Brits question war as bodies flown home

Brits question war as bodies flown home

www.news.com.au

MOST Britons believe the increasingly bloody war in Afghanistan is "unwinnable" and want troops pulled out, an opinion poll said today, as more soldiers' bodies were flown home.

The dead servicemen were honoured a day after Britain announced the end of a major offensive in southern Afghanistan and outlined a change of strategy following a sharp spike in deaths.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Articles like this annoy me. Not for the content, but for the lack of facts.

Any reported survey should have the sample size, the percentage results and some description about how the survey was conducted.

With that out of the way, it seems that the UK Kool-Aid effect is wearing off. It's great to see the leaders not listening to the people, who want the troops home.

However, I've stated it lots of times before - when people sign up to be soldiers and play with guns, they might get killed. If they're not happy with that, then they should find another line of work.

www.news.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)

Goodness, how can theywhole UK Population for thier views!
state, a large percentage of the UK Population want the troops home.

When it was only over 1000 adult who were asked the questions!

This make me laugh.

ComRes telephoned 1,008 British adults on 24-26 July 2009. Data were weighted by past vote recall. ComRes is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules. Full tables at www.comres.co.uk.

1008 people out of 60 million people in the UK. Oh Sure that is the majority of the UK

If the tories were in power, everyone would be screaming how it's all the fault of the conservatives.

Notice how none of these threads make recognition of the fact that it's your glorious Labour Party that is leading you down the path to war.

We have noticed a similar shift in attitudes here in the US with Obama, it's now almost as if the war in Afghanistan just "happened" not that he's keeping us there.

reply to post by Retseh


That is not what I am referring to, and I donotthink the OP was referring to what you posted either.

We are disupting the number of people supposinlgy asked. Which is used in evidence to the percentage, wanting the troops to be pulled out of Iraq.

What gets me is how the stats WAY under report the ones that are coming home alive but with severe head traumas, some dying in hospitals in the States so they do not even count.

If they reported the truth about lost limbs and other horrific traumas it would seriously curtail the propaganda to get our youth to sign up in the first place.

reply to post by antar


What makes this more insulting. The MOD over here inthe UK, are taking injured Soldiers, whohave claimed compensation, to court, to try and have thier compensation awards reduced, to a minimum amount.

Not only now have those soildiers been injured, but they are being backstabbed by those who sent them to War inIraq on the first place.

Complete Shamefull.

Alas, we all should have questioned the war before we started shipping bodies to Afghanistan.

reply to post by chiron613


I should have question the Britain's involvement in WWII when Germany was invading Poland at the time, not Britain. Why exactly did Britain send troops to Afghanistan? Surely it wasn't 9/11 since it was an attack on the U.S. of A., not Great Britain.

reply to post by deltaboy


Hang on so no British Citizens were killed on 9/11?

It was a NATO intervention, with afghanistan. the Uk is apart of NATO is itnot?

reply to post by Laurauk


Its call sarcasm. Since the poster is questioning about the war, I figured that person needs to look back as to why British troops are in there in the first place.

reply to post by deltaboy


Well duh, I did not even see that, I apologise ps (maybe next time out sacarsm at the end of it)

Originally posted by Retseh
If the tories were in power, everyone would be screaming how it's all the fault of the conservatives.

Notice how none of these threads make recognition of the fact that it's your glorious Labour Party that is leading you down the path to war.

We have noticed a similar shift in attitudes here in the US with Obama, it's now almost as if the war in Afghanistan just "happened" not that he's keeping us there.

The labour government is getting an absolute panning in every radio show, internet forum and newspaper going. Even the Guardian is having a pop at them. If the Guardian is turning on the labour government, it is definitely a sign that all is not well.

They will lose the next election and then in about 12 years time everyone will be sick of the Tories and vote Labour in again. Repeat to fade.

The fact of the matter is that the only way labour could get in in 97 was by dropping its socialist principles. If it still had them intact, perhaps we would have a clear binary opposition between the parties, and therefore a choice. As it is we've got two centrist parties fighting, like the proverbial two bald men over a comb. Regardless of this, many people will still vote Labour precisely because they are NOT the tories.

