15 British soldiers dead in 10 days

gurramok

Why?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8146082.stm

All i can see is a waste of young lives. Brown says they are there to fight the Taliban but why don't they leave that to the Afghans to take care of?

You know what i mean(:)), beef up the Afghan security forces to a proficient level so there would be no reason for foreign troops to be 'assisting' them.

And this part

In the letter, he said: "So our purpose is clear: to prevent terrorism coming to the streets of Britain

Like, what? Proper checks on British soil will prevent terrorism entering Britain in the first place.

Opinions?

Latchy

The whole idea of having British forces fighting in Afghanistan is to get into the heart of the Taliban and insurgents and destroy their network of operations which would also go some way to serioiusly damaging their set up in Britain .That is the theory .

The reality ifrom the BA's perspective is that they are under strength ,under funded, lacking proper equipment and moral is down + the Taliban /i nsurgents are a difficult enemy to fight/kill ,which is all the more reason why - Quote high ranking BA officer '' must be and will be defeated ''

Armor plating underneath the British armys vehicles would go a long way to protecting against road side bombs ,something the americans have on most of theirs .

JonathanAnon

Well they knew what they were getting in to, and must surely have thought that their losses would have been more significant in light of what they did to the Russians. Granted the Afghans are not backed by the Americans this time.

And without hijacking your thread, I think there are a lot of holes in the assertion that 19 muslim men defeated both the American defense system and the laws of Physics to carry out the 9/11 attacks, the pretext for the invasion. Blair should have looked for more convincing evidence from the yanks for both Afghanistan and Iraq.

johnnyskeleton

gurramok wrote: »

All i can see is a waste of young lives. Brown says they are there to fight the Taliban but why don't they leave that to the Afghans to take care of?

Well, those 15 young british soldiers wanted to be soldiers. They wanted to fight, kill, risk their lives, and while they might not have wanted to die, they accepted the risk of it. Joe soap Afghani probably doesn't want to fight, kill, risk their life or die. So there is an element of those who live by the sword die by the sword to it.

Also, the british are not exactly innocent as regards the situation as it is in Afghanistan, and I for one would not condone the british invading whenever it suits and then pulling out whenever they decide they don't like the game anymore. This goes back to my belief that they shouldn't have invaded in the first place, but now that they are there they have to clean up their own mess.

gurramok

I know they signed on the dotted line and all, but isn't it about time the British people asked themselves why their soldiers are dying in such numbers?

Latchy

gurramok wrote: »

I know they signed on the dotted line and all, but isn't it about time the British people asked themselves why their soldiers are dying in such numbers?

The british people have being and are asking that question and they know the reason why .Defence cutbacks have made the BA more vunerable on the battlefield , hence the heavy casualities .

johnnyskeleton

gurramok wrote: »

I know they signed on the dotted line and all, but isn't it about time the British people asked themselves why their soldiers are dying in such numbers?

No, they should have asked themselves that 8 years ago, and for Iraq 6 years ago. When Robin Cooke MP stood up in the House of Commons and told his colleages that invading Iraq would be a disaster the (albeit narrow) majority disregarded him and plowed ahead. Afghanistan was less controversial but not without its naysayers.

In both cases there is an element of chickens coming home to roost. As regards the individual soldiers, there was no problem with any of them refusing active service on the grounds of conscientious objections as it only involved small parts of the british army. They didn't see anything objectionable with killing Afghanis (many of whom were citizens) so I don't have any particular sympathy for those british soldiers who are now being killed. Particularly as a hot blooded Irishman.

gurramok

Yes, but aren't the media glorifying these 'heroes'?

Latchy

gurramok wrote: »

Yes, but aren't the media glorifying these 'heroes'?

Glorifying is not the word , it's paying respect to the dead and their families .Dont you notice that the same media gives ample and coverage to other peoples of different races ,religious and political opinions in the same country ( uk) ?If as you say it's ' glorifying ' these ' heroes ' ( something the deceased would probably not wish to have being refered to as ) then perhaps the same media should not report on the slaughters and massacres of innocents by the military, be they British , American or other .

johnnyskeleton

gurramok wrote: »

Yes, but aren't the media glorifying these 'heroes'?

