Troops home now!

[John Little]

For this we put our troops in harm's way-


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...550801968.html

I wonder how long he would be there without western forces? I would give his life not a moment's breath.

The ingratitude deserves an unequivocal response - loads of flights westwards and home!

[neilsermk1]

John, I used to be in favour of supporting Afghanistan as they tried to move to some form of Democracy. As time has gone on it has become apparent that Kharzia is playing several sides against the middle. Do i care if a muslim fundamentalist regime is in place, and cuts a few hands off here and there. Not any more. Bring our troops home now.

[weezer 316]

I think you will find we were in afghanistan to catch bin laden. We only went there when we wanted to catch a criminal. For years we let it go down the tube without caring, probably because they have no oil. I'm not surprised he would back his neighbors in that respect.

[John Little]

Why should we have wished to catch Bin Laden?

[mi16]

Icould be wrong but I dont think then Afghanistan requested the presence of the US and UK forces.

[mi16]

I think we were after him as he was the worlds most wanted man and supposedly responsible for many atrocities.

Why should we have wished to catch Bin Laden?

[John Little]

Are we the world's police then?

Cos if we are there's a few other jobs need doing...

[mi16]

Are we the world's police then?

Cos if we are there's a few other jobs need doing...

I think the US were perfectly legitamate in chasing the guy, he did claim responibility for the 11th of September Twin Towers Attack after all. The UK at the time should have stayed out of it, but we dont do that do we, not after the US saving our asses in WW2 anyways, for that we will be foreverin their debt.

[John Little]

I agree that we should have stayed out of it. Bin Laden was nothing to us.

As to the rest- up until D Day the British Empire had more troops in the field than did the US and the Russians had already pushed the Germans back into Poland.

There is a strong argument that the Soviet Union saved us... but that is not palatable to many because of subsequent history.

At any rate it's a dangerous argument historically that we 'owe' taking part in wars to anyone. That's the argument that got us into Korea - and got a lot of our guys killed.

And it's not reciprocated - take a good look at the Suez Crisis.

[mi16]

Buddy I aint arguing anything, but we chase the USA into every conflict of late when as you say It has jack to do with us. Why do we do that??

[John Little]

LOL! I have no answer to that question. I really have not the faintest idea.

It makes us look like a poodle, sours our relations with much of the world and ties us into supporting things I find obnoxious.

Why do we do it?

Excellent question.

[mi16]

we look like poodles as that is exactly what we are.
There must be something more to it that drags us along on the coat tails of the US war machine

[pat]

I wholeheartedly support our troops in Afghanistan, but they should not be in Afghanistan, they should not have been sent by Mr Bliar.

[weezer 316]

John,


Im pretty sure we had to help the US as an attack on a NATO ally is an attack on all, and we are bound by our international agreements. I supported afghanistan and and I still do, mostly because the poor Afghans have suffered terrible hardship and this was a rare chance for the west and its milatary might to do some good.

However, as for karzai he is unquestionably going to side with his neighbours.

As for the second world war point, Russia is unquestionably where the war was won, but the US played a massive role even before entering, by supplying us, then via the lend lease, and then after with the marshall plan.

[John Little]

Using the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to support the idea of attacking a state far from the North Atlantic, and which did not attack a NATO member is a bit thin. They did harbour the two-bit terrorist organisation that carried out the attack but I hardly think that the mighty USA needed us to pitch in with our two pennyworth.

It was a US show and in the end it was about making their poodles jump through hoops while they wasted their energies in Iraq.

Karzai is biting the hand that feeds. He should be very careful.

The US helped us greatly- but first they took every penny we had.

They did not enter the war to help us either. Hitler, the damned fool, declared war on them on Dec 10 1941.

We were their aircraft carrier and base to attack from.

As to Marshall aid, in Truman's words, it was the other half of the walnut - their plan to contain the spread of Communism and very much in their interests. Kennan's Long Telegram makes that abundantly clear.

The USA acts out of self interest- not altruism.

