Skip to main content

Has anyone seen the front page of the Daily Telegraph today? It shows the faces of the 200+ personnel who have died since the start of the war in Afghanistan. Most of them fall into the age bracket of 19 to 25.

Isn't it absolutely disgusting that these young adults have been killed in a war which seems to have made little or no progress, and seems to have little or no point?

The defense budget has been slashed relentlessly since Labour took office in the late 1990s. Our armed forces are a shadow of their former might, but yet the personnel are still expected to fulfill their duties, even though they are so desperately underfunded and underequipped.

Why isn't Brown calling our soldiers back home? If he wants to wage war, then at least have the courtesy to wait until we can afford to do so. In the majority of cases, soldiers are dying because they are having to cross terrain via land, in vehicles which do not protect them from IED's.

Soldiers should be ferried via helicoptor, as is often the case with the American Military.

The Royal Air Force has a total of 30 Chinook troop carrying helicoptors, compared with the 8000+ service personnel on the ground.

The underequipping of our armed forces in Afghanistan is undeniable, but Gordon Brown insists on saying they have everything they need. This attitude is the reason why I believe the blood of those 200 young adults is firmly on the hands on the Government, and specifically on Gordon Brown.

Rant over.Angry

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Since the fall of the Berlin wall and the break up of the soviet bloc successive governments have been slashing the defence budget. This is all very well, but at no time have they slashed the commitments.
In fact since our great leader Toneeee decided that he was a world statesman the government has put our troops into nearly every trouble spot on the planet.
Meanwhile back in the treasury Gordon was keeping as much money as possible from defence.
Now he is in charge his tight fisted approach to defence is coming back to bite him in the guise of the soldiers killed through under funding.
The terminology that the armed forces use for any new equipment they get is 'Yesterdays technology Today' The Americans refer to our troops as 'The borrowers'
It is a bl**dy disgrace.
This country needs to decide either to have a military or not. If it wants one then it will have to pay for it and not in soldiers lives.
Luxor
quote:
As silly as it may sound but I really am clueless as to why we are there.
If it is to help the Afghan people then they really do deserve a better service, and our troops have not been given the right equipment to help and are now losing their lives in an almost pointless war.


Its quite simple really - Do you want the Taliban / Al Queda to infiltrate Pakistan and have nuclear weapons ???
R
quote:
Originally posted by RENTON:
Don't be so blinkered as to focus on one indivivdual for your anger

Gordon brown was a small part of this tadgedy sanctioned by the whole British Establishment

They wud love us to blame ONE person so the rest cud escape judgement


The whole British establishment are not resposible for the underfunding of the military over the last 12 years. He is.
Luxor
The only logical explanation I have ever heard was the one from David Cameron. He suggested that the Afghan extremists might somehow destabilise next door Pakistan, who as we know have nuclear weaponry, thus leading to a Taliban bomb.
At times like this I would like to ask Thatcher, the Reagan administration, and Sandy Gall, what they thought they were doing when they gave support to the Taliban in the 80's.
Garage Joe
quote:
Originally posted by rusticana:
quote:
As silly as it may sound but I really am clueless as to why we are there.
If it is to help the Afghan people then they really do deserve a better service, and our troops have not been given the right equipment to help and are now losing their lives in an almost pointless war.


Its quite simple really - Do you want the Taliban / Al Queda to infiltrate Pakistan and have nuclear weapons ???


Most released/leaked intel suggests that the taliban strong hold is located in the lawless wastelands of northern pakistan, not in afghanistan. They come into afghanistan to launch attacks, and set IED's against NATO, and then retreat back to the safety of pakistan.

Of course, NATO could never invade pakistan, as we did in Afgahnistan, because it would be politically unacceptable, since the pakistani government claim to be sympathetic towards NATO.
SpiderMonkey
quote:
Originally posted by RENTON:
Do you all really think the whole Afghan War was down to one person cos they held the purse strings?
Or that he was not supported throughout by a whole 'army' of politicains and establishemnt cronies for his decisions?

This was a multi-national decisions - not just down to one person


You're missing my point entirely. I'm not arguing over the legitimacy of the war.

I'm saying that most of the 200+ 19 to 25 year olds who have died, could have still been alive today, had they been given the correct equipment.

I'm saying that while they remain under funded and under equipped, the dying will continue.

