Discussion
Greg_D said:
this is an interesting thread, i, like many people think i must have missed something because i don't know why we are there either, i heard paddy ashdown on GMTV yesterday give a reasonable explanation, all centred on trying to wipe out the kernel of worldwide terrorism.
But, like most people, i have a strongly held suspicion that there are economic forces at hand as well, it is noted that there are no humvees trundling round zimbabwe or any of the other feudalistic banana republics!!!
Greg
These feudalistic banana republics are not trying to bring down the whole western society though, they're happy with their own internal power-struggles.But, like most people, i have a strongly held suspicion that there are economic forces at hand as well, it is noted that there are no humvees trundling round zimbabwe or any of the other feudalistic banana republics!!!
Greg
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The thing is, we're not actually in control of much of Afghanistan so (ignoring for a moment the fact that 9/11 wasn't the start) no one can claim that taking on the Taliban has prevented anything. There is a pretty good argument that by invading a sovereign country on flimsy pretexts has in fact increased the risk of terror attacks.AFAIK the original reason for starting on Afghanistan was that the Taliban refused to hand Bin Laden over. When the US started bombing them in late 2001 the Taliban offered to extradite him for trial in a third party country if the US provided proof Bin Laden was guilty, Bush turned them down as "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5)
We then invaded, failed to capture Bin Laden and have since got sucked into a situation there's no escape from without massive loss of face. Just like pretty much every other invasion of Afgahnistan since time immemorial.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I don't totally disagree with you, but preventing them re-grouping and being able to import/export trained operatives "may" have helped over the last few years. I dunno. I just agree with the original intention.Of course the 'management strategy' has led to the 'rotters' hiding over the border and thumbing their noses at us.
One thing get's my goat though is the media trotting out gried-stricken parents of soldiers all the time though. If you don't wanna get shot in some meaningless war, in some god-forsaken place at the behest of some faceless politico - don't fukin join up! If you join up and some t
t decides your going to face the 'enemy', wherever and whomever that is, then you're gonna be looking at the wrong end of a rifle/missile/IED etc, etc.
It's not helped by the fact that our allies only wanted rid of the Taliban so they could get back to growing drugs.jshell said:
I don't totally disagree with you, but preventing them re-grouping and being able to import/export trained operatives "may" have helped over the last few years. I dunno. I just agree with the original intention.
That's an awfully big "may" though. And given that the USSR spent years in Afghanistan without any concern with human rights before eventually having to withdraw we were never likely to have much success.jshell said:
Of course the 'management strategy' has led to the 'rotters' hiding over the border and thumbing their noses at us.
They know we dare not ps off the pakistanis too much.jshell said:
One thing get's my goat though is the media trotting out gried-stricken parents of soldiers all the time though. If you don't wanna get shot in some meaningless war, in some god-forsaken place at the behest of some faceless politico - don't fukin join up! If you join up and some tt decides your going to face the 'enemy', wherever and whomever that is, then you're gonna be looking at the wrong end of a rifle/missile/IED etc, etc.
I don't think any one could have predicted that the government would sign up to two large, drawn out, unjustifiable and unwinnable engagements at once.t decides your going to face the 'enemy', wherever and whomever that is, then you're gonna be looking at the wrong end of a rifle/missile/IED etc, etc.not now....if you join the army today it is more clear than ever that your job will entail acting as goverment enforcers in places like that...and you are expendable. the press seem to have created this sort of disparoty between the nasty war and the heoro soilders.....you dont join to go sking in 2009, you join to kill people in the middle east (or at least you have to expect you will be asked to)
Bill said:
I don't think any one could have predicted that the government would sign up to two large, drawn out, unjustifiable and unwinnable engagements at once.
Thats fair enough for those who have been in a while.....but dont forget the WTC came down when some of these soldiers were just kids. They have grown up knowing quite clearly who the "enemy" is and they sign up accordingly. I'm 36 so when i was 16 if i'd wanted to join the army i'd have done so knowing that wandering round Ireland being snipped at would be part of the process. As such, i wouldn't have signed up.anonymous said:
[redacted]
Should be, of course. But it doesn't work that way in the real world. It doesn't take a genius to see what it's actually used for. Thatcher using the lives of UK and Argentinian soldiers to get re-elected being one example.And, don't get me started on the Iraq war - Bliar should be whipped publicly for that.
