View Full Version : Afghanistan
Loch not Lock
29-Feb-08, 09:39
[evil] Could someone please explain to me what right has Britain to be fighting in Afghanistan? This Prince Harry "revelation" is pure propoganda just as the Royals are on the wain.
Strange that it is released near to when the Diana inquiry is nearing a close.
Loch not Lock
29-Feb-08, 10:15
The thousands of human beings slaughtered in Iraq and Afghanistan disgusts me.
On a different note imagine the billions of pounds Britain has wasted and what it could have done for education, health and wages in our country.
Trying to flush out the Al Qaida, who are a national security risk!!!
The Afghan government asked the United Nations for help against the Taliban, Britain and the USA are not the only troops there, but are the main line troops, thats whey we hear the most about them.
As the two previous posters have stated:
1) Trying to flush out the Al Qaida, who are a national security risk!!!
2) The Afghan government asked the United Nations for help against the Taliban, Britain and the USA are not the only troops there, but are the main line troops, thats whey we hear the most about them.
Is that clear enough?
Loch not Lock
29-Feb-08, 10:50
Why not send all the "Royals" and there hangers on out there. They would soon scare the Taliban. Phil would make a shocking comment which would make them flee to the hills.
The trouble with Afghanistan is that with the low levels of military and economic assistance the West has given, should we be surprised that there has been low levels of stability and economic growth?
The only way to crush an insurgency is with a big military and economic hammer as seen in Germany and Japan.
The fact is the West does not have the resources or the political support to carry through the job and its in a big pickle.
In the end the West will have to pull out at some time without finishing the job properly and there will be more bloodshed and back to square one. Just like in Vietnam.
The thousands of human beings slaughtered in Iraq and Afghanistan disgusts me.
On a different note imagine the billions of pounds Britain has wasted and what it could have done for education, health and wages in our country.
I agree, thanks for providing the evidence.
we can never allow Afghanistan to become a safe haven for terrorists again!!![disgust]
Loch not Lock
29-Feb-08, 13:14
You'de better get there quick then, Super Ted!
I think this Afghanistan war... if it can really be called a war anymore is just dragging on too long now. After 9/11 I was all for America and Britain going in and busting some heads, better that than waiting for another building to be brought down, but to me it's just getting stupid now.
If America or Britain wanted to go in and get rid of Afghanistan then they could easily pull all the troops out, head out there tomorrow and flatten the whole lot, leave nothing but a smouldering crater. But you just can't do that because of all the "rules". It’s just nonsense.
That, of course, is just my opinion and the way I'd do things. I know it involves killing innocent people but that's just the method required to fight these people. No real need for a nuke, but if you can't tell a suicide bomber disguised as a civilian from a regular civilian then just kill them both before you find out.
Yes it is brutal, but sometimes playing the goodie-2-shoes just doesn't work so sacrifices need to be made. If things keep going the way they're going then troops are still going to be out there in 2030.
percy toboggan
29-Feb-08, 18:28
I think this Afghanistan war... if it can really be called a war anymore is just dragging on too long now. After 9/11 I was all for America and Britain going in and busting some heads, better that than waiting for another building to be brought down, but to me it's just getting stupid now.
If America or Britain wanted to go in and get rid of Afghanistan then they could easily pull all the troops out, head out there tomorrow and flatten the whole lot, leave nothing but a smouldering crater. But you just can't do that because of all the "rules". It’s just nonsense.
That, of course, is just my opinion and the way I'd do things. I know it involves killing innocent people but that's just the method required to fight these people. No real need for a nuke, but if you can't tell a suicide bomber disguised as a civilian from a regular civilian then just kill them both before you find out.
Yes it is brutal, but sometimes playing the goodie-2-shoes just doesn't work so sacrifices need to be made. If things keep going the way they're going then troops are still going to be out there in 2030.
You are right of course.
It's just getting really 'stupid' now.:roll:
Mmmm. If I was an Afghan and a bloke, I'd just keep my head down and plant some poppies.
Mmmm. If I was an Afghan and a bloke, I'd just keep my head down and plant some poppies.
And be corrupt. Which I'm not, I hasten to add.
Trying to flush out the Al Qaida, who are a national security risk!!!Are they trying to flush out the poppy fields aswell?
And be corrupt. Which I'm not, I hasten to add.
But then, if I had a starving and cold family to feed, I might probably be corrupt. (Not trying to add to post count - I keep forgetting points I want to make.)
Are they trying to flush out the poppy fields aswell?
Apparently yes, but how would they do that?
