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.


Britain Plans to Send 500 More Soldiers to Afghanistan

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 03:40 PM
reply to post by ChrisF231

500 British Troops is quite alot. In fact, it's an entire new battlegroup. If you new anything, you'd know that a British battlegroup is not to be sniffed at. I'm sure the Americans on the ground who have these guys fighting by their side don't mind their presence at all.

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 03:43 PM
500 may sound like a few, but 500 is more than what many other nations are sending.

Hats off to my British mates.

I agree with Slayer that we can't afford to keep capturing ground only to turn it back over at a later day.

I personally don't believe in winning hearts and minds, but I do believe in winning respect. I just feel that the US under Obama is going to try to make this a nice war. They really need to go after the enemy with a vengance and don't let up

I think it should be the Afghan soldiers protecting the populated areas. Why should our military revert to policing the populated areas?

Training the Afghan Military

[edit on 14-10-2009 by jam321]

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 03:47 PM
I wish it would make a difference. Given the poor choices and the tying of hands of the troops, it's just more meat for the grinder.

McChrystal: More U.S. Troops May Not Prevent Afghanistan From Falling to Terror Haven Rampant government corruption might derail the war in Afghanistan even if as many as 80,000 additional U.S. troops were sent, officials say the top military commander there has concluded

After another thirteen thousand were committed to the effort by the U.S., the head guy on the ground tells us it's not going to make any difference.

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 03:53 PM
reply to post by ChrisF231

The difference in 500 troops historically has been significant.

Roughly 300 Spartans, carefully placed, held up a quarter million men for days.

Consider the battle at Rourke's Drift.

And don't let anybody **** you.

Those British troops? They're great! Tough, canny, persistent beyond reason, and very effective.

They'll be a very welcome addition.

Very welcome.

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 03:53 PM
reply to post by SLAYER69

Falling back then later paying for the same real estate again is a poor way to attempt a win.

What makes you think they want to win?

The whole point in occupying these dust-bowl countries, is land acquisition. They want to militarise 'green zones', build their 10ft concrete walls, so they can have secure transit for oil pipelines. They want to make the public believe there's a visible enemy, so they can dig-in for the next 20-30 years.

Al Qaeda is an ideology, a transient force that has no boundary. If people think they will be ousted from their caves and democracy will prevail, then you live in cloud cuckoo land.

Oil from the Caspian sea using the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan (TAP) pipeline is the ONLY reason** they are in Afghanistan. The pipeline will follow the topography and the flatlands, which is Helmand province.

Sending more soldiers is a flagrant and murderous act by Obama & Brown et al. How many in congress have their sons and daughters on the frontline???????????????????

**I suppose, you could say secondary reasons are to maintain a holding pattern of militarised force in and around Kashmir region and beyond, in readiness when oil becomes sparse and Russia and China comes into the fray even more so. They have to show their presence on the foothills of China and then squeeze Iran out of existence, so they have carte blanche on the middle-east.

Got to feed those V8 MPV's and banksters pockets somehow!


posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 03:58 PM
reply to post by jam321

Thanks for that

We are going and its as simple as that - if the PM says we will

as for wrongs and rights - it has been a UK theatre of operation since the 1900s - and lets face it we helped the CIA out often enough during the Russian occupation.

I have a few mates out there at the moment - and my thoughts are with them - just a shame so many nations who were called friends dont back up our troops on the ground.

Still as has ever been said - the UK ends up doing other nations fighting (any frenchman prepared to contradict this?)

Whether we should or shouldn't be there is politics - the matter is that good men are fighting on the ground and deserve support from my nation at least.

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 04:09 PM
reply to post by Silk

Whether we should or shouldn't be there is politics - the matter is that good men are fighting on the ground and deserve support from my nation at least.

That my friend is what it is all about. Helping and supporting the ones already in the line of fire.

I have personally seen what British troops are capable of. I have fought and would fight on the British side anytime and anywhere. They have no doubt won my respect.

No matter the outcome of this war, I will always support the troops. They deserve no less.

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 04:11 PM
reply to post by PrisonerOfSociety

It's easy enough to wipe out any force on earth, and that would include Al-Queda or the Taliban.

You first have to get very light, very fast. You don't have to cover every square meter, but deny them mobility.

Certain areas have to be transformed into forbidden territories. That too, is simple enough.

One problem here has been the border, and the on-again/off-again reliability of the Paki's.

Given free rein, that too could be solved.

And all done within eighteen months, with much fewer troops than we have now.

But it will require the "hunter" mindset.

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 04:26 PM
reply to post by jam321

Thank you Sir

Some of the stories i am hearing are terrible - but the British Soldier fights first - and worries about the politics after

Glad to have you on side - and to any brits here - Help For Heroes is our cry in the UK

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 04:32 PM

Originally posted by dooper
I saw our general's plan to pull back from the more remote areas to concentrate on protecting the more populated areas, and hope the Brits jump in there to fight this dumbass strategy.

