8 british troops dead in 24 hours

[Gargamel]

Theatre war is infinitely preferable to one fought nearer to home. The UK and US government went into Afghanistan to remove Al Queda from the border with pakistan, and then to remove the Taleban from Afghanistan and support a fledgling democracy.

The task will be complete when the locally elected government of Afghanistan has control over around 80% of the country. (IMHO) Plus the resources and infrastructure to build for the future.

If they vote for an elected theocracy based on sharia, then that is up to them.

[Jimbeaux]

Fittster said:

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?

Not sure. Japan was given a constitution that we wrote and made them follow. Sure didn't hurt them one bit.

[s2art]

Jimbeaux said:

Fittster said:

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?

Not sure. Japan was given a constitution that we wrote and made them follow. Sure didn't hurt them one bit.

Yes. Of course I blame the Yanks for all this. Churchill wanted, even expected, the USA to pick up the torch from the UK and effectively take over the Commonwealth and Empire. Its mission to inflict good governance on all the benighted places in the world. Had they started 60 years ago we would be in a far better position now.

[hairykrishna]

I think we should legalise heroin and buy opium direct from the farmers (i.e our government should). That would get a lot more 'normal' people on our side. I'm sure that the average Afgan is no fan of the crazy extremists but there's not much that grows well there and a mans got to make a living somehow.

[Fittster]

Jimbeaux said:

Fittster said:

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?

Not sure. Japan was given a constitution that we wrote and made them follow. Sure didn't hurt them one bit.

Vietnam has done quite well since imperial and would be imperial powers withdrew.

[5unny]

FourWheelDrift said:

The only reason we are now a terrorist target is because we have been meddling in a terrorist nurturing country like Afghanistan. If we had left them alone we would not be a target.

The Americans were not'meddling' in Afghanistan pre 2001 yet it didn't stop the bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. Nor did it prevent the twin towers being attacked.

People like Mohammad Sidique Khan and his extremist friends will always find a reason to make the UK a target - whether thats Iraq, Afghanistan, Palastine etc. It's pretty naive to think we wouldnt be a target had we not gone to Afghanistan.

Abu Hamza, Omar Bakri Muhammed and their fellow preachers in London and elsewhere were spewing hate against Britain long before 2001.

[Talksteer]

Fittster said:

Jimbeaux said:

Fittster said:

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?

Not sure. Japan was given a constitution that we wrote and made them follow. Sure didn't hurt them one bit.

Vietnam has done quite well since imperial and would be imperial powers withdrew.

Vietnam was essentially one functioning government invading and taking over another. Afghanistan has not had a functioning government for more than 30 years which effectively means their entire middle class has left the country/died of old age/died violently.

The same goes for Japan and Germany in both cases the leaders of the country signed a surrender. All that remained of their government went to bed on night working for their previous rulers and woke up again working for the US/USSR/UK. Society didn't have enough time to fall apart. The additional benefit of everyone being truly tired of fighting also helped.

One of the reasons Iraq went so far into the st was because Saddam went into hiding didn't surrender and when the US did get the Iraqi army and police force to surrender they disbanded them. This meant that lawlessness persisted long enough to allow militias to form which ultimately took years to put down. In Afghanistan the period of power vacuum has lasted for years (if any ever really held power in the first place) hence the re-conquest by the state will take even longer.

[Fittster]

Talksteer said:

Vietnam was essentially one functioning government invading and taking over another. Afghanistan has not had a functioning government for more than 30 years which effectively means their entire middle class has left the country/died of old age/died violently.

The same goes for Japan and Germany in both cases the leaders of the country signed a surrender. All that remained of their government went to bed on night working for their previous rulers and woke up again working for the US/USSR/UK. Society didn't have enough time to fall apart. The additional benefit of everyone being truly tired of fighting also helped.

One of the reasons Iraq went so far into the st was because Saddam went into hiding didn't surrender and when the US did get the Iraqi army and police force to surrender they disbanded them. This meant that lawlessness persisted long enough to allow militias to form which ultimately took years to put down. In Afghanistan the period of power vacuum has lasted for years (if any ever really held power in the first place) hence the re-conquest by the state will take even longer.

Afghanistan was going through a relatively stable phase when the West jumped in again. The Middle East has been a nightmare since the end of the Ottoman empire principally thanks to one of the world's great idiots Winston Churchill. Just draw a few lines on the map, the locals are bound to like their new countries. If the locals aren’t hugely grateful and don’t go in the direction we like time to get rid of their governments (Goodbye Mohammed Mosaddeq). Is it a surprise that the more we interfere the worse the situation gets?

