Army pleads for more troops after Afghanistan firefight

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by msr, Apr 23, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. msr

    msr LE

    MILITARY commanders have demanded an extra 600 British troops for Afghanistan after a series of suicide bombings and a firefight against hundreds of Taliban.

    Officers have also warned that unless restrictions are relaxed on when soldiers can open fire the Taliban may inflict major losses.

    Commanders complain that John Reid, the defence secretary, has tried to prevent news of attacks coming out and that they cannot make even the most minor military decision without referring it to his office for approval. So far, actions in southern Afghanistan have left at least five soldiers wounded, two seriously.,,2087-2147806,00.html

  2. John Reid says it's untrue - and we all know that Labour Ministers would never, ever lie or try to mislead us.

    BBC News

    "absolutely and completely untrue" - as in Bliar being 'absolutely and completely' behind an erring minister just before he/she resigns?
  3. We would be perfectly happy to leave in three years and without firing one shot because our job is to protect the reconstruction

    Who the fcuk's we?

    I can take the royal 'we' but not the w@nker, soon to resign useless tosser 'we'.
  4. Saw some pictures of Reid (I think, wasn't paying much attention) on the BBC the other day, visiting Afganistan. He was wondering around in DPM jacket. Then I spotted him talking to some bloke with a UGL, and standing right in front of the barrel.

    Was it wrong for me to call out "Go on, pull the trigger!"?
  5. No because it would be a waste of a human life.

    And I don't mean Reid but those blood splatters are a sod to get off and you have to scrub and scub.
  6. The actual quote from Reid says it all. And I'm sure he is NOT lieing. I mean, he may have had a request for 601 troops, or 599, or XXX - but 600 exactly, probably not! The whispers I've hear were not for an "extra infantry battalion of 600" (as The Times quotes), but for a reconfiguration of the force package which increased the number of 'fighting' troops (infantry) at the expense of less 'support' troops.