Today I read in the Times that the defence secretary Dr Liam Fox considers withdrawall from Afghanistan would be a betrayal of the dead.
Well I would be the last person to show any disrespect to our fallen soldiers.
But the fact is this that they are dead precisely because they were sent to Akghanistan. These victims of political dogma, if they had a voice would in unison call for the withdrawel of all service personnel from this war. What ever the outcome there is no way there (trust I have got the correct "there" this time Bob) sacrifice is worth it. No one asks to be killed in combat,only politicians have the right to put our boys at risk what ever the fallacy of the political cause.
Surely we can learn from history. This is our third attempt to subdue these rebel Pashtuns and this will be our third time we will be defeated.
We will remember those who have died. Note I do not refer to the political phrase "Gave there lives" because every one to a man did not Give" his life it was taken from them for a futile cause.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
Jimmy the fairly open message from the new coalition government, both Mr Cameron himself and foreign secretary William Hague, is that we will be out of there by 2014. This is some sort of move forward. Not sure if Fox is singing from the same hymnsheet though..as the above seems an odd thing to say. Because no matter what, we would have to leave one day...so would the term betrayal apply when that time comes as well. Seems a bizarre thing to say and maybe its out of context.
I think it has become clear to many now...we saw General McChrystal's sacking last week for stepping out of the official line, that this war is going nowhere. It will be ongoing forever like those eternal wars of fiction, unless somebody at some point pulls clear of it. It is also clear that this so called 'Special Relationship' with America is keeping us there.
The loss of life is tragic and although I hate to say it Im not sure if it has accomplished much at all.
Ermmm ooops no youve got the wrong 'there' Jimmy...it should be "their sacrifice"..but its alright you wont go to the stocks.
Paul B,
Hope "Bob" does not spot my boob, had my knuckles rapped already for the same error.
Paul B,
It would appear that you are falling into the age old trap of believing what a politician says. Cameron and Haig say one thing and Fox says another. Surely you should be aware that it will be the americans who will decide when we withdraw. Not some two bit british politician, who despite what they would like to happen will have there strings pulled by the man in the white house,like it or not.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i am totally with jimmy on this one, it was never winnable, we could be there in a hundred years time the result would be the same.
the taleban quite rightly have refused to negotiate with nato as they know they have the whip hand and have no need of talks.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
If you actually read what they are saying there is only a difference in emphasis Jimmy. I also suggest that you are totally wrong in what you say, withdrawal will be decided by us.
The reason we are in Afghanistan cannot be spoken of too loudly by politicians for diplomatic reasons. It is not the 'Ghan itself, the problem is Pakistan, a nuclear power. If the Pakistani Taliban were to organise and overthrow the government then they would have their hands on nuclear weapons and what that would mean for terrorism. Better to keep pressure on the Taliban in Afghanistan than to risk that while training up the Afghanis to take over and winning over the ordinary population to the 'Ghan government, the hearts and minds political aim that is essential for a longer term solution.
This is not easy at all. Hopefully DC is right and our troops wont be needed there in 5 years time but I have doubts.
Guest 690- Registered: 10 Oct 2009
- Posts: 4,150
It can`t be a betrayal of the dead. If it was, then why aren`t we occupying Germany?
Tell them that I came, and no one answered.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
colin,part of the nato agreement.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
hearts and minds?
that cannot happen, they despise westerners in afghanistan, quite rightly so.
i doubt that any invading force with tea towels on their heads and sporting weapons and,(worst of all) beards would convince us to adopt their way of life.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Barry, our soldiers should quit Afghanistan on the spot, at the double! The Pakistan atom bomb is another matter and has nothing to do with pashtun Taliban, as these,when operating in Pakistan, are fighting in pashtun or Pashtun-similar areas of Pakistan, but not in those areas of pakistan where the non-Pashtun pakistanis live. The Pakistani atom-bomb therefore could not fall in the hands of the Pashtun Taliban!
As for Afghanistan, it is murder of our soldiers, and add to that the many who are injured! Yes, murder! Our soldiers are being murdered!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Alexander you are underestimating the ambitions of the Islamists extremists.
Barry W,
God I do hope you are right when you state that withdrawal will be decided by the UK government of the day.
It does not really matter about what emphasise you care to interpretate. The point is we should not be asking any one to die for a nation whose culture is based on the gun and not to national loyalty, but tribal loyalty.
It is a fallacy to state that Afghanistan is any more of a threat to this nation than Pakistan and all the other "stans" you care to think of.
The question of Pakistans nuclear capabilities is closely monitored by most of the nuclear powers who have more to loose than Britian.To suggest that there is a chance that the taliban or Al Quiada could gain access to such weapons is totally wrong. Are we seriously suggesting that India,China who have borders with Pakistan will sit idly by and give the taliban a free ride?? I dont think so
As for the argument that Afghanistan will send its suicide bombers to Britian, ( no such threat has yet to materialise from Afghanistan) suicide bombers can come from any country you care to mention. Remember the shoe bomber Richard Reid?? came from this country.