So should we.

[Alrock]

We started the war so we have to see it through no matter how much we may not like the way it is going...
As for the troops out there.... They joined the army of their own free will, they knew what the job might involve, so if they are not prepared to do the job they should never have joined up in the first place.

John,


As for the second world war point, Russia is unquestionably where the war was won, but the US played a massive role even before entering, by supplying us, then via the lend lease, and then after with the marshall plan.

As for the second world war, the US got rich by selling us arms & only joined in when they had no other choice. If they had joined in from the start it would have cost them more & Europe less meaning there would have been no need for the Marshall Plan.

[Rheghead]

The ingratitude deserves an unequivocal response - loads of flights westwards and home!

And to add insult to injury, the Chinese have been awarded the oil drilling contracts in Afghanistan. OK, 80 million barrels is not much but it is hugely symbolic.

[weezer 316]

Using the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to support the idea of attacking a state far from the North Atlantic, and which did not attack a NATO member is a bit thin. They did harbour the two-bit terrorist organisation that carried out the attack but I hardly think that the mighty USA needed us to pitch in with our two pennyworth.

It was a US show and in the end it was about making their poodles jump through hoops while they wasted their energies in Iraq.

Karzai is biting the hand that feeds. He should be very careful.

The US helped us greatly- but first they took every penny we had.

They did not enter the war to help us either. Hitler, the damned fool, declared war on them on Dec 10 1941.

We were their aircraft carrier and base to attack from.

As to Marshall aid, in Truman's words, it was the other half of the walnut - their plan to contain the spread of Communism and very much in their interests. Kennan's Long Telegram makes that abundantly clear.

The USA acts out of self interest- not altruism.

So should we.

Whether they needed us isnt the point, the point is they are an ally and we will support them where we can. The bush administration probably had an eye on iraq from the start mind you, that didnt help with Afghanistan at all.

Furthermmore, whilst they didnt enter the war until they were attacked, this is hardly suprising, it was a European war, projecting power isnt easy even today, never mind in the 30's. Plus they had just dragged themselves out of the great dpression. Its hardly suprising there was littel appetite for war in a continent many had forst hhand experience of and wanted no part of.

Today is different. Guys from Afghanistan can wreak havoc here if allowed to. its very much in our interests to be there, and more importantly, in The afghans interests. This is a rare chance for stability in a country that had more than enough suffering. So from that perspective I am glad we are there.

The marshall plan was in our interest too! Dont forget that!

And all of that could have been avoided if britain had some backbone and stood up to hitler in 1938 when he annexed the sudaten lands In czechoslovakia. We abondoned a small country in its hour of need becuase we didnt have the stomach for a fight. learn from our own mistakes as well as others.

[John Little]

Alrock - I agree with you in all save one point. Our troops may indeed know what they are signing up for, but there is a contract between the state and its armed forces; we put them in harms way to defend our interests or our country. Afghanistan does not pass that test.

Weezer; I maintain that the greatest power on earth being attacked by a Rag Tag and Bobtail terrorist organisation does not rate them dragging all their allies into a war not their concern. It has harmed us across the world for we are seen as oppressors, arrogant and mighty by many - increasing the numbers of those who would rejoice to see ill befall us. That does not serve our national interest.

The fact is that guys from Afghanistan were not wreaking havoc here before we invaded Afghanistan. Were they?

I fail to see that it is our interest to be in Afghanistan - especially with Karzai taking the stance he is - and even more especially bearing in mind Rheghead's excellent point.

The Marshall Plan came with strings. John Maynard Keynes said it plain at the time 'We face a kind of financial Dunkirk...For the foreseeable future we shall have to act as a satellite of the United States, who are in a position to dictate policy for the next 20 years or so'

We got in the habit of doing as we were told.

But that does not mean that it's good for us.

As for Munich, - if we had gone to war in 1938 we would have lost, being in no position to fight a war. In this light Chamberlain was a realist. As it was we were only just ready enough by September 1939.