• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

Labour clashes with army as Afghan death toll mounts

#1
From The Sunday Times
July 12, 2009
Labour clashes with army as Afghan death toll mounts

(Paul Rogers)
Jonathan Oliver and Michael Smith
Senior Labour figures last night accused the head of the army of playing politics as he warned that there were too few troops and helicopters in the Afghan war zone.

One minister expressed fury that General Sir Richard Dannatt, the chief of the general staff, had attended a private dinner with Tory MPs and suggested an extra 2,000 troops were needed in Helmand province.

The general’s remarks put him at odds with the official government line that the 9,000 British troops already in Afghanistan are sufficient to cope with the current offensive.
More on the link

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6689952.ece
 
#4
To be honest, the taliban can move about pretty much as they please. Putting more troops on the ground will restrict them a little more but will also mean more casualties for us.
 
#6
Skynet said:
The general’s remarks put him at odds with the official government line that the 9,000 British troops already in Afghanistan are sufficient to cope with the current offensive.
Well, with all the military experience the UK gobment has, I suppose they know best. :D :D

If they, and the Septics, are really serious about Affers, they need to shuffle in 500,000 troops at the very least. Even then, the job'll take at least the next seven years.

MsG
 

Nehustan

On ROPS
On ROPs
#7
Fallschirmjager said:
To be honest, the taliban can move about pretty much as they please. Putting more troops on the ground will restrict them a little more but will also mean more casualties for us.
What would your vote be Fallschirmjager, having been at the sharp end? In or Out?
 
#8
I await the German Paras comments with interest. My own opinion is that this is a war that we cant afford to lose. But it is a global matter and help is needed from all Nato countries and more besides.
 
#10
And God saw that it was good. And being a Sapper he then created heaven and earth. And every other unit of the British army was designed to support the Sappers whilst they created civilisation. Then Eve****ed it for everyone. According to the Bible.
 
#12
eodmatt said:
I await the German Paras comments with interest. My own opinion is that this is a war that we cant afford to lose. But it is a global matter and help is needed from all Nato countries and more besides.
I'd tend to disagree with your conclusions there, mucker. It's a war we just can't win and there's no need for us to win it. The Afghans aren't a danger to Europe. They don't even know where it is. And forget this bollix about "fighting them there, so we don't have to fight them here". The plans for banjoing the Twin Towers weren't hatched in Afghanistan and Usama bin Laden had nothing to do with them.

Far more lethal are the religious nutters mainly in Saudi Arabia, but in other places too. And I don't just mean Muslims. If any attacks in Europe or the US are carried out, they won't be coming from Afghanistan.

We've been led to believe that the "War on Terrorism" is global, but it's not. If the Western nations get out of the Muslim countries and stop sticking their noses in other folks' business, the whole thing will die down.

MsG
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#13
eodmatt said:
And God saw that it was good. And being a Sapper he then created heaven and earth. And every other unit of the British army was designed to support the Sappers whilst they created civilisation. Then Eve****ed it for everyone. According to the Bible.
How would a sapper know that, unless somebody read it out to them? 8)
 
#14
Auld-Yin said:
eodmatt said:
And God saw that it was good. And being a Sapper he then created heaven and earth. And every other unit of the British army was designed to support the Sappers whilst they created civilisation. Then Eve****ed it for everyone. According to the Bible.
How would a sapper know that, unless somebody read it out to them? 8)
Ooooo spitefull :lol:
 

Nehustan

On ROPS
On ROPs
#15
Bugsy said:
eodmatt said:
I await the German Paras comments with interest. My own opinion is that this is a war that we cant afford to lose. But it is a global matter and help is needed from all Nato countries and more besides.
I'd tend to disagree with your conclusions there, mucker. It's a war we just can't win and there's no need for us to win it. The Afghans aren't a danger to Europe. They don't even know where it is.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8127754.stm

Bugsy said:
And forget this bollix about "fighting them there, so we don't have to fight them here". The plans for banjoing the Twin Towers weren't hatched in Afghanistan and Usama bin Laden had nothing to do with them.
I don't agree with you, but then I think the 'fight them over here' option is a fair one. The thing is when people usually say 'fight them over here' its used as copy as the politicos know that if it comes to bombs going off on UK mainland, or squaddies getting killed abroad, the general public would vote for the 'fight them over there' option.
 
