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 Overstretched

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 12:33 PM
link   

UK Troops Overstretched


news.bbc.co.uk

Shadow Defence Secretary Dr Liam Fox said: "We face the problem that in Britain the government has overstretched our armed forces without giving them sufficient resources to do the job they're being asked to do."

He went on to criticise the level of commitment from Britain's allies.

Dr Fox said: "Our international allies, particularly some of our European allies and Nato, simply have not been stepping up to the plate in an international operation of this nature."
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 12:33 PM
link   
general Dannat also spoke of this during a visit to troops.
He said that forces need more time away from the front line, and that the UK would struggle to deploy anywhere else in the world.

This is the same general who last year spoke out, saying that UK troops should withdraw soon from Iraq
news.bbc.co.uk...
www.guardian.co.uk...


news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 12:47 PM
link   
This story follow's a report from the royal british legion saying that goverment ministers were failing our troops newsvote.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Yes, I saw this also contained in the OP, although not covered in as much detail.

A worrying state of affairs, given that our armed forces are below needs regarding recruitment rates.
This type of publicity is hardly going to improve recruitment.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 02:21 PM
link   
I just wish some of our NATO allies would stop fooling around and remove the caveats for the troops in Afghanistan.

Currently, most of the fighting is being done by British, American and Canadian forces in the south/south east. Getting nations like France, Germany, Italy etc. fully involved would go a long way into alleviating the problems that our forces are facing.



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ste2652
I just wish some of our NATO allies would stop fooling around and remove the caveats for the troops in Afghanistan.

Currently, most of the fighting is being done by British, American and Canadian forces in the south/south east. Getting nations like France, Germany, Italy etc. fully involved would go a long way into alleviating the problems that our forces are facing.


If those countries people don't believe in the reason troops are in such places, why should they send them? I am not saying whether they do or dont, but it seems if the people disapprove then they have no business sending troops there, alliance or no alliance.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by ninthaxis

Originally posted by Ste2652
I just wish some of our NATO allies would stop fooling around and remove the caveats for the troops in Afghanistan.

Currently, most of the fighting is being done by British, American and Canadian forces in the south/south east. Getting nations like France, Germany, Italy etc. fully involved would go a long way into alleviating the problems that our forces are facing.


If those countries people don't believe in the reason troops are in such places, why should they send them? I am not saying whether they do or dont, but it seems if the people disapprove then they have no business sending troops there, alliance or no alliance.


Well, because they are supposed to be our allies - you know NATO.
They were all too ready to call for help when the Warsaw Pact was around, but now that they see no immediate danger to themselves, they can't be bothered.
Still, what can you expect -nobody wants the germans to fight, because they wouldn't stop till they'd conquered everywhere, and the french and italians are just surrender monkeys who give up when the going gets tough



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ninthaxis
If those countries people don't believe in the reason troops are in such places, why should they send them? I am not saying whether they do or dont, but it seems if the people disapprove then they have no business sending troops there, alliance or no alliance.


They weren't forced to send any troops to Afghanistan. They did so voluntarily in accordance with the terms of the NATO treaty. An ally was under attack... that's the idea behind NATO. It's just as much in the interest of France, Germany, Italy, Spain etc. that Afghanistan is won over as it is in the interests of Britain, Canada and America... and yet it seems to be the latter three that's doing all the work.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 02:13 PM
link   
I honestly don't know why the US/UK are still in Nato, in afganistan the German troops aren't allowed out of thier bases at night (i guess the boogeyman might get them
) in the yugoslav conflict a few year's back who did the most of the donkey work? It's about time the US/UK pulled their troops out of Nato (and the UN for that matter) and let some of these other countries start looking after their selves and see how they cope then.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Ste. The point is that the NATO isnt under attack...

The 9/11 Attacks got avenged in Afghanistan and the NATO country`s werent under direct attack so why the # should the NATO fight??

