15 British soldiers dead in 10 days

halkar

Biggins wrote: »

---

* "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.

---

There are also many legal doctrines against civilian casualties however it is easier to bomb an house down with all family in it just because one thinks that there "may" be a terorist in it. Oooops finger slipped sorry excuse after bodies of children taking out of ruins. This legal doctrine or whatever they call it may be valid for legal crops like grain and corn etc but since when growing un-monitored un-controled hashish become legal? You know what happens when you grow in your attic. So they set the rules, life of civilians are much less important than protecting hashish crops while knowing that these crops are coming back as bullet in the heads.

I say the governments have far more information about drug dealers than they will ever collect about Taliban. Why not bomb the $hit out of them? No trial, no mercy same as in Afghanistan. It's a win win, clear the drugs out of streets, no more money for Taliban, less money for terorists, less guns for them. Billions saved from military cost can be put better use for humanity.

I rather like to see soldiers in the streets fighting with drug than getting killed some thousands of miles away without even really knowing for what reason they are there for.

Manic Moran

Zambia232 wrote: »

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

We were talking about that in the chow hall the other day. Even counting accidents, it's still statistically safer to be an American soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan than it is to spend your day on a highway, or to live in some American cities. Makes you wonder.

Can they not give them the smell of napalm in the mornings on these fields.

All you'd do then is piss off the farmers. The farmers growing the opium aren't Taliban, they're just trying to earn money and have a half-decent life. You can't blame them. There are military agricultural teams out and about trying to show farmers how to produce even higher-profit crops, even if a bit more finnicky to grow. Last year was the first time since the invasion that the wheat crop was bigger than the opium crop, at least in RC-East, it apparently helps that opium prices recently plummeted to 10% of what they used to be a couple of years ago.

The 'oil/gas' people are drinking their own kool-aid. If you have to attribute a natural resource to the Afghan invasion, might I suggest copper? Afghanistan has the purest copper resources in the world, and some of the largest, a commodity in surprisingly short supply these days.

No way in hell should Ireland touch any of those wars with a bargepole

The Irish military has had a small detachment in Afghanistan for several years.

NTM

asdasd

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.

More than the Brits, Mate. In Afghanistan, we have most of the West. NATO is in there.

For the reasons I mentioned. Both time Ireland stopped hiding behind the shirttails of the rest of the West and got involved. The change in regime was subject to a UN rsolution. Ireland needs to step up, and be counted. Otherwise Ireland should be excluded from all other Western Agencies.

asdasd

The Irish military has had a small detachment in Afghanistan for several years.

Fair enough. Didnt know that.

Sand

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 .

Close...mines/IEDs can take out heavily armoured vehicles like tanks (The British lost Warriors and even Challenger tanks to IEDs in Basra) and putting on a sufficient amount of armour plate to protect a landrover would make it extremely heavy/slow. That doesnt mean IEDs cant be protected against though.

You should pick up a book called Ministry of Defeat by Richard North. Its an excellent book highlighting two shameful aspects of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars - firstly that British troops were sent out to risk IEDs in wholly unsuitable vehicles and the establishment ( military and political) refused to even recognise the problem let alone solve it. This contributed to the BA defeat in Basra. And secondly, the near total media blackout on the situation, where the media meekly accepted what they were told - where they were interested at all, being more interested in numberical milestones and the validity of the wars in the first place.

The British Army tends to make some appalling equipment choices for its troops - British troops were forced to do patrols in landrovers like the Snatch in Basra and search for IEDs by using dismounted troops, and took many unecessary casualties as a result. When this gradually dawned on the media (very slowly, and not completely - like grasping the trunk of elephant and figuring its probably a snake) the BA refused to accept there was a problem. Even if there was a problem, they refused to accept there was a solution ( see the problem with armouring vehicles above). A tank can be killed by a mine, so no vehicle can protect against a mine. The media tended to accept that.

There is a solution though - ever since the 1970s there has been a whole line of vehicles designed to protect against mines and IEDs. They are not so much armoured as the hull is shaped in such a fashion to deflect the force of the explosion away harmlessly. So they retain mobility. They are also designed to take a blast and yet be easy to get back operational once more.

