100 Soldiers dead in Afghanistan, and for what?

[BigC]

So, three soldiers have died in Afghanistan bring the total number of UK troops killed into three figures.

 

The title of this thread is pretty much word for word what the newsreader on ITV said as she read the headline.

 

"100 soldiers dead, and for what"?

 

You mean you don't know?

 

Please tell me I'm not the only person who thinks that ousting the Taleban was the right thing to do?

 

Tell me I'm not the only person capable of distinguishing between the two major conflicts involving our armed forces in in the Middle East?

 

Lookng back seven years, who opposed the war in Afghanistan?

 

George Galloway? I don't remember hearing a peep from him.

Clare Short? "Unfortunate but neccesary" - This coming from the woman who went on to be the biggest Labour critic of the Iraq war.

 

The only person I remember opposing the action in Afghanistan was Damon Albarn from Blur.

 

Yet everyone seems to lump the two together.

 

If we hadn't gone to war in Afghanistan, Osama Bin Laden would still be there out in he open instead of being forced ito hiding, being supported by fanatical Islamic Fundamentalists who went around shooting women for not covering their faces.

 

The aftermath may not be pretty, but surely it's better than the alternative?

 

Although the deaths of these young men may be tragic, I truly believe that by making the ultimate sacrifice, they have made the world a better place, and I think that sneering remarks from news readers, disrespects the achievements of our armed forces.

[Peebo]

So, three soldiers have died in Afghanistan bring the total number of UK troops killed into three figures.

 

The title of this thread is pretty much word for word what the newsreader on ITV said as she read the headline.

 

"100 soldiers dead, and for what"?

 

You mean you don't know?

 

Please tell me I'm not the only person who thinks that ousting the Taleban was the right thing to do?

 

Tell me I'm not the only person capable of distinguishing between the two major conflicts involving our armed forces in in the Middle East?

 

Lookng back seven years, who opposed the war in Afghanistan?

 

George Galloway? I don't remember hearing a peep from him.

Clare Short? "Unfortunate but neccesary" - This coming from the woman who went on to be the biggest Labour critic of the Iraq war.

 

The only person I remember opposing the action in Afghanistan was Damon Albarn from Blur.

 

Yet everyone seems to lump the two together.

 

If we hadn't gone to war in Afghanistan, Osama Bin Laden would still be there out in he open instead of being forced ito hiding, being supported by fanatical Islamic Fundamentalists who went around shooting women for not covering their faces.

 

The aftermath may not be pretty, but surely it's better than the alternative?

 

Although the deaths of these young men may be tragic, I truly believe that by making the ultimate sacrifice, they have made the world a better place, and I think that sneering remarks from news readers, disrespects the achievements of our armed forces.

 

Not sure I agree with this. The war in Afghanistan was motivated by vengeance. The reason there was little opposition, in my opinion, was that this vengeance was entirely understandable and acceptable to the West.

 

Years later, Bin Laden is just as free as he ever was, except some people are probably not as keen to fund him. Meanwhile, Afghanistan is as chaotic as ever. Certain societies simply don't fit into the usual "country" model - Afghanistan is one of them, as the society is a tribal one. Despite our efforts, there is never going to be a nice little democracy with everyone living by the rules that we, in the West, consider normal.

 

In my opinion, our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq are now dying for nothing. RIP every one of them who has been killed.

[Only a Game]

We are there to support flawed and discredited American foreign policy which is based on A. America's totally unjustifiable and criminal support of a terrorist regime (Israel) (an issue we have no business or self interest in being involved in) and B. America's historical and growing need to balance their supply and demand problem related to oil (a problem we ourselves dont have), and we shouldnt be there. If we dont find a get out pretty soon it will turn into our Vietnam.

 

We'd be far better off and infinetly more justified marching into Zimbabwe on humanitarian grounds

[The Real Maroonblood]

We are there to support flawed and discredited American foreign policy which is based on A. America's totally unjustifiable and criminal support of a terrorist regime (Israel) (an issue we have no business or self interest in being involved in) and B. America's historical and growing need to balance their supply and demand problem related to oil (a problem we ourselves dont have), and we shouldnt be there. If we dont find a get out pretty soon it will turn into our Vietnam.

 

We'd be far better off and infinetly more justified marching into Zimbabwe on humanitarian grounds

 

Behave yourself there are no known oil fields in Zimbabwe.

[Rawrrrrrrr]

Also a fair number of the 100 "killed" died of natural causes, killed themselves,or died in accidents. 1 of them was even murdered by another soldier

 

The actual number killed in hostile action is about 60-70% of the number quoted

[Boris]

I agree with the OP that we are right to be involved in Afghanistan.

