One Columnists View of Afghan - Anyone want to disagree?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by flamingo, Jul 9, 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:


    Any views on this article? It seems to be fairly hard-hitting, is it correct in anyone's opinion? I'm not qualified to comment on the technical side, but it does seem to raise some valid points.

  2. I could not agree more with the comments the author has made. "Truer words were never spoke." It is easy to see, after walking the streets of any British/European city, the impact Islam will have in the very near future. A few minutes spent near Paddington Square will convince even the most skeptical person that Islam is about to overwhelm the UK.
  3. Before I read it I shall attempt a brief synopsis based on KM's recent dribbling:

    Britain is a bit rubbish at this warry stuff, not like America, they're ace.
    British equipment is pants, all of it, they don't have anything that works, even the mess tins would melt. On the other hand, American equipment is ace, they could beat anyone at any time with their equipment, they've got bootlaces that could down a MiG 73.5.
    I like America and Americans, they make me moist. Not like the British, they should do everything exactly like Americans, then they wouldn't be rubbish. Although, even if they were identical, they still wouldn't be as good.
    Did I mention America is ace?

    How close am I?
  4. If you really want to do something for world peace, nut out and support a fair settlement to the Palestine/Israel conflict. If you haven't got the guts to go up against the Zionists whom control the Western media, then forget it.

    Weird, really. This war with the Moslems had been going on for sixty years before 9/11 and nobody in the West even knew about it. It's not the media's fault, it's ours for not finding out for ourselves what's being done in our names.

    Does anybody anywhere in the West give a damn about how many Afghans are being killed by drone missiles every day? How many women, how many kids? But what's going to happen when the Afghans retaliate on captured Western soldiers by flay them alive in front of a web cam? Oh, the wheels on the outrage bus will be spinning then!

    This Afghanistan shambles is being orchestrated by the same bastards who launched the invasion of Iraq. Britain and Canada and Australia were suckered in then by the vermin of the Pentagon, and we're being played for suckers again.
  5. More armchair critics arguing the point/blame targets of the conflict in the first place, not answering the thread which was to discuss the article and its description of reasons for failings in Afghanistan and the potential outcome of a failure to make decisive progress within that theatre, oh yes and you managed to get Iraq pigeon-holed into there too, how original.

    And Ottar you are way off the mark, I dont know what section of combat + survival equipment review you were reading but it certainly wasnt the article at the top of the page.

    I believe for the fact that he is a journo with little or no experience of operations in Afgh save for reporting he has a decent,honest view of some of the problems within current Operations (faced by UK boots on the ground), refreshing to read an opinionated account with ref to Afghanistan that isnt (completely anyway) full of rubbish.
  6. Kevin Myers is perfectly entitled to state his opinion.

    And so am I. That article is utter bollocks from start to finish.
  7. Am I? He must have made a rapid change in output if I am. Let's see now.

    Yes, it's annoying, but is he highlighting it because he cares or because he's using it as a stick to beat the the BBC for being representative of Britain. Sky/Channel 5 pronounce Lt. incorrectly much more often than the BBC, but he doesn't mention them.

    A/ So it appears it was a stick and what the chuff is he waffling about. Britain has been rather involved in 'wars upon Europe's southern and eastern marches', I seem to remember one recent op in which we were the lead supplier of personnel whilst the US was joint third.
    B/ Never miss a random opportunity to throw 'Empire' in there, especially to an Irish audience.
    C/ US is ace, see.
    D/ Agreed, but the argument is weakened with all the superfluous polemic.

    A/ Was it balls. Viking is designed for Arctic, desert, jungle and temperate. You don't stick air-con on something designed for sub-zero temperatures.
    B/ Apart from being designed with low ground pressure to avoid detonating them in the first place.
    C/ The Soviets didn't have mines? Of course, Viking was designed more than 10 years after the end of the Soviet Union.

    American equipment is ace, see. Oh, Myers, go boil your head.

    A/ When did the Cold War end? Because Viking was designed by Royal Marines from 2001-2004 and entered service in 2005.
    B/ Then there is no armoured roof for them to be propelled into, breaking their necks :roll:
    C/ Could that be because it's not meant to be an armoured vehicle?
    D/ They were killed by the enemy, not the vehicle. How many people haven't been killed when in Jackals?