Tiggsy said:
Bill said:
I don't think any one could have predicted that the government would sign up to two large, drawn out, unjustifiable and unwinnable engagements at once.
Thats fair enough for those who have been in a while.....but dont forget the WTC came down when some of these soldiers were just kids. They have grown up knowing quite clearly who the "enemy" is and they sign up accordingly. I'm 36 so when i was 16 if i'd wanted to join the army i'd have done so knowing that wandering round Ireland being snipped at would be part of the process. As such, i wouldn't have signed up.My instinct has always been to be anti-Iraq war but broadly pro-Afghan war.
I base this purely on the idea that Afghanistan has some truly nasty nutters living there who would do me harm, given the opportunity.
I think that some evidence to support this thesis would be a good thing, so I hope the Gubberment can provide it..
Frankly though, I believe that Labour under Brown is pathogically and culturally unable to handle a war. The Labour Gov under Brown is not a government that understands the military, does'nt like the military and instinctively feels that , deep down, they wish we did'nt need an army , wish that bad people who meant us harm did not exist. I just don't think they are very good at it. The existence of truly useless people like Bob Ainsworth ( who surely could'nt run a Tesco Metro, let alone our defence ) is evidence of this - and remember that Bob's predecessor worked Defence as a part time job !
If we are to be at war, then I think it can be set out quite simply :
1. Show us that there are bad people who mean us harm. Show us how pakistan could get very moody if radical Islam get hold of Nukes.
2. Once done, set out a clear strategy to kill as many of them as possible in an efficient manner, together with a clear strategy to stop them regrouping.
3. Properly equip the armed forces and, through a strong coalition, support them to the hilt. No fannying around and "making do", make it a proper effort.
4. Provide regular updates and intelligence as to how it is going. Don't treat us like idiots.
If this can be done then I'm still on board and I suspect a lot of other people would be too.
If the basic case above cannot be made, then we should rethink.
I base this purely on the idea that Afghanistan has some truly nasty nutters living there who would do me harm, given the opportunity.
I think that some evidence to support this thesis would be a good thing, so I hope the Gubberment can provide it..
Frankly though, I believe that Labour under Brown is pathogically and culturally unable to handle a war. The Labour Gov under Brown is not a government that understands the military, does'nt like the military and instinctively feels that , deep down, they wish we did'nt need an army , wish that bad people who meant us harm did not exist. I just don't think they are very good at it. The existence of truly useless people like Bob Ainsworth ( who surely could'nt run a Tesco Metro, let alone our defence ) is evidence of this - and remember that Bob's predecessor worked Defence as a part time job !
If we are to be at war, then I think it can be set out quite simply :
1. Show us that there are bad people who mean us harm. Show us how pakistan could get very moody if radical Islam get hold of Nukes.
2. Once done, set out a clear strategy to kill as many of them as possible in an efficient manner, together with a clear strategy to stop them regrouping.
3. Properly equip the armed forces and, through a strong coalition, support them to the hilt. No fannying around and "making do", make it a proper effort.
4. Provide regular updates and intelligence as to how it is going. Don't treat us like idiots.
If this can be done then I'm still on board and I suspect a lot of other people would be too.
If the basic case above cannot be made, then we should rethink.
Tiggsy said:
Bill said:
I don't think any one could have predicted that the government would sign up to two large, drawn out, unjustifiable and unwinnable engagements at once.
Thats fair enough for those who have been in a while.....but dont forget the WTC came down when some of these soldiers were just kids. They have grown up knowing quite clearly who the "enemy" is and they sign up accordingly. I'm 36 so when i was 16 if i'd wanted to join the army i'd have done so knowing that wandering round Ireland being snipped at would be part of the process. As such, i wouldn't have signed up.Now we're in a recession (conspiracy theory, anyone...) military recruitment is up again.
The big difference between the current situation and Ireland is that you could expect a single tour to Ireland and to be rotated in and out of hot spots and generally you'd get a warning about bombs, but our troops are now facing back to back tours where they will routinely get shot at or blown up.
thatone1967 said:
A bit off topic I know, but I hate the fact this government "does the right thing " (in their opinions) when it suits..
What have we done about Zimbabwe exactly....
It's not a 'bit' off-topic! When did Zimbabwe despatch or train international terrorists to blow up ships, embassies, railway terminus', tube trains or tall buildings??What have we done about Zimbabwe exactly....