 

Remember the Afghan war is due to our being part of NATO. An ally, the US, was attacked (11th Sept) and the then Afghan Govt, the Taleban, had let the perpetrators of the act on teh US use their country as a base, and as such became a beligerent by proxy.

 

The reasons for being in Afghanistan are far more "honourable" than why we are in Iraq.

 

Just a tip to the OP though, ITV news is ****.

[Jambo83]

I don't claim to know a lot about politics or warfare, and I don't really have that strong an opinion of whether we should at war over there or not, but I can't see there being another 9/11 when all Al-qaeda's henchmen are in hiding.

 

Agree with the post above, I think it's time to pull out of Iraq, surely other more local forces can try and keep the peace there now.

[chimpos]

We are there to support flawed and discredited American foreign policy which is based on A. America's totally unjustifiable and criminal support of a terrorist regime (Israel) (an issue we have no business or self interest in being involved in) and B. America's historical and growing need to balance their supply and demand problem related to oil (a problem we ourselves dont have), and we shouldnt be there. If we dont find a get out pretty soon it will turn into our Vietnam.

 

We'd be far better off and infinetly more justified marching into Zimbabwe on humanitarian grounds

 

Israel is not a terrorist regime, it's the only democratic country in the region. It also has nothing to do with Afghanistan. Also Britain is a lot to blame for the situation in Israel/Palestine so it is surely 'their business' to try and make things better.

[Miller Jambo 60]

Israel is not a terrorist regime, it's the only democratic country in the region. It also has nothing to do with Afghanistan. Also Britain is a lot to blame for the situation in Israel/Palestine so it is surely 'their business' to try and make things better.

 

So Britains to blame for moving the jews in to Israel.

Try the Germans for 3million murders.

Have to laugh when i hear this.

[felix]

The reason western forces are in Arghistan has nothing to do with Bin Laden or our ex-allies the taliban, and everything to do with oil & gas pipelines.

[Tazio]

So Britains to blame for moving the jews in to Israel.

Try the Germans for 3million murders.

Have to laugh when i hear this.

 

Actually Doug we are. Google the Balfour Declaration and Sykes-Picault. You will then see that all the nations in that part of the world are artificial countries created by European powers.

[felix]

Israel is not a terrorist regime

Hotly debatable.

...it's the only democratic country in the region

What about Lebanon ?.

[coppercrutch]

Not sure I agree with this. The war in Afghanistan was motivated by vengeance. The reason there was little opposition, in my opinion, was that this vengeance was entirely understandable and acceptable to the West.

 

Years later, Bin Laden is just as free as he ever was, except some people are probably not as keen to fund him. Meanwhile, Afghanistan is as chaotic as ever. Certain societies simply don't fit into the usual "country" model - Afghanistan is one of them, as the society is a tribal one. Despite our efforts, there is never going to be a nice little democracy with everyone living by the rules that we, in the West, consider normal.

 

In my opinion, our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq are now dying for nothing. RIP every one of them who has been killed.

 

Indeed. They are warriors. And they do it very well. Even the Soviets at their military peak got wasted by them.

 

The middle east is a mess. Can't see that changing anytime soon.

 

Should we be in Iraq and Afghanistan ? Who knows, far too complicated a situation.

 

Some say it is all to do with oil supplies. That may be correct.

But even if it is I imagine wars have been fought for far, far less.

[John Findlay]

When are the British public going to start asking the following question.

 

How many members of Parliament have sons/daughters serving in the armed forces in either Afghanistan or Iraq?

 

Same old same old. Politicians start wars but run the furthest from them.

 

 

 

 

John

[H.A.N.S]

I think we were right to enter Iraq and Afghanistan. I do feel for the Parents who have lost Sons and Daughters but that is what their children signed up for. All the protests from them seems a bit hypocritical when they've stood by and watched them join in the first instance.

[Rawrrrrrrr]

When are the British public going to start asking the following question.

 

How many members of Parliament have sons/daughters serving in the armed forces in either Afghanistan or Iraq?

 

Same old same old. Politicians start wars but run the furthest from them.

 

 

 

 

John

 

What do you propose John?

 

Only those with family in the armed forces allowed into politics, or those who go into politics forcing there family into the forceS?

 

Surely that would be as undemocratic?