#16
Nehustan said:
Bugsy said:
eodmatt said:
I await the German Paras comments with interest. My own opinion is that this is a war that we cant afford to lose. But it is a global matter and help is needed from all Nato countries and more besides.
I'd tend to disagree with your conclusions there, mucker. It's a war we just can't win and there's no need for us to win it. The Afghans aren't a danger to Europe. They don't even know where it is.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8127754.stm

Bugsy said:
And forget this bollix about "fighting them there, so we don't have to fight them here". The plans for banjoing the Twin Towers weren't hatched in Afghanistan and Usama bin Laden had nothing to do with them.
I don't agree with you, but then I think the 'fight them over here' option is a fair one. The thing is when people usually say 'fight them over here' its used as copy as the politicos know that if it comes to bombs going off on UK mainland, or squaddies getting killed abroad, the general public would vote for the 'fight them over there' option.
We'l have to fight them over here irregardless of what happens in that hole. But maybe it'l serve as a filip for the dumbed down public for a couple of years. But eventually with the Muslim population expanding rapidly a few bombs going off on British streets will be the least of our worries.
 
#17
Nehustan said:
I don't agree with you, but then I think the 'fight them over here' option is a fair one. The thing is when people usually say 'fight them over here' its used as copy as the politicos know that if it comes to bombs going off on UK mainland, or squaddies getting killed abroad, the general public would vote for the 'fight them over there' option.
But that's exactly it, Nehustan! All this bollix is just farting in a bottle. Those we're supposed to be "fighting over there" aren't the ones who'll be doing the deed.

They're safely ensconced in some out-of-the-way country working on their plans, while everybody else is concentrating on Afghanistan and the ostensible "threat" from there. It'll all end in tears, I tell you.

MsG
 
#19
We've been led to believe that the "War on Terrorism" is global, but it's not. If the Western nations get out of the Muslim countries and stop sticking their noses in other folks' business, the whole thing will die down.

MsG[/quote]

I very much respect your views, however, I am afraid that your assertion: "If the Western nations get out of the Muslim countries and stop sticking their noses in other folks' business, the whole thing will die down”, is totally wrong. It will not. We are fighting, in many respects, a proxy war in Afghanistan. Most of the village leaders I spoke to in Afghanistan said they would rather grow food than Opium, but that the Taliban and the War Lords want them to grow opium, because it funds the war against the West (as well as making them rich).
The UK gave 1 billion quid to Pakistan last year to increase border security in an effort to fight the extremists from Afghanistan and elsewhere who are using their country as a safe haven for training and refuge. If we walked out of Afghastlystan now, the Taliban extremists would simply move between Pakistan and Afgh at will and the likely result might well be a war between Afg and Pak, following, e.g., cross border operations by the Pak govt. It is possible that the Pak govt would lose such a war and yet another country would fall to extremism. Such an event would certainly rattle the Saudis and others.
Let us not forget that much of the world’s terrorism is funded by Iran, a country which is oil rich and which has a hard line Islamic government. The people of Iran are in the main, cultured and want a western style democracy. The government of Iran want Islamic dominance of the world and they certainly dominate their own country with remarkable savagery. But they don’t attack the West and other non Islamic countries directly, preferring to fund terrorist groups in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine and elsewhere to do their dirty work for them. We in the West will never be safe whilst places like Afghanistan are dominated by extremists. Ignoring them and hoping they will go away will not work.
 
#20
eodmatt said:
We've been led to believe that the "War on Terrorism" is global, but it's not. If the Western nations get out of the Muslim countries and stop sticking their noses in other folks' business, the whole thing will die down.

MsG
Total and utter pish

We in the West will never be safe whilst places like Afghanistan are dominated by extremists. Ignoring them and hoping they will go away will not work.[/quote]

Spot on.
 

Latest Threads