Labour clashes with army as Afghan death toll mounts

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Skynet, Jul 11, 2009.

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. 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
  2. Surprise surprise!
  3. Maybe its time for Sir Dick to unlock the amoury and enter the commons with drawn sword
  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.
  5. Would pay good money to know who the minster was?
  6. 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.

  7. Nehustan

    Nehustan On ROPs

    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.
  9. Those in Nuliabor who criticise the CGS,have very little idea of what they are talking about.After all they are MPs!
  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.
  11. If he's 'playing politics' perhaps they might like to give 'serving their country' a try?
  12. 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.

  13. Auld-Yin

    Auld-Yin LE Reviewer Book Reviewer Reviews Editor

    How would a sapper know that, unless somebody read it out to them? 8)
  14. Ooooo spitefull :lol:
  15. Nehustan

    Nehustan On ROPs

    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.