I think this Afghanistan war... if it can really be called a war anymore is just dragging on too long now. After 9/11 I was all for America and Britain going in and busting some heads, better that than waiting for another building to be brought down, but to me it's just getting stupid now.
If America or Britain wanted to go in and get rid of Afghanistan then they could easily pull all the troops out, head out there tomorrow and flatten the whole lot, leave nothing but a smouldering crater. But you just can't do that because of all the "rules". It’s just nonsense.
That, of course, is just my opinion and the way I'd do things. I know it involves killing innocent people but that's just the method required to fight these people. No real need for a nuke, but if you can't tell a suicide bomber disguised as a civilian from a regular civilian then just kill them both before you find out.
Yes it is brutal, but sometimes playing the goodie-2-shoes just doesn't work so sacrifices need to be made. If things keep going the way they're going then troops are still going to be out there in 2030.Is it not something to do with building a trans-Afghanistan pipeline?
I thought that the military co-ordination came from NATO rather than the UN.
[evil] Could someone please explain to me what right has Britain to be fighting in Afghanistan? This Prince Harry "revelation" is pure propoganda just as the Royals are on the wain.
Strange that it is released near to when the Diana inquiry is nearing a close.Check back on your history and you will find that we were involved in creating many of the past and current problems in Afghanistan. We were instrumental in creating the what has been happening there long before the current conflict and, indeed, many of those during the last Century.
The question is not if we have a "right" to be there but rather if we should shirk our "duty" to help clear up the mess we were the main party in creating well over a century ago.
Next thing you will be trying to tell us is that the whole thing was started just so Prince Harry could be sent in order to make the Royals look good.
The two parts of your question are entirely unconnected. As far as the timing of the release of the information is concerned you have obviously not bothered to check how that came about.
The story was released on something called the “Drudge Report”, a blog in America posted by an freelance individual who would be as likely to conspire with the Royals, the MOD and the British Media as Fidel Castro would.
As far as connecting it to the Diana Inquest, that really is scraping the bottom of barrel. That died the death ages ago and is as likely to demand full and undivided attention as the script for a failed Hollywood “B” Movie.
Still, it was a nice try to create a mystery where there is none. Sorry but End of Term Report reads, “Poor effort, failed miserably! Must try harder!”.
Apparently yes, but how would they do that?Are they that hard to find and If not just drop a few of those cluster bombs on them? Should clear up a majority of our heroin problem.
On a different note imagine the billions of pounds Britain has wasted and what it could have done for education, health and wages in our country.The Billions being poured down the drain propping up a failed Building Society in North East England would pay for the whole of our effort in Afghanistan, provide money to create a good infrastructure there and still have money left over for education, health and wages in our country.
Never mind, just keep beating the drum.
Are they that hard to find and If not just drop a few of those cluster bombs on them? Should clear up a majority of our heroin problem.
If only it was that easy. Its the locals that are farming these fields, not the Taliban or Al Qaida, which makes it hard for Military to do anything!!!!
If only it was that easy. Its the locals that are farming these fields, not the Taliban or Al Qaida, which makes it hard for Military to do anything!!!!
Yes. Please remember I'm still a poor Afghan person here trying to feed my children, who are actually the most important thing in my life.
Check back on your history and you will find that we were involved in creating many of the past and current problems in Afghanistan. We were instrumental in creating the what has been happening there long before the current conflict and, indeed, many of those during the last Century.
The question is not if we have a "right" to be there but rather if we should shirk our "duty" to help clear up the mess we were the main party in creating well over a century ago.
.
A good point on past history and as honourable as it sounds I don't think that is why we are there.
Trying to flush out the Al Qaida, who are a national security risk!!!
If that was the case would we not have kept our forces there rather than fabricating another war in Iraq, diluting our fighting power and risking even more lives?
I thought that the military co-ordination came from NATO rather than the UN.
That is what I thought. I don't think the invasion was ever authorised by the UN but I think they did authorise the use of force in NATO's mission of securing the country.
If that was the case would we not have kept our forces there rather than fabricating another war in Iraq, diluting our fighting power and risking even more lives?
The level of forces have maintained the same throughout, however during the lastest Iraq conflict the British and American forces were supplemented by other nations!
A good point on past history and as honourable as it sounds I don't think that is why we are there.
