8 british troops dead in 24 hours

[Jimbeaux]

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.

Yea, if you are a tourist. Ask the locals how they feel. Maybe we should mail them a constitution....or do you think Japan has done no better?

[Jimbeaux]

Tunku said:

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.

Good luck and Godspeed to your Son in Law.

[Jimbeaux]

Strangely Brown said:

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

It is defeatists such as yourself declaring something unwinable that leads to....defeat.

[Jimbeaux]

Invisible man said:

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?

Agreed on all points. BTW, I believe it is a NATO effort, not a UN one. However, your point still stands.

[Airbag]

Jimbeaux said:

Invisible man said:

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?

Agreed on all points. BTW, I believe it is a NATO effort, not a UN one. However, your point still stands.

I'd say Canada is pulling it's weight in Afghanistan as well, unlike some NATO allies who won't let their troops go into combat zones.

[Strangely Brown]

Jimbeaux said:

It is defeatists such as yourself declaring something unwinable that leads to....defeat.

Yes, of course it is.

[Jimbeaux]

Airbag said:

Jimbeaux said:

Invisible man said:

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?

Agreed on all points. BTW, I believe it is a NATO effort, not a UN one. However, your point still stands.

I'd say Canada is pulling it's weight in Afghanistan as well, unlike some NATO allies who won't let their troops go into combat zones.

Seems to always be the case.

[Jimbeaux]

Strangely Brown said:

Jimbeaux said:

It is defeatists such as yourself declaring something unwinable that leads to....defeat.

Yes, of course it is.

I am glad you see the error of your ways.

[Disco_Dale]

Only one question needs asking here.

How many invading armies have emerged victorious from Afghanistan?

[Strangely Brown]

Disco_Dale said:

Only one question needs asking here.

How many invading armies have emerged victorious from Afghanistan?

The same number that have emerged victorious from Vietnam?

[drivin_me_nuts]

Has the term 'victory' in this war actually got a definition yet?

I recall the day idiot bush jr stood on the deck of the aircraft carrier and claimed 'victory' in Iraq. That was a fair few years ago.

Perhaps the analogy of victory in Afghanistan will be like the old TV sets. As long as you can see a picture and make out shapes then it's worth watching...

We can live with the background of a few deaths here and there in the name of peace. We can suffer a few dead every week or so - after all they're only a few dead squaddies whose lives are worth sweet FA so what's the problem? Isn't that an acceptable price to pay?

As to what defines the terms peace and victory, I am sure these mean different things to soldiers and politicians, who have no doubt calculated the public tolerance for the number of 'acceptable deaths', which I suspect runs at about 1-2 a week. Enough to leave a gap of several days on the News 24 channel - just enough for us to 'forget'.

It's a tragedy that any lives are lost in this conflict. I have no idea any more how this war is justified. I think it has reached the stage when leaving is more about loss of 'face' than anything else.

Sad for all concerned - saddest for those who have to live in a country where you have little control over the destiny of your own life. But then again Afghanistan breeds them tough and hardy and it takes more than an army to break the bonds of tribe, identity and religion.

I wish our forces well. I hope they all come home in one piece and that time stops for fewer families than it has done recently.

[Invisible man]

Jimbeaux said:

Invisible man said:

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?

Agreed on all points. BTW, I believe it is a NATO effort, not a UN one. However, your point still stands.

Point taken jim, sorry to harp on but this particular matter is sticking in my craw

"Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, insisted that troops would get whatever equipment they needed"

"Mr Miliband denied that the UK mission was poorly manned and poorly equipped and told GMTV"

from http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-l...


yet

"The Committee said that a forecast reduction in the number of medium and heavy lift battlefield helicopters over the next 10 years will make the situation worse"

"A shortage of helicopters is undermining military operations in Afghanistan, according to a powerful group of MPs."

and

"Gordon Brown insisted troops in Afghanistan had all the equipment they needed."

from

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Helicopt...

I'm staggered by the bare faced lying and the deceit of these scumbags, they should be tried for bloody treason

[Jimbeaux]

Disco_Dale said:

Only one question needs asking here.

How many invading armies have emerged victorious from Afghanistan?

Victorious at what?

[Jimbeaux]

Invisible man said:

Jimbeaux said:

Invisible man said:

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?

Agreed on all points. BTW, I believe it is a NATO effort, not a UN one. However, your point still stands.

Point taken jim, sorry to harp on but this particular matter is sticking in my craw

"Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, insisted that troops would get whatever equipment they needed"

"Mr Miliband denied that the UK mission was poorly manned and poorly equipped and told GMTV"

from http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-l...


yet

"The Committee said that a forecast reduction in the number of medium and heavy lift battlefield helicopters over the next 10 years will make the situation worse"

"A shortage of helicopters is undermining military operations in Afghanistan, according to a powerful group of MPs."

and

"Gordon Brown insisted troops in Afghanistan had all the equipment they needed."

from

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Helicopt...

I'm staggered by the bare faced lying and the deceit of these scumbags, they should be tried for bloody treason

Agreed. Whether or not people agree on going to war, the troops should have unconditional support of the citizens and all of the tools to do the job; they are just following orders and should not be punished by policy opinions.

[Invisible man]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/war/for-christ'...

"But Bill McKay, from Doncaster, said: "When it comes to wars and stuff I'm inclined to go with generals and admirals, rather than some bloke called 'Bob Ainsworth' who spent 20 years as a shop steward in Coventry before deciding to sit around on his fat arse all day spending my money.""

nuff said

[Badgerboy]

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.

Look at laser surgery if this becomes an issue. The Forces looked into this after some preliminary recruitment in the US with people who had corrective eye surgery.

[Jimbeaux]

Badgerboy 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.

Look at laser surgery if this becomes an issue. The Forces looked into this after some preliminary recruitment in the US with people who had corrective eye surgery.

Absolutely, many in th forces with eye restrictions have been allowed in due to laser surgery. It is $700 per eye here and VERY successful.

[zr1 368]

LION'S led by donkey's.

[BruceV8]

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

[Jimbeaux]

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