observer Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 Seems the idea that we can train and mentor the creation of an Afghan Police Force and Army, have taken a knock with the sad news that 5 British soldiers were killed by a Taliban sleeper in their ranks. An objective that would at best take many years to achieve, would appear to be futile in the face of suspected insurgent enterism into these new forces at every level, exacerbated by a culture of corruption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry hayes Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 Infiltrators in Iraq as well, but they seem to cope better. We are in a war and wars have casualties. A withdrawal now would be seen as a defeat and raise insurgencies elsewhere. NATO countries should be more forthcoming than most are. All sad to say. Happy days Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 We are in "a war" by choosing to be fighting in a foreign country. It is much better to lose face than lives. Bring them home immediately Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 I'm with Harry When bombs start going off over here you lot will be the first to moan that the government are not doing enough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 Every Afghani and Iraqi should be shipped back to their own countries to fight their own wars which would reduce the potential of insurgencies. I would rather stop further soldiers being killed at the whim of Brown the Clown despite the risk from these "insurgents". The risk is a possibility the increasing number of servicemen being killed and maimed is fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 6, 2009 You seem to be turning naivity into an art form Kyje: 9/11 was launched from places other than Afghanistan: the London bombers were home grown: there are around 13 failed States in the World hosting Islamic extremists (do we go to war with them all?). As I suggested shortly after 9/11, when Bush sent the military charging into Afghanistan after Al Quaeda, and naturally incurred the wrath of a large part of their population IE: the Taliban. We went in after a shark, and have finished up fighting most of the fish. The way to fight a "war" against Al Queda (which incidentally, isn't some vast organisation, but an idea supported by small dispersed groups throughout the world); is through an efficient international intelligence network, backed by surgical strikes by special forces and high tech weaponry; NOT to blunder into into the valley of death without any clear idea of where we're going or what we wish to achieve. It's of no surprise though, that war dodger Bush, and never worn a uniform in anger Bliar/Brown & Co, have no idea how to resolve this issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted November 6, 2009 Report Share Posted November 6, 2009 Sorry Obs I had forgot that your expertise on this subject far out ways anything the American, British or NATO for that matter might have come up with Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 6, 2009 Do YOU know why WE are there? Cos Gordy's explanation is just full of holes - this involvement was a political decision - the military (incl NATO) do the bidding of the politicians, and maybe the odd General or two relish the idea of actually doing what they're trained for. I would suggest the real motivation is to secure the supply of oil from S/Russia through Afghanistan and Iraq. The cover story was to go chasing Al Quaeda into the mountains of Afghanistan, but the mission quickly changed to eliminating the Taliban and provide regime change to one more compliant with the interests of the West; problem is, that compliant Government wreaks of corruption and the Taliban see us as invaders and occupiers of THEIR land. They've portrayed Al Quaeda as some massive organisation controled by the elusive Mr Bin Laden; when the reality is more a case of seperate groups united by an idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted November 7, 2009 Report Share Posted November 7, 2009 Observer You make that sound like fact when in reality it?s nothing more than you are own personal take on the situation. My understanding is that both Pakistan and Afghanistan provide the central core training camps for fundamental Islamic groups who believe that terrorism is a legitimate means to achieving their goals. Afghanistan in particular seems to be the hotbed of this activity and even the vast majority of Afghani people support the British forces in their attempt to rid them of Taliban activity. I?ve had this same argument with you in the past where you?ve said that you believe the threat of terrorism in this country has been inflated for political reasons. While you?re entitled to your own opinion, it remains just that; an opinion, not fact. The decision to send in the troops was done so with broad support from all the main political parties (elected by the people of this country) and not just one person as you seem to imply. Like it or not, this country has become multi-cultural and no government (unless the National front is ever elected) is ever going to attempt to expel all foreign nationals. Even if the door were to be firmly closed, we?d still be left with the situation where our very neighbour may be a potential terrorist, so what do we do about that? I don?t pretend to have the answers to what?s a an extremely difficult and complex situation but what I do believe is that our troops are out there fighting to protect us from those that would do us harm. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 7, 2009 Even the ex-Met Commissioner (Bliar), has said on Q/Time, that the 9/11 bombers came from places OTHER than Afghanistan. The London bombers were HOME grown. There are around 13 "failed" States in the world that can provide sanctuary to terrorists and radicalisation doesn't require a trip abroad, it can happen in any Town in the UK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted November 7, 2009 Report Share Posted November 7, 2009 I'm with obs' logic on this. Blair and his sexed-up story got us into this mess, which then fuelled the hot-heads in this country, as well as the Middle East. We are now in the position of "playing" at it as we did in NI. They now say it needs a political solution. They just need to get it sorted, and if necessary, the West needs to get a lot more troops in there to sort the problem out, or leave them to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