I'm saying that Brown has been responsible for the demise of our armed forces through his relentless defense cuts of the past 10 years, even though the duties and pressures put upon our troops have esculated.
SpiderMonkey
quote:
Originally posted by Ņ•ÏÎđ∂Ņ”ŅÐžÏƒÎ·ÐšŅ”Îģ:
Has anyone seen the front page of the Daily Telegraph today? It shows the faces of the 200+ personnel who have died since the start of the war in Afghanistan. Most of them fall into the age bracket of 19 to 25.

Isn't it absolutely disgusting that these young adults have been killed in a war which seems to have made little or no progress, and seems to have little or no point?

The defense budget has been slashed relentlessly since Labour took office in the late 1990s. Our armed forces are a shadow of their former might, but yet the personnel are still expected to fulfill their duties, even though they are so desperately underfunded and underequipped.

Why isn't Brown calling our soldiers back home? If he wants to wage war, then at least have the courtesy to wait until we can afford to do so. In the majority of cases, soldiers are dying because they are having to cross terrain via land, in vehicles which do not protect them from IED's.

Soldiers should be ferried via helicoptor, as is often the case with the American Military.

The Royal Air Force has a total of 30 Chinook troop carrying helicoptors, compared with the 8000+ service personnel on the ground.

The underequipping of our armed forces in Afghanistan is undeniable, but Gordon Brown insists on saying they have everything they need. This attitude is the reason why I believe the blood of those 200 young adults is firmly on the hands on the Government, and specifically on Gordon Brown.

Rant over.Angry


Its not a rant Spider,Gordon Brown is a waste of space,and if the yanks want to clear out the Taliban - let them - the Russians couldnt do it and the are far mightier than the UK - what is there now - 40 countries fighting - tribesmen ???????? either Get our Troops home or the body count will increase - he wont see power again - thats a given I would say, but he will be more hated than Blair ,and leave the UK more exposed to terrorist attacks because we are - once again poking our noses in - Britains Vietnam !! you cant fight and win a hidden enemy who creeps up and uses snipers ( maybe they should try aiming at the guy in Downing Street ? )

204 young men/women - over 8 years - WW2 was only 5years. No Spider enough is enough - get the troops out - we are spending money we dont have to fund a war we cant afford while people here are in poverty and services are in chaos.
Strikes are more prevalant since the non elected pm took power - and its high time Labour booted him out - that Defence Secretary is more like a stand up comic - he admits the job is too big, he doesnt know the job - so WHY is he in it.
porto
quote:
Originally posted by RENTON:
And i'm saying his decisions have all been sanctioned, agreed with, maybe even pressurised by ... a whole generation of politicians and Govt. officials over the last 10yrs.

its not just him - ever


There was a famous American president (forget which one) and he had on his desk a sign which said "The buck stops here".
squiggle
quote:
Originally posted by porto:
quote:
Originally posted by RENTON:
And i'm saying his decisions have all been sanctioned, agreed with, maybe even pressurised by ... a whole generation of politicians and Govt. officials over the last 10yrs.

its not just him - ever


bull doogie - !! at its highest ;thats crap - he has the final say.


It's more complex than that. Over the years government takes a bipartisan approach to certain events like this one. I'm sure that if Cameron had a problem with the situation he would call an election on it. But he hasn't. He agrees with it. He said so.
Garage Joe
quote:
Originally posted by Garage Joe:
quote:
Originally posted by RENTON:
And i'm saying his decisions have all been sanctioned, agreed with, maybe even pressurised by ... a whole generation of politicians and Govt. officials over the last 10yrs.

its not just him - ever


One agrees with Renton. Nod
'Tis a bipartisan approach.


this 'one ' DOESNT - and doesnt mind telling it - I agree with spider.

'one' agrees oh how jolly - spiffing - as YOU would say ? - stiff upper lip too - not fat is it ? yet
porto
The intervention by international troops into Afghanistan is sanctioned by the UN under international agreement that the Country was a failed state.
If the Countries who agreed to rebuilding Afghanistan stopped playing political games, just to snub their nose at America for going into Iraq, did what they promised in 2002. Then this war may not have escalated in the last 5 years.
Luxor
quote:
Originally posted by porto:
quote:
Originally posted by Garage Joe:
quote:
Originally posted by RENTON:
And i'm saying his decisions have all been sanctioned, agreed with, maybe even pressurised by ... a whole generation of politicians and Govt. officials over the last 10yrs.

its not just him - ever


One agrees with Renton. Nod
'Tis a bipartisan approach.


this 'one ' DOESNT - and doesnt mind telling it - I agree with spider.

