Home & Garden1 min ago
Lives thrown away in Afghanistan?
25 Answers
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/c legg-lives-thrown-away-in-afghanistan-1738429. html
A total of 175 British servicemen and 1 women have died in Afghanistan since the start of operations in 2001, and it is only now that a leading politician has put his head above the parapet and finally admitted what most of us have been saying from the start, 'the present strategy is just not working'.
On what planet do our politicians live? They should take it in turns to do a stint out there, perhaps then the realities will soon become more clear to them?
A total of 175 British servicemen and 1 women have died in Afghanistan since the start of operations in 2001, and it is only now that a leading politician has put his head above the parapet and finally admitted what most of us have been saying from the start, 'the present strategy is just not working'.
On what planet do our politicians live? They should take it in turns to do a stint out there, perhaps then the realities will soon become more clear to them?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The ability of countries to win wars is not based on their ability to inflict casulties but their willingness to absorb them.
I don't know how many Taliban have been killed but I'll bet it's a damn site more than 176!
If the British public (you) are unwilling to absorb half a plane load of fatalities in persuing a war then we are truely a spent force militarilly.
I don't think we should necessarilly have started this but we have.
So lets think about the consequences of withdrawal.
The Taliban would take over Afghanistan again - yes?
Al Qaeda training bases would be restablished - yes?
More 7/7 events in London and the UK - probably?
Easy to call for troops to be pulled out when you don't have to take responsibility for that isn't it?
I don't know how many Taliban have been killed but I'll bet it's a damn site more than 176!
If the British public (you) are unwilling to absorb half a plane load of fatalities in persuing a war then we are truely a spent force militarilly.
I don't think we should necessarilly have started this but we have.
So lets think about the consequences of withdrawal.
The Taliban would take over Afghanistan again - yes?
Al Qaeda training bases would be restablished - yes?
More 7/7 events in London and the UK - probably?
Easy to call for troops to be pulled out when you don't have to take responsibility for that isn't it?
I really dont get this equipment argument at all!
There would still be casualties! The americans have suffered loads of causalties as well as us and they're the best equipped army in the world!
Im not saying that better equipment wouldnt help but a roadside bomb is a road side bomb and its gonna kill some people regardless!
Like Anotheoldgit say (I agree with him???) We need a proper strategy sd this one isnt working and as usual we underestimate our enemy and don't understand them.
There would still be casualties! The americans have suffered loads of causalties as well as us and they're the best equipped army in the world!
Im not saying that better equipment wouldnt help but a roadside bomb is a road side bomb and its gonna kill some people regardless!
Like Anotheoldgit say (I agree with him???) We need a proper strategy sd this one isnt working and as usual we underestimate our enemy and don't understand them.
Bush turned his attention from Afghanistan to Iraq and Blair dutifully followed like a well-trained poodle.
The Taliban, who are clearly unpopular with the people they impose their will on, were allowed to regroup.
The Afghani government is corrupt, awash with the profit from drugs, and yet we 'support' them.
So far, that support has cost the lives of 175 brave men and women who served in the Services.
The corrupt politicians there aren't even worth the life of one of our servicepeople.
Our politicians can't see that we have no business there. None at all.
The Taliban, who are clearly unpopular with the people they impose their will on, were allowed to regroup.
The Afghani government is corrupt, awash with the profit from drugs, and yet we 'support' them.
So far, that support has cost the lives of 175 brave men and women who served in the Services.
The corrupt politicians there aren't even worth the life of one of our servicepeople.
Our politicians can't see that we have no business there. None at all.
Many more British servicemen than that were lost winning back a rock full of Penguins in the South Atlantic.
The difference was that that war was won in a matter of weeks and this one is unwinable. Even if we force the Taliban/al qeada out of Afghanistan, they will pop up somewhere else.
The present ground offensive is looking more the first world war trenches (though obviously not on the same scale) , where lives are lost just for a few yards advance.
Maybe more work on starving them of funds should be done. Stop the money coming out of Saudi Arabia that is keeping them armed.
The difference was that that war was won in a matter of weeks and this one is unwinable. Even if we force the Taliban/al qeada out of Afghanistan, they will pop up somewhere else.
The present ground offensive is looking more the first world war trenches (though obviously not on the same scale) , where lives are lost just for a few yards advance.
Maybe more work on starving them of funds should be done. Stop the money coming out of Saudi Arabia that is keeping them armed.
-- answer removed --
The Sherman
I really dont get this equipment argument at all!
Well for starters, It would be much safer to go out in this much superior Mastiff than the present flimsy and lashed up armoured Land Rover?
The US Department of Defence has managed to procure more than 10,000 of the American version of the Mastiff, known as the Mine Resistant Armoured Protected Vehicle (MRAP), in just 18 months.
British Government figures reveal that 174 Mastiff 2s should have been in service with the Army by the middle of June but only 127 have arrived.
The Mastiff is a six-wheeled heavily-armoured patrol vehicle which can carry up to eight passengers as well as a commander, driver and gunner.
It terms of safety the Mastiff has out-preformed every British vehicle in Helmand, and has so far survived all attacks from Taliban weapons.
I really dont get this equipment argument at all!
Well for starters, It would be much safer to go out in this much superior Mastiff than the present flimsy and lashed up armoured Land Rover?
The US Department of Defence has managed to procure more than 10,000 of the American version of the Mastiff, known as the Mine Resistant Armoured Protected Vehicle (MRAP), in just 18 months.
British Government figures reveal that 174 Mastiff 2s should have been in service with the Army by the middle of June but only 127 have arrived.
The Mastiff is a six-wheeled heavily-armoured patrol vehicle which can carry up to eight passengers as well as a commander, driver and gunner.