The Americans recognised the problem (Rumsfeld being criticised by US soldiers at a speech sparked a recognition of a problem - Gates made solving it a priority), ordered new vehicles designed to survive IEDs and deployed them - their casualties went down as a result (there are examples of such vehicles hitting an IED, being flipped onto its side by the force of the explosion and yet all occupants surviving with minor injuries where previously if they survived they would have had serious wounds).

The British dragged their feet, ignored the existence of such vehicles for as long as possible and continued to send their troops out to do patrols in landrovers. US morale goes up when they see that their problem is being recognised and fixed, British morale goes down when they see their problem is being ignored. At least one British officer in Basra when ordered to take a patrol out in land rovers demanded that he get the orders in writing and with a risk asessement attached - the order for the land rover patrol was then sidelined. Another officer quit, blaming the BA for providing his unit with lousy equipment which contributed to the deaths of his men.

Even in Afghanistan they sent out new vehicles to the BA where the driver was positioned almost completely over the front wheel ( wheel hits mine, driver right over mine..) and which had next to no protection from such mines. The BA have sent over new vehicles to Afghanistan, trumpeting their attributes (North is scathing on some claims) and which encounter the reality in Afghanistan and are withdrawn rapidly. And thats when things are good, when things are bad the BA is forced to retain the vehicles.

The BA have since stopped reporting the type of vehicles in which casualties are taken. They have also stopped providing much in the way of detail on how casualties are suffered. When a soldier is forced to dismount from his vehicle to check for an IED by hand and is shot as a result, its reported as a gun shot wound. No context is provided because people might query why troops are forced to check for IEDs by hand when there are tools and vehicles that can check for them remotely (again, the US deployed a vehicle with a manueverable "claw" that could be used to check suspicious areas for IEDs whilst safely inside the vehicle).

From the BBC article

BBC correspondent Ian Pannell, who is embedded with British troops in Afghanistan, said the main threat came from improvised explosive devices (IEDs) hidden in the ground.

As such, BA casualties in Afghanistan are going to be fairly predictable because they send out their troops to do patrols in vehicles unsuitable for the job. There is a blindspot in the BAs bureacracy and planning - either they dont consider IEDs/mines to be a serious problem, or they do consider them a problem but some other concern prevents them from solving it. It cant be that they are unaware of such vehicles - the BA actually bought and deployed such vehicles for use in Bosnia. It later got rid of them. It cannot be budgetary because the BA has ordered and deployed unarmoured landrovers that are almost twice as expensive as IED protected vehicles. Political perhaps...support of innefficient domestic arms industry? A focus on bringing in some earmarked piece of gear 5 years down the line, and they guys on the ground having to make do until then? Who knows.

The media is pretty compliant with the standard BA policy on IEDs. "They cant be protected against, they cant be equipped for, deaths to IEDs cannot be minimised." The media will note numbers ( 15 dead in 10 days...) but they've yet to move beyond that and carry out any deeper analysis. Even in that BBC piece, the reporter notes that IEDs are the problem but its never asked what can be done to help, what is the BA doing, etc, etc.

Small, slow steps are being taken - apparently there will be a suitable vehicle deployed sometime in 2011. In the meantime British troops will continue to die in uneccessary numbers because the BA refuses to give them proper vehicles to patrol in and there is no political pressure to do so.

North is generally scathing about the BA bureacracy and strategy for fighting insurgencies (important to note he is very supportive of the troops coping under such conditions). He believes it is self evident that the BA was nearly totally defeated in Basra.

Apparently in Iraq, the BA credibility took a hammering - at the start the Americans were eager to learn from the BA and their Northern Ireland experiences, by the end the Americans were rolling their eyes at being lectured to by an army that had lost control of Basra and was hanging on by its finger tips in its final base. The difference being the Americans had made complete errors in their occupation, but they learned and adjusted - the British made complete errors in their occupation, but refused to learn or adjust.

North believes the same mindset in strategy and equipment continues to prevail in Afghanistan which doesnt bode well for the future.

MysticalRain

I have no problem calling the war in Iraq imperialism. But I've always been supportive of the war in Afghanistan.

