and are doing what they can to resist.

Do you really think the average Afghan wanted to live under the Taleban? Have you ever read what the Taleban ever did whilst they had power?

Did you read the articles that were going round in 2000/2001 demanding that something was done about the Taleban's treatment of those who tried to teach girls to read?

There's far more reason to keep these people from regaining power than just some hope of improving our security here. Seldom have our armed forces had a more easily justified mission than this one.

[Jimbeaux]

Muntu said:

loltolhurst said:

i was defending the chap that says if we werent there we'd be less of a target which is true. our country would be safer if we had not been involved in afgan/iraq in the same way noone bombs switzerland, iceland etc as they do not get involved. as has been said bali is directly linked to the involvement in iraq etc and india / pakistan is a totally diff conflict. you think our country is safer due to being in iraq/afgan?

I don't think that currently we are any less safe. Long term, yes, I believe that our (the West's) involvement there will pay dividends.

The Madrid bombings happened after Spain withdrew from Iraq. The terrorist incidents in India and pakistan are not "a totally different conflict", as you put it.

As for "if we werent there we'd be less of a target" sometimes you have to have the balls to stand up for what you believe in, rather than be a coward (not directed at you personally) and hope that they will get to you last. Niemoller's poem springs to mind here...

Correct. It is not who hits them but our way of life they target. Eventually, they will get to everyone not living by their , albeit a minority, view of Islam.

[Jimbeaux]

Gargamel said:

Is this really the standard of debate on PH these days, my how times have changed.


Let us not go down the American route of changing policy when the bodybags mount up. We have a number of strategic objectives in Afghanistan and we must remain committed to the mission even in hard times.

Excuse me? IIRC is was thre U.S. that were still sending and maintaining 130,000 troops when the U.K. was down to 5,000 and still declining in Iraq. I think you will see that our numbers in Afganistan have been far higher and climbing as well. What exactly are you trying to say, I may be misunderstanding your statement?

[JagLover]

BIANCO said:

As soon as we give up and stop fighting then it’s the end of our power just as when the Romans spelled the end of there empire when they gave up and started building walls.

The Roman Empire endured centuries after they started "building walls" as you put it. After an initial rush of expansion they abandoned territories that were more costly to maintain than the benefits of occupying them, retreating to far more defendable positions like Hadrian’s wall or the Rhine.

The Empire may have fallen centuries later, but all Empires eventually fail. This early correction of Imperial overstretch is not a sign of decline in my eyes.

If this has a relevance to the war in Afghanistan, perhaps we should not be trying to defend the 'frontiers' of the West in such a backward place as Afghanistan. I am reminded that most of the wars of the cold war were proxy wars between the USA and Russia, rather than either side commiting troops on the ground. To go back to your Roman example the Romans maintained a system of allies beyond their frontiers to do their dirty work for them, who were usually paid for their trouble. I think we need to look seriously about what is more important imposing democracry in benighted countries like Afghanistan. Or more pragmatically doing the minumum of what is needed
to achieve our own security.

[FM]

The operation panthers claw that the MOD chief was discussing in an interview a few days ago seems to be to clear the ground, so to speak, for the upcoming Afghan elections. The trouble with this is situations like 4 I.E.D`s in a space of a 400 m stretch of road. Slow going to make progress & perfect for snipers to have a go at the squads. The `Taliban` also like to stash their AK`s & pretend to be normal Afghan citizens...how do you then identify the enemy?

The MOD should demand some of the billions that have been pumped into the banks be relocated to get lots more helicopters into the theatre saving the need for so many boots to be on very dangerous ground.
For me, the objectives of the operation are far too vague, north pakistan seems another proxy battlefield waiting in the wings & we just don`t have the manpower or commitment to hold the place together for any serious length of time. What signifies mission accomplished in this conflict without it running into decades...?

The much rehearsed line from the politicians responsible for the situation about how they will never forget the fallen is also wearing thin...Ask any one of them for a name of a recent dead serviceman & I`d be surprised if they could summon even one.

Edited by FM on Sunday 12th July 10:04

[Fittster]

Nick_F said:

tinman0 said:

Fittster said:

Nice line in casual racism there. They are dying while trying to tell the population of a state that they should live their lives on Western principles whether they like it or not. Unsurprising the locals aren't keen on being told what to do and are doing what they can to resist.

Do you really think the average Afghan wanted to live under the Taleban? Have you ever read what the Taleban ever did whilst they had power?

Did you read the articles that were going round in 2000/2001 demanding that something was done about the Taleban's treatment of those who tried to teach girls to read?

There's far more reason to keep these people from regaining power than just some hope of improving our security here. Seldom have our armed forces had a more easily justified mission than this one.

The purpose of the British Military is to ensure literacy throughout the world?

[tinman0]

Fittster said:

The purpose of the British Military is to ensure literacy throughout the world?

Depends on your view about freedoms at the end of the day.

[Fittster]

tinman0 said:

Fittster said:

The purpose of the British Military is to ensure literacy throughout the world?

Depends on your view about freedoms at the end of the day.

Fairly black and white issue to me, British Military should be to defend UK Boarders. Basically a foreign policy similar to the Swiss (although that's not what it once was). Sticking your nose in where it's not wanted can come back to haunt you.