It's also worth considering that Iraq was pretty stable until Sadam was removed (think of the Kurds!, yeah but now everyone gets killed).

The idea that if we just meddle a little more we can fix the world is a nonsense.

Edited by Fittster on Monday 13th July 19:29

[s2art]

Fittster said:

The idea that if we just meddle a little more we can fix the world is a nonsense.

Edited by Fittster on Monday 13th July 19:29

And the idea that we can can sit back and do nothing is an even bigger nonsense.
BTW, what was Winstons idiocy after the Ottoman Empire collapsed?

[Fittster]

s2art said:

Fittster said:

The idea that if we just meddle a little more we can fix the world is a nonsense.

Edited by Fittster on Monday 13th July 19:29

And the idea that we can can sit back and do nothing is an even bigger nonsense.
BTW, what was Winstons idiocy after the Ottoman Empire collapsed?

http://www.answers.com/topic/cairo-conference-1

Let's set-up a Jewish state in Palestine, and while we're at it will create Jordan and Iraq. He had a great time in the middle east paint a few pictures, draw a few lines on maps. What harm could it possibly do?

If there's a bad idea, Churchill normally has his finger prints on it (welfare state is the classic example).


So how many more countries must we attack to get the world running just right?

Edited by Fittster on Monday 13th July 20:45

[s2art]

Fittster said:

s2art said:

Fittster said:

The idea that if we just meddle a little more we can fix the world is a nonsense.

Edited by Fittster on Monday 13th July 19:29

And the idea that we can can sit back and do nothing is an even bigger nonsense.
BTW, what was Winstons idiocy after the Ottoman Empire collapsed?

http://www.answers.com/topic/cairo-conference-1

Let's set-up a Jewish state in Palestine, and while we're at it will create Jordan and Iraq. He had a great time in the middle east paint a few pictures, draw a few lines on maps. What harm could it possibly do?

If there's a bad idea, Churchill normally has his finger prints on it (welfare state is the classic example).


So how many more countries must we attack to get the world running just right?

Edited by Fittster on Monday 13th July 20:45

As many as it takes?

WT
RT to Winston. I think you are being a tad harsh there. After WW1 and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire what the hell were we supposed to do? It was generally agreed that the Jews needed a homeland. And handing Winston the blame for the current welfare state is a bit rich.

[Tunku]

My son in law to be is out there in the Black Watch. I couldn't give a st about the legalities, moralities etc.
All I see is the suffering my daughter and my wife go through the whole time he is out there. Will he come back? Of course he will. It is how he comes back that is the worry. To anyone who thinks "they signed up for it, put up with the consequences" can fk off and die. He did not sign up to protect other countries, he swore allegiance to our Queen, not Winky Mcfknut and his American masters.

[Mojocvh]

Strangely Brown said:

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.

......and ignore the incoming mirv's right?

[Strangely Brown]

Mojocvh said:

Strangely Brown said:

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.

......and ignore the incoming mirv's right?

OK smartarse. Just how many years, and how many lives do you suggest we throw at this un-winnable war? Do you have children? Are you going to send them to fight die for this great cause?

Edited by Strangely Brown on Tuesday 14th July 11:01

[Fittster]

s2art said:

Fittster said:

s2art said:

Fittster said:

The idea that if we just meddle a little more we can fix the world is a nonsense.

Edited by Fittster on Monday 13th July 19:29

And the idea that we can can sit back and do nothing is an even bigger nonsense.
BTW, what was Winstons idiocy after the Ottoman Empire collapsed?

http://www.answers.com/topic/cairo-conference-1

Let's set-up a Jewish state in Palestine, and while we're at it will create Jordan and Iraq. He had a great time in the middle east paint a few pictures, draw a few lines on maps. What harm could it possibly do?

If there's a bad idea, Churchill normally has his finger prints on it (welfare state is the classic example).


So how many more countries must we attack to get the world running just right?

Edited by Fittster on Monday 13th July 20:45

As many as it takes?

WT
RT to Winston. I think you are being a tad harsh there. After WW1 and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire what the hell were we supposed to do? It was generally agreed that the Jews needed a homeland. And handing Winston the blame for the current welfare state is a bit rich.

The whole point of is that after the fall of the Ottoman empire is that we should have left it to the ex-subjects to sort it out rather than playing the great imperial game. How much bitterness exists because of our earlier efforts. If you get involved you can be blamed when the collapse comes, rather than letting the locals take responsibility for themselves.