15 soldiers dead in 10 days is not much for an army that lost tens of thousands of dead in one single morning in the battle of the Somme. The real question is whether or not these deaths will actually achieve anything. The British efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq have always been undermanned and underfunded and so consequently were doomed to failure. If they want to play war games with the Americans, and they need to spend the money and stop trying to fight wars on the cheap.

Tarzan007

Manic Moran wrote: »

We were talking about that in the chow hall the other day. Even counting accidents, it's still statistically safer to be an American soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan than it is to spend your day on a highway, or to live in some American cities. Makes you wonder.



All you'd do then is piss off the farmers. The farmers growing the opium aren't Taliban, they're just trying to earn money and have a half-decent life. You can't blame them. There are military agricultural teams out and about trying to show farmers how to produce even higher-profit crops, even if a bit more finnicky to grow. Last year was the first time since the invasion that the wheat crop was bigger than the opium crop, at least in RC-East, it apparently helps that opium prices recently plummeted to 10% of what they used to be a couple of years ago.

The 'oil/gas' people are drinking their own kool-aid. If you have to attribute a natural resource to the Afghan invasion, might I suggest copper? Afghanistan has the purest copper resources in the world, and some of the largest, a commodity in surprisingly short supply these days.



The Irish military has had a small detachment in Afghanistan for several years.

NTM

What's the total number of Americans killed in Afganistan ? Or if anyone has a list of the totals killed over there ?

Sand

The magic of google...

jabbertalky

Soldiers wouldn't be dying if not for Blair and Bush. They started this, the stupid ****ing right wingers, could all have been stopped in time if we'd had anybody sensible in government.

oncevotedff

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?

Because it didn't work before and it won't work in future.

gurramok wrote: »

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

Opinions?

So you think they should move the battlefield from Afghanistan to Britain. Good idea.

Micky Dolenz

How many Afghans have died as a result of the war in the last ten days?

As a matter of interest as opposed to flameing.

All the lost souls, RIP

Manic Moran

There is a solution though - ever since the 1970s there has been a whole line of vehicles designed to protect against mines and IEDs. They are not so much armoured as the hull is shaped in such a fashion to deflect the force of the explosion away harmlessly. So they retain mobility. They are also designed to take a blast and yet be easy to get back operational once more.

The problem is that the MRAP (to use the American program name) is an answer to a very, very specific question which can only really be addressed by a country which is willing to spend a whole crapload of cash on it. We now have a whole slew of million-dollar vehicles in the inventory which are useless at everything that the US military is likely to do except drive up and down Highway 1 in Iraq, and maybe invade Southern Africa. The damned things are useless offroad, too huge to go into towns, and have a nasty habit of falling off cliffs in Afghanistan. You simply cannot afford, if you are an average country, to have a sufficiently large fleet of MRAPs and a sufficiently large fleet of everything-else-you-need-to-fight-a-war.

The Hummer has actually been adapted rather well to take blasts in recent variants such as the M1151P Frag-5. Many of the trucks which have run over mines have had their entire front ends blown away and the vehicle flipped, but the armoured crew compartment remained intact: The wheel well seems to work as the sloped armour. And it's still small enough to travel where it needs to go.

The latest MRAP variant ordered by the US is much more reasonable. It's the M-ATV, and is about the size of a HMMWV. It might actually be useful, but they've only ordered them last week, the prototype is barely a year old.

The Americans recognised the problem (Rumsfeld being criticised by US soldiers at a speech sparked a recognition of a problem - Gates made solving it a priority),

Slightly disagree. The media and politicians talked up a problem, and as a result we soldiers have been landed with so much armour that we are absolutely incapable of taking the fight to the enemy. Even if the vehicles can get to where we're going to get out, chasing the opposition over mountains wearing all our get-up is an exercise in futility. You've got people up to the Commandant of the Marine Corps saying we've got too much armour, and the Marines have also started cancelling MRAP orders, saying that the vehicles are basically an inefficient use of money, no matter how politically expedient they may be. All we are doing is becoming heavily armoured targets. People seem to forget that our job is not to 'not get killed', if that were the case we'd not be over there in the first place.