 

At the the end of the day those who join the forces know what they are signing for, or at least should, its a fact of life hierachies exist and unless your at the top of one your likely to always have a grievance

 

The fact is wars and conflict will always exist, and people will always die/injure in wars

 

The fact is in approximatly 7 years - 70 soldiers have died in conflict, the rest killed themselves, where murdered or had accidents

 

Yes this is a high cost to the individuals involved but in the scheme of things our casualty rates in the current wars are pretty small proportionately from an overall point of view, should we just shy away from them because of this?

[Peebo]

Yes this is a high cost to the individuals involved but in the scheme of things our casualty rates in the current wars are pretty small proportionately from an overall point of view, should we just shy away from them because of this?

 

As per the topic of this post, if the war is pointless, then surely the answer is yes.

[coppercrutch]

As per the topic of this post, if the war is pointless, then surely the answer is yes.

 

All wars are ultimately pointless.

 

Some wars are just more pointless than others.

[Peebo]

All wars are ultimately pointless.

 

Some wars are just more pointless than others.

 

Profound stuff.

[Miller Jambo 60]

Actually Doug we are. Google the Balfour Declaration and Sykes-Picault. You will then see that all the nations in that part of the world are artificial countries created by European powers.

 

Taz im lost

[Deek]

Taz im lost

 

Israel/Jordan prior to 1947.

 

[coppercrutch]

Panorama now BBC1. Looks interesting.

 

Google "Money masters" after this. Watch this and you will then understand what this is* all about.

 

*Most probably.

[Drew Busby !]

The whole thing is an exercise in futility. The British got their asses kicked there in the 19th century. The Russians got their asses kicked there in the 20th century. Now the Americans and British are engaged in another adventure with only one possible outcome, namely getting their asses kicked all over again.

 

Waste of lives, waste of money, waste of time. The Taliban and the tribal warlords will sit it out in the mountains and hideouts, and ride with the punches, just like their ancestors did. They know this is just another occupation to be put up with ... one day the Brits and Americans will get fed up with it and move out again. Time is on the Taliban's side.

 

Futile, pointless, stupid.

[vegas-voss]

Also a fair number of the 100 "killed" died of natural causes, killed themselves,or died in accidents. 1 of them was even murdered by another soldier

 

The actual number killed in hostile action is about 60-70% of the number quoted

 

What does it matter how they died the fact is they are still dead.I had 3 brothers in the first gulf war(which thankfully ended quickly)and let me tell you this it's horrendous for you everyday that they are away.

[Rawrrrrrrr]

What does it matter how they died the fact is they are still dead.I had 3 brothers in the first gulf war(which thankfully ended quickly)and let me tell you this it's horrendous for you everyday that they are away.

 

 

Yes maybe its horrible they are away

 

But using the deaths of soldiers who killed themselves, killed each other, died in accidents or ill health doesnt paint the full view your trying to here

 

Maybe those who killed themself would have done so if they where in the UK

Maybe those who killed each other would have done so in the UK

Maybe those who died of natural causes would have died in the UK

Likewise those who died in training accidents

 

Therefore to include deaths which are not down to the hostile action imo paint a false view of the acutal figures about casualties of the war

[vegas-voss]

Yes maybe its horrible they are away

 

But using the deaths of soldiers who killed themselves, killed each other, died in accidents or ill health doesnt paint the full view your trying to here

 

Maybe those who killed themself would have done so if they where in the UK

Maybe those who killed each other would have done so in the UK

Maybe those who died of natural causes would have died in the UK

Likewise those who died in training accidents

 

Therefore to include deaths which are not down to the hostile action imo paint a false view of the acutal figures about casualties of the war

 

I doubt it.

 

They are all casualties of war as are the innocent victims who have probably also died that we don't have a figure for.

[Peebo]

Yes maybe its horrible they are away

 

But using the deaths of soldiers who killed themselves, killed each other, died in accidents or ill health doesnt paint the full view your trying to here

 

Maybe those who killed themself would have done so if they where in the UK

Maybe those who killed each other would have done so in the UK

Maybe those who died of natural causes would have died in the UK

Likewise those who died in training accidents

 

Therefore to include deaths which are not down to the hostile action imo paint a false view of the acutal figures about casualties of the war

 

What picture is it that he is trying to paint??

 

As for your analysis of war-related deaths, each to their own, but personally I would consider that any death while on active duty has some statistical importance.

[Rawrrrrrrr]

I doubt it.

 

They are all casualties of war as are the innocent victims who have probably also died that we don't have a figure for.

 

 

Im just pulling out 2 examples, but 1 soldier shot and killed another at a BBQ whilst relaxing before killing these due to prior hostilities between the pair

 

Do you not think this may have happened, even on an army base in the UK or elsewhere?