Are you suggesting that it is duplicitous of the british media to call them heroes while not calling for them to be brought home or questioning the cutbacks that Latchy refers to?

El Che

I dare say that this is a good thing.

old boy

Latchy wrote: »

Glorifying is not the word , it's paying respect to the dead and their families .Dont you notice that the same media gives ample and coverage to other peoples of different races ,religious and political opinions in the same country ( uk) ?If as you say it's ' glorifying ' these ' heroes ' ( something the deceased would probably not wish to have being refered to as ) then perhaps the same media should not report on the slaughters and massacres of innocents by the military, be they British , American or other .

yeah

asdasd

There are an amazing amount of republican hotheads on here. Not only should the British be in Afghanistan, we should. Unlike the Iraq war, which was causeless, AQfgnaistan had cause, and the loss of Afghanistan would be a disaster. AS Obama understands. It would be a disaster to the entire West. The Taleban would take over again, and it would be a lauching ground for terrorist actions against the West which would make 9/11 seem like a walk in the park with balloons.

gurramok

asdasd wrote: »

There are an amazing amount of republican hotheads on here.

Who?

Not only should the British be in Afghanistan, we should. Unlike the Iraq war, which was causeless, AQfgnaistan had cause, and the loss of Afghanistan would be a disaster. AS Obama understands. It would be a disaster to the entire West. The Taleban would take over again, and it would be a lauching ground for terrorist actions against the West which would make 9/11 seem like a walk in the park with balloons.

You actually believe this?

asdasd

You actually believe this?

Yes, I dont write stuff I dont believe.

If afghanistan is lost it goes to the Taleban/ AlQueda. They want nuclear weapons. At the moment were they to get them from Pakistan - a likely candidate - the Western forces there could try and do something about it. Removing western troops from Afghanistan would see the non-Taleban resistance destroyed within a week. If they smuggle a bomb in, it will never get found, and then all it needs to get to the West.

I think that a nuclear bomb in Europe, or a Western city is likely in my lifetime even with Western troops in Afghanistan, certain if they lose.

The taleban are not that nice.

stateofflux

i guess somebody missed 'dulce et decorum est' in 3rd year english....

gurramok

Pakistan are fighting them.

I think its an exaggeration that there is a terrorist threat from an impoverished nation like Afghanistan.

Where will they get a nuclear bomb from? It certainly ain't Pakistan!!

asdasd

http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-40495320090621?sp=true

There is plenty of indication of links between Pakistans security services and the Taleban.

asdasd

i guess somebody missed 'dulce et decorum est' in 3rd year english....

What now?

gurramok

asdasd wrote: »

http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-40495320090621?sp=true

There is plenty of indication of links between Pakistans security services and the Taleban.

Oh come on, a bit of rhetoric from Al-Queada does not equal an access to nuclear bombs!

RustyNut

"15 British soldiers dead in 10 days"


And how many Afghan's who didn't choose to fight but were bombed in their homes or tortured to death in foreigners jails. Have we ever heard the Taliban side or are we to go by what our imperialist neighbors tell us.
If ya live by the sword .....

El Che

asdasd wrote: »

What now?

Its a poem critical of the propagandists of WWI who produced the same rubbish which you are currently swallowing whole.

Biggins

I don't agree with a lot of things the way Bush and co started up this whole mess
However I would like to point out something at the current situation the British lads (and other nations troops) are in right now.


90% of the worlds Heroine drug trade comes from the Helmand province.
This is why the area is of strategic importance to Taliban/AlQueda. By going in now while they still can, the troops are helping the cut off an absolutely HUGE source of funding for Taliban/AlQueda.

Besides trying to ensure that an up coming nations vote takes place in some sort of more peaceful conditions (there will be trouble but lessened somewhat hopefully), there is a secondary purpose to the present troops taking the current action.

The primary reason is critical to defeating the Taliban/AlQueda. Drastically cut off their funding, secure the main growth areas and instigate proper farming practices that will actually feed their own people instead of making something that does not benefit the actual local people there themselves - and the troops are also helping the rest of the world to cut down on not one but TWO deadly menaces - deadly drugs and a terrorist organisation that is ruthless, secular, unpopular with its own people and has a twisted warped agenda.