Even in Afghanistan they sent out new vehicles to the BA where the driver was positioned almost completely over the front wheel ( wheel hits mine, driver right over mine..) and which had next to no protection from such mines.

I believe you're referring to MWMIKs? (AKA Jackals). They're still in Afghanistan, the Brits have just ordered another batch of a slightly updated version for delivery this year. They seem like reasonable vehicles.

When a soldier is forced to dismount from his vehicle to check for an IED by hand and is shot as a result, its reported as a gun shot wound.

The vast majority of munitions found by US forces are found by standard patrols, not the engineers in their route clearance packages. We swear by the British practise of dismounting to check, getting out of the vehicle is ruthlessly enforced. The Mk1 Eyeball is still the king of IED sweeps.
Besides, the Husky and Buffalo are too damned big to go everywhere that we go. Great for the main road, not much use up an Afghan valley. And to find the enemy, you've got to get off the main road.

BBC correspondent Ian Pannell, who is embedded with British troops in Afghanistan, said the main threat came from improvised explosive devices (IEDs) hidden in the ground.

This applies to the US as well.

Political perhaps...support of innefficient domestic arms industry?

British Aerospace makes a number of the MRAP vehicles used by the Americans.

NTM

Manic Moran

Depends on what level order of effects you're talking about.

As a result of the fighting specifically in the current Helmland campaign, I cannot find anything directly on point.

On the other hand, if you want to go into long-order effects, the infant mortality rate since the NATO militaries went in (Remember, the military isn't only sending trigger-pullers, on my little base we've about 100 trigger-pullers, and another 150 military 'aid and development' persons) has dropped by some 23%. Over ten days, that's about 1,600 lives.

NTM

Micky Dolenz

Manic Moran wrote: »

Depends on what level order of effects you're talking about.

As a result of the fighting specifically in the current Helmland campaign, I cannot find anything directly on point.

On the other hand, if you want to go into long-order effects, the infant mortality rate since the NATO militaries went in (Remember, the military isn't only sending trigger-pullers, on my little base we've about 100 trigger-pullers, and another 150 military 'aid and development' persons) has dropped by some 23%. Over ten days, that's about 1,600 lives.

NTM

Was this answering my question? If so, thanks.

you are actually there on active service?

Sand

The problem is that the MRAP (to use the American program name) is an answer to a very, very specific question which can only really be addressed by a country which is willing to spend a whole crapload of cash on it. We now have a whole slew of million-dollar vehicles in the inventory which are useless at everything that the US military is likely to do except drive up and down Highway 1 in Iraq, and maybe invade Southern Africa. The damned things are useless offroad, too huge to go into towns, and have a nasty habit of falling off cliffs in Afghanistan. You simply cannot afford, if you are an average country, to have a sufficiently large fleet of MRAPs and a sufficiently large fleet of everything-else-you-need-to-fight-a-war.

It might be a specific question ( survive an IED hit...well the crew survive anyhow) but its a very pertinent one in which the the main enemy a western force is likely to face in nearly any modern theatre is not going to be able to compete in a direct confrontation, but is instead going to rely on IEDs and other cost effective, low risk means of hitting targets. Strategically, the British lacked such a patrol vehicle ( even their Warriors and Challengers proved vulnerable) and they were increasingly confined to base and forced to surrender control of Basra to militias. North admits that MRAPs like the Mastiff are too big for urban areas, but its a large vehicle. There are smaller MRAP vehicles.

They are not always the most costly option either - North cites the example of the Vector, a 437K GBP vehicle which was deployed into one of the most heavily mined countries on earth, despite the manufacturer noting that it could survive only 2 nato hand grenades detonating beneath it. In a country why lots of old soviet anti tank and artillery shells are lying around, thats not much protection at all. An equivalent MRAP option cited by North is the Cougar which cost 258K GBP.