It is the USA its mess... Not ours... Just let the US rebuild Afghanistan and Iraq... Its their mess and the 3/11 and 7/7 Attacks happend because off interference in Iraq...

Spain, UK and the USA got attacked wanna know why??? Because they where the country`s who assaulted Iraq and got what they deserved...

The NATO is formed to defend not to assault my friend........ Guess who fired first... The USA



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by James R. Hawkwood
Ste. The point is that the NATO isnt under attack...


Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty states that an attack on one NATO member is counted as an attack on them all. In addition to this you've also got various agreements that NATO has come to since the original treaty was created in 1949. Tell me, what would you characterise the events of 9/11 as if they weren't an attack?

Regardless of the legality/morality of Iraq, it is no justification for murdering innocent civilians going about their daily business.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ste2652

Originally posted by James R. Hawkwood
Ste. The point is that the NATO isnt under attack...


Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty states that an attack on one NATO member is counted as an attack on them all. In addition to this you've also got various agreements that NATO has come to since the original treaty was created in 1949. Tell me, what would you characterise the events of 9/11 as if they weren't an attack?

Regardless of the legality/morality of Iraq, it is no justification for murdering innocent civilians going about their daily business.


This is a very valid point - but the so called allies in NATO will never go to the aid of the US - not until they are in trouble, so I hope the next time it happens that the UK and US just say "sorry guys, but we don't agree/haven't got the money/troops busy elsewhere etc"



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 05:46 PM
link   
You know, I hope they DO say sorry guys we aren't going in there. Not to spite them, but because the US needs to stop policing the globe. Stop trying to make other nations conform to this ideal american image and deal with the problems in its own country. That, and I think 9/11 was a government conspiracy of some level, so I dont think NATO needs to go barging into Afghan or any other country to hunt the bad guys down. They are right here in Washington.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Dr Fox said: "Our international allies, particularly some of our European allies and Nato, simply have not been stepping up to the plate in an international operation of this nature."

Hmmm they've got more sense!!



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 05:58 PM
link   
That's a fair point, but it doesn't address the issue of article v brought up earlier by ste2652.

And, IMO it also speaks volumes about the self interest of the nations who refuse to commit, despite their obligations to the treaty.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
That's a fair point, but it doesn't address the issue of article v brought up earlier by ste2652.

And, IMO it also speaks volumes about the self interest of the nations who refuse to commit, despite their obligations to the treaty.


I think the other European countries saw what Happened in Madrid, the terrible train bombs. The European people don't want war, and they certainly don't want revenge attacks from home grown terrorist, like what we saw in London. The British people don't want war either, that was evident with over one million people attending the march in London, but the government still ignores the people. Afghanistan is unwinnable and that will only come apparent with time.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Don't get me wrong, I'm against war - it appears though in these cases that we did the right thing for the wrong reasons.
Given the reasoning you put forth, Hitler would still be in power, or the berlin wall would still be up.
We can't have it both ways - either stand up for what's right, and stand united, or watch the slaughter of innocents by dictators - oh, hold on, that's what we're doing with zimbabwe....



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 06:33 PM
link   
I think the Nazi's we're a bit different, there was no choice really, you had to fight. The Afghanistan war and the Iraq war are spawn from 911, while 911 was a terrible attack, there is no evidence that Osama and Al Qaeda actually committed the acts, and the Iraq war was of the back of poor intelligence. And your spot on, they ignore other situations in the world, and let thousands die to rogue armies and factions. Double standards. I can't wait for our men to come home. I don't like my country being portrayed as war mongers, it doesn't portray the people of Britain.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 06:43 PM
link   
We did have a choice both in the 1st and 2nd world wars - germany didn't want war with britain, we declared war on them, because they attacked our allies.

I'm simply saying that if it was good enough for us to do it then, in accordance with the terms of an alliance, then it's good enough for them to help us out now.
But of course they won't - not until they're in trouble, then they'll expect us to fulfill our treaty obligations - whether we agree with what they're doing or not.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join