Like I said at the start, I don't agree with the way things started but I can understand RIGHT NOW, why the current battles in the Helmand province is vital to that nation and also to the rest of the world.

In 2007, some 193,000 hectares in Afghanistan were devoted to the illicit cultivation of opium poppy, and the Central Asian nation now supplies an estimated 93 percent of the global illicit market for opiates, according to a report issued Wednesday by International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), an anti-drug organization under the UN.

Interesting reading:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L25708421.htm
http://www.rferl.org/content/Article/1078915.html
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/june252007/helmand_article_62507.php
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/06/content_7732466.htm
http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=74101

* Helmand produces more than half of the opium cultivated in Afghanistan, the source of about 90 percent of the global supply, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. In 2008 more than 103,000 hectares of poppy were cultivated. The drug crop is closely tied to the insurgency and the Taliban are mainly funded by the opium trade.

Source: http://mobile.reuters.com/mobile/m/FullArticle/CTOP/ntopNews_uUSTRE5606AN20090701?src=RSS-TOP

Manic Moran

All i can see is a waste of young lives. Brown says they are there to fight the Taliban but why don't they leave that to the Afghans to take care of?

You know what i mean(), beef up the Afghan security forces to a proficient level so there would be no reason for foreign troops to be 'assisting' them.

We're working on it, they're certainly willing to fight, though the tactical training is going slowly enough. The ANSF situation is, to put it mildly, convoluted, with some agencies being very proficient, and some being all-but-useless.

At this point, I don't see it as much as being an issue of protecting the West from Taliban nuclear attack. I see it as giving these people, some of the poorest in the world, a crack at a decent existance without the Taliban. Part of the briefing I received when I got here was a comparison of the standards of living both before the war and at the end of last year. The figures were astounding. The fact that Afghanistan is still one of the worst-off countries in the world should be an indicator as to just how badly off the place was before the invasion. (Not saying that it was anything to do with the cause, but now we're here and making a difference, I see no reason we shouldn't continue)

NTM

Martyr

I'm amazed at how thick some people are.

This whole invasion of afghanistan was planned well in advance of 9/11

What the hell makes you believe the US or UK are concerned about Afghan lifestyle? ffs :eek:

read here

its about gas and oil, its about energy, its about exploiting the poor nations, to keep the western nations running.

Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan possess large reserves of oil and natural gas, both on-shore and off-shore in the Caspian Sea, which they urgently seek to exploit. Uzbekistan has oil and gas reserves that may permit it to be self-sufficient in energy and gain revenue through exports. Estimates of Central Asian oil reserves vary widely, but are usually said to rival those of the North Sea or Alaska. More accurate estimates of oil and gas resources await wider exploration and the drilling of test wells.

Stated U.S. policy goals regarding energy resources in this region include fostering the independence of the States and their ties to the West; breaking Russia's monopoly over oil and gas transport routes; promoting Western energy security through diversified suppliers; encouraging the construction of east-west pipelines that do not transit Iran; and denying Iran dangerous leverage over the Central Asian economies.

In addition, as has been noted by Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, the United States seeks to discourage any one country from gaining control over the region, but rather urges all responsible States to cooperate in the exploitation of regional oil and other resources.

Central Asia would seem to offer significant new investment opportunities for a broad range of American companies which, in turn, will serve as a valuable stimulus to the economic development of the region. Japan, Turkey, Iran, Western Europe, and China are all pursuing economic development opportunities and challenging Russian dominance in the region. It is essential that U.S. policymakers understand the stakes involved in Central Asia as we seek to craft a policy that serves the interests of the United States and U.S. business.

On the other hand, some question the importance of the region to U.S. interests, and dispute the significance of its resources to U.S. national security interests. Others caution that it will take a great deal of time and money to bring these resources to world markets. Still others point to civil and ethnic conflicts in Tajikistan and Afghanistan as a reason to avoid involvement beyond a minimal diplomatic presence in the area.

open your eyes..it would do no harm.

you can see why US foreign policy is so focused on Iran, Afghanistan, Russia (Georgia), China...all we see is propaganda on tv/internet.

halkar

Biggins wrote: »

I don't agree with a lot of things the way Bush and co started up this whole mess
However I would like to point out something at the current situation the British lads (and other nations troops) are in right now.