safeway56 Posted November 7, 2009 Report Share Posted November 7, 2009 Doesn't matter how many troops are involved if the enemy can't be identified on a battlefield which nobody knows. Every Afghan male could be a potential enemy. When will be the time a victory can be declared? When every single Afghan male is killed ? Well. the best of luck in your crusade...you could be there for a hundred years. Afghanistan has been the graveyard for the west for 200 years and more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted November 7, 2009 Report Share Posted November 7, 2009 Even the ex-Met Commissioner (Bliar), has said on Q/Time, that the 9/11 bombers came from places OTHER than Afghanistan. The London bombers were HOME grown. There are around 13 "failed" States in the world that can provide sanctuary to terrorists and radicalisation doesn't require a trip abroad, it can happen in any Town in the UK Where did the people that trained the bombers come from Observer On Pirates you advocate killing them, On terrorists you advocate leaving them to go forth and multiply, Yours is a twisted logic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 8, 2009 Nope, yet more misrepresentation of my opinion, to suit your stance. IF you start actually reading my posts, you'll discover that the strategy I'm suggesting is one of a surgical annialation of Al Quaeda, using co-operative action by the combined intelligence services of the international community, and specific targeted elimination of terrorist cells by special forces. We're currently using a blunt instrument, when a scapel is required. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted November 8, 2009 Report Share Posted November 8, 2009 Well, Obs, there's no denying that you want our troops OUT of Afghanistan, but sent INTO Somalian waters to be fired upon by pirates... so you can see LK's confusion I think our lads should be sent only when there are overwhelming humanitarian reasons; they should be properly flaming well armed and supplied and they should be home again as fast as possible. Armies are for defence of the nation, not political showmanship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 8, 2009 I agree about the Army; BUT the security of international waters should fall on sombody and I guess that's the UN, and such security to protect our economic interests, would involve a contribution by OUR NAVY, from the safety of modern naval vessels with top of the range equipment and weaponry - so not much danger of losses - unless they have too much rum and fall overboard! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted November 8, 2009 Report Share Posted November 8, 2009 I agree about the Army; BUT the security of international waters should fall on sombody and I guess that's the UN, and such security to protect our economic interests, would involve a contribution by OUR NAVY, from the safety of modern naval vessels with top of the range equipment and weaponry - so not much danger of losses - unless they have too much rum and fall overboard! Or if they are boarded by sailors from an Iranian inflatable Dinghy!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted November 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 8, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted November 9, 2009 Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 I agree about the Army; BUT the security of international waters should fall on sombody and I guess that's the UN, and such security to protect our economic interests, would involve a contribution by OUR NAVY, from the safety of modern naval vessels with top of the range equipment and weaponry - so not much danger of losses - unless they have too much rum and fall overboard! I'm not sure about Somalia though - we are talking about corporate shipping and pleasure craft. The former should maybe fund their own security, as they are sailing there for profit, and the latter should go and sail somewhere else. No chance of being kidnapped off the Isle of Wight, is there?! I'm not sure I see the argument for the UK spending millions of pounds deploying there - and how long would it be before the lovely extremists offered to lend the pirates some hardware capable of real damage to ships we sent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 9, 2009 Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 You could argue that commercial shipping is paying for naval protection by virtue of taxation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted November 9, 2009 Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 Does shipping pay vat on fuel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 9, 2009 Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 Don't be silly There's more forms of taxation than VAT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted November 9, 2009 Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 I know there is I just wondered about VAT, are you going to answer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted November 9, 2009 Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 Sorry I didn't think you were being serious. Bunkers are duty free and that includes VAT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted November 9, 2009 Report Share Posted November 9, 2009 You could argue that commercial shipping is paying for naval protection by virtue of taxation Oh. They pay extra do they? Or are you saying all businesses are entitled to a naval escort? I run a business, I pay tax at the same rate as they do, so can I have a gunboat to accompany me as I walk along the canal bank to the shops? Or a nuclear sub and a decoy boat in case of trouble? When I can, they can! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.