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.

 

Defence Secretary Aide Quits Over Afghanistan

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Defence Secretary Aide Quits Over Afghanistan


news.sky.com


Defence Secretary Aide Quits Over Afghanistan

The parliamentary aide to Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth has resigned over the Government's policy in Afghanistan.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   
In a letter to Gordon Brown, Eric Joyce called on the Prime Minister to make it clear to the British people that the Afghanistan campaign was "time limited".

He said the public would not accept for "much longer that our losses can be justified by simply referring to the risk of greater terrorism on our streets".



we all know his time is limited just leave and save some face

news.sky.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by thecrow001
He said the public would not accept for "much longer that our losses can be justified by simply referring to the risk of greater terrorism on our streets".
we all know his time is limited just leave and save some face





Help me understand something here. Britain lost about 250 men fighting with Argentina back in 1982 over the Falkland island in little under 74 days. Now you have your forces deployed in Afghanistan for what now? 8 years and have lost only 211?

I'd hardly call those figures horrible. Considering the UK forces there have probably done away with ten times those numbers of the enemy. Compared to the Soviet losses of 18.000+ the US and UK forces are doing just fine. Have a little more faith in your fighting forces abilities. I sure do.


[edit on 3-9-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


oh i have faith in my friends dont worry about that, its just its 200 + soldiers who could of been fighting in a real war and could be home and alive right now.

Browns losing his party bit by bit, he losing the public bit by bit.

What ever the number of losses its still a loss.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


its not about casualty figures, its about why they died... u know why the 200+ died against argentina.. to retake the falkland islands which were rightfully yours in the first place... but can u tell me why the 200+ have died in afghanistan? a clear, concise reason why... and i dont wanna hear the same rehashed terorrism bullcrap either..



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by TheCoffinman
 


I'm not a Britt...


To the OP...

Those figures are relatively low. I bet if you take the 211 and divide that by the 8 years [26.3] You will probably find that the average is about the same losses your military sees during peace time in military training accidents and off duty alcohol related automobile crashes etc.


[edit on 3-9-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


yeah so what ? it still does not mean its ok ?

like the other guy said its why they died not the numbers.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Many people in the UK don't want our troops dying for your pathetic wars. Just because 212 have died, doesn't make it any less important.



[edit on 3/9/09 by Kram09]



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


in veitnam we killed hundreds of thousands of north vietnamese, veitcong, chinese cambodians and laotians... way more of them then us, but we lost vietnam...



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by TheCoffinman
 


This isn't Vietnam.


There is no triple canopy jungle. The Taliban are not supported by two other world powers like the North Vietnamese were. In Vietnam we lost 64.000 we just broke 1.000 do to recent action going into the southern territories starting in the spring of this year which we avoided this whole time.

Most of the Taliban are not even supported by the Afghans themselves. The Northern Territories have little or no action they don't want them there either. We have pushed them east into western Pakistan Google SWAT. The southern Territories are now in play becuase we have taken the fight to them. That's why the casualties have gone up recently.

Why are you dragging Vietnam into this picture?


There is no comparison.


[edit on 3-9-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


I think he mentioned Vietnam because you seemed to be implying that by killing more Taliban than were killing U.S or coalition troops, then the war could be won....or something to that effect. But in Vietnam the same happened and the U.S lost.

Oh and the U.S lost 58,000 in Vietnam not 64,000



[edit on 3/9/09 by Kram09]


[edit on 3/9/09 by Kram09]



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Kram09
 


Some of us still count POW/MIAs

I wasn't implying that.
Some people take liberties and make many assumptions.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Fair enough.

It was just a mistake.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
This isn't Vietnam.

Why are you dragging Vietnam into this picture?

There is no comparison.


You're right. Vietnam doesn't have the history of Afghanistan.

The Graveyard of Empires.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
The political scene regarding Afghanistan is turning into quite a performance. Something BIG must be getting ready to die out there.

I don't feel bad however...when we were lured into that trap, they had quite a few nasty plans for us to.

