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: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by thecrow001
 


ALL Quotes from Joyce Resignation letter from

THIS SOURCE


As you may know, I told Bob Ainsworth some weeks ago that I intended to step down as Parliamentary Private Secretary


This doesn't sound like he quit to me. He already knew he was going to step down. Doesn't say quit.


I have been privileged to work as PPS to four senior Labour ministers in four government departments and now feel that I can make my best contribution to the Labour effort in parliament by concentrating on helping,



I intended to step down as Parliamentary Private Secretary (PPS) to the Defence Secretary before the start of the new parliamentary term. This seems to me the least disruptive time to do that.


I'm not British and admit that I fully don't understand their system. Does this mean he is going to run for office?


I do not think the British people will support the physical risk to our servicemen and women unless they can be given confidence that Afghanistan’s government has been properly elected and has a clear intent to deal with the corruption there which has continued unabated in recent years.


Has he ever spoken out about this corruption prior to this moment?



[edit on 3-9-2009 by jam321]




posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by wayno
 

No, Wayno, we didn't lose. We were there to assist a South Vietnam which was under assault from the North.

We were successful for nine years. Then we turned it over to the South Vietnamese.

The South Vietnamese in turn were successful for three years all by themselves. But the significant weight of Russian and CHICOM advisors, combat personnel, weapons, weapons platforms, armor, equipment, artillery, mortars, rockets, supplies, and a dedicated North finally prevailed.

Is historical stupidity just a problem here on ATS, or is this an international ignorance that permeates English speaking nations?

The "slaughtering" as you refer to it was successful in deterring North Vietnam for 12 years.

We also gained all kinds of new technologies from the war, so don't act like it was all for nothing. We got to develop and finesse the first laser guided bombs during the war, triage, computers, and of course, an entire generation of millions of combat experienced Americans.

We aren't fighting to win in Afghanistan. The only two to defeat Afghanistan was Alexander and Ghenghis. They won by depopulating vast regions of Afghanistan, and they killed everyone in provinces and regions that gave them problems.

Hey, it worked.

So as you can see from our operations, we aren't fighting to win. We are merely conducting multiple bug hunts while maintaining a presence in a very strategic location. Kind of gives us a chance to hone our combat skills and create yet another generation of hardened, combat experienced Americans.

Fortunately, it's these hardened, battle-experienced men that are what our current government and Administration fears. These battle-hardened men with trigger time.

You state that Afghanistan is not our country. An absolutely brilliant deduction. Were you able to figure that out all by yourself?

Seriously.

Were you?

And by the way, practicing killing in military operations is a time-honored tradition, and has been for millennia. It's the prohibition against looting that's the recent morale buster.

I know you've heard the phrase, "practice makes perfect."

I dare you to name another country that has so many combat hardened, combat tested men, combat tested weapons platforms, and logistics trains proven under very harsh geological conditions.

Gotta love it!

You THOUGHT we had enough practice already?

Nah.

It's not that we've had enough practice. The problem is your thinking. None of my business, but the next time to start thinking - don't.

I don't know if you just have a bug up urass over the US, or if it's a weed, but you may as well get over this little problem that's no skin off your nose as you won't be deciding anything on this matter at any rate.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kram09
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]


Oh no can't have that. The infusion of Islam and the fleeing of citizens will soon make it a Caliphate. In that regard, I can understand your concern.

Enjoy the Call to Prayer from the new minarets of Buckingham Palace.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 02:19 AM
link   
People are getting a little concerned here in the UK because where it was once a soldier killed once a month it's getting like a daily thing. That's after eight years being there and the death rate seems to be increasing rapidly as the UK military has no proper helicopters and the troops drive around in vehicles designed for WW2 not the modern era. The natives have found our achilles and they are succeeding in getting the British to question the campaign through the increasing deaths.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 05:34 AM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


I wasn't the one who compared Afghanistan to Vietnam.

If you want to believe that America didn't lose the Vietnam War then fair enough. I know there are one or two historians who released books arguing that America did not lose Vietnam. Sort of a revisionist history kind of thing. Personally i can't understand how on earth it can be argued that America won and most people would certainly know that America lost Vietnam. Even Hollywood doesn't try to portray it as a war that the U.S won.

If the United States won, why is Vietnam communist???

Anyway like i said if you want to believe America won, then fair enough that is your opinion, but i respectfully disagree.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 06:02 AM
link   
My problem with the Afghanistan war is not the number of casualties but the government's consistent and total failure to explain the conflict to the general populace. I hear now that Brown is launching a "get behind the troops" campaign - this misses the point. People are already "behind the troops", but they're not behind the politicians that sent the troops there.

I understand why we're at war, and I understand why we have to stay there, but that's because I read the news and understand the bigger picture.

But government has to start explaining and advocating for the conflict to the general populace, otherwise anti-war sentiment will grow and they'll end up pulling out (being populist and weak) which will be disastrous for Britain, NATO and our relationship with the US.

My two cents...



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Don't forget to consider the cause behind the war.

