British raison d'etre for Afghanistan

[Tez3]

"The Americans"..as in all Americans say ??

Whatever...

You are cherry picking quotes from people to support your preconceptions IMO. Have your criticisms of my countrymen all over this forum been any different from the stuff you are complaining about now?

Death and injury? Do you REALLY want to compare who has paid more in blood and pain here? Really??

You are on the wrong track as usual. You have totally missed the point I was making. I am talking specifically about the handover of Sangin to the Americans and their subsequent criticisms of the British soldiers who were there.

The American commanders have been complaining that the British in Sangin were useless, look at the reports from your own military sites, not ours, yours. It's not a case of comparing anything, it's about your commanders slagging the British soldiers off.

It's not my 'preconceptions' it's the bitterness and great disappointment felt by the British military that your commanders would do this to us.

http://www.bfbs.com/news/afghanista...sessments-british-military-helmand-41877.html

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/allies+clash+over+helmand+achievements/3761292.html

Billcihak, it's not a case of 'I've looked into this and decided I didn't like things there'. some of us get to see it for ourselves.

People imagine the Taliban to be a group of rough farmer/soldiers, they aren't, they are a very professional fighting force yet people persist in this myth thats it's just the locals playing up.
K-man is correct, the Taliban aren't beaten they've just moved on, the only hope for Afghanistan is that the army and the police can be trained up and take over the security, we have to hope that the Afghan politicans aren't too corrupt and can run the country. The situation is hopeless out there.

 

[granfire]

You know granfire, I will post about the topics I feel like posting about. I don't know about one incident in one aspect of a global effort. If Tez does and feels strongly about it, that is all well and good, but let's not lecture me about what I post. I support the war effort, it has a horrible cost but we didn't initiate the problem. We as a country have to deal, with this problem because it isn't going away. We can pull all our troops out, let Iran get a nuclear weapon, and frisk everyone at the airport, but the problem will still be there. You can't ingore it, you can't wish it away.

You put your stuff out there for the world to read, be prepared to be called to task.
Frankly, it would lend you some credibility if you actually had a clue as to what you speak of. You don't have an original thought, you just parrot what your talking heads spew, and you never question their intentions.

You post poop, you can't complain when somebody points it out.
And frankly, you don't know anything about most things. Naturally you are entitled to voice an opinion anyhow...
You pull no punches when it goes against 'lefties' but get upset when somebody points out your flaws...

 

[billc]

When you told me to back off granfire, I had to assume you were off your meds again. Maybe your doctor can adjust them so you aren't so cranky in the morning. with hugs and kisses, your friend.

 

[Sukerkin]

Come along now people, put the knives away please.

By all means speak your mind but try not to take each others eyes out whilst you're doing it.

Lord knows it's easy to say things you regret or be misunderstood with a text-only, somewhat impersonal, medium of communication. The trick is to pick and choose what you say and to whom - you can even have completely opposite views to someone and still be able to discuss a subject without acrimony.

The example I always use is Twin Fist and myself (sadly he doesn't post much here any more). When we first bumped into each other ... sheesh did the sparks fly off the edges of our points of view. But after a bit we realised that we both could listen as well as speak and before too long we could disagree on something without fighting about it.

The litmus test for forum posting is to ask yourself what you would say in 'real life' to someone sitting at the same table as you in the pub ... of course, if you're the sort of person that gets punched in the mouth a lot that might not be the best of guidelines but I think the background idea is clear enough :lol:.

 

[granfire]

Come along now people, put the knives away please.

By all means speak your mind but try not to take each others eyes out whilst you're doing it.

Lord knows it's easy to say things you regret or be misunderstood with a text-only, somewhat impersonal, medium of communication. The trick is to pick and choose what you say and to whom - you can even have completely opposite views to someone and still be able to discuss a subject without acrimony.

The example I always use is Twin Fist and myself (sadly he doesn't post much here any more). When we first bumped into each other ... sheesh did the sparks fly off the edges of our points of view. But after a bit we realised that we both could listen as well as speak and before too long we could disagree on something without fighting about it.

The litmus test for forum posting is to ask yourself what you would say in 'real life' to someone sitting at the same table as you in the pub ... of course, if you're the sort of person that gets punched in the mouth a lot that might not be the best test :lol:.

Yessir...
:asian:

 

[Archangel M]

Ive said my piece. I don't know how this thread can ever be productive.

 

[billc]

Thanks Sukerkin. It can get hot sometimes, and someone stepping in is appreciated.