Churchill put us on the path to the welfare state we have today by the creation of compulsory national insurance an idea he nicked from Germany. People were happy to make their own arrangements without the states heavy hand being involved. He also the PM at the time of the Beveridge Report.

[s2art]

Fittster said:

s2art said:

Fittster said:

s2art said:

Fittster said:

The idea that if we just meddle a little more we can fix the world is a nonsense.

Edited by Fittster on Monday 13th July 19:29

And the idea that we can can sit back and do nothing is an even bigger nonsense.
BTW, what was Winstons idiocy after the Ottoman Empire collapsed?

http://www.answers.com/topic/cairo-conference-1

Let's set-up a Jewish state in Palestine, and while we're at it will create Jordan and Iraq. He had a great time in the middle east paint a few pictures, draw a few lines on maps. What harm could it possibly do?

If there's a bad idea, Churchill normally has his finger prints on it (welfare state is the classic example).


So how many more countries must we attack to get the world running just right?

Edited by Fittster on Monday 13th July 20:45

As many as it takes?

WT
RT to Winston. I think you are being a tad harsh there. After WW1 and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire what the hell were we supposed to do? It was generally agreed that the Jews needed a homeland. And handing Winston the blame for the current welfare state is a bit rich.

The whole point of is that after the fall of the Ottoman empire is that we should have left it to the ex-subjects to sort it out rather than playing the great imperial game. How much bitterness exists because of our earlier efforts. If you get involved you can be blamed when the collapse comes, rather than letting the locals take responsibility for themselves.

Churchill put us on the path to the welfare state we have today by the creation of compulsory national insurance an idea he nicked from Germany. People were happy to make their own arrangements without the states heavy hand being involved. He also the PM at the time of the Beveridge Report.

I think thats being idealist. Something had to be done, with the collapse of Empire there were not any functional states. In places like Iraq, Britain created the institutions that led to the possibility of it becoming a viable state.

WRT to National Insurance. I think that was a good idea, people were not happy to make their own arrangements, or at least they were not doing so. Without it the burden would fall on the taxpayer anyway, better surely to try and get people to insure themselves. The actual implementation was the problem.

[Invisible man]

Jimbeaux said:

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

We being the US and the UK, if this is supposed to be a concerted UN effort where are the others? and if we are to be so commited hows about supplying us with some proper kit. I can still see the face of that slimey, weasel faced Darling saying that the army can have all the kit it needs, all they have to do is ask. WHAT HAVE THEY BEEN DOING FOR THE LAST TEN YEARS THEN YOU LYING st?

[TheForceV4]

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.

[Fittster]

Stuff above removed to keep thread readable.

s2art said:

I think thats being idealist. Something had to be done, with the collapse of Empire there were not any functional states. In places like Iraq, Britain created the institutions that led to the possibility of it becoming a viable state.

WRT to National Insurance. I think that was a good idea, people were not happy to make their own arrangements, or at least they were not doing so. Without it the burden would fall on the taxpayer anyway, better surely to try and get people to insure themselves. The actual implementation was the problem.

Why did the British state have to ensure there were functioning states in the middle east? You can't say that in the 1920s the locals posed a the threat to the UK.

If people were not happy to make their own arrangements why were so many people members of friendly societies? There was no need for politicians to force the state into this area bar their need to control the lives of the population.

Edited by Fittster on Tuesday 14th July 13:52

[s2art]

Fittster said:

Stuff above removed to keep thread readable.

s2art said:

I think thats being idealist. Something had to be done, with the collapse of Empire there were not any functional states. In places like Iraq, Britain created the institutions that led to the possibility of it becoming a viable state.

WRT to National Insurance. I think that was a good idea, people were not happy to make their own arrangements, or at least they were not doing so. Without it the burden would fall on the taxpayer anyway, better surely to try and get people to insure themselves. The actual implementation was the problem.

Why did the British state have to ensure there were functioning states in the middle east? You can't say that in the 1920s the locals posed a the threat to the UK.

If people were not happy to make their own arrangements why were so many people members of friendly societies? There was no need for politicians to force the state into this area bar their need to control the lives of the population.

Edited by Fittster on Tuesday 14th July 13:52

Well, somebody had to do it. Otherwise the entire area that was the Ottoman Empire would have dissolved into chaos. Britain had major interests in the area, Egypt and India for starters, and oil was starting to be a big issue. It was certainly to our benefit to take over and try an turn places like Iraq into coherent states.

Some people were making their own arrangements, but many were not. What is wrong with setting up a National Insurance scheme? Is it so much different to insisting on motor insurance for those who want to drive? The problem was with the way it was implemented.