Their is no real cause for this war to continue, you guys messed up Afghanistan worse than it was under Taliban. Actually Taliban were doing well and would have done well but colonizers don't want self governed countries in that region. Iran is enough of a problem already, imagine a twine. All the interests of Super powers in that region would fly away.

Propaganda all over your nuts, clean it.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


I disagree that we have messed up in Afghanistan or that the country is in a worse state than before 2001. Afghanistan was in a complete mess before we sent any troops there - there's been a civil war going on since the Saur Revolution in 1978. Now at least there is a semblance of law an order, at least in the majority of the country.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattpryor
reply to post by oozyism
 


I disagree that we have messed up in Afghanistan or that the country is in a worse state than before 2001. Afghanistan was in a complete mess before we sent any troops there - there's been a civil war going on since the Saur Revolution in 1978. Now at least there is a semblance of law an order, at least in the majority of the country.

Law and order, are you kidding me. Most of the country is controlled by either Taliban or the Warlords. There is no governance outside Kabul. Corruption, Crime, drugs, rape everything on the rise and you are saying it is better. You got to be kidding me.

Ohh wait I know what you are talking about, you must be talking about Television and Satellite lol, yeah every household in Kabul has one. People can't find food but they have a massive Satellite so they can watch Indian movies. That is what America has brought. The country is in a mess.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


God forbid that peace should break out. Maybe you could put your killing skills to use on the chicken farms that sort out chicks and send all the male ones to the meat grinder.


I'm sure you would enjoy that. Or is killing humans more to your liking?

edit to add: You make it sound like the primary reason you go to war is to get better at going to war -- to hone your skills. Obviously the real issues the people in Afghanistan have is secondary. How could any of your actions or decisions be trusted?

Not to mention the completely delusional existence you seem to be in -- more like an arcade game geared to adolescents than real life.

[edit on 9/4/2009 by wayno]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
Actually Taliban were doing well and would have done well but colonizers don't want self governed countries in that region. Iran is enough of a problem already, imagine a twine. All the interests of Super powers in that region would fly away.

Propaganda all over your nuts, clean it.



At least I have a pair.

As far as the Taliban doing just fine?
Prove it. I mean show me the data that these foreigners to Afghan were doing just that. Preventing females from educations. Honor killings. Blowing up ancient monuments becuase it didn't fit in with their twisted view of Islam. I'd love to see the proof of this utopia we destroyed.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
Ohh wait I know what you are talking about, you must be talking about Television and Satellite lol, yeah every household in Kabul has one. People can't find food but they have a massive Satellite so they can watch Indian movies. That is what America has brought. The country is in a mess.



Yeah don't forget the disaster about having no cell phone coverage either. Heaven help them...

Afghan DJs play tunes, break hearts in Taliban country

GARMSIR, Afghanistan (Reuters) - The DJs of Radio Garmsir in Afghanistan's lower Helmand River valley knew their station had touched a nerve when the letters started pouring in.

First a few, then more, and pretty soon 20 to 30 letters per day, hand delivered to a box outside the NATO base where they broadcast deep into Taliban territory from a desk in a tiny bunker.

Most are requests for songs. Some are complaints -- about police driving too fast through the bazaar, about the continuing failure of mobile phone companies to bring reception to the valley.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by IDK88
 





The reason for the 200+ British deaths...because they are a greedy and twisted people


Hmms as greedy and twisted as Americans, who go around abducting people from thier country, tourturing them, holding them without charges, hmms right the USA is right up thier over everyone else eh


[edit on 4-9-2009 by Laurauk]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
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]


And all the dead afghans? Why the hell should we lose any men for something you guys created? Stop funding both sides of the war, it might help.

Just bla... 211 men is 211 men more than we should have lost. You might not think 211 is much, but here in Britain every soldier has a family and is considered not expendable. Go take your figures and shove it.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Sloppy
 



Why the hell should we lose any men for something you guys created? Stop funding both sides of the war, it might help.


My question is why have you all waited 7 years to petition your government to get out?

If it about death, then I would assume that even one death is one too many.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sloppy
Go take your figures and shove it.


You hurt my feelings.


Back to the OP....

I understand your concerns. Being a citizen of the UK you have the right to voice your opinion about the politics in your own country. I say the UK doesn't have to fight. Let them train the Afghan military and police units elsewhere if they don't want to put more troops in harms way. That seems reasonable. That will free up our troops to close with and engage the Taliban.

NATO Chief Urges Bigger European Role in Afghan War

But echoing the plaintive pleas of his predecessor, the Dutch diplomat Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Mr. Rasmussen called for more European troops and more Europeans to train the Afghan Army and the police to stand on their own.

“It is essential to keep this as a multilateral project, not least for political reasons,” he said, alluding gently to the American-British invasion of Iraq in the face of major allied discontent. “That is a lesson I learned from the past. Even if America can do it on its own, there are heavy arguments for doing it through a multilateral approach within a NATO context.”




Originally posted by oozyism
Law and order, are you kidding me. Most of the country is controlled by either Taliban or the Warlords. There is no governance outside Kabul. Corruption, Crime, drugs, rape everything on the rise and you are saying it is better. You got to be kidding me.