90% of the worlds Heroine drug trade comes from the Helmand province.
This is why the area is of strategic importance to Taliban/AlQueda. By going in now while they still can, the troops are helping the cut off an absolutely HUGE source of funding for Taliban/AlQueda....

I don't buy this utter rubbish. It is easier to flat out thousands of hectars of fields than looking for rats in tiny holes. Can they not give them the smell of napalm in the mornings on these fields. If they are producing then there must be buyers and guess where those buyers are. Yes here in the west, so with your logic the problem is here in the west. Wouldn't it be easier to clear out the drug barons rather than spending billions of $$$, countless lives of civilians and soldiers?

That oil-gas theory is very much true. We are seeing a lot of $hit stiring by west in ME, Near-Mid Asia, Caspian all for energy resources. After all, oil-gas means a lot more to joe soap than to an Afghany possible never seen a light bulp in their life.

Gyalist

Biggins wrote: »

90% of the worlds Heroine drug trade comes from the Helmand province.
This is why the area is of strategic importance to Taliban/AlQueda. By going in now while they still can, the troops are helping the cut off an absolutely HUGE source of funding for Taliban/AlQueda.

Do you know that under the Taliban government heroin production in Afghanistan was significantly lower than at present? That the Taliban have now reversed their policy is not at all surprising. They're just copying the example of the Americans.

The primary reason is critical to defeating the Taliban/AlQueda. Drastically cut off their funding, secure the main growth areas and instigate proper farming practices that will actually feed their own people instead of making something that does not benefit the actual local people there themselves - and the troops are also helping the rest of the world to cut down on not one but TWO deadly menaces - deadly drugs and a terrorist organisation that is ruthless, secular, unpopular with its own people and has a twisted warped agenda.

Do you really believe that the nation that fought the Opium Wars against China is really concerned about drug production in Afghanistan and democracy? There is also credible evidence that the Karzai administration is deeply involved in the drug trade. The British and American governments have no problem with doing business with brutal regimes over the border in Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

Martyr wrote: »

I'm amazed at how thick some people are.

This whole invasion of afghanistan was planned well in advance of 9/11

What the hell makes you believe the US or UK are concerned about Afghan lifestyle? ffs :eek:

read here

its about gas and oil, its about energy, its about exploiting the poor nations, to keep the western nations running.

Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan possess large reserves of oil and natural gas, both on-shore and off-shore in the Caspian Sea, which they urgently seek to exploit. Uzbekistan has oil and gas reserves that may permit it to be self-sufficient in energy and gain revenue through exports. Estimates of Central Asian oil reserves vary widely, but are usually said to rival those of the North Sea or Alaska. More accurate estimates of oil and gas resources await wider exploration and the drilling of test wells.

Stated U.S. policy goals regarding energy resources in this region include fostering the independence of the States and their ties to the West; breaking Russia's monopoly over oil and gas transport routes; promoting Western energy security through diversified suppliers; encouraging the construction of east-west pipelines that do not transit Iran; and denying Iran dangerous leverage over the Central Asian economies.

In addition, as has been noted by Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, the United States seeks to discourage any one country from gaining control over the region, but rather urges all responsible States to cooperate in the exploitation of regional oil and other resources.

Central Asia would seem to offer significant new investment opportunities for a broad range of American companies which, in turn, will serve as a valuable stimulus to the economic development of the region. Japan, Turkey, Iran, Western Europe, and China are all pursuing economic development opportunities and challenging Russian dominance in the region. It is essential that U.S. policymakers understand the stakes involved in Central Asia as we seek to craft a policy that serves the interests of the United States and U.S. business.