Why do you think we are there?
chris.chalmers
01-Mar-08, 00:05
Given that Afghanistan accounted for production of 87 percent of the world's heroin is one point for Britain being there I think personally with the efforts being made to re-educate and give the Afghan people a better chance in life with other options other that drugs. Afghanistan has a number of other things that it could profit from. But this will only work with the Afghan people realizing that the UK and other forces there in the country are not there to do them harm and are looking to improve the country's infrastructure being from simple wells in villages to re installing power to Helmand province through the Kajaki dam and other various aid programs this will only work with stability and will hopefully encourage a country who has had to deal with war in one form or oppression for the last twenty years to change there ways.
Why do you think we are there?For that trans-Afghanistan pipeline
Given that Afghanistan accounted for production of 87 percent of the world's heroin is one point for Britain being there I think personally with the efforts being made to re-educate and give the Afghan people a better chance in life with other options other that drugs. Afghanistan has a number of other things that it could profit from. But this will only work with the Afghan people realizing that the UK and other forces there in the country are not there to do them harm and are looking to improve the country's infrastructure being from simple wells in villages to re installing power to Helmand province through the Kajaki dam and other various aid programs this will only work with stability and will hopefully encourage a country who has had to deal with war in one form or oppression for the last twenty years to change there ways.
Very good point chris...I believe british troops are starting to gain the trust of the locals..This is going to be a slow process but I know this is one goal of ISAF!!
Given that Afghanistan accounted for production of 87 percent of the world's heroin is one point for Britain being there I think personally with the efforts being made to re-educate and give the Afghan people a better chance in life with other options other that drugs. Afghanistan has a number of other things that it could profit from. But this will only work with the Afghan people realizing that the UK and other forces there in the country are not there to do them harm and are looking to improve the country's infrastructure being from simple wells in villages to re installing power to Helmand province through the Kajaki dam and other various aid programs this will only work with stability and will hopefully encourage a country who has had to deal with war in one form or oppression for the last twenty years to change there ways.As we all know Afghanistan i responsible for a fair percentage of the heroin production in the world then is that not a good reason to go there and blow the fields to bits.
As we all know Afghanistan i responsible for a fair percentage of the heroin production in the world then is that not a good reason to go there and blow the fields to bits.
If only it was as simple as that!!!
Why do you think we are there?
If you read the thread again, I have already said that NATO was invited there later on - I believe in 2003. Unless history has re-written itself more than usual I am sure you can google the reasons why we went there after 9/11.
There are a lot of noble reasons why we should be there and as much as I agree with Jaw's points about our past history in the area it had nothing to do with us going there in the most recent conflict.
chris.chalmers
01-Mar-08, 00:22
With the goals of ISAF i think that it should be a complete Nato operation as the complete lack of support from the remaining member nations is absolutely appalling but with the comment about the money wasted i am sure the money being wasted by the Mp's could be used on the same or the benefits being given to the extremists that enjoy our country's hospitality but not its views on free speech or other basic liberty's enjoyed today.
As we all know Afghanistan i responsible for a fair percentage of the heroin production in the world then is that not a good reason to go there and blow the fields to bits.
No. Go blast the hopfields of Kent or the Budweiser and Wicked Blue factories (wherever they are) if you must - that might ease our problems .
No. Go blast the hopfields of Kent or the Budweiser and Wicked Blue factories (wherever they are) if you must - that might ease our problems .Let's do away with the illegal drugs alongside the legal ones.
Loch not Lock
01-Mar-08, 00:34
George Galloway is on Talksport - Sky Channel 0108 chairing a discussion which, on the whole, backs my views to a tee. Please listen and think. I promise you that will become wiser and less prejudiced.
George Galloway is on Talksport - Sky Channel 0108 chairing a discussion which, on the whole, backs my views to a tee. Please listen and think. I promise you that will become wiser and less prejudiced.
We know all about GG and his views!!! His friendship and views about Saddam were very interesting:mad:
Loch not Lock
01-Mar-08, 00:56
We know all about GG and his views!!! His friendship and views about Saddam were very interesting:mad:
That is exactly the prejudice I expect from Daily Mail, Daily Express and Sun readers. Why not buy The Guardian or The Independent and get an unbiased view of World affairs.
That is exactly the prejudice I expect from Daily Mail, Daily Express and Sun readers. Why not buy The Guardian or The Independent and get an unbiased view of World affairs.
Telegraph reader myself thanks...and very happy to be one!!!
As we all know Afghanistan i responsible for a fair percentage of the heroin production in the world then is that not a good reason to go there and blow the fields to bits.
Don't blow the fields to bits, BUY them. Buy the poppies from the farmers and then destroy them thus removing the raw product at source.
