Galway Advertiser Christmas Crossword,...
Crosswords1 min ago
Defeatist or realist?
12 Answers
http://tinyurl.com/2ulduuf
The new head of Britain’s armed forces General Sir David Richards admitted yesterday,AL Qaeda and Islamic militants can never be defeated.
/// He added the sacrifice being made by UK troops in Afghanistan, where 344 have been killed since 2001, “has been worth it”.///
Been worth it how?
It is said that Britain is at lower risk of terrorist attacks than France or the US,
Is he saying that the lost of 344 UK lives has been instrumental in achieving this?
The new head of Britain’s armed forces General Sir David Richards admitted yesterday,AL Qaeda and Islamic militants can never be defeated.
/// He added the sacrifice being made by UK troops in Afghanistan, where 344 have been killed since 2001, “has been worth it”.///
Been worth it how?
It is said that Britain is at lower risk of terrorist attacks than France or the US,
Is he saying that the lost of 344 UK lives has been instrumental in achieving this?
Answers
1 to 12 of 12
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.
There will always be people who are opposed to the outcome.
The job of the forces there is to provide a stable platform for the economy to grow and thus marginilise the extremists.
He said also, if memory serves, that we'll be there for many years, I think he's right about that.
You can't kill em all, if they reduce the amount of graft at check points they'll start to engender support.
The job of the forces there is to provide a stable platform for the economy to grow and thus marginilise the extremists.
He said also, if memory serves, that we'll be there for many years, I think he's right about that.
You can't kill em all, if they reduce the amount of graft at check points they'll start to engender support.
Thing is AOG we don't know what really go's on do we? Take politics out of the situation and look at it from a purely military standpoint. I would suggest that we have done severe damage to the Taliban but alos if your hear Army types talking, also to the fundementilist mind set in certain sections of the community.
I think that we are led by the media to think the worst of every aspect of our solidiers but there is no doubt they do more good than harm
Yes they may get naughty but it is so easy in hindsight to criticise them, but I don't know how I would react in some of the situations they are put in.
I think that we are led by the media to think the worst of every aspect of our solidiers but there is no doubt they do more good than harm
Yes they may get naughty but it is so easy in hindsight to criticise them, but I don't know how I would react in some of the situations they are put in.
I find it quite odd that you always go on about the number of British dead.
Of course it's a tragedy to the families of anyone who's killed but anybody who joins the armed forces must realise that they're agreeing to go and kill and risk being killed thousands of miles away on the whim of some politician.
It's been a constant from the end of WWII onwards.
And frankly 344? in 9 years?
The RAF lost more than that in the battle of Arnham alone!
There are 600 pedestrians a year killed on our streets
Over 100,000 civillians were killed in Iraq
and you're bemoaning 40 deaths a year?
Good job you weren't about in WWII - you'd be going on about how it wasn't worth British lives liberating those French.
I can't imagine many of those front line troops that you so lionise thanking you for your implication that they've been wasting their time either
Of course it's a tragedy to the families of anyone who's killed but anybody who joins the armed forces must realise that they're agreeing to go and kill and risk being killed thousands of miles away on the whim of some politician.
It's been a constant from the end of WWII onwards.
And frankly 344? in 9 years?
The RAF lost more than that in the battle of Arnham alone!
There are 600 pedestrians a year killed on our streets
Over 100,000 civillians were killed in Iraq
and you're bemoaning 40 deaths a year?
Good job you weren't about in WWII - you'd be going on about how it wasn't worth British lives liberating those French.
I can't imagine many of those front line troops that you so lionise thanking you for your implication that they've been wasting their time either
My interpretation of what he said, and the comment afterwards, was that the militants can't be defeated but the work done (and continuing) is holding their activities in far greater check than would otherwise be the case. He's not admitting defeat - he's saying they will always be there in some shape or form, we can't vanquish them completely. This sounds to me like the first time a senior official is stating the situation as it is, not as they'd like it to be.
-- answer removed --
The man is a realist AOG and probably experienced enough to know that there will never be a peaceful outcome there. The troops are there helping to stem the tide of militants and helping to bring a sense of normality there. What else could he say about the sacrifice of our troops, they were sent there on a false premise at the start, thanks to Blair/Bush. But they know their role, however long it takes.
jake-the-peg
/// I find it quite odd that you always go on about the number of British dead.///
Don't you know anything about composing a news question? I was merely
paraphrasing the General's statement that 344 deaths since 20001 had been worth it.