On the other hand, some question the importance of the region to U.S. interests, and dispute the significance of its resources to U.S. national security interests. Others caution that it will take a great deal of time and money to bring these resources to world markets. Still others point to civil and ethnic conflicts in Tajikistan and Afghanistan as a reason to avoid involvement beyond a minimal diplomatic presence in the area.

open your eyes..it would do no harm.

you can see why US foreign policy is so focused on Iran, Afghanistan, Russia (Georgia), China...all we see is propaganda on tv/internet.

Exactly correct. This is the modern version of Kiplings's The Great Game and the ultimate prize is control of the region's energy resources, the Trans-Afghanistan pipeline, and surrounding Russia by NATO. Western concern about human rights is just a pretext.

Zambia

I reckon more young britsh lads die on the UK roads a year than at the hands of the big bad Taliban.

They died in the service of their country RIP.

irish_bob

asdasd wrote: »

There are an amazing amount of republican hotheads on here. Not only should the British be in Afghanistan, we should. Unlike the Iraq war, which was causeless, AQfgnaistan had cause, and the loss of Afghanistan would be a disaster. AS Obama understands. It would be a disaster to the entire West. The Taleban would take over again, and it would be a lauching ground for terrorist actions against the West which would make 9/11 seem like a walk in the park with balloons.

i completley agree , i find this countrys neutrality shamefull

Biggins

halkar wrote: »

I don't buy this utter rubbish. It is easier to flat out thousands of hectars of fields than looking for rats in tiny holes. Can they not give them the smell of napalm in the mornings on these fields. If they are producing then there must be buyers and guess where those buyers are. Yes here in the west, so with your logic the problem is here in the west. Wouldn't it be easier to clear out the drug barons rather than spending billions of $$$, countless lives of civilians and soldiers?

That oil-gas theory is very much true. We are seeing a lot of $hit stiring by west in ME, Near-Mid Asia, Caspian all for energy resources. After all, oil-gas means a lot more to joe soap than to an Afghany possible never seen a light bulp in their life.

I have (nor ever had) any doubts as to why this two country war started.
It was all about oil and gas - nothing more, no if's or buts.
Thats said I can understand the present fighting in the Helmand area.
The occupying forces are:
1. Trying to kill the enemy
2. Trying to regain back control of the land
3. Trying to rid of the drugs menace.

Now, I'm 100% positive that number 1 and 3 is purely for their own long term interests.
2 is just the good PR and media sound-bite for the world also.

---

* "Can they not give them the smell of napalm in the mornings on these fields?"

Answer: No. In all this madness, there is a legal doctrine somewhere that says the occupying troops can't attack the crops. Yes, stupid and madness in the midst of the current situation I agree! but the fact is: NATO forces in Afghanistan are not permitted to engage in crop eradication. Go figure!

* "Wouldn't it be easier to clear out the drug barons rather than spending billions of $$$, countless lives of civilians and soldiers?"

Lets be honest, the real drug barons are living in another country. Not in the hell hole of Afghanistan. If that was the case be by direct open attack or by disguise of an operation "gone wrong" (usual cover-all excuse), they would have taken the main world drug players out.

---

I have no doubts the history books, the ones not influenced by America and Britian, will record that this whole mess was/is indeed about oil.
(heck, after the troops went in at the port of Al Qushlah at the start of this mess, the Americans syphoned off from tankers and pipelines enough oil in 6 days to pay for the entire war preparations etc, so far. I have no doubt they have reached now some "special" deal with subsequent oil companies let back in and they still are gaining in one way or another big time).

Erin Go Brath

asdasd wrote: »

There are an amazing amount of republican hotheads on here. Not only should the British be in Afghanistan, we should. Unlike the Iraq war, which was causeless, AQfgnaistan had cause, and the loss of Afghanistan would be a disaster. AS Obama understands. It would be a disaster to the entire West. The Taleban would take over again, and it would be a lauching ground for terrorist actions against the West which would make 9/11 seem like a walk in the park with balloons.

No way in hell should Ireland touch any of those wars with a bargepole. If the Brits and the Yanks want to go adventuring in those far flung places let them. Ireland should retain her neutrality as much as its possible for us to retain it. I for one will not shed a tear for dead British soldiers on imperial (mis)adventures. My sympathies lie purely with the innocent non-combatants who get caught up in this unfortunate conflict.