 

What about the ones that killed themself, do you think everyone was solely because of being in Afghanistan?

 

What about the ones that had a heart attack/brain heamorage?

 

What about the ones that where accidentally shot in practice or crushed whilst working on tanks?

 

Yes Im sure not each and every death would have happened if they werent in Afghanistan, but I dont feel including non hostile action deaths does anything other than distort the true casualty figures of the actual war

[BigC]

The whole thing is an exercise in futility. The British got their asses kicked there in the 19th century. The Russians got their asses kicked there in the 20th century. Now the Americans and British are engaged in another adventure with only one possible outcome, namely getting their asses kicked all over again.

 

Waste of lives, waste of money, waste of time. The Taliban and the tribal warlords will sit it out in the mountains and hideouts, and ride with the punches, just like their ancestors did. They know this is just another occupation to be put up with ... one day the Brits and Americans will get fed up with it and move out again. Time is on the Taliban's side.

 

Futile, pointless, stupid.

 

 

But do you not think we have more to offer them this time?

 

We are in a position to offer them technology and infastructure required to help built a better society.

 

They might not like our values, but surely they like our diggers, cement mixers and other labour saving devices?

 

If we continue to fight the oppresive militants, whilst at the same time, getting their infastructure to a better level, then they will have more chance of building a less oppresive society when we do eventually leave.

[Peebo]

But do you not think we have more to offer them this time?

 

We are in a position to offer them technology and infastructure required to help built a better society.

 

They might not like our values, but surely they like our diggers, cement mixers and other labour saving devices?

 

If we continue to fight the oppresive militants, whilst at the same time, getting their infastructure to a better level, then they will have more chance of building a less oppresive society when we do eventually leave.

 

While I agree that we perhaps could be a force for positive change in Afghanistan, I can't help but feel that it is none of our business.

 

Is building what we consider to be a better society in Afghanistan worth even one British life? Absolutely not, in my opinion. Certainly not any more than it would be in many other countries.

[Drew Busby !]

But do you not think we have more to offer them this time?

 

We are in a position to offer them technology and infastructure required to help built a better society.

 

They might not like our values, but surely they like our diggers, cement mixers and other labour saving devices?

 

If we continue to fight the oppresive militants, whilst at the same time, getting their infastructure to a better level, then they will have more chance of building a less oppresive society when we do eventually leave.

 

The Taliban - or whatever form the medievalists take in Afghan society - were chiefly concerned with banning things. TV, music, photography, womens rights, everything was on the banned list ... and I'm sure will be again in the future when they get their way again. As they inevitably will at some point.

 

I feel sorry for the women and kids. But hell mend male-dominated Afghan society. If they want to run the place like it's 500 years ago then let them all get on with it. Feck 'em.

[Only a Game]

The Taliban - or whatever form the medievalists take in Afghan society - were chiefly concerned with banning things. TV, music, photography, womens rights, everything was on the banned list ... and I'm sure will be again in the future when they get their way again. As they inevitably will at some point.

 

I feel sorry for the women and kids. But hell mend male-dominated Afghan society. If they want to run the place like it's 500 years ago then let them all get on with it. Feck 'em.

 

Its a radical Islamic state like many others. We have no business being there and the only business the US should have there should be to covertly find Bin Laden if he is there. If he's not there or they cant find him they shouldnt be there trying to effect regime change to suit their own domestic purposes. This is precisely why 9/11 happened in the first place.

 

You have to laugh (almost) at a nation who profess to stand up for the rights of the worlds opressed and innocent when they had no difficulty dropping napalm on to innocent men, women and children just a few years ago.

[felix]

They might not like our values, but surely they like our diggers, cement mixers and other labour saving devices?

 

Why would they like our diggers, cement mixers and other labour saving devices, when they didn't think much of the Russian ones ?

[BigC]

Why would they like our diggers, cement mixers and other labour saving devices, when they didn't think much of the Russian ones ?

 

I's need to read a bit more about the Russian Conflict to answer that question.

 

You're obviously suggesting that Russia tried to win over the people in the same way that the British troops are trying to, by attempting to help rebuild the infastructure.

 

Do you know that to have been the case when the Russians invaded? It'd be the first I've heard of it.

[felix]

I's need to read a bit more about the Russian Conflict to answer that question.

 

You're obviously suggesting that Russia tried to win over the people in the same way that the British troops are trying to, by attempting to help rebuild the infastructure.

 

Do you know that to have been the case when the Russians invaded? It'd be the first I've heard of it.

