Going back into afganistan??

#21
Rather than unloading weapons from ships and subs that are being decommissioned or going in for repair, why not just blast the lot off at Afghanistan?

After all, the stuff has a "use by date" and I'd rather it didn't go to waste. Same with aircraft, couple of spare bombs / cruise missiles and a few rounds of 20mm? quick detour and drop the lot on Afghanistan. Extra practice and don't have to worry about landing weights.

Winner all round.
Nuke' em
 
#23
On a serious note, I don't believe that there is the political will to put front line troops back in there. Yes, we have a number of "advisers" training the Afghans, but that is more or less the extent of things at the moment and unless Don the Hair invades I can't see the UK doing anything other than we are doing now.
 
#25
On a serious note, I don't believe that there is the political will to put front line troops back in there. Yes, we have a number of "advisers" training the Afghans, but that is more or less the extent of things at the moment and unless Don the Hair invades I can't see the UK doing anything other than we are doing now.
May appears to be making a total balls up of pretty much everything right now, but even she isn't daft enough to back up Trump if he were to send more troops back to Afghanistan.
 
#27
On a serious note, I don't believe that there is the political will to put front line troops back in there. Yes, we have a number of "advisers" training the Afghans, but that is more or less the extent of things at the moment and unless Don the Hair invades I can't see the UK doing anything other than we are doing now.

I don't think we're capable of deploying the troops required to conclusively change the situation. If so, why bother.

I think we could end up tied to our token effort for the indefinite future as at the moment the country seems locked in stalemate.

We're better off out of it.
 
#30
Sorry my mistake the quote was

Reid committed 3,300 troops to Helmand province, Afghanistan in January 2006.[52] As Secretary of State he is often misquoted as saying troops would leave "without a single shot being fired." He actually said "We would be perfectly happy to leave in three years and without firing one shot because our job is to protect the reconstruction
:oops::oops:
 
#31
Sorry my mistake the quote was

Reid committed 3,300 troops to Helmand province, Afghanistan in January 2006.[52] As Secretary of State he is often misquoted as saying troops would leave "without a single shot being fired." He actually said "We would be perfectly happy to leave in three years and without firing one shot because our job is to protect the reconstruction
:oops::oops:
see post 28
 
#33
Sorry my mistake the quote was

Reid committed 3,300 troops to Helmand province, Afghanistan in January 2006.[52] As Secretary of State he is often misquoted as saying troops would leave "without a single shot being fired." He actually said "We would be perfectly happy to leave in three years and without firing one shot because our job is to protect the reconstruction
:oops::oops:
Don't worry, it's frequently mistaken like that.

I'd imagine that Reid was saddeneded at how it all turned out
 
#35
Don't worry, it's frequently mistaken like that.

I'd imagine that Reid was saddeneded at how it all turned out
I wasn't exactly ******* overjoyed myself.
 
#36
Don't worry, it's frequently mistaken like that.

I'd imagine that Reid was saddeneded at how it all turned out
He was a pretty decent chap & good at his role by all accounts - some users on here having had interaction with him.
His repeated misquoting of that particular phrase don't do him much justice imo.
 
#38
He was a pretty decent chap & good at his role by all accounts - some users on here having had interaction with him.
His repeated misquoting of that particular phrase don't do him much justice imo.
The Michael Fish of politics
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top