I freely admit that I am not an expert on such matters - there might be tons of reasons why Vector>>>>>Cougar, but deploying such an expensive, underprotected vehicle and asking guys to do patrols in it through IED infested country side for the basic industrial wage seems immoral to me. If they are going to be sent out there, then give them the equipment that offers them the best chance at survival. I dont see anything about the MRAP concept that rules out other capabilities. The US milatary may be swamped with more MRAPs than it knows what to do with, but the BA are being sent out in vehicles about as protected against IEDs as an SUV. That strikes me as wrong. Armies are sent to do the wishes of the democratically elected government, at the very least that same government should ensure those armies are equipped to do the job asked of them.

MRAPS might not be the greatest thing since sliced bread and might not win wars single handed, but if the primary threat to troops are IEDs then it becomes important to provide the best equipment for defeating those IEDs. Both strategically, and in preserving the lives of troops which has to be good for morale?

I believe you're referring to MWMIKs? (AKA Jackals). They're still in Afghanistan, the Brits have just ordered another batch of a slightly updated version for delivery this year. They seem like reasonable vehicles.

Yes and no, that was the Vector I was referring to, but the Jackal has the same sort of layout too.

The British have also deployed the Viking at a cost of 1 million GBP each, which was proof against an anti personnel mine and offered the same ballistic protection as a Snatch landrover.

Jackal, North didnt rate this either I am afraid - he viewed it as being nearly completely unarmoured, a "truck, with guns". He notes that only the thinest sheet of metal lies between the driver and the wheels of the vehicle and that in practise, troops were using ballistic matting/kevlar pads to try and add additional protection for themselves.

The MOD then "up armoured" the Jackals in 2008, bolting on two tons of armour around them which North notes made it a "truck, with guns, with bolt on armour". North freely admits that BA soldiers loved the vehicle, which he compares favourably with the stifling heat found inside the back of a Snatch or a Warrior. He also notes that of the 120 deployed, 18 had been lost up to March 2009.

People seem to forget that our job is not to 'not get killed', if that were the case we'd not be over there in the first place.

Fair enough, but your job is not to get killed either surely? You need to be out there dominating the area, preventing the enemy from doing so. That means patrols, and that means roads for the most part. North recognises that off road performance is prized by the BA, but he also points out that strategically, to win in Afghanistan, you need roads. Roads help centralisation. They help connect the capital with the outlying regions. The Romans built roads. The English subdued Scotland with milatary roads into the highlands. The subdued Wicklow by military roads into the mountains. The Kabul government will subdue the tribes by military roads into the provinces and mountains. To quote "Rather than responding to the poor condition of the roads with off-road vehicles, the better option is to build new roads along which military - and civilian - traffic could pass". A road building programme also offer the benefits of enlisting locals via employment and economic prospects. He also points out that any road building programme would offer targets for the Taliban, offering NATO the opportunity to lure them into a battle on NATO's terms.

If the military (of any country) starts taking (relatively) heavy casualties from IEDs, political pressure begins to build on the generals to reduce casualties. Canada for example became upset at the level of casualties they were taking in Afghanistan, mostly to the US Airforce. NATO has many troop contributions that cannot be sent to the most dangerous areas because the countries involved dont want their troops dying.

The easiest way to reduce casualties is to reduce patrols and remain on base. This is what the British did in Basra and the city was almost completely lost to militias until the Iraqi army, supported by the US retook the city. If soldiers are not patroling, they cannot control the area. It isnt to say that if MRAPs had been available that the British would have won in Basra ( North's book uses MRAPs as an example of poor procurement, bureacracy, strategy and leadership in the BA - he also notes the British Armys hesitancy to embrace technolocy like the Predator, favouring simple soldiering over helicopter support and so on - it is a mindset he is criticising, not just the vehicles), but they would have helped minimise casualties when out patrolling as opposed to the Snatch vehicles the British had to patrol in. Snatch vehicle patrols would be suspended after an IED attack, then reinstated at some later point because the BA would not supply anything else to patrol in. Unfortunately, in Basra, soldiers died in vehicles they should never have been deployed in.

This applies to the US as well.

Of course, but the US military is swamped with MRAPs whereas the British are not.

British Aerospace makes a number of the MRAP vehicles used by the Americans.

