Defence Secretary Aide Quits Over Afghanistan

Holy cow....a quadruple post!! How in the heck did I do that??? Sorry, mods! My computer must be on the fritz...

[edit on 4-9-2009 by nikiano]

reply to post by Laurauk

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.

I can not debate you on the labour government. I am not British. As for what I said, I only meant to point that the majority of people now asking for withdrawal because of deaths, had no problem with it at the get go.

But we all know that as war lingers on, people start getting concerned about the price and consequences of war.

Having fought alongside my British mates in the first Gulf war, I can say that I have nothing but the utmost respect for them.

@jam321 Re: Eric Joyce
No, he's not stepping down to run for office. The way it works is that he is already a Member of Parliament, with a constituency & vote, but he was also serving as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Defence (who is also an MP for a constituency as well as a Cabinet Minister). Thats sort of like being a PA & apprentice @ the same time. So whilst running some of the Ministers office, he gets experience of Ministerial duties etc. & that may get him promoted into Cabinet @some point in the future.
Just not while Gordon Browne is in charge, probably!As to the rest of this thread, there really seems little point, but "Deny Ignorance" is the motto, so I'll just say that we are in Afghanistan purely & simply because of its strategic position. If it hadn't been 9/11, Bush Jnr would have found some other excuse. IDK exactly what Blair managed to wangle out of W for our co-operation, but I'm guessing it probably had more to do with how much the UK stood to lose if the US$ kept falling @ the rate it was. Thank Thatchers US bum-licking policy for such trade dependance.On the UK front, I'd say Labour will lose the next election. Everyone knows that the reasons for both wars are lies, even if they dont know what the truth is. Labour wont be forgiven. The Tories will make some vague promises to better support the troops so that they can complete their (still undefined) mission & then bring "our lads" home trumphantly. You watch. It will seem like business as usual for a while, but the US bum-licking will be redoubled on the sly. Before too long, there will be a need to increase UK troop numbers for 1 final push etc. but somehow, unless Iran does collapse under Western pressure, the occupation will never quite cease. Even with a properly grateful & western-dependant puppet govt in Kabul, the "training" of Afghan military & police will go on ad nauseam... as will The War on Terror.

reply to post by Kram09


Kram, I don't know if you are dense, or misinformed. I just explained.

The US didn't lose the war in Vietnam.

We turned it over to the South Vietnamese, and three years later, the SOUTH VIETNAMESE lost.

NOT the US.

Is this starting to sink in, or can a learning disability be the problem?

reply to post by wayno

Yes! God forbid that peace should break out. Truly a sign of the end times.

You're mighty selective in what conflicts you seem to dislike. Since the Second World War, there have been wars somewhere every single year since.

Why just this one?

I don't know what in hell you're suggesting about killing some damned chickens. Have these dreams haunted you for long?

If you don't know the difference between killing chickens and killing men, you're some kind of twisted.

While I've killed both, there's no pride in killing a chicken - just supper. There's just no pride or sense of accomplishment in chicken killing. But an enemy . . .

Since you don't seem to understand the basic principle of war, I'll explain it to you. And since it's you, I'll type real slow.

War is two sides killing each other until one side is unable to kill further, or unwilling to die further. When you kill enough, the other side quits.

It's just that simple, and trying to interject personal preferences changes nothing. No reason to make any more out of it than that.

The experience you pick up during the process is just a bonus. It's not your purpose for going to war. Kind of like ordering a steak dinner, and the baked potato comes with it.

Islamic fundamentalists trained and operated out of Afghanistan, feeling they were untouchable. They were protected by the Taliban, who too, thought they were untouchable.

They don't think that now.

If you don't like the US in Afghanistan, tough. Go **** in your hat.

We in the US do not give a tinker's damn about your trust. We do not seek it, nor do we care if we have it, so once again you can do a repeat, and **** in your hat.






[edit on 5-9-2009 by dooper]

reply to post by dooper

The US didn't lose the war in Vietnam.

We turned it over to the South Vietnamese, and three years later, the SOUTH VIETNAMESE lost.

NOT the US.

You've said some spectacularly idiotic stuff in your posts, but I dare say you have never made me laugh so hard.