It's not about numbers one dead would have been one too many.
/// Good job you weren't about in WWII ///
Another prime example of you not knowing what you are talking about.
"I WAS"
/// I find it quite odd that you always go on about the number of British dead.///
Don't you know anything about composing a news question? I was merely
paraphrasing the General's statement that 344 deaths since 20001 had been worth it.
It's not about numbers one dead would have been one too many.
/// Good job you weren't about in WWII ///
Another prime example of you not knowing what you are talking about.
"I WAS"
I think the General is right! Ideologies can never be defeated. You are asking to change the way people think. Bombing them to smithereens and someone will follow in their footsteps. They do not even live in one particular country so the 500lb bombs are useless.
How many of those locked up in Guatemala were reformed. I believe many of those released went back to the cause.
How could you tackle the problem? Why does the problem occur with lax governments with the West particularly vulnerable? Why do they seem to fail with oppressive governments like China and a less extent Saudi Arabia or Russia?
How many of those locked up in Guatemala were reformed. I believe many of those released went back to the cause.
How could you tackle the problem? Why does the problem occur with lax governments with the West particularly vulnerable? Why do they seem to fail with oppressive governments like China and a less extent Saudi Arabia or Russia?
I have stated my position regarding our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan many times, but it is interesting that someone who knows a lot more about it than i is no agreeing with me.
I don't believe we have ever been 'at war' with thiese nations, only in the sense of a war of attrition.
I am sure any military commander would agree that ideally a nation should only ever embark on a course of armed conflict with a clear stategy, and an end objective in mind which can be realisitcally achieved within an acceptable time-scale.
That is not encompassed by George Bush talking about 'getting the job done' like he was raking leaves on an autumn day.
If we are not subjected to terrorist attacks at the momnent, it is because the terrorists choose not to attack - anyone who seriously believes it is connected with our actions and losses is seriously deluded.
We are where we were - we have achieved little, certainly nothing that justifies the loss of lives on either side of the conflict.
Sooner or later, we must accept that dialogue with our opposers is the only answer - military force has singularly failed - as it was always doomed to do.
If the general is saying that the loss of lives has in any way made us safer, then he is carrying he remit to defend his masters' actions beyond the realms of reality, and I am sure that deep down, he knows that very well.
I don't believe we have ever been 'at war' with thiese nations, only in the sense of a war of attrition.
I am sure any military commander would agree that ideally a nation should only ever embark on a course of armed conflict with a clear stategy, and an end objective in mind which can be realisitcally achieved within an acceptable time-scale.
That is not encompassed by George Bush talking about 'getting the job done' like he was raking leaves on an autumn day.
If we are not subjected to terrorist attacks at the momnent, it is because the terrorists choose not to attack - anyone who seriously believes it is connected with our actions and losses is seriously deluded.
We are where we were - we have achieved little, certainly nothing that justifies the loss of lives on either side of the conflict.
Sooner or later, we must accept that dialogue with our opposers is the only answer - military force has singularly failed - as it was always doomed to do.
If the general is saying that the loss of lives has in any way made us safer, then he is carrying he remit to defend his masters' actions beyond the realms of reality, and I am sure that deep down, he knows that very well.
One of the problems being overlooked is that the militias just move away.
Iraq became to hot for them, so they left.
Afghanistan is quite hot for them, so many have left.
Kyrgistan is now suffering parly because of this, Kyrgistan is strategically important to the war in Afghanistan as it's home to a U.S airbase.
The whole C.A.R, north and south Caucaus will also reap this whirlwind, Xinjiang's a bit different mainly due to the population's make up, I doubt Xinjiang separatism will amount to much, I don't feel it has a popular basis.
Iraq became to hot for them, so they left.
Afghanistan is quite hot for them, so many have left.
Kyrgistan is now suffering parly because of this, Kyrgistan is strategically important to the war in Afghanistan as it's home to a U.S airbase.
The whole C.A.R, north and south Caucaus will also reap this whirlwind, Xinjiang's a bit different mainly due to the population's make up, I doubt Xinjiang separatism will amount to much, I don't feel it has a popular basis.
Everton # Xinjiang # China cracks down hard on those that don't abide to the rules
http://factsanddetail...3&catid=5&subcatid=89
http://factsanddetail...3&catid=5&subcatid=89
1 to 12 of 12
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.