'one' agrees oh how jolly - spiffing - as YOU would say ? - stiff upper lip too - not fat is it ? yet


PORTO - there is no excuse for becoming personal and rude - ok
Saint
quote:
Originally posted by RENTON:
quote:
Originally posted by porto:
quote:
Originally posted by Garage Joe:
quote:
Originally posted by RENTON:
And i'm saying his decisions have all been sanctioned, agreed with, maybe even pressurised by ... a whole generation of politicians and Govt. officials over the last 10yrs.

its not just him - ever


One agrees with Renton. Nod
'Tis a bipartisan approach.


this 'one ' DOESNT - and doesnt mind telling it - I agree with spider.

'one' agrees oh how jolly - spiffing - as YOU would say ? - stiff upper lip too - not fat is it ? yet


PORTO - there is no excuse for becoming personal and rude - ok


Laugh When I saw the difference between that posted and that in the reply box I didn't know what to think, Renton.
Garage Joe
quote:
Originally posted by RENTON:
quote:
Originally posted by porto:
quote:
Originally posted by Garage Joe:
quote:
Originally posted by RENTON:
And i'm saying his decisions have all been sanctioned, agreed with, maybe even pressurised by ... a whole generation of politicians and Govt. officials over the last 10yrs.

its not just him - ever


One agrees with Renton. Nod
'Tis a bipartisan approach.


this 'one ' DOESNT - and doesnt mind telling it - I agree with spider.

'one' agrees oh how jolly - spiffing - as YOU would say ? - stiff upper lip too - not fat is it ? yet


PORTO - there is no excuse for becoming personal and rude - ok


tell that that too the wives,mothers,fathers and the kiddies of troops shot or blown to bits over there . Rude - then dont come the high and might 'one' agrees rubbish. its offensive - and we are discussing mens lives .

you are rude to dismiss this like an armchair sergeant - no higher i dont think.
porto
quote:
Originally posted by porto:
quote:
Originally posted by RENTON:
quote:
Originally posted by porto:
quote:
Originally posted by Garage Joe:
quote:
Originally posted by RENTON:
And i'm saying his decisions have all been sanctioned, agreed with, maybe even pressurised by ... a whole generation of politicians and Govt. officials over the last 10yrs.

its not just him - ever


One agrees with Renton. Nod
'Tis a bipartisan approach.


this 'one ' DOESNT - and doesnt mind telling it - I agree with spider.

'one' agrees oh how jolly - spiffing - as YOU would say ? - stiff upper lip too - not fat is it ? yet


PORTO - there is no excuse for becoming personal and rude - ok


tell that that too the wives,mothers,fathers and the kiddies of troops shot or blown to bits over there . Rude - then dont come the high and might 'one' agrees rubbish. its offensive - and we are discussing mens lives .

you are rude to dismiss this loke an armchair sergeant - no higher i dont think.


That's pretty poor logic if I may say so.
Garage Joe
quote:
Originally posted by Garage Joe:
quote:
Originally posted by porto:
quote:
Originally posted by RENTON:
And i'm saying his decisions have all been sanctioned, agreed with, maybe even pressurised by ... a whole generation of politicians and Govt. officials over the last 10yrs.

its not just him - ever


bull doogie - !! at its highest ;thats crap - he has the final say.


It's more complex than that. Over the years government takes a bipartisan approach to certain events like this one. I'm sure that if Cameron had a problem with the situation he would call an election on it. But he hasn't. He agrees with it. He said so.


Confused Cameron can't call an election, he isn't in power. Confused
squiggle
quote:
Originally posted by RENTON:
This attitude is EXACTLY wot the British Establishment want!

Get the general public to vent their fury on ONE person so the rest of them can wash their hands of the deaths and point to the fall guy


Defense cuts have been an easy option by Gordon Brown for years. Rightly or wrongly he has chosen to reallocate money normally spent on defense. That's fine. Spend the money on education, NHS, blah blah blah... but he can't have it both ways. He can't reallocate money while the "powers that be" insist we fight a war that we're now undeniably unequipped to deal with.

Like I say, defense cutting is an easy option for any government. The end of the cold war has seen the number of RAF stations dramatically slashed, and assets retired and not replaced because they are deemed to be unrequired to tackle the current threats posed to the UK.

However, what happens if the taliban do become nuclear capable, or Iran, or Northern Korea? Our complacency which began after the demise of the soviet union is another example of UK governments' "don't worry about tomorrow" attitude to defense spending.

Our failure to plan ahead, in terms of equipping for this war in Afghanistan is essentially a financial failure which is ultimately traced back to the treasurey.
SpiderMonkey

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×