By the way, calling people names isn't doing anything for your case. It just makes you look more like ......... well, I'll leave that to your imagination.
Just let me say it is a little more realistic than the glorified blood and guts hero you make yourself out to be.

reply to post by wayno

You're most welcome! My purpose in life is to entertain you.

No one here said anything about glory or heroes. Your words entirely.

What is it with you? You don't know history, and then you attribute material to others that they in fact never alluded to.

Your proctologist must love you with the relative ease you're able to reach around and pull things out of your nether region.

Originally posted by dooper

 

If you don't like the US in Afghanistan, tough. Go **** in your hat.
We in the US do not give a tinker's damn about your trust. We do not seek it, nor do we care if we have it, so once again you can do a repeat, and **** in your hat.

This, people, is precisely why the rest of the world should get out of Afghanistan & Iraq: let the USA pay for propping up the value of the US$ themselves. Because, truly, most Americans do not care what goes on outside their borders.
Still, they are broke. There's only so much war can be fought on credit... The faster their ambition over-reaches their ability to screw more unpayable loans out of anyone, the more peaceful the world will be. The man's right, since WW2 there have been wars going on almost constantly. What he failed to add is that US foreign policy has been a crucial factor in almost all of them.
So, now blind us with your dazzling insight into how the USA has championed freedom by fomenting &/or fighting wars... After all, we truly do believe that you have to destroy the village to save it!

reply to post by dooper


If we limit the war to the battlefield then yes, the US won the war. But Battles are fought on more then just the battlefield.

We lost due to the amount of negative publicity that the left embraced from communist sympathizers. And then the left multiplied the negative publicity a million fold. In 1965, the US troops were liberators, and Heroes. In 1975, The US troops were oppressors and baby killers. The US simply lost the war due to a massive "staged" leftist propaganda event.

The US lost the war by shooting itself in the foot.

Now today, we are seeing the same propaganda events in Afghanistan. Several of Obama's own party are leading the charge to get the US out of Afghanistan. (ie a "exit strategy") And it looks like Brown's party has the same problem as well. (Of course, some of the Negative propaganda is sponsored by Islamic causes and will be ignored by the media. Except maybe, murdoch's own propaganda news stations?)

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]

I'm with you gents. I think Britain should tuck it's tail between it's legs and run like hell out of Afghanistan. I assure you I for one would want no man fighting beside me who has not the heart to even attempt to overcome his enemy. He is more dangerous to me than the enemy is.

Besides, I welcome the field day the enemy would have with any such action at Britain's expense. It would serve a useful purpose as a warning to the rest of the world.

Of course it's really not YOUR fight anyhow, is it? It's not like the enemy has attacked YOUR country, or blown up YOUR busses and people, is it? Oh, wait, it's EXACTLY like that! Run, run away! Maybe you can outrun the devil - or maybe he won't notice you cower in the corner. In any event, it won't be my lookout to prevent your destruction. I'll be busy, eyes front, facing the enemy.

He won't be shooting ME in the back.

Originally posted by Laurauk

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.

I'm afraid I fail to see how the success or failure of a war in Afghanistan hinges upon whether or not Europeans display the prominent yellow streak down their backs.

Their utter failure to live up to treaty obligations will have no observable effect on he war.

Sadly, it will not have any effect on the rest of us running to help them when next they get their butts caught in a crack either.

They have become irrelevant to all but the EU. I'm all for dissolving NATO. Most of the whiny little hand wringers should fend for themselves. Might find something to do to occupy themselves so that the hand-wringing stops.

reply to post by jam321


this is simply not true of the british people, none of us wanted to go to war, especialy with america, the only reason for this war is to build a pipe line, the cia to get their heroine supply back and as a strategic location for america, why should british troops die for any of those reasons? why should any afganistanis die for those reasons, america realy needs to go home, shut the doors and not bother anybody for a while, wont be long before ww3 becomes all against america

reply to post by nenothtu


you are at it again, stop being so confrontational and arogant, the people of afganistan are not our enemies they are yours, it is that war mongering american attitude that does not run strong in britain, and i rather have a british soldier next to me in a war than an american, it would save me having to watch over my shoulder

Originally posted by THELONIO
reply to post by nenothtu

 

you are at it again, stop being so confrontational and arogant, the people of afganistan are not our enemies they are yours

Well "our" enemy has killed 211 of your soldiers. So I guess it's time for your country to pull out. When exactly did our Government force your government to invade Afghanistan with us?

It must be nice to sit there safely and jabber jaw and criticize. But Remember if it wasn't for soldiers you would probably be speaking German or Russian right now. I've met some of your soldiers you're doing them a great disservice.

Originally posted by THELONIO
reply to post by nenothtu

 

you are at it again, stop being so confrontational and arogant, the people of afganistan are not our enemies they are yours, it is that war mongering american attitude that does not run strong in britain, and i rather have a british soldier next to me in a war than an american, it would save me having to watch over my shoulder

Of course I am at it again. Ignorance bothers me, and occaisionally I boil over.

I'll be as "confrontational" and "arrogant" as I please, thanks. You are welcome to look after your own means of dealing with this foolishness, and I will employ mine. I just checked my birth cert, and you don't appear on it as either parent.

I've nothing against British soldiers, and will not stereotype the SOLDIERS based on their nationality. You appear to have no problem doing so, I observe. I've known some fine british soldiers, and some true losers too. My gripe isn't against the soldiers at all, but rather against the sissies at home that want them to cower in the corner. If I hit a nerve and you are among Those spooked civilians, sorry 'bout that. Deal with it.

I presume your final allusion is a slap at american marksmanship, a reference to being "shot in the back". I submit that being forced to "watch your back" has everything to do with how you deal with "allies", and not much at all to do with marksmanship. It's the product of a guilty conscience, and nothing more.

reply to post by SLAYER69


nobody knows why britain had to side up with america against afganistan, if it were the choice of the people then we would not have.

i have done no disservice to any of the british soldiers, i have the greatest of respect for them, hence i do not wish for them to die in any conflict, especially a war that has nothing to do with england

reply to post by nenothtu


it has nothing to do with "cowering in a corner", most people in britain do not want our troops fighting in afganistan, we fail to see why we are there, can you help?, do you know why british troops are fighting a war in afganistan?, the british people are struggling. how about american troops?, why are they still there, why were they there to begin with?, seems to me that you may not be a patriot of your country, you dont seem to bothered about your fellow country men dying in a pointless conflict,

www.telegraph.co.uk...

www.timesonline.co.uk...

news.bbc.co.uk...

there are many many more

Originally posted by THELONIO
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

nobody knows why britain had to side up with america against afganistan, if it were the choice of the people then we would not have.

Nobody knows?????

Google it. I'm sure if you set the dates in the search options you'll find tons of reasons. See that's the point of many posters here on this thread. When it was popular then by all means invade. Then people start to die then it's all of a sudden lets pull out. The poles show a drop in popularity.

reply to post by SLAYER69


dont you understand, britain is not like america, nobody wanted this war, there was no "popularity", polls are bs they can be made to look what ever way you want them to. americans may fall for the bs that their governments spout but the british people are a peaceful people who do not wish to fight wars outside of their borders, our "leaders" are a bunch of tossers and nearly all of britain agree

reply to post by SLAYER69


As was stated, this isn't about the numbers, but the mission. The Brits can handle casualties quite well, as long as there is either a good reason for the battle or if the guys died well. We especially like it when our soldiers go out in a manner likely to get them a VC, good stuff that..

But I digress..

The real issue we have is with the Government. They have bodged procurement plans, such as the Chinook Mk3's, leading to massive cost and time overuns. Costs increased by 3 times because of an MoD cock up on the Chinook programme and no we have several dozen Chinnoks sitting in hangars in the UK because of it.

They don't define the mission. We're told it's for preventing terrorism and building Afghanistan, but see little progress on the news. All we see is a new soldier being killed every day, usually a sprightly young fellow of tender years. Then we have this big Operation to clear out the Taliban before the election, and it turns out the election was rigged anyway.

The problem in the UK isn't that we're pussies, or we don't like War (on the contrary, we are rather keen on it) but rather that we're fighting a War with no clear objectives and those that have been stated, seem to be failing.