 

Russian presence in Afghanistan is interesting. Most refer to the "invasion" - they were actualy invited (to help prop-up the communist government). Soon after, the west was happy to arm the mujahadden in Pakistan - many of whom would later become Taliban .

You really have to ask yourself why "superpowers" including Britain have had such an interest in this country dating back to the turn of last century; and indeed why was there a Russian/communist government in a conservative/islamic tribal land :confused:

 

Afghanistan is one of the most mineral-rich and strategically important countries in the world.(similar to Iran, who's history has some interesting parallels). The Russians helped build the infrastrucure and improve the standard of living/mortality rate etc. from the 70's in return for minerals, gas and trade routes....the same resources that explain why we're there today (imo , of course).

[Quagmire]

So, three soldiers have died in Afghanistan bring the total number of UK troops killed into three figures.

 

The title of this thread is pretty much word for word what the newsreader on ITV said as she read the headline.

 

"100 soldiers dead, and for what"?

 

You mean you don't know?

 

Please tell me I'm not the only person who thinks that ousting the Taleban was the right thing to do?

 

Tell me I'm not the only person capable of distinguishing between the two major conflicts involving our armed forces in in the Middle East?

 

Lookng back seven years, who opposed the war in Afghanistan?

 

George Galloway? I don't remember hearing a peep from him.

Clare Short? "Unfortunate but neccesary" - This coming from the woman who went on to be the biggest Labour critic of the Iraq war.

 

The only person I remember opposing the action in Afghanistan was Damon Albarn from Blur.

 

Yet everyone seems to lump the two together.

 

If we hadn't gone to war in Afghanistan, Osama Bin Laden would still be there out in he open instead of being forced ito hiding, being supported by fanatical Islamic Fundamentalists who went around shooting women for not covering their faces.

The aftermath may not be pretty, but surely it's better than the alternative?

 

Although the deaths of these young men may be tragic, I truly believe that by making the ultimate sacrifice, they have made the world a better place, and I think that sneering remarks from news readers, disrespects the achievements of our armed forces.

in two words - not really.

 

it's a complete shambles, warlords are in charge, heroin production is thriving, afghani people are dying by the bucket load...

 

and can some one tell me why WE had to be involved in it anyway?!?!?!

[Quagmire]

Remember the Afghan war is due to our being part of NATO. An ally, the US, was attacked (11th Sept) and the then Afghan Govt, the Taleban, had let the perpetrators of the act on teh US use their country as a base, and as such became a beligerent by proxy.

 

do the US really need our help though?

[Rawrrrrrrr]

do the US really need our help though?

 

 

no but its the point of Nato

 

I would rather contribute whether the other country needs help to do it or not as if we didnt and we then did need help it would be a bit hard calling it in

 

Its the whole point of having an ally

[Therapist]

do the US really need our help though?

 

Not really, but it gives the action greater moral standing if more countries participate.

[cosanostra]

Ousting the Taleban was almost certainly the right thing to do.

 

Was it up to us to do that though?

[felix]

Ousting the Taleban was almost certainly the right thing to do.

 

Was it up to us to do that though?

 

It wasn't up to us, and it's not such a great idea to invade counntries who's governments you don't like - otherwise why not invade Saudi - same as the taliban ?

[Rawrrrrrrr]

Another 2 killed today apparently

 

I wonder if maybe they are being too proactive at the moment, a lot of soldiers are dying and I suspect maybe an intelligent move would be to back off for a while and defend what they have

 

Yes it could backfire and make it harder when they go proactive again but with so many people dying its clearly time to regroup and replan

[chopper1874]

in two words - not really.

 

it's a complete shambles, warlords are in charge, heroin production is thriving, afghani people are dying by the bucket load...

 

and can some one tell me why WE had to be involved in it anyway?!?!?!

 

Is this not a good enough reason as well though?? This **** coming onto our streets, while they make a FORTUNE selling it, Giving them more money and power to arm there fighters.

 

If us being in there is stopping further attacks and stopping drugs coming to the British Isles then they should keep at it IMO

 

Drugs, Oil, Money and Nuclear capability. Its not simply 1 thing or the other.

[Peebo]

If us being in there is stopping further attacks and stopping drugs coming to the British Isles then they should keep at it IMO

 

I think the problem that many people have is that our presence in Afghanistan is stopping neither.

[Therapist]

Sadly it's gone up to 102 now with the deaths overnight of two more brave lads from the Parachute Regiment.

 

RIP

[Jam Tarts 1874]

If you have joined the armed forces you are trained to kill and I am sure that at least some of those killed in Afghanistan and Iraq will have killed others. Live by the sword, die by the sword.