So Sad News

[maggiebee]

Was so sorry to hear of the death of another of our young soldiers in Afghanistan. Seems all the more poignant as it was on the 11th of the 11th. May his family find peace.

[Ann]

Yes I realised that too Maggie - how sad at any time but especially on Remembrance Sunday. Thinking of his family today x

[EDDIE51]

Yet another shot by 'his own side' a person dressed as an Afghan army soldier.
I am certain that within hours of us pulling out the Taliban will be back in control , total waste of life and money going in there in the first place.

[langara]

Couldn't agree more Eddie, every death makes me wonder more and more why we are letting our lads die out there.

[andy-hughes]

Another underlining - as if any were needed - of the utterly futile continuous waste of time, money and lives in this ego-trip of an invasion.

[TTG]

I agree with all of the above posts.

[sp1814]

Does anyone actually remember why we went to Afghanistan in the first place? what I by that, is the reasons we were given for doing in, rather than the reasons some suspect we went in?

[andy-hughes]

If memory serves, it wasbecause of a percevied desire for democracy by the majority of the Afghan people, the military enforcement of which, Britain felt compeled to assist.

It's not q

[andy-hughes]

It's not quite worked out like that has it?

[McMouse]

We originally went in to deal with terrorist training camps. Then Dubya took his eye off the ball and together with Blair took invaded Iraq.

[jake-the-peg]

The invasion into Afghanistan was in a response to 9/11 and the Al Qaeda presence there.

There was an arguably good case for that initial action.

The main mistake came when the aim changed to attempting to westernise (Stabelise they call it) the country.

Getting involved in Iraq which diverted resources then guaranteed failure.

The time to leave was after the farsical elections that failed to demonstrate any clear support.

When you don't have the clear support of the majority of the people you're not liberators any more you're occupiers.



Remember the vast majority of soldiers over there will have joined up after the war started so will have chosen to go and fiight there.

They're not protecting us in the UK - if there was any question that they were we wouldn't be pulling out.

So you have people joining up to fight in a war that doesn't protect the UK and isn't wanted by the local population.

That rather begs the question why they join up

The adverts for the Army tend to answer that question contrasting mundane civillian jobs with the excitement of battle.

They're still running such adverts, still recruiting kids with tales of excitement and adventure and still shipping their bodies home

[anotheoldgit]

One among many excuses for us being out there was said to protect us back in the UK.

Seeing that the UK border controls are constantly letting in hundreds of illegal immigrants from all over the world, how do we then know how many potential terrorists are not already here, just waiting for the right oportunity?

It sickened me to see all those 'dignities' conduct their yearly show of extreme hypocrisy in Whitehall on Sunday morning, bowing their heads and placing their wreathes at the Cenotaph.

'The war to end all wars' 1914 - 1918.

How wrong that proved to be,

'Less we forget'.

We cannot forget because we are still constantly reminded even on the very day, as in this poor young soldier's murder incident.

And the politicians and the Generals are even now straining at the leash, so as to get involved in Syria.

[andy-hughes]

I agree wholeheartedly with AOG on this (It's getting to be a habit my old friend!)

By definition, soldiers fight, it's wjhaty they are trained and equipeed to do. So any solider who is not actively engaged in a combat zone is simply waiting for a chance to get deployed to one - otherwise his training and resources are an expensive waste of time.

If you extrapolate that logic up the chain of command, officers must, as AOg advises, be desparate to see combat action in order to at least do what they signed up to do, and at most, to advance their careers with distinsguished leadership (I know - bear with me ...).

The thought of some officers seeing action, and the up-coming ranks of soldiers and officers missing out, is simply unacceptable for them, so they will present strong evidence that military action is required, sooner the better.

The responsibility of politicians is to avoid being swept up with the sheer gung-ho attitude of the likes of the vile warmonger Bush, and simply take a sdtep back and at least have a useable plan of action.

I would never get within a sniff of the Secretary Of Defence's job, because i happen to think that shooting at people should be an absolute last resoirt, and something to be avoided until all and every alternative avenue of action has been explored and found not to work.

Am I happy with that situation? You bet I am!!!