Loch not Lock
01-Mar-08, 01:06
What was on page 9 of today's Telegraph?;)
Loch not Lock
01-Mar-08, 01:11
Very slow to answer, Superted.
Boozeburglar
01-Mar-08, 01:12
We know all about GG and his views!!! His friendship and views about Saddam were very interesting:mad:
I don't find them half as interesting as the friendship that existed between Saddam's regime and the US and UK governments that propped him up.
Except in Galloway's case it was in the name of diplomacy and furtherance of his aid work.
Now what were the US and UK sidling up to him for?
Kill some Iranians for us mate, etc...
Loch not Lock
01-Mar-08, 01:13
Why not phone a friend?
Don't blow the fields to bits, BUY them. Buy the poppies from the farmers and then destroy them thus removing the raw product at source.
Point taken, It would probably be cheaper. Heroin production in Afghanistan has gone up by 800%.
Why not phone a friend?
www.telegraph.co.uk (http://www.telegraph.co.uk) .....when I'm out of the uk:lol:
Loch not Lock
01-Mar-08, 20:27
www.telegraph.co.uk (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk) .....when I'm out of the uk:lol:
It took you a long time to work that excuse out, Superted.
Remember George Galloway is on Talksport tonight between 10pm and 1am. You can receive it either on your computer or on Sky Channel 0108.
Tonight he is discussing the atrocities in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as the Israel and Palestine ongoing conflict.
Even if you think you dislike George Galloway just give him a chance and you will find he is a revelation. Please don't judge him without experiencing his presenting skills or that rubbish on Celebrity Big Brother.
You will be amazed and addicted - I promise you.
It took you a long time to work that excuse out, Superted.
Remember George Galloway is on Talksport tonight between 10pm and 1am. You can receive it either on your computer or on Sky Channel 0108.
Tonight he is discussing the atrocities in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as the Israel and Palestine ongoing conflict.
Even if you think you dislike George Galloway just give him a chance and you will find he is a revelation. Please don't judge him without experiencing his presenting skills or that rubbish on Celebrity Big Brother.
You will be amazed and addicted - I promise you.
Some people had work today:lol:
I like you persistence...but your not going to get me listening to that man!!(thats me being nice!)
But you enjoy it!!:D
Note 'Loch not Lock' has repeated his 'watch George Galloway' post on his 'George Galloway' Thread - trying to drum up support I expect.. No, still don't think I'll watch, too grown up for that..
Loch not Lock
01-Mar-08, 22:10
It is on the radio Bekisman.
Bakerbhoy
01-Mar-08, 22:39
My husband has been out there for the last 22 months working alongside the Afghans and about 90% of the 300 working with them want the British there to help sort out the problems in their country and to get rid of the Taliban for good. They want their children to go to school and have doctors to treat the sick but at the moment they have nothing like that as the Taliban will kill any teachers or doctors brought into work there.
Loch not Lock
02-Mar-08, 10:02
I hope your husband comes home safely. Everyone wants a peaceful Afghanistan but how can that come about with bombing which kills more innocent humans than members of the Taliban.
percy toboggan
02-Mar-08, 10:09
That is exactly the prejudice I expect from Daily Mail, Daily Express and Sun readers. Why not buy The Guardian or The Independent and get an unbiased view of World affairs.
Why do some people define others by the masthead of their daily newspaper I wonder?
Are they incapable of treating individual opinion as equally valid as their own?
Indicative of lazy argument and bankrupt ideas of their own.
Loch not Lock
02-Mar-08, 14:04
Why do some people define others by the masthead of their daily newspaper I wonder?
Are they incapable of treating individual opinion as equally valid as their own?
Indicative of lazy argument and bankrupt ideas of their own.
You are what you choose to read.
You are what you choose to read.
I take it the Beano is delivered to your house Loch not Lock.
percy toboggan
02-Mar-08, 17:59
A relative recently returned from Afghanistan.
Doing his bit for his country.
He never quite knew who the enemy were...just some blokes with beards.
Hard work, much danger and the kind of commitment people like Galloway woud not recognise. Flabby politicos with mouths to match the size of their egos.
To put your life on the line for a cause in a far off, arid, ungovernable land is a 'big ask' to use modern terminology.
I don't envy my relative his 'soldierseye' view...it's easy to pontificate from behind a keyboard...less so from a snatch Land-Rover
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v159/Landmarker/soldierseye.jpg
percy toboggan
02-Mar-08, 18:01
still.....I was pleased to see the locals have big-screen telly! what time's kick-off?
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.