 

[Makalakumu]

Sadly, I think the larger point of this thread is getting lost. The idea that since we have a military, we have to use it or lose it, is something that is worthy of discussion. It's not something that is limited to the UK, either. It's just rare that public officials actually come out and say it though.

 

[granfire]

Sadly, I think the larger point of this thread is getting lost. The idea that since we have a military, we have to use it or lose it, is something that is worthy of discussion. It's not something that is limited to the UK, either. It's just rare that public officials actually come out and say it though.

That is certainly true.
If you don't have an enemy you create one.
Military is a funky thing: We all agree we are better off when we don't need them, but to keep it that way we have to keep them up and running...

 

[K-man]

The idea that since we have a military, we have to use it or lose it, is something that is worthy of discussion.

Herin lies a problem. Sounds like some people are just looking for a war to try out the new toys and tactics to keep a sharp edge. This is dangerous and expensive policy but is obviously heavily supported by the big arms manufacturers who stand to make billions from a nice little war. The problem is people get killed in a war and a lot more are wounded. And its not as if the casualties are confined to the military.

Now, 9/11 happened and it obviously required decisive action but there is a huge problem chasing terrorists. They are not a country you can declare war on, there are no boundaries and they melt back into a civilian population without trace. The actual perpetrators are already dead. In this case the support base was in Afghanistan and the Government would not or more likely could not do much to stop them. So, with UN support, we invade Afghanistan to destoy their base. Poof! It's no longer there. Now the locals don't like foreigners on their soil killing innocent civilians so they start guerilla operations. The reason for being in Afghanistan is no longer there and about 2,200 coalition troops have lost their lives (1280 US) and about 13,000 wounded. Civilian casualties are horrendous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)

If we look back at Vietnam it is obvious we have not learned from our mistakes. Here we had a 'nasty' communist government in the North and a 'nice', but corrupt, non-communist government in the South. The great majority of people in both North and South couldn't give a ratz about who was what because they were just trying to live from day to day. But President Obama's NBF pulled out after Dien Bien Phu after getting their arses whipped and in came the US of A and Australia as well. We were fed the line of the Domino Theory and not told of the massive corruption of the Government in the South. We were bogged down in an unwinnable guerilla war from 1956 when the first US 'advisors' moved in until 1975 when the US military was kicked out. Nearly 20 years and for what? The US lost 60,000 men, the Vietcong and AVN 1,100,000. 2,000,000 civilians died and the casualty list is still rising due to unexploded bombs still taking their toll.

http://www.vietnamtravel.org/legacies-war-unexploded-ordinance-uxo-land-mines

And you know what? The world didn't end when the communists won, but millions of families suffered, in the US, in Australia and throughout Vietnam and Laos.

I'm not a pacifist but I am a realist. Afghanistan is like flogging a dead horse. It's going nowhere and the toll will continue to rise. Al-Qaeda is now based in Sudan and Pakistan. Are we going to follow them there and get into more mess?

We have destablised the Middle East by reducing Iraq's ability to stand up to Iran and just what have we achieved?

Someone, please tell me the world is a better place. :asian:

 

[billc]

Actually, the U.S. combat involvement in Vietnam ended with the Paris peace accords, and the troops were peacefully withdrawn in 1972. (combat troops in 72, all advisors and admin. types in 73) All of the objectives set forth in the peace accords were signed by both the vietcong leadership and the north vietnamese. THe south was over run when the demcratically controlled congress refused to live up to the treaty obligations set forth in the Paris accords. Check out the book, The Politically incorrect guide to the vietnam war, and the new book American Amnesia:

http://www.amazon.com/American-Amne...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1295832705&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Politically-I...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1295832773&sr=1-1

 

[granfire]

Actually, the U.S. combat involvement in Vietnam ended with the Paris peace accords, and the troops were peacefully withdrawn in 1972. All of the objectives set forth in the peace accords were signed by both the vietcong leadership and the north vietnamese. THe south was over run when the demcratically controlled congress refused to live up to the treaty obligations set forth in the Paris accords. Check out the book, The Politically incorrect guide to the vietnam war, and the new book American Amnesia:

http://www.amazon.com/American-Amne...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1295832705&sr=1-1

Thankfully the link does not work...

 

[billc]

THe exact date of troop withdrawal is different on different sources but it is at least 1973, well before the fall of the south. historyplace.com states combat troops out in Nov. 30 1972, with 16000 advisors and admin. types left behind, March 29 1973 last of american troops pulled out.