Not me, i spoil my paper, but i would never, ever, vote Conservative.

reply to post by tezzajw

However, I've stated it lots of times before - when people sign up to be soldiers and play with guns, they might get killed. If they're not happy with that, then they should find another line of work.

Being fair, most soldiers sign up to do their duty and serve and defend their country. In doing so they should expect the full support of their Government for 1, have the best equipment to do the job for 2 and lastly they should have a clear strategy to win the war and how theyre going to accomplish this and what to do afterwards. Unfortunately for these brave men and women they have recieved neither of these. So before you go saying its their fault fo signing up, just think of the lack of support by their government and the amount of lives that would have been saved if they had gotten everything they needed.

Lest we forget.

reply to post by Laurauk



I know, I was just making a general observation about how both of our respective nations are now reporting the war.

When the Repubs were in office, it was all about how both Iraq and Afghanistan were "their" wars. Now that Obama is in office, it's just "the war".

Liberals hate to think that their candidates are also capable of endorsing a conflict.

Originally posted by CRB86

They will lose the next election and then in about 12 years time everyone will be sick of the Tories and vote Labour in again. Repeat to fade.

I think that's true of both the US and the UK.

But I would contend that post-Thatcher, the emphasis in the UK will be on socialist as opposed to conservative rule, your social trends are heavily left leaning.

Cameron may win next time around, but I'd be surprised if he gets more than one term in office, and certainly not more than two.

In social terms, I would say that the US is about where the UK was with the Wilson government.

Unfortunately that means that we will have to endure Callaghan before we get to Thatcher, I suspect that our Callaghan is currently in office.

Originally posted by Laurauk
reply to post by deltaboy

 

Hang on so no British Citizens were killed on 9/11?

It was a NATO intervention, with afghanistan. the Uk is apart of NATO is itnot?

9/11 was in fact the biggest loss of british life to a terrorist attack.. 67 Brits lost their lives that day

[edit on 29-7-2009 by woodwardjnr]

This is the way that the media works. They get an organisation to talk a representive sample of the people (Strange how they must have a telephone which will influence the sample) and take that as the basis for what the whole country is thinking.

They did not call me and even if they had, I would have refused to answer any questions and how can we sure that the people questioned answered truthfully. I will admit to do some surveys on cars and always giving BWM the worst possible rating - (it's a long story!!)

Of course, the number of troops being killed and wounded (something that is not revealed for operational reasons) should always make us think about what we expect our Government to order our military to do on our behalf.

There is one question we should ask our leaders - What event or events need to occur so we can determine that the operation has been successful. Only when our leaders have the answer to this question, can they then say to our military leaders "What do you need to do to get this result"

To date I have not heard any one of our leaders come out with a clear statement on the mission objectivies for Afganistan and will the mental horsepower of our Government, we are unlikely to get a clear statement.

There is a very good military reason for Afganistan - Name me the Militaries that have the most comabt experience since 1945? One country that will come up is the UK. we have some of the most combat experienced military in the world. Is that justification enough for the number of troops lost in Afganistan. NO, of course not.

And guess what, there have been surveys during the Northern Ireland troubles that if believed and taken at face value would have suggested the the British people want troops to leave. We have signed up to legally binding agreement under our membership of NATO. Our mission in NATO is not just a British one. It is a NATO one and I for one, do not want Britain to be seen as a country that does not honour its agreements.

The loss of any life and wounding of our troops is not something to be taken lightly but with democracy comes responsibility.

"MOST Britons believe the increasingly bloody war in Afghanistan is "unwinnable"."


Any war has a possibility to be won.

The only thing deciding the outcome is the price both sides are willing to pay to get what they want. The sad part about that is that that price is totaled in human lives.

Even more sadly, it's something those in power (Even those we put in power) don't always think about.

reply to post by Americantrucker


The very point I was making Americantrucker. And I have just finished reading "The Gamble" about the US surge in Iraq and at least that proves that our elected leaders do have the capacity to change strategy when presented with all the facts.

And the worst of it for me, if we do question our leaders that say that there is a recession on and we should focus on that. Talk about deflecting!!