It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK Troops Pay Blood Price in Afghanistan

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Sad to report the UK's first fatality in Afghanistan from Taleban action.
2 squaddies seriously injured too.




Taleban battle kills UK soldier

British troops are stationed in the southern province of Helmand
One UK soldier has been killed and two seriously injured after a battle with the Taleban in southern Afghanistan, the Ministry of Defence says.
The death is believed to be the first fatality since British troops deployed to the volatile area of Helmand province in recent months.



news.bbc.co.uk...

Quite why we and other NATO nations have to sweep up the US's mess and our young lads have to die/be mutilated in GWB's holy war is beyond me, and I'm sure this poor lad's parents.

Still I'm sure George is very grateful and will make sure Bliar gets a nice fat job as a reward. The whole thing stinks.


RIP fella




posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Great, now we got someone like you criticizing this war as well as unjustified. Great Britain and other nations who are part of the NATO alliance has come to help America fight those who caused 9/11. Isn't those nations obligated to help their allies in need?
What is NATO again?



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 09:23 AM
link   
This whole War With Iraq is unjustified... there are no Weapons of mass destruction even been found... So mutch for that eh... (Once Blair is kicked out of office wonder where he will land next) ? Hmmmmmmmms oh yeah in Bush's New World Order.

Didnt the British Soilders not kill alot of Taliban Insurgents in the process. Oks I agree the death of any soilder is sad.. Least they are doing a great job out their. They should be commended for what they are doing, I know I for one could not do what they are doing everday...

[edit on 12-6-2006 by spencerjohnstone]



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Im sorry for yet another soldiers life lost in Afghanistan.
My condolences goes out to his family and friends.

I don't know how anyone in the US still manage to convince themselves to believe in a president beeing responsible for the death of 2.1 US soldiers every day in Iraq. link

They sure must have a grounded faith in what's right and wrong.

Peace
Vaak



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Quite why we and other NATO nations have to sweep up the US's mess

...

SInce you're in Nato, you have to do what Nato agrees to do. So that would explain why.

Oh that and the whole 'international terrorist organizations using afghanistan to hatch devastating attacks on western nations'. You know, self-interest.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 01:58 PM
link   
I'm not sure that's the case.

If so it would have been a NATO op from the start.

It wasn't - it was a purely US effort (apart from the tricky bit when they got the Royal Marines A&MWC to do what they couldn't)

Why, if the US have been doing such a good job, is there a need for NATO now? Surely after 5 years the US should have sorted it.

The impression is that the US have done a poor job there, had few results (witness the Taleban resurgence) and now want others to sweep up their mess.

Let's face it the US record in CRW is, at best, poor.

UK deployment will now peak at 5,700 so I'm afraid we can expect more body bags.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Strangerous
If so it would have been a NATO op from the start.

No. NATO has agreed to enter into it. It doesn't require that NATO be there in the begining.


Why, if the US have been doing such a good job, is there a need for NATO now? Surely after 5 years the US should have sorted it.

The US is trying to free up forces for other global wars, and also trying to test if NATO can function on a global scale, or if its just too parochial and should be abandoned.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   
The Falklands (an invasion of of a NATO member's territory) was a non-NATO op. In fact NATO war stocks were raided on the quiet in a UK/USA deal.

Why this should be different is beyond me. US decided to bomb / invade Afghanistan not NATO

Seems to me NATO forces have been 'required' to be involved rather than wanting to be involved in a mess of the US's making.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 03:46 PM
link   
required/tricked/coerced, whatever, NATO chose to field its forces in Afghanistan. Its not simply a matter of what the British want, they are part of NATO, and have to go along with it.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   
ARE YOU SERIOUSLY going to tell me that these are the first british casualties! :shk: where have they been?! even the canadians have lost more people than that so far......

I expected the british to step up a more active stance.....guess I was mistaken...



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   
We've been bleeding and dying in Iraq instead - leading the international division.

We've taken on the Afghanistan effort in addition to the Iraqi one.

With over 10,000 troops plus naval and air assets committed to GWB's wars I'm very surprised you're questioning our effort / imaging for a second that Canada is playing a bigger part



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Strangerous
We've been bleeding and dying in Iraq instead - leading the international division.

We've taken on the Afghanistan effort in addition to the Iraqi one.

With over 10,000 troops plus naval and air assets committed to GWB's wars I'm very surprised you're questioning our effort / imaging for a second that Canada is playing a bigger part


I thought surely britain would play a bigger role than that
sorry, didnt mean to criticise.

alot of people are dying in Iraq, and I do agree it was a more ill conceived war than afghanistan.


afg. was invaded in direct response to 9/11 so that is more justified than Iraq is...

I just wish I was privy to the intel on why Iraq was invaded, perhaps they feared they could compromise their position in afg. I have no idea....wish I did, maybe I could and so many other people know so it would be easier to accept.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   
No worries mate - you're one of our oldest & staunchest allies (Vimy Ridge, Battle of the Atlantic, Dieppe etc etc)

'Ready, aye, ready' - it's not forgotten

My answer (a little spiky, it's damned hot for us Anglos here, sorry) was aimed at the general audience not you or Canada in general



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join