Unprecedented growth


The eight years of Karzai rule have brought unprecedented growth in business, communications, industry and infrastructure.

At the turn of the millenium, many people in remote Badakhshan province still did not know whether they were citizens of Afghanistan or Tajikistan.

Two young police officers on election duty in Herat
'The mantle of leadership will soon pass to a new generation of Afghans'

Today, multi-storey shopping malls are being built there, as well as roads linking this isolated region with Kabul.

In Herat, industrialisation has taken root and a vibrant entrepreneurial class is on the rise.

The south has lagged behind due to its proximity to Taliban sanctuaries across the border, but it still provides the national leadership and much of its physical infrastructure has been restored.

And even the warlords may have served a useful purpose, somehow.

In Badakhshan, they were instrumental in eradicating poppy crops.

In Kabul, the warlords dislodged from their fiefdoms in the north, west and south of the country have started television channels, airlines and other businesses that provide badly-needed employment for the country's youth.



How to Win in Afghanistan

The Taliban and related groups are tough, tenacious foes but they are hardly invincible. Their Achilles heel is lack of popular support. An International Republican Institute poll of 2,400 Afghans in July found that only 19% have a favorable view of the Taliban compared to 62% who have a positive impression of the U.S. and 82% who view the Afghan National Army favorably. A poll taken earlier this year by the BBC and ABC found that only 4% of Afghans want the Taliban to return to power. U.S. forces are not going to replay the experience of the Red Army—popular legitimacy is on our side in a way that it never was for the Russians, despite doubts that are emerging about the integrity of the presidential election. The only reason the Taliban have made gains is because of a governance and security vacuum that they have filled with fear and intimidation.

Until now international forces and their Afghan partners have lacked the will and resources to implement a classic counterinsurgency plan designed to secure the populace. But that is precisely what Gen. Stanley McChrystal will undertake—assuming he gets the resources he needs from Washington. To pull the plug on our operations now, when our troops are only beginning to fight in earnest, would be even more foolish than it would have been to short-circuit the surge in Iraq in 2007—as so many who are freely offering advice on Afghanistan today once advocated.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


You are wrong, there has been persistent calls from the public to get our troops out of Afghanistan for years. The labour government, has no grip on defence, also thier repeat story of this would stop terrorism has passed its sell by date.

The public in the UK are getting sick and tired of not beng told the truth. As a result the public support behind the Troop will drop and diminish as a result of the Governments policy.




But echoing the plaintive pleas of his predecessor, the Dutch diplomat Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Mr. Rasmussen called for more European troops and more Europeans to train the Afghan Army and the police to stand on their own.


But the problem with this, is the other European countries will not implement any more troops into afghanistan, alot of themlack behind while the UK, US, Canada take the brunt of the fight with the Taliban.

Until they firmly commit more troops the so called War on Terror in afghanistant is a complete failure.


[edit on 4-9-2009 by Laurauk]

[edit on 4-9-2009 by Laurauk]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
War is insane.

Having said that, however, I want to say that I do respect the military a lot. I know that the guys in the military serve a very important role, my grandfather served in WWII, and I truly admire most of the people I've met in the military. And my old ex-boyfriend is in Iraq right now, trolling for roadside bombs. So, I do respect the military, and I am thankful that you guys all exist.

However, I think war should only be used in one instance: to defend yourself.

In WWII, we defended ourself for Japan bombing us.

When it comes to Afghanistan, if we believe the official story and the tapes from Bin Laden himself, we defended ourselves after 9/11.

(I know, I know, i doubt the official story myself...I mean, how can some tribal men living in caves make such an attack on the US? Makes no sense, and the 9/11 conspiracy theories do make sense. But this isn't a conspiracy thread.)

So, assuming that Bin Laden himself WAS telling the truth when he claimed responsibility for the attacks, and assuming that the US official story was true, and we did go to Afghanistan to hunt down and find Bin Laden....

My question now is....we didn't find Bin Laden.....and 8 years have gone by...so, what are we STILL doing there? What is our current objective in Afghanistan?

When we couldn't find him after 8 years, did we still think we were going to? Or, did we say, "Well, we've been here for so long, we might as well find someone else to fight while we're here....Let's go after the warlords!"

I just don't understand...are the warlords part of the Taliban? Part of Al Quaeda? Is the Taliban part of Al Quaeda? How did they all fit into 9/11? Did they fit into 9/11 at all? If not....why are we fighting them?

I mean, really, I DO respect all the military guys out there... but I don't understand our government's objectives....what we are still doing there.

Personally, we should have given the mission a time limit: i.e. go in, find him, leave Afghanistan....time limit: 6 months.

It's been 8 years. That's an awful long game of hide and seek.

I'm asking these questions seriously....not trying to harp on the military guys....I just want to know what our current objective is in Afghanistan. What is the end point? What is the mission objective? Have we changed our objectives in Afghanistan since 2001? If so, what are they??



[edit on 4-9-2009 by nikiano]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Oops, triple post..how did I do that??

[edit on 4-9-2009 by nikiano]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
oops...double post

[edit on 4-9-2009 by nikiano]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join