Two more British lives lost

[anotheoldgit]

Yet two more British soldiers killed in Afghanistan, why is it you only hear of either British or American casualties, when it is supposed to be an United Nations backed NATO operation, and the troops are always classed as coalition troops?

I am no military strategist but surely we have air support, Tanks, and heavy artillery. None of these the Taliban possess. Yet they can get close enough to launch a rocket attack. Why can't we seem to blast them out of existence?

First air strikes followed by artillery, then advance with tanks where possible, for cover of the ground troops.
Advance occupy and hold, advance occupy and hold. Not as we do at the moment, patrols going out into the unknown in light-weight Landrovers, what's all this about?

Unless of course we are still trying to capture hearts and minds.

[johnlambert]

We have very sophisticated equipment that can detect heat from a body from an extremely long distance, however, if we assume that every heat source comes from an insurgent , we would be killing innocent afghans/iraqis.
British and American troops are in the most hostile, lawless areas due to the fact that other NATO countries with a large Muslim population are unwilling to commit combat troops due to possible unrest at home. Also, every one agrees that the British Army is the best in the world and the only force capable of beating the taliban.
Airstrikes are not as surgical as the media would have you belive, artillery is only good against dug in troops, the taliban are a mobile force and by the time we get a "fix" on their location, radio it to the guns and they range then fire, tghe enemy have long gone.

[jno]

the Taliban aren't an army in the usual sense and can't be beaten on a traditional battlefield; as I understand it they're mostly small groups of people indistinguishable from the general population - guerrillas, in other words. You only hear about US and UK casualties because local news media assume that's what you're most interested in.

[Gromit]

"Unless of course we are still trying to capture hearts and minds. "

Not by bombing civilians for the second day running we're not!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/default.stm

[johnlambert]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
as I said, not very good against mobile insurgents

[Gromit]

Should have been this link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/64 18459.stm

[anotheoldgit]

The news came shortly after President Hamid Karzai had condemned an incident on Sunday in which US forces were accused of firing indiscriminately at civilians in the eastern province of Nangarhar.
Extract from link provided by Gromit.

jno is quite right the Taliban are indistinguisable from the general population (civilans) so civilians are going to get killed. They are in a war zone if they can't stand the heat then they should get the hell out, or join up with our troops and get the Taliban out. Or are they actually hiding the Taliban? In which case they deserve all they get.

Civilians where killed during WW2 and there was no hand wringing then.

[Gromit]

Aprops,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/64 19235.stm

[johnlambert]

get the hell out of where exactly? their own country
you said you were no military strategist, that is quite obvious. What you are oldgit is a complete idiot!!!!

[Gromit]

anotheoldgit

"so civilians are going to get killed. They are in a war zone if they can't stand the heat then they should get the hell out"

So would you welcome these refugees to your neighbourhood?

[Mammar]

Purely as a matter of interest, does anyone know the breakdown percentages of nationalities in the NATO force?

[stewey]

Mammar, take a look at the following link (scroll down to the table "ISAF Contributing Nations, 2005). I realize that it's 2 years old, but the UK and the US are not the largest contributors to this action.

[stewey]

Sorry!!......Here's the link:
http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/040628- factsheet.htmhttp://www.nato.int/issues/afghan istan/040628-factsheet.htm

[anotheoldgit]

Instead of using disparaging comments johnlambert, when someone asks a question or puts a point that you don't like to see in print, just try and engage those two brain cells of yours and try to reason the obvious.

Get the hell out of where exactly, their own country? (your words but note the question mark after the complete question).This also applies to your mate Gromit's value-less contribution. Did I mention anything about them getting out of their own country?

Now try and think really hard, now concentrate, here we go.
If someone was bombing your immediate area, you would if you had any sense, move to a safe area away from the bombing, hence no need whatsoever to leave your country.
This happened in this country all the time during WW2, and we are an Island, densly populated and only 244,110 square kilometers in size. Unlike Afghanistan which is 647.50 square kilometers in size, and sparsely populated.

If they did want to leave their country, there are plenty of places to escape to, since Afghanistan borders with Pakistan, Iran, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and China. So plenty of area and places to get the hell out to eh?

But then all else failing, and you want to get your hands on a bit of ready cash, there is always the option to use it as an excuse to seek refuge in a caring and tolerant country such ours.

[johnlambert]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
d1ckhead of the highest order

[anotheoldgit]

I think I have proved my point.

[johnlambert]

And your point was what?