    The MoD is responsible for British casualties, not Allied. Oh, and the Soviets had an average of 750 KIA a year, the Allies have an average of 150.

    I won't bother with the rest of his drivel, except this little nugget:

    Isn't America just so wonderful. The US saved the US in WWII. Myers, please fcuk off and die.
  8. The Red Army lost more than that per year . In ten years of conflict the official figure was close to 15,000 killed in combat
  9. Yep, you're right, I must have divided by 20, not 10. 1,500 a year.
  10. meridian

    meridian LE Good Egg (charities)


    I wouldnt disagree with a lot of your response but just a couple of points

    You are right that the Viking wasn't designed exclusively for arctic conditions but it predecessor, which the Viking is an obvious development of, was. Low ground pressure, by virtue of light weight and very broad band tracks, is primarily to provide excellent cross country performance on soft ground i.e. snow and summer tundra. Of course low ground pressure will help to combat mines, unless of course they are command line or use an initiation method other than pressure. The Viking is rated against 0.5kg of explosive, thats only a couple of sticks of PE4. Mine protection is therefore not a very strong point in the Viking design. It was as you say introduced 10 years after the soviet collapse but its predecessor wasnt and if you look at the two it is clearly an evolutionary design.

    Your extending the point of Jackals goes too far. Yes of course the vehicle hasnt killed anyone, the enemy has but it is vulnerable to mines/IED's. Lets not kid ourselves

    We may be suffering a lower KIA rate than the Russians but how much of that is due to the fact we have much fewer troops in theatre and medical technology is a generation better. However, I don't want to use casualty figures to argue about and so wont labour the point, except to say, is it apples and apples?

    There is much nonsense in that article but there are grains of truth as well
  11. Meridian,

    1. Viking is not just a development of BV206, it is vastly more capable. Viking wasn't designed to be heavy armour, it was designed to be a protected, amphibious, battlefield taxi. It does what it was designed to do very well, it shouldn't be condemned for something it wasn't designed to do, nor should it be misrepresented as a Cold War snow-mobile.

    2. Which doesn't make it a poor or unsuitable vehicle. Why is Myers comparing it to armoured vehicles? It's not one and was never intended as such. He's another Richard North.

    3. Soviet forces numbered 115,000; Allied forces number a little short of 90,000 - not much between them. We have fewer casualties because we are better trained, are better equipped and have better doctrine as well as having better medical technology. We are simply more capable than the Soviets were by a factor of lots.

    There are some grains of truth in the article, but there is so much utter garbage it overpowers those grains and, will ultimately, do more harm than good.
  12. I think the man has a point.

    Politicians and Journos are cnuts - Roger
    The BBC are a waste of tax payers money - Roger
    Europe have their eyes shut again - Roger
    The Yanks have proven they can still cut the mustard - Roger
    Our equipment is a joke - Roger

    Fair play he might be noshing off a yank hence the biasedness of his article but how can you deny that when push comes to shove they are the only ones proving they still have bite to back up their bark. Once again Europe has had to rely on them to bail us out. Basrah, Helmand where next? The way things are going it wouldn't suprise me if we had a Septic Infantry unit stagging on at The Palace next year.

    Personally I am more pro American now than I have ever been. The EU have not pulled their weight in this current conflict and I wonder why I expected anything different from them.
  13. Erm, Afghanistan is an American war, we are helping them out. When did the US ever elect to 'bail us out' in the past?

    Why should other countries have thrown themselves into the war in Afghanistan when the US couldn't be arsed and turned its attention on Iraq? If the US was serious about TWAT it would get a grip of Israel/Palestine and would do something about the real hotbed of Islamic terrorism, Saudi Arabia. Until then, the whole thing is a façade that some nations have seen through and refuse to get drawn in to. We, however, hang on to the US's coat tails as a nod to some non-existent 'special relationship'. Quite frankly, it's embarrassing.
  14. have some deep-seated issues...perhaps you should not drive a motorcar, handle power tools, nor any weaponry.
  15. Those damn jews. They are lucky they weren't gassed when the banks in the US went sideways. Money grubbing parasites.... <<<<is called sarcasm don't get excited

    Only sixty years? What happened with the crusades, grand times had by all. <<<<is called sarcasm don't get excited

    Right and the USSR was so polite during their invasion.

    You are really a dim-witted...