It terms of safety the Mastiff has out-preformed every British vehicle in Helmand, and has so far survived all attacks from Taliban weapons.
-- answer removed --
They need basic equipment for starters. My boyfriend was made to hand his bullet proof vest over to someone else...it is shocking. If the government wants to send troops over there they should equip them properly. God forbid if anything had happened to him because I would have been standing outside Downing Street until something changed. The Sherman - there would still be casualties but the difference is there would be more survivors, my other half wouldn't have stood a chance if he had been hit.
Lt Col Thorneloe was travelling in a well-protected, �700,000 Viking armoured vehicle, that was specifically designed to protect British soldiers from roadside bombs, the Taliban have succeeded in designing a device that can kill or maim the occupants.
It is only a matter of time before the enemy find the Mastiff's vunerability and exploit it.
It is only a matter of time before the enemy find the Mastiff's vunerability and exploit it.
Lt Col Thorneloe was travelling in a well-protected, �700,000 Viking armoured vehicle, that was specifically designed to protect British soldiers from roadside bombs,
Know for certain that Lt Col Thorneloe's Viking was one of the initial 17 modified Vikings, do we Gromit?
The Viking is rated to protect against 0.5kg charge anti-personnel mines.
BAE Systems H�gglunds is supplying the UK MoD with an initial 17 mine protection kits for the Viking.
Know for certain that Lt Col Thorneloe's Viking was one of the initial 17 modified Vikings, do we Gromit?
The Viking is rated to protect against 0.5kg charge anti-personnel mines.
BAE Systems H�gglunds is supplying the UK MoD with an initial 17 mine protection kits for the Viking.
AOG
Those words are in italic because they are from press reports, presumably based on information from the Ministry of Defence.
The problem is not lack of equipment or money, it is poor procurement decisions by the MOD. The Viking is a new vehicle and does indeed cost �700,000 each, and it would seem does not work.
From a depressing article which might interest you AOG
Last year the MoD ordered 262 Husky armoured vehicles from Navistar Defence, to be used as medium sized command and support vehicle in less dangerous areas. But according to North the deal came just as it was confirmed that the Husky had failed a blast test during a US Army vehicle contract competition. US Army officials are alleged to have expressed concerns over the "basic" design of the hull bridge which resulted in the Husky failing the mine test.
Word of the US Army test failure was not announced until after the MoD had signed the �150m contract with Navistar.
There are also concerns over the new Panther armoured vehicle which North calls fundamentally flawed and "stupidity beyond measure".
The MoD is scheduled to buy 400 of the vehicles which North describes as "a fine modern product of the Italian automobile industry, and therefore completely unsuitable for military use."
The outside of the vehicle is made from "crushable" or "deformable" materials. While the Panther is well protected, any attack by an IED or mine will cause significant damage to the vehicle resulting in it becoming non-operational.
Procurement officials spent �400,000 per vehicle but it did not come with adequate protection for the engine, no electronic counter measures equipment and it only held three people. North estimates that by the time the full upgrades are completed, the MoD could be spending up to �700,000 on a vehicle that the insurgents can destroy with �20 worth of
Those words are in italic because they are from press reports, presumably based on information from the Ministry of Defence.
The problem is not lack of equipment or money, it is poor procurement decisions by the MOD. The Viking is a new vehicle and does indeed cost �700,000 each, and it would seem does not work.
From a depressing article which might interest you AOG
Last year the MoD ordered 262 Husky armoured vehicles from Navistar Defence, to be used as medium sized command and support vehicle in less dangerous areas. But according to North the deal came just as it was confirmed that the Husky had failed a blast test during a US Army vehicle contract competition. US Army officials are alleged to have expressed concerns over the "basic" design of the hull bridge which resulted in the Husky failing the mine test.
Word of the US Army test failure was not announced until after the MoD had signed the �150m contract with Navistar.
There are also concerns over the new Panther armoured vehicle which North calls fundamentally flawed and "stupidity beyond measure".
The MoD is scheduled to buy 400 of the vehicles which North describes as "a fine modern product of the Italian automobile industry, and therefore completely unsuitable for military use."
The outside of the vehicle is made from "crushable" or "deformable" materials. While the Panther is well protected, any attack by an IED or mine will cause significant damage to the vehicle resulting in it becoming non-operational.
Procurement officials spent �400,000 per vehicle but it did not come with adequate protection for the engine, no electronic counter measures equipment and it only held three people. North estimates that by the time the full upgrades are completed, the MoD could be spending up to �700,000 on a vehicle that the insurgents can destroy with �20 worth of
the MoD could be spending up to �700,000 on a vehicle that the insurgents can destroy with �20 worth of explosives.
http://www.defencemanagement.com/feature_story .asp?id=12295
http://www.defencemanagement.com/feature_story .asp?id=12295
Has a poll ever been carried out by the Afghans whether they want the coalition in their country. If not why don't they have a referendum on it when they have their elections, due soon? If the majority say they want us out we should pack our bags promptly.
A poll in Iraq would have shown they wanted us out long before we eventally went. Now because of a weak Iraqi leadership they are bombing each other once again Bring back Saddam's clone!
A poll in Iraq would have shown they wanted us out long before we eventally went. Now because of a weak Iraqi leadership they are bombing each other once again Bring back Saddam's clone!
While there have been some successes such as the Mastiff and Ridgeback armoured vehicles, which the Taliban have effectively given up attacking
Taken from your link Gromit, so now may I refer you back to my original statement?
Well for starters, It would be much safer to go out in this much superior Mastiff than the present flimsy and lashed up armoured Land Rover?
Taken from your link Gromit, so now may I refer you back to my original statement?
Well for starters, It would be much safer to go out in this much superior Mastiff than the present flimsy and lashed up armoured Land Rover?