If you're going on a bug hunt, you gotta go where the bugs are.

If you let them come to you, you already lost.

You have just accorded them freedom of movement while sacrificing your own.

If you do not know when or where the battles are going to be fought, then how can you hope to win?

His "winning hearts and minds" only work when you have them by the testes.

Alesia. The Alamo.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

I hope someone can please correct me, but wasn't this also the military strategy we used in Viet Nam?

If so, that sure worked out well ...

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 04:41 PM
reply to post by Silk

Silk, soldiers are soldiers, and they all share common interests, complaints, sufferings, and goals.

I guarantee you, any American soldier would be just like a brother to any British soldier from any era, and each of them would be right at home with one of Caesar's soldiers, Hannibal Barca's soldiers, Marlborough's soldiers, or Wellington's own men who caused him to comment, "I don't know what effect they will have upon the enemy, but by God, they frighten me.

That should be the attitude of any Western general.

And well justified.

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 04:44 PM
reply to post by centurion1211

In Vietnam, we in fact had the identical, same strategy. Build fixed fortifications and protect the cities.

Win the hearts and minds.

And there were border issues there as well.

A completely defensive mind set.

A defeatist mindset.

Because our generals didn't have a clue of what to do, and fearing any chance of leading - they holed up.

No one can win on defense. Only endure.

The goal should be victory. Not persistence.

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 04:49 PM
reply to post by dooper

Im sorry Dooper

but having spent 4 years studying the Vietnam war

I cant recall an American sucess

I can however remember the forces in the Falklands and our attitude was simply victory - we are a nation that doesn't do it by half's

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 05:36 PM
reply to post by dooper

That strategy is exactly the same strategy that lost the war for the USSR when it was in Afghanistan. If we just sit back in fortresses and wait, we'll be in the same position.

The fight must be taken to the Taliban. Who ever won a war by not going after the enemy?

[edit on 14/10/09 by MikeboydUS]

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 06:00 PM
reply to post by Silk

We went in in 1961, just advisors.

We actually engaged invading NVA troops in late 1965 at the Chu Pong massif. (I'm doing this by memory.)

We had many battles. Many battles, many skirmishes.

We won every one.

In 1968, the NLF, or southern guerrillas attacked and were destroyed.

In 1972, the North Vietnamese invaded South Vietnam, and with armor. Fortunately, the NVA could never seem to coordinate their infantry and armor.

The NVA had over 100,000 casualties, with a significant number from airpower.

We pulled our combat forces out in 1972, just after the slaughter of the NVA.

South Vietnam fell from another North Vietnamese invasion in 1975.

I don't mind someone pointing out that South Vietnam fell to an invasion of North Vietnam, but by God, it was done years after we left.

So what successes are you having trouble with?

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 06:03 PM
This will neither satisfy the hawks nor appease the doves.

Seriously, it's hard to believe that such a left leaning cabinet could have sanctioned one extra soldier.

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 06:36 PM
It is not that the British public are against this war, they are just sick of our armed forces dying needlessly due to insufficient, incorrect or poor equipment.

In addition the PC dominated MSM constantly paint a bleak picture of events over there and fail to report that the vast majority of Afghans support our role over there. They have suffered once before at the hands of The Taliban and do not wish to do so again.

It is also likely that if Afghanistan falls to The Taliban then Pakistan will soon follow, and that would have a devastating effect on the already delicate India / Pakistan relationship with possible dire consequences for all of us.

I know several people who have either served out there or are currently doing so and know that the additional 500 troops will be well received, however, for fear of repeating myself, it is imperative that they and those currently there are supplied with the correct equipment and back up to do the job properly.

It is also appreciated that our American colonial cousins have been supportive of this move and our troops in general. A refreshing change from the 'we saved your ass in '42' bollocks that used to plague this site.

For those of you who would like to know more about Help For Heroes here is the link:

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 06:37 PM
reply to post by Retseh

What has amused me about this post, dear Retseh, is the suggestion that Brown's cabinet, nay, any facet of New Labour, is left wing.

Thatcher killed socialism in Britain and you know it.

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 06:41 PM
reply to post by Freeborn

The truth is, Americans rather be reinforced by 500 British troops than by 5,000 French troops, or 50,000 Italian troops.

British troops don't know the term, "quit."

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 06:46 PM
reply to post by Freeborn

Star for you.

Nobody in their right mind wants war....

But we are in the middle of one. The consequences of failure are more than we can calculate. Realizing that this is a conspiracy site it is hard for some to fathom that there are real dangers out in the world.

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in