Was it worth it?

[observer]

A leaked NATO intelligence report suggests that the Taliban are biding there time until NATO forces depart in 2013/14. They also suggest that the new NATO trained Afghan security forces have large numbers of Taliban supporters embedded within them and that support for the Taliban in rural areas is widespread. There is even suspicion that many Gov politicians are now preparing to go over to the Taliban when they eventually take over. So after around 10 years of bloodshed, nearly 400 British soldiers dead and more horribly wounded - was it worth it? The original intent (albeit a moving mission statement) was to end the use of Afghanistan by Al Quaeda and other groups as a centre for the export of terrorism. Al Quaeda have new centres in Yemen and Somalia; and as the recent conviction of four "home grown" would be terrorists suggests, it may have been more productive to deploy our security forces within the UK.

[asperity]

Of course it wasn't worth it. Nothing our political class initiates is worth the cost and effort the electorate is subjected to. The time has come to get rid of the parasites who have taken over our lives (how long before Huhne is welcomed back into the fold? Only as long as it takes for the tabloids to find another headline I suspect). :evil:

[algy]

Of course it wasn't worth it. Nothing our political class initiates is worth the cost and effort the electorate is subjected to. The time has come to get rid of the parasites who have taken over our lives (how long before Huhne is welcomed back into the fold? Only as long as it takes for the tabloids to find another headline I suspect). :evil:

I agree completely Asp, all the government of an any political party does with any of their miscreants is to 'sin-bin' the culprit then bring them back into play when they have been seen to have served their penance. Regarding our so called 'crusade' in Afghanistan, we are drip feeding the lives of our service people in a country that has never been defeated in modern times and probably never will be, as obs has stated we would have been have been more gainfully employed be removing and resolving the threat from our own country by concentrating on our home front instead of trailing along behind the USA.

[observer]

Perhaps it's time "the West" (UN), stopped interfering militarily in the affairs of other Countries - replacing stable secular (and albeit corrupt) Dictators and leaving behind sectarian anarchy.

[inky pete]

Yes it was worth it.

 

Back in the 80's and 90's we had an Army, Navy and Air Force stuffed full of Cold War warriors. Guys who were pretty sure they'd never be called upon to actually fight, who served their hitches in the bars of Germany with the BAOR, on the beaches of Belize, in Hong Kong, and taking part in exercises all over the world. They were poorly trained, poorly equipped, many of them were out of shape. They put in their years and then collected their pensions, that's all their expectations were.

 

Now, however, we have a whole new generation of soldiers, sailors and airmen.

 

They're tough, they're fit, they're better trained and equipped than they've ever been, they've been under fire, they've killed, and they've bled. They truely are Warriors, and we now have armed forces to be proud of again.

 

Bring on the Argies!

[algy]

Yes it was worth it.

 

 

Now, however, we have a whole new generation of soldiers, sailors and airmen.

 

They're tough, they're fit, they're better trained and equipped than they've ever been, they've been under fire, they've killed, and they've bled. They truely are Warriors, and we now have armed forces to be proud of again.

 

Bring on the Argies!

A bit of an understatement there inky!,

 

"they've killed, and they've bled!"

 

Don't you mean - "they've killed and they've been killed"

The relatives of those that perished over would have been more than satisfied, if all those that had died had only bled.

[Wireboy]

Yes it was worth it.

 

Back in the 80's and 90's we had an Army, Navy and Air Force stuffed full of Cold War warriors. Guys who were pretty sure they'd never be called upon to actually fight, who served their hitches in the bars of Germany with the BAOR, on the beaches of Belize, in Hong Kong, and taking part in exercises all over the world. They were poorly trained, poorly equipped, many of them were out of shape. They put in their years and then collected their pensions, that's all their expectations were.

 

Now, however, we have a whole new generation of soldiers, sailors and airmen.

 

They're tough, they're fit, they're better trained and equipped than they've ever been, they've been under fire, they've killed, and they've bled. They truely are Warriors, and we now have armed forces to be proud of again.