As I understand it, our mission is to defeat Al Qaeda and The Taliban. Afghanistan is one of the principal breeding grounds for these groups, idealogically (indoctrination) and logistically (training & equipment).
Unfortunately,
1. pakistan is a much more serious threat in terms of breeding terrorists but we can´t do much about it because they are an ally, somehow.
2. We will not wipe out AQ/Taliban by conventional military means. Every foreign military endeavour in Afghanistan has failed.
2a. The bad men do not wear AQ uniforms or have "Taliban" tattooed upon their person, and it is very difficult to engage an enemy force if it cannot be identified.
3. Even if point 2 was not true, we have insufficient personnel, they are inadequately equipped and there does not seem to be a cohesive strategy for achieving our aims.
There will be many more deaths before an inevitable withdrawal.
The blame for this mess lies principally with Dubya and Bliar.
Unfortunately,
1. pakistan is a much more serious threat in terms of breeding terrorists but we can´t do much about it because they are an ally, somehow.
2. We will not wipe out AQ/Taliban by conventional military means. Every foreign military endeavour in Afghanistan has failed.
2a. The bad men do not wear AQ uniforms or have "Taliban" tattooed upon their person, and it is very difficult to engage an enemy force if it cannot be identified.
3. Even if point 2 was not true, we have insufficient personnel, they are inadequately equipped and there does not seem to be a cohesive strategy for achieving our aims.
There will be many more deaths before an inevitable withdrawal.
The blame for this mess lies principally with Dubya and Bliar.
Been pondering this for a while now
If the Soviets with shed loads more men/helicopters/tanks/APC's etc couldn't get Afghanistan under some sort of control, what hope have we?
This is before the media are there to watch over the shoulder of our troops and human rights tossers getting involved.
The Soviets had a free hand to do what they wanted and still couldn't subdue the place, we haven't a hope in hell of getting close. (yes the CIA helped the Mujahadeen etc) The soviets in the end gave up and went home.
I think we will be doing the same one day, the sooner the better to be honest.
If the Soviets with shed loads more men/helicopters/tanks/APC's etc couldn't get Afghanistan under some sort of control, what hope have we?
This is before the media are there to watch over the shoulder of our troops and human rights tossers getting involved.
The Soviets had a free hand to do what they wanted and still couldn't subdue the place, we haven't a hope in hell of getting close. (yes the CIA helped the Mujahadeen etc) The soviets in the end gave up and went home.
I think we will be doing the same one day, the sooner the better to be honest.
El Guapo said:
As I understand it, our mission is to defeat Al Qaeda and The Taliban. Afghanistan is one of the principal breeding grounds for these groups, idealogically (indoctrination) and logistically (training & equipment).
Unfortunately,
1. pakistan is a much more serious threat in terms of breeding terrorists but we can´t do much about it because they are an ally, somehow.
2. We will not wipe out AQ/Taliban by conventional military means. Every foreign military endeavour in Afghanistan has failed.
2a. The bad men do not wear AQ uniforms or have "Taliban" tattooed upon their person, and it is very difficult to engage an enemy force if it cannot be identified.
3. Even if point 2 was not true, we have insufficient personnel, they are inadequately equipped and there does not seem to be a cohesive strategy for achieving our aims.
There will be many more deaths before an inevitable withdrawal.
The blame for this mess lies principally with Dubya and Bliar.
The blame goes much farther back than that to western foreign policy.Unfortunately,
1. pakistan is a much more serious threat in terms of breeding terrorists but we can´t do much about it because they are an ally, somehow.
2. We will not wipe out AQ/Taliban by conventional military means. Every foreign military endeavour in Afghanistan has failed.
2a. The bad men do not wear AQ uniforms or have "Taliban" tattooed upon their person, and it is very difficult to engage an enemy force if it cannot be identified.
3. Even if point 2 was not true, we have insufficient personnel, they are inadequately equipped and there does not seem to be a cohesive strategy for achieving our aims.
There will be many more deaths before an inevitable withdrawal.
The blame for this mess lies principally with Dubya and Bliar.
Tiggsy said:
Bill said:
Now we're in a recession (conspiracy theory, anyone...) military recruitment is up again.
The very fact that keeping the population broke and under educated as a means to maintain army numbers is a conspiracy theory ....should be a warning to anyone joining up!FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff