It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 05:39 AM

Originally posted by THELONIO
reply to post by SLAYER69

dont you understand, britain is not like america, nobody wanted this war,

I'm sorry.
I disagree with that statement. I have too many British friends. They were just as divided as we were. Both then as well as now. You speak for one person and may possibly convey the wishes of many more yet you nor they speak for "Everyone"

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 05:40 AM
reply to post by THELONIO

Actually, while there was massive discontent with invading Iraq, Afghanistan was always a popular war and still is today.

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 05:43 AM

Originally posted by IDK88
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.

What is your problem, chap? You rail against the UK every chance you get, why?

This war is America's War, not Britains. We came along as we're your friends and that's the thanks you give us.

It's idiots like you that make everyone else in the world dislike your whole damned country.

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 05:43 AM

Originally posted by stumason

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.

I can see your point....

When good news is available it's probably just thrown out as propaganda.
The big push before the election was planned months ago. The reason why the numbers are increasing is a direct result of taking the fighting to them in the regions we have not gone before. In order to clear them out we have to take the fighting to them.

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.

[edit on 5-9-2009 by SLAYER69]

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 05:46 AM
reply to post by SLAYER69

Oh yeah, I know. Operation Panthers Claw is what we called it. Seemed to work pushing the Taliban out, at the cost of dozens of lives, only to find out that Karzai has rigged the damned thing anyway. This pisses us off, as we do all this dying for someone to cheat.

That's not cricket.

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 05:51 AM
reply to post by stumason

I agree that was bad form.

The Taliban are on very rocky ground IMO. Possibly more so than we may know. They don't have the support of the majority of the Afghans. Most of them are foreigners to the country.

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, 5 2009 @ 06:09 AM

Originally posted by THELONIO
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,

there are many many more

No, I can't help. I have no idea why your troops are in Afghanistan if you don't. I would presume it has something to do with treaty obligations, alliances, solidarity, that sort of thing. I don't really think it has anything to do with the fundamentalist islamic assault on Britain. THAT war will obviously be fought in Britain. As I understand it, it has already been declared, and the british citizenry has failed to rise to the occaision. Of course, since I'm not there, I haven't any knowledge as to the facts, only what I'm told. You would be in a better position to judge that.

American troops are still there because we hate to leave a job unfinished. Pretty simple, really. We were there to begin with because we prefer to carry the fight to the enemy, rather than passively waiting for them to attack us here. Again. Yes, the Taliban is our enemy, by their own declaration. Furthermore, they harbored and allied themselves with Al Qaida, another enemy. I don't agree with the way this war is being fought, but I don't deny the necessity of fighting it.

You're welcome to question my patriotism all you like. I've shed blood, and not a little sanity, to help guarantee that right to my own countrymen, a right which they exercise against me at every opportunity, I'm pleased to report. It seems to have worked. You too are welcome to take a shot as you will.

As far as my fellow countrymen dying goes, damn straight I care. I've watched them die. I've held a dear friend on my lap as he bled out, crying for his mother, and not a damn thing could be done. Can you say the same? The only comfort I have for that is knowing that he didn't die "for nothing", as you seem to imply, and that he didn't have to die alone, and his body didn't fall into enemy hands. I still have nightmares about that, and several years ago I relieved it all over again, plain as day, in a drunken hallucination. It wasn't any more pleasant the second time around. My dad sat with me through it, and he didn't appear to like it much either.

A "pointless conflict" appears to be in the eye of the beholder. Any conflict is "pointless" to gutless wonders who are willing to roll over for any enemy. Rest assured, however, that whenever me or mine are attacked or threatened there will be hell to pay, as long as I can draw breath. I don't consider that "pointless", and could care less if anyone else does.

I stand by my assertion that american marksmanship is second to none, and it's best not to do anything to get in the crosshairs.

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 06:18 AM
reply to post by nenothtu

You are correct, after 9/11 The Secretary General of NATO can you believe it he was Scottish (Lord George Robertson)
, implemented the treaty, where if one member off the nato alliance is attacked, then that initself was an attack on all of the member states of NATO. NATO itself had not clear objective, when they went into afghanistan.

I think NATO thought to itself, the Taliban woud not be able to defeat the biggest Military Alliance in the world. Hmms so much for that thought eh.

Put the blame where it lies, on those Politicians who have no idea, what they are doing. They have blood on thier hands not only the Men and woman who follow orders, but of those innocent people killed also.

[edit on 5-9-2009 by Laurauk]

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 06:25 AM
reply to post by stumason

I apologize if I've been misunderstood, and to clarify:

I don't think brits are "pussies". On the contrary, they can be some really tough customers, and are generally cooler under fire than anyone else I've met.

My gripe is not with brits, but rather with the "peace at any price" crowd, It just so happens it was brit of that persuasion that rankled me this time. Plenty of yanks get under my skin like that too.

Peace is a fine thing, and allows all manner of civilization to flower, but I'm just not willing to pay ANY price for it. It's not THAT dear.

Now as to the other part, about the war not being well enough defined, and the goals largely unspoken, or at the very least not well enough disseminated to the public, I can't agree more. That's one of the reasons that I don't like the way this war is being fought. It could wind up being another military win, but political loss. As we all should know by now, that gets written in as a net loss in the history books.

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 06:31 AM
reply to post by Laurauk

Absolutely. I would add to the politicians, however, that there are far too many military officers in the American ranks, at least, who are far too willing to throw away some fine young men in bad plans that are only geared to net themselves more "glory", and don't necessarily make any progress towards an actual victory.