[tinman0]

Fittster said:

tinman0 said:

Fittster said:

The purpose of the British Military is to ensure literacy throughout the world?

Depends on your view about freedoms at the end of the day.

Fairly black and white issue to me, British Military should be to defend UK Boarders. Basically a foreign policy similar to the Swiss (although that's not what it once was). Sticking your nose in where it's not wanted can come back to haunt you.

There you go then.

[Gargamel]

Jimbeaux said:

Gargamel said:

Is this really the standard of debate on PH these days, my how times have changed.


Let us not go down the American route of changing policy when the bodybags mount up. We have a number of strategic objectives in Afghanistan and we must remain committed to the mission even in hard times.

Excuse me? IIRC is was thre U.S. that were still sending and maintaining 130,000 troops when the U.K. was down to 5,000 and still declining in Iraq. I think you will see that our numbers in Afganistan have been far higher and climbing as well. What exactly are you trying to say, I may be misunderstanding your statement?

Sorry Jim, not having a cheap pop re the US in Afghanistan, More a cultural thing I think. Traditionally the Brits have been very stiff upper lip about war losses, and tend to be quite accepting that in war people die.

Just aware that some elements of the US can appear quite sentimental about their forces personnel, from Vietnam onwards.

We are all out of Iraq and currently have around 9000 deployed in Afghanistan.

[Jimbeaux]

Gargamel said:

Jimbeaux said:

Gargamel said:

Is this really the standard of debate on PH these days, my how times have changed.


Let us not go down the American route of changing policy when the bodybags mount up. We have a number of strategic objectives in Afghanistan and we must remain committed to the mission even in hard times.

Excuse me? IIRC is was thre U.S. that were still sending and maintaining 130,000 troops when the U.K. was down to 5,000 and still declining in Iraq. I think you will see that our numbers in Afganistan have been far higher and climbing as well. What exactly are you trying to say, I may be misunderstanding your statement?

Sorry Jim, not having a cheap pop re the US in Afghanistan, More a cultural thing I think. Traditionally the Brits have been very stiff upper lip about war losses, and tend to be quite accepting that in war people die.

Just aware that some elements of the US can appear quite sentimental about their forces personnel, from Vietnam onwards.

We are all out of Iraq and currently have around 9000 deployed in Afghanistan.

Understood; thanks.
ETA: IIRC, we have about 40-45,000 troops there now. We also lost 9 soldiers in one day earlier this month. Everybody is sharing the brunt.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Monday 13th July 12:42

[Gargamel]

Well good luck to all of them. The US do seem to have a real determination to see this through to the end.

I would be deeply saddened if our (UK) Politicians lost the balls to stick at the task. If they genuinely believe it is vital to the UK to be out there, then they should communicate why much clearer, and be seen to be publicly backing the Armed Forces with proper kit and proper medical treatment.

[Fittster]

Gargamel said:

Well good luck to all of them. The US do seem to have a real determination to see this through to the end.

And how will we know when the end is reached? I've yet to see this defined, some one on this thread is linking it to improving the literacy of the Afghan population.

[Bing o]

Fittster said:

Gargamel said:

Well good luck to all of them. The US do seem to have a real determination to see this through to the end.

And how will we know when the end is reached? I've yet to see this defined, some one on this thread is linking it to improving the literacy of the Afghan population.

Well, it would be nice if rather than just bombing the place back to the dark ages, and then doing one, we actually stayed and rebuilt the country.

[Mojocvh]

Strangely Brown said:

Muntu said:

Strangely Brown said:

FFS! They are not giving their lives. Their lives are being taken from them by a bunch of cowards sitting in comfy offices in Whitehall.

No, the people in Whitehall go nowhere near a battlefield, the soldiers' lives are actually being taken by a bunch of allah ackbar screaming nutters.

And they wouldn't be there if it were not for the s in whitehall. As for the allah ackbar nutters... it's their country. Leave them to kill themselves.

Edited by Strangely Brown on Saturday 11th July 18:27

Fine.

So the Taliban finally retake AFG.

They then eventually move via a series of sequential "victories" to gain both the political and military upperhand in pakistan.

Then how many millions will die then when the western powers remove the threat of pakistans nuclear weapons in the only, final, way possible?

Iraq was a despicable, wasteful, sideshow that has cost the west dearly in both material and support from moderate Muslims.

[Fittster]

Bing o said:

Fittster said:

Gargamel said:

Well good luck to all of them. The US do seem to have a real determination to see this through to the end.

And how will we know when the end is reached? I've yet to see this defined, some one on this thread is linking it to improving the literacy of the Afghan population.

Well, it would be nice if rather than just bombing the place back to the dark ages, and then doing one, we actually stayed and rebuilt the country.

And do the locals get a say in what the finished country looks like? Can they have a Theocracy with Sharia law if they wish?

[Strangely Brown]

Mojocvh said:

Fine.

So the Taliban finally retake AFG.

They then eventually move via a series of sequential "victories" to gain both the political and military upperhand in pakistan.

Then how many millions will die then when the western powers remove the threat of pakistans nuclear weapons in the only, final, way possible?

I don't know quite what to say to that apart from:

and... ? I still say it's not worth the lives that we are throwing away over there. We will never win, so get out now and concentrate on removing the problem of radicalisation at home.