People say things are going badly...I ask, badly for whom, let's just wait and see.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex


You're right. Vietnam doesn't have the history of Afghanistan.

The Graveyard of Empires.


That is such a warn out saying. That was last years pop song.
Change the channel.

Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great both conquered the region. They did it by exterminating almost everyone. We wont need to do that as mentioned before the Taliban do not have popular support. Most of them are not even Afghans.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   
All wars follow the same basic formula...this formula is revealed in the 1st story in the 1001 Arabian Nights and the Epic of Gilgamesh from the Persian/Indian/Arab perspective. I think these stories are not as popular in the West because the west doesn't start any wars.

Its two brothers, a greater and a lesser (Al Qaeda & Taliban) and a whore (UK) versus a man (America) and his wife (China).

The American deaths...because we still haven't learned to stop giving help to Whores. Over time they've come up with ever more elaborate stories and go to greater lengths to secure our committment, but at some point America will have to learn to watch, and enjoy, as that tramp get what's coming to her.

For the Chinese, the wife of the American and the land of the mother of all living. She doesn't even get involved in external conflicts, as it would be unbecoming of a mother to ever be involved in a situation where she might have to kill her own children. But they are still trying to pull her in with constant agitation...i.e. Xinjiang.

The reason for the 200+ British deaths...because they are a greedy and twisted people, who can't stand the idea of American global supremacy. As for the ones that are living in America...those internment camps might be used for them if they don't quit with the b/s. This is the youngest daughter of China.

For the bi-sexual brothers and their great adventure...a real life Harold & Kumar if you will. These two get nothing but contempt. They tremble in the presence of men...employ the most treacherous and dishonorable techniques in war...use all women as whores...and none of them will survive this. There will be no end to the suffering and humiliation of these two sissy's.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Kram09
 

Hey Kram, the US did NOT lose in Vietnam.

The Viet Cong were slaughtered in 1968, and were never again a military force in South Vietnam.

In 1972, the North invaded South Vietnam, and US forces slaughtered the North Vietnamese Army when they attacked in what was termed the Easter Offensive.

In the Summer of 1972, the last US combat forces returned to the US, and we turned it over to the South Vietnamese.

THREE YEARS after the US left, North Vietnam again invaded South Vietnam, and was successful.

If you don't have your basic facts correct, then it really makes me question your judgment on other things.

This isn't anything LIKE Vietnam.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


So what? If you didn't lose, did you just give up because you got bored of slaughtering??
You surely didn't win for all that slaughtering.


There isn't anything for you to win in Afghanistan either. Its not your country.

There is no Osama bin Laden to be had and nothing for you to gain -- except more practice at killing people for no good reason. God I'd of thought you guys had enough of that practice already.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheCoffinman
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


its not about casualty figures, its about why they died... u know why the 200+ died against argentina.. to retake the falkland islands which were rightfully yours in the first place... but can u tell me why the 200+ have died in afghanistan? a clear, concise reason why... and i dont wanna hear the same rehashed terorrism bullcrap either..


Unfortunately, it doesn't matter whether you want to hear the "rehashed terrorism bullcrap" or not.

The war (and if you don't want to call it a 'war', I'd like to see you say that to the face of the men who died or their comrades in arms or their families.... but I digress) was propagated as a direct result to the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Centers and at the time, the primary suspect of the attacks was Osama Bin Laden. He was found to have been harbored there shortly after the attacks.

That's the reason.

Don't believe me? Again, don't really care.

Go read:

en.wikipedia.org...(2001%E2%80%93present)

wiki.answers.com...

So.

Tough that you don't like the 'terrorism' tag being thrown in the mix, but that's what it really is and mind you - I'm going off the definition of terrorism (well, one of the 106 various definitions) not some political aim.

I'm not getting into a political debate with you over this, so if you try to flame my direct answer to your question, have fun yelling at the silence on your computer screen. I'm sick and god damned tired of whiny ass civilians getting on here and flaming the military and how big bad and evil we all are. I'd like to see those people actually amount to a damn in their life time. This sickens me to the core.

[edit on 3-9-2009 by mf_luder]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join