Fair enough - then its inexplicable to me beyond bureacracy/office politics. If the main threat to troops is IEDs, there are IED resistant vehicles available from domestic suppliers, but they are not procured or deployed...that is just inexplicable. Either the BA procurement is not listening to the troops who are saying the main threat is IEDs or they have other priorities.

Manic Moran

Was this answering my question? If so, thanks.

Can't say it was answering the question, as I was unable to provide the figures you requested. I can only tell you how many people have been killed in my province in the last ten days. (I'm in between Kabul and Jalalabad, Laghman province, and thus nowhere near the current offensive). Was more of a reply by way of 'food for thought'.

you are actually there on active service?

Yes, I am.

NTM

Manic Moran

Fair enough, but your job is not to get killed either surely?

My point is that there is a balance to be struck. Right now, the politicians are focused purely on body counts and demands for more armour, they seem to assume that just because we have X-many thousand troops here, that figure on a Powerpoint chart alone will be sufficient to achieve their objectives in Afghanistan, so their first operational priority is to reduce casualty counts. I think this should be reversed. I think the first priority should be to achieve operational objectives, and the second priority should be force protection, the latter only to a level which does not significantly degrade our ability to do the former. You have to take risks to do the job. As I briefed my troopers before we came out here, we are all expendable. There's a difference between suicidal carelessness, and calculated risk-taking, but we're beyond even the latter.

NTM

Zambia

I think Manic is right. Sad but true.

vincenzo1975

OP.. You simply ask why?, well its because we are human.

it is because they are soldiers. They made the choice, the trained to kill others, and they take the consequence.

It does not matter the war, the country, the agenda, the dictator, the cause, all that matters is that people will always make the choice of kill or be killed, and that human nature will take its natural course.

Humans killing eachother for survival, power, dominance, territory is no different to the animals on the plains of africa.

gurramok

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

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?

Yes, very suspicious. If only they reported the alleged poor equipment issue.

oncevotedff wrote: »

So you think they should move the battlefield from Afghanistan to Britain. Good idea.

No. Britain should be able to protect itself internally from these matters instead of going to a long distant country. Thats an aspect of their security mechanism they need to look at.

Fratton Fred

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

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.

I believe the irish voted in favour of the current resolution at the UN, so it is very much part of the reason why ISAF is there. Personally, I believe that if a country believes it has the right to vote in favour of a resolution, it should be prepared to put some skin in the game and send more than a few IED experts in an advisory capacity. (Which Ireland has done)

gurramok wrote: »

No. Britain should be able to protect itself internally from these matters instead of going to a long distant country. Thats an aspect of their security mechanism they need to look at.

The only country that is really capable of doing that is the US, if they decided to take that course of action europe would be right royally ****ed.

This isn't about Britain or the US, or oil and gas for that matter (There isn't any oil in Afghanistan and the gas there is very low grade) it is about the the free world helping out a country that was under the grip of one of the cruelest regimes the world has seen. Did you not get the emails from the leftwingers and feminists insisting the west do something about the taliban regime that has banned women from being educated, working and encouraged the stoning to death of women who were outside of their home without a male chaperone?

These are the same left wingers and feminists who are now calling the war imperialism :rolleyes:

FTA69

Latchy wrote: »

Glorifying is not the word , it's paying respect to the dead and their families .

Nope, it's pure glorifying. Have a look at the recruitment ads on ITV or Channel 4, lots of muscular men jumping out of helicopters and burning around in Land Rovers. Nothing much about having your legs blown off by an IED, or being blinded by shrapnel, or getting shot in the intestines. The whole horrific reality of it is blinded by platitudes and warbling sh*theads from the X-Factor singing about "Heroes". I know people who went to Afghanistan, and some who are out there right now. They haven't a f*cking clue to be honest, outside of vague patriotic notions (usually jingoistic to be honest), they couldn't tell you the first thing about the reasons why they've been sent to fight and die for an oil pipeline and geo-political strategy.

And then they don't even get proper compo when they lose limbs while an MI5 typist gets £250,000 odd for carpal tunnel syndrome. It'd be gas if it wasn't so tragic.

asdasd

they couldn't tell you the first thing about the reasons why they've been sent to fight and die for an oil pipeline and geo-political strategy.