So faced with this assortment of countries who are capable of sending suicide bombers here, why are we concentrating our efforts in fighting a people who just want to get on with what seems an acceptable way of life to them, but abhorrant to us?? At the end of the day what happens there is none of our business and that is why I do not consider one british life lost can ever be justified, "BRING THE BOYS HOME."
Guest 672- Registered: 3 Jun 2008
- Posts: 2,119
Just a little bit of input here.
Wev'e had the poloticians views and the public views, has any one thought to ask the views of the serving forces?
I listened to a radio interview a few weeks ago with a well known person who entertains the troops out there,
He said the same above and made a point of aking the forces just what they thought. Privates,NCO's and officers.
The reply was resounding.................We aint going home til the job is finished.
My feeling is, THEY MEAN IT.
grass grows by the inches but dies by the feet.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
professional pride from the troops ian, most of them are very young as we see when the fatalities are announced.
how many are aware of the history of the country and that the tribes have never and will never doff their collective hats to foreigners.
it is now up to 3 coalition troops a day coming back in body bags, the unbeatable redcoats and the soviet red army got shafted there, surely this pointless bloodshed should come to a close.
Ian, do please move into the real world. As an ex serviceman I know exactly what those service men probably said. What they meant is another matter.
It reminds me of when the C.O. came round and asked us squaddies about the food "Any complaints"?? "No Sir" was always the reply bearing in mind that the RSM was immediately behind the CO and god help any one who dared to question the quality of the cuisine, although we all knew it was "Bloody Shit"
I am sure that the squaddies of today if told by the politicians that they were going home immediately would not be inclined to say "no sir we refuse to go home until we have finished the job" my arse they would??
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
going of the point slightly, jimmy makes a valid point about the food served to our troops.
an aquaintance of mine (based in the shed) ian will know what i mean by that term, constantly bemoans the inedible grub that they have to survive.
the american troops are fed grub conjured up by top chefs that know how to prepare quality stuff that will still taste good on opening in hostile territory.
little things like that must matter to people who are risking their lives.
Guest 672- Registered: 3 Jun 2008
- Posts: 2,119
Jimmy, I'm not talking about food or what used to happen once upon a moon and the CSM or the RSM that used to follow the duty officer around at meal times. I used to be asked that question and I told the truth. It got better.
I know 6 people that have served their full time or on the verge of that, 4 have done 3 tours of Afghan. one has done 5 and can't wait to go back.
My recent thread about the Changing of the colours, I saw a young guy of 18 in a wheel chair and proud to wear his medal, all privates and NCO's wearing their campaign medals and proud, any one over 30 with middle east and NI campaign medals.
DO NOT tell me to move into the real world..........One day it may not be here.
grass grows by the inches but dies by the feet.
Dear Ian,
Things change ,you say that you would tell the truth to your officers, well that is fine and I am glad to hear it.
The army that I served in had different standards and one had to be very careful about what one said to officers. I think generally the officer core of my day looked down on the other ranks with inbred disdain and the other ranks looked upon there officers with contempt, at least that is what it was like in the highland regiments. that was not true all the time but it was a general acceptance of how the army worked in those days.
You mention how proud todays soldiers are to wear thier campaign medals
you are surely not implying that when I or others of my age group were soldiers we were not proud to wear our campaign medals of the day?? far from it. the only difference between todays service men and servicemen of my day is time "They serve, We served"
At the risk of annoying all ex-servicemen and serving troops, you/they all signed up because you wanted something out of life, a bit more than pen pushing. Or, maybe you/they were conscripted. Whatever, does it matter?
At the end of the day the job is killing the enemy, whoever they may be. Unfortunately the downside is your enemy wants to kill you too. But, hey ho, no-one is in the armed forces to knit jumpers and bake cakes. It's about fighting at the end of the day, and career service-people are okay with the concept of taking someone else's life or losing theirs.
Why should we be so soft-hearted about this? Although we were lied into taking action by Blair and Bush the fact remains that long before the two idiots got together the Taliban were causing big trouble, within and without Afghanistan. They also openly supported Al Quaeda, a sworn enemy of ours and the USA. So, although the process was wrong, we are justifiably taking the Taliban on head to head and it will cost lives. Erm, guys, we are at war.
What I hear from "bring the troops home" supporters is the usual we don't mind fighting wars so long as none of ours are killed. The guys at the sharp end just see a job to do and want to be properly equipped then left to get on with it. After all, this is what they signed up for, action!
So, let's stop the bleating and support our brave boys and girls 100% until the job is done. Then they can come home with pride rather than like the Ruskies, with tails between their legs.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
Sid
I think you are bang on.An old colleague of mine who retired after 22yrs at sea was livid that he left only a couple of years before the Falklands War broke out. He was itching to get back in has he had never previously shot anything in anger.
As much as I am against war and the taking of life when the lads and lassies accept the Queens shilling they know what they are letting themselves in for!!!Lets just ensure that they are the best trained and best equipped and armed with the best intel available in order to carry out their duties to the best of their ability. Its got to be far better than being posted to the jungles of Belize on constant exercise or stuck in Baden-Baden for 7 years training chasing the frauliens and fighting the locals every weekend in the bars and beerkellers.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