The reviews for American Amnesia at Amazon.com are interesting to read. They have an interesting take on the war.

From wikipedia:

when the North Vietnamese did begin their final offensive early in 1975, the United States Congress refused to appropriate the funds needed by the South Vietnamese, who collapsed completely. Thieu resigned, accusing the U.S. of betrayal in a TV and radio address:

"At the time of the peace agreement the United States agreed to replace equipment on a one-by-one basis. But the United States did not keep its word. Is an American's word reliable these days? The United States did not keep its promise to help us fight for freedom and it was in the same fight that the United States lost 50,000 of its young men."[12]

 

[K-man]

Actually, the U.S. combat involvement in Vietnam ended with the Paris peace accords, and the troops were peacefully withdrawn in 1972. All of the objectives set forth in the peace accords were signed by both the vietcong leadership and the north vietnamese. THe south was over run when the demcratically controlled congress refused to live up to the treaty obligations set forth in the Paris accords. 1

Nearly right. The treaty was 1973. Nixon termed it 'Peace with Honour'. American troops go home but Tricky Dicky has another card up his sleeve. He is still bombing Cambodia. I wonder why? Couldn't have been that the North was resupplying its troops in the South contrary to the accord. However the 'Paris Peace Accords' only produced a cease fire, not an enforcable treaty. It spoke of peaceful reunification with the North. Come'on! I know they smoked a lot of pot in Nam but what were they on in Paris? Magic mushrooms? Surely they were halucinating! With the US troops mostly out, it was only a matter of time before the communists took over. BTW the last US troops left in 1975.

If you're interested: http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic...am/policies.and.politics/paris_peace_1973.txt

These are the peace documents and the comments regarding violations of the cease fire. It wasn't the South that failed to live up to the treaty obligations. The North didn't change a thing. They just quietly continued to resupply through Laos andd Cambodia until they were ready for the final takeover. :asian:

Don't often go a bomb on Wiki but this sums it up.

The Paris Peace Accords had little practical effect on the conflict, and were routinely flouted by the North Vietnamese. The North Vietnamese and their South Vietnamese allies ignored the ceasefire and continued their invasion of South Vietnam. North Vietnamese military forces gradually moved through the southern provinces and two years later were in position to capture Saigon.
Nixon had secretly promised Thieu that he would use airpower to support the Saigon government should it be necessary. During his confirmation hearings in June 1973, Secretary of Defence, James Schlesinger was sharply criticized by some Senators after he stated that he would recommend resumption of U.S. bombing in North Vietnam if North Vietnam launched a major offensive against South Vietnam. However, Nixon was driven from office due to the Watergate scandal in 1974 and when the North Vietnamese did begin their final offensive early in 1975, the United States Congress refused to appropriate the funds needed by the South Vietnamese, who collapsed completely. Thieu resigned, accusing the U.S. of betrayal in a TV and radio address:

"At the time of the peace agreement the United States agreed to replace equipment on a one-by-one basis. But the United States did not keep its word. Is an American's word reliable these days? The United States did not keep its promise to help us fight for freedom and it was in the same fight that the United States lost 50,000 of its young men." ... President Thieu
​

 

[Tez3]

The British government is about to cut the troops by 30,000 people, so I don't think we are looking to have any more wars soon. It won't sound a lot to the Americans but it's a huge chunk of the armed forces that's going.

Billcihak, all you are ever doing is posting comments and quotes from other people, you don't actually say what you think yourself, I still think it's a from of trolling. I don't believe you actually care for any of this you just want to wind people up then act innocent when they lash out.

As for my 'feeling strongly' you have no idea so I'd rather you didn't comment on what you think I feel.

 

[billc]

With respect, then please do not comment on what you think I mean, or how I post. Obviously, you should stop reading my posts. Thank you.

 

[granfire]

With respect, then please do not comment on what you think I mean, or how I post. Obviously, you should stop reading my posts. Thank you.

Let me see....
You do spew half baked crap, patronize people and then tel them to not follow you on a tangent or rather not read your posts...

 

[Tez3]

With respect, then please do not comment on what you think I mean, or how I post. Obviously, you should stop reading my posts. Thank you.

Really? So I'm supposed to give you a pass to use my username? You make a bald statement about me by name, despite the fact it's against the rules, then tell me I shouldn't read your posts if I don't like it, that's hardly fair.

I'm still waiting for your comments on Sangin please.

 

[jks9199]

Enough of the personal attacks. Enough of the name calling.

Thread locked pending review.