Thats because the Indymedia view of the world is not the correct one. The West is there to stop the Taleban running the place. Bugger all to do with a non-existant oil pipeline.

If the Taleban run the place then there will be hell to pay across Europe and America in the next few years, possibly a nuclear attack. There were well documented reports of British born muslims going to Afghanistan for training, and the 9/11 goobers went there. Osama lives in a cave there. If he is not dead. Allowing a whole country, awash with drug money, to stay in Taleban control would be a nightmare.

I suppose another option is to support proxy anti-Taleban forces, but something is necessary.

Dyr

Fratton Fred wrote: »

This isn't about Britain or the US, or oil and gas for that matter (There isn't any oil in Afghanistan and the gas there is very low grade) it is about the the free world helping out a country that was under the grip of one of the cruelest regimes the world has seen. D

Of course it's about truth, democracy and human rights, it would have nothing to do with the fact that Afghanistan has enormous strategic value or it's untapped natural resources, sure that's not why the place has been a warzone for most of its history at all, at all.

I actually have no problem with the brits and americans being in afghanistan, it might actually work in both the afghans and the civilised worlds favour but pretending that they're there out of the goodness of their wee hearts is BS

asdasd

I actually have no problem with the brits and americans being in afghanistan, it might actually work in both the afghans and the civilised worlds favour but pretending that they're there out of the goodness of their wee hearts is BS

No, they are there for stategic reasons, to prevent the Taliban regrouping. There is bog all else in Afghanistan.

It was fought over historically because it is on the way to places, not because of it's intrinsic value in itself. The Russians have had their eye on India, and a warm port, for a few centuries. In general The Great Game involved the British trying to stop that.

this time Russia is not a threat, frankly if they moved in I would be happy enough.

Fratton Fred

Bambi wrote: »

Of course it's about truth, democracy and human rights, it would have nothing to do with the fact that Afghanistan has enormous strategic value or it's untapped natural resources, sure that's not why the place has been a warzone for most of its history at all, at all.

I actually have no problem with the brits and americans being in afghanistan, it might actually work in both the afghans and the civilised worlds favour but pretending that they're there out of the goodness of their wee hearts is BS

ISAF are in Afghanistan for the same reason as there are UN forces in Chad or Bosnia, its just a lot tougher, that's all.

There is a rock solid UN resolution, to disagree with enduring freedom is to say the UN are wrong.

sovtek

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I believe the irish voted in favour of the current resolution at the UN, so it is very much part of the reason why ISAF is there. Personally, I believe that if a country believes it has the right to vote in favour of a resolution, it should be prepared to put some skin in the game and send more than a few IED experts in an advisory capacity. (Which Ireland has done)



The only country that is really capable of doing that is the US, if they decided to take that course of action europe would be right royally ****ed.

This isn't about Britain or the US, or oil and gas for that matter (There isn't any oil in Afghanistan and the gas there is very low grade) it is about the the free world helping out a country that was under the grip of one of the cruelest regimes the world has seen. Did you not get the emails from the leftwingers and feminists insisting the west do something about the taliban regime that has banned women from being educated, working and encouraged the stoning to death of women who were outside of their home without a male chaperone?

These are the same left wingers and feminists who are now calling the war imperialism :rolleyes:

It wasn't the left wingers that brought them to Houston, TX a few years ago and rolled out the red carpet for them. That is until they said no to a pipeline through their country.

asdasd

That is until they said no to a pipeline through their country.

You people are quite mad. What happened then? Was 9/11 "staged" to get the pipeline through? Was it a Zionist-Corporate-Oil conspiracy?

Gosh, and the pipeline is not actually built. they shoulda avoided all that conspiracy and just re-routed the thing.

Fratton Fred

sovtek wrote: »

It wasn't the left wingers that brought them to Houston, TX a few years ago and rolled out the red carpet for them. That is until they said no to a pipeline through their country.

maybe you could show us where the pipeline is on the map then?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5121394.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8147053.stm

Biggins

Background info to the above pipeline debate found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1984459.stm

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/oil.html?q=oil.html

http://www.ringnebula.com/Oil/Timeline.htm