Silly concept, that. There is NO glory in war. All the shiny medals and flashy ribbons in the world can't replace ONE lost life.

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 06:32 AM
YEah, we must make the taliban pay for 911, comrade. After all, just because they hate technology doesn't mean they're not terrorist enough to get on some planes and hijack them wiht some luddite boxcutters.

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 06:42 AM
reply to post by nenothtu

It's fine, don't worry.

The war would be better supported here is we at least understood why we were fighting AND our troops weren't coming back complaining about a lack of basic equipment.

One poster in this thread likened our vehicles to WW2 ones, which was harsh as we have some good light combat vehicles out there, but we have constantly heard the need for more helicopters, yet most of our heavy lift choppers are back in the UK due the MoD turning down Boeing software that came with the Chinooks.

They were trying to design their own at 3 times the cost, then they had to go back to Boeing to redesign the software, only to be told it couldn't be done as the MoD had fudged the helicopters up so much.

Now we're rolling back to an older version and still have 3 dozen choppers sat in hagars in the UK waiting. So, for a start price of around £300 million, the programme is 5 years late and 3 times over budget, with the helicoprters still not on the front line.

Yet the Politicians, like that fish-mouth liar named Brown, insist they have all the equipment they need.


posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 09:47 AM
Tony Blair is the one who has the most blood on his hands, he promised those going into Afghanistan, that they would have all the resources they needed. Which turned out to be a complete lie, from the start.

You just have to read all thoseletters sent home from Soldiers in Afghanistant to thier parents, loved onces etc, over thelack of military equipment, resources, that they were equipped with.

The here comes along brown, who does the exact same as Blair did. Helicopters, lying in wharehouses, when our troops/commanders are crying out for more of them, armoured vechiles, being held in Sauda Arabia, since the MOD cannot afford to have them delivered to Afghanistan, Appaling conditions for our troops tolive in while out there and also at home. Lack of personal resources, such as razors, toothpaste, shampoo etc, the crap salaries that soldiers and thier families have to live on. And to top it all off, the MOD now are appealng against compensations giving out to injured soldiers.

Completely digusting.

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 10:10 AM
reply to post by Laurauk

everything you said is right, i've got many friends in the forces and they say they feel not worthy when they get back to britian and even though they dont have everything they need they fight because they still have pride for the country even if brown and co dont.

if you think that this is rare, i have around 20 friends all in the forces most of them say the same thing.

why not support them and give them the equipment they need to make the job easier.

brown, blair

you make me sick.

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 10:16 AM
reply to post by thecrow001

Look at how they were treated, before public opinion got behind those soldiers returning from Iraq, There were a few articles of Soldiers homes being attacked as a result. At the beginning of the Afghan war public opinon was not behind the troops, opinion hs come a long way since 2001. It is not the soldeirs faults, that opinion is faultering, it is the politicians faults. Neither Politcal Party has the answer.

I do not see any resolvement of the problems in afghanistan afer the general election, who ever wins, is going to have a huge responsibility to our armed forces and the public.

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 10:17 AM
reply to post by THELONIO

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?

Is Tony Blair British? I guess there goes your theory about none of us wanted to go to war, especialy with America,

Please answer this for me. When those British Soldiers died, were they building or protecting any pipeline?

Where they protecting any opium fields?

If you say yes, show me the proof.

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 10:21 AM
reply to post by Laurauk

indeed its not the soldiers fault its the mps who send them to the fake and unjust wars, we are only there as a friend for america.

nothing agianst America but i'd rather have my friends back hoem in england safe than be allies with you.

I think i will be voting for a party in the gen election who want the troops out or who will give then better treatment no matter who the party is.

my friends are everything and i've lost too many already.

Our soldiers have pride in the UK maybe its about time the MPS should show there pride.


posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 10:49 AM
I'd like to know how you conduct a war without getting blood
on your hands??
No, seriously, How do you distinguish between a Taliban and
an Al-Quida?
How do you take control of the Afgan terrain,
that stopped the Russians?

All of this political rangling for power and control,
while our brave soldiers are dying in vain....... for what?

I don't think we were so picky about getting the job done
in Nagasaki or Hiroshima. It ended a terrible time in our history!

I am just sick to death of it all!
Blackwater and other companies that comprise over 60%
of the US fighting force.
Mercenary armies!!!
Profiteers and corruption...

I say.....Get out the BIG guns and finish this sh**!
Warn the common folks that Fire and Brimstone is coming
and NUCK this place back into the stoneage it never culturally left.

Finish the job and come home...!!!
( Sorry, my rant meter went off )

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 12:24 PM
reply to post by Laurauk

reply to post by stumason

Well it's painfully obvious why it has taken so long to get the ball rolling in Afghanistan. We took a detour of man and material through Baghdad before the real fight started to heat up in the Southern territories this past spring. That has given the Taliban time to build up both material and public opinion.

Blair/Bush should have done this then what we are attempting to do now. That's take the fight to them.

Enough about Vietnam.

The Taliban are not the communist north. They don't have the support of two other global powers like the North Vietnamese had nor are they the 80s mujaheddin with the US providing them Stinger missiles. There is no triple canopy jungle to hide under. They don't have a hands off untouchable area in which to resupply and use as a safe haven as the Vietnamese had in North Vietnam. Stop insulting the VC/NVA by comparing those real hard as nails soldiers with the Talibums!

[edit on 5-9-2009 by SLAYER69]

posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 12:26 PM
reply to post by SLAYER69

Indeed, on all counts..

The Baghdad diversion was an expensive detour for the British. Men, money and material that would have been better used in Afghanistan was wasted on the Iraq folly.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in