 

Bring on the Argies!

 

I think there plenty going on in the 80 's and 90's to keep the service men on there toes.

 

The Falklands was a short but brutal conflict and Northern Ireland dragged out for all of the 80's and 90's

 

Today they are good troops but no more than the previous generation IMO.

[observer]

Never thought of it that way before Ink; keep having "wars" just to keep your Armed Forces in top condition; the ones that arn't killed and maimed that is.

[asperity]

As Obama has decided not to support the UK in the dispute over the Falklands, perhaps now is the time for the UK to withdraw its support for Obama in Afghanistan. The troops could then be removed to the Falklands giving Argentina food for thought

[Cleopatra]

As Obama has decided not to support the UK in the dispute over the Falklands, perhaps now is the time for the UK to withdraw its support for Obama in Afghanistan. The troops could then be removed to the Falklands giving Argentina food for thought

 

I'm with you on that!

[observer]

The Yanks are quitting Afghanistan ASAP; they've learnt the lesson that the so called war on terror requires surgical operations led by the intelligence agencies and special forces; and that the commitment of large numbers of conventional troops to ground operations is not only futile, but expensive in money terms and lives. Hopefully, the UK have learnt the same lesson and the Defence review will have altered force configurations to reflect this.

[asperity]

Where did you cut and paste that from Obs?

[observer]

If I knew how to "cut & paste" - I'd tell you!

[inky pete]

A bit of an understatement there inky!,

 

"they've killed, and they've bled!"

 

Don't you mean - "they've killed and they've been killed"

The relatives of those that perished over would have been more than satisfied, if all those that had died had only bled.

 

The CURRENT soldiers, sailors and airmen who make up our fighting units haven't been killed. Many of them have bled, but it's quite hard to continue to be an active member of the Armed Forces once you've been killed!

[algy]

The CURRENT soldiers, sailors and airmen who make up our fighting units haven't been killed. Many of them have bled, but it's quite hard to continue to be an active member of the Armed Forces once you've been killed!

Inky you should have been a politician, you did not say currently serving in the armed forces your statement was :-

Now, however, we have a whole new generation of soldiers, sailors and airmen.

[inky pete]

So how can someone who is dead be part of the new generation of soldiers, sailors and airmen we have now? Does the word "now" not imply a degree of being current?

 

I chose my words quite carefully, not my fault if you didn't read them with the same care!

[observer]

It's a new innovation: we could have the Police starting riots, and the Fire Service starting fires, just to keep then on top form!

[inky pete]

I think there plenty going on in the 80 's and 90's to keep the service men on there toes.

 

The Falklands was a short but brutal conflict and Northern Ireland dragged out for all of the 80's and 90's

 

 

The Falklands involved just a few thousand of our combat troops, less than a quarter of our navy, none of our heavy armoured brigades, hardly any of our artillery, very few helicopters, and - apart from a single Vulcan mission - none of our Air Force at all.

 

And Northern Ireland could hardly be descibed as warfare, no real combat power was ever brought to bear against the terrorists - it was mainly squaddies stood around on street corners in Belfast getting shot at and blown up.

[algy]

So how can someone who is dead be part of the new generation of soldiers, sailors and airmen we have now? Does the word "now" not imply a degree of being current?

 

I chose my words quite carefully, not my fault if you didn't read them with the same care!

General-isation Inky, General-isation.

Ah! yes, the word "now" may imply a degree of being current, however there are 360 degrees in a continuum, with 359 degrees remaining that leaves a rather a large amount of your statement open to interpretation!. :grin:

[observer]

Many of our troops in the Falklands (particularly the Guards units) were found to be unfit for the route marching required - this argues for a strict and rigouress training programme in PEACE TIME. War doesn't automatically imply the maintainance of rigouress exercise programmes, as you seem to accept was the case in N/Ireland, and in the main applies in Afghanistan. One of the main reasons for the success of "the thin red line", was the ability to fire 3 rounds per minute from a Brown Bess musket; a capability derived from peace time training standards, rather than some notion of on the job training.