Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest

"britain Paying High Price In Afghanistan"

Recommended Posts

Guest X-QUORK

Realistic mission goals need to be set and stuck to, and once achieved we can leave it to the locals.

If we leave too early, then lives lost to date will have been in vain, whereas another 12-18 months might bring some results. It's a bloody difficult call and not one I'd like to have to make, but one thing's for sure, we shouldn't allow the Afghans to believe we'll stay indefinitely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest X-QUORK

Does anyone believe this statement - I certainly don't. I think it is just a repeat of the WMD argument for going in to oil rich Iraq.

Hard to know if there's any truth in it, but the next Islamic terrorist attack in the UK will certainly end that particular justification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't know WTF we are there anyway.

Can anyone enlighten me?

I've heard all the Politicians talk shit about terrorism, but I don't know anyone that has ever been terrorised - I do however know several families with dead children killed over in Afghanistan.

Am I just dumb?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest X-QUORK

I still don't know WTF we are there anyway.

Can anyone enlighten me?

I've heard all the Politicians talk shit about terrorism, but I don't know anyone that has ever been terrorised - I do however know several families with dead children killed over in Afghanistan.

Am I just dumb?

Well, 7/7 is the obvious answer I guess. However, like I said above, it's very hard to quantify such a subjective issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't know WTF we are there anyway.

Can anyone enlighten me?

I've heard all the Politicians talk shit about terrorism, but I don't know anyone that has ever been terrorised - I do however know several families with dead children killed over in Afghanistan.

Am I just dumb?

I agree. Surely we should be investing the money in intelligence, border control and spy technology. I'm sure we could quickly identify the training camps and send a drone in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest X-QUORK

I'm sure we could quickly identify the training camps and send a drone in.

That's what the Americans are doing and causing horrendous civilian casualties in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. They're losing the PR battle bigtime with that one.

Bad idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, 7/7 is the obvious answer I guess. However, like I said above, it's very hard to quantify such a subjective issue.

My point is that we are sending hundreds of people to their deaths, killing hundreds (thousands?) of innocent civilians supposedly to prevent people getting killed. I don't see how that makes any sense.

As GloomMonger says - wouldn't a vaguely sane society concentrate resources on finding ways to prevent death that didn't require far more deaths?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest X-QUORK

My point is that we are sending hundreds of people to their deaths, killing hundreds (thousands?) of innocent civilians supposedly to prevent people getting killed. I don't see how that makes any sense.

As GloomMonger says - wouldn't a vaguely sane society concentrate resources on finding ways to prevent death that didn't require far more deaths?

Care should be taken to differentiate between UK and US actions, the latter being responsible for the vast majority of Afghani/Pakistani civilian casualties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Care should be taken to differentiate between UK and US actions, the latter being responsible for the vast majority of Afghani/Pakistani civilian casualties.

Differentiate fine, but that doesn't change my point. I don't think it is reasonable to disassociate the UK action from the US action, the UK forces are overtly supporting (from a functional perspective) US action - if we dislike it so much we should challenge them - I notice we don't except in the most mealy mouthed way.

Even if the US action is conveniently dissected and put aside - I'm confident that hundreds of civilians and UK soldiers have died. My point still stands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

300 dead has got to be the lowest body count of any war.

That said, we shouldn't be there. Afghanistan doesn't have nukes or anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

300 dead has got to be the lowest body count of any war.

That said, we shouldn't be there. Afghanistan doesn't have nukes or anything.

No, it's now the Falklands War. 255 British Servicemen (although only 123 of these were Army personnel) and 649 Argentinian.

2 died of their injuries later and 3 civilians died of 'friendly fire' so the full UK total was 260.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't just 300 - or don't you count foreigners?

Those figures are much more uncertain, but the point is that some people seem to be pointing at the number of British troops lost as a reason to withdraw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those figures are much more uncertain, but the point is that some people seem to be pointing at the number of British troops lost as a reason to withdraw.

I'm not sure what your point is in regard to my post.

I don't, frankly, care how 'certain' exact numbers of deaths are, it is barely relevant.

I want to know what the justification is for being there in the first place, maybe there is a very, very good one - that is why I am asking - all I have heard so far is that it is to do with terrorism. Whilst any of the deaths from terrorism associated with the region are awful and more should certainly be prevented, I do not understand the logic of sending hundreds of UK citizens to die and killing hundreds of non-UK citizens to stop people being killed in the UK.

These terrorists can move, re-form, be replaced.

As I stated before maybe I'm dumb, but as yet I have not heard a single justification that is grounded in logic or that stands up to even the most flimsy analysis.

Squabbling about the exact number of deaths in response to this question is entirely absurd. Many people have died, many billions has been spent, many more will die, many more millions will be spent. I'd just like to know - after all this time - WTF it is considered the best option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't just 300 - or don't you count foreigners?

I'm going to point out something, which may seem gratuitously gory and tasteless, but puts that 300 dead in perspective - with apologies in advance to those who have loved ones out there.

Yes, the dead figure is 300, but modern medicine is able to put back together, wounded, that even just 10 years ago just wouldn't have survived. I don't think I've ever seen a war with so many double and triple amputees - not to mention other injuries, not so obvious - like brain trauma - it doesn't even count as a wound, but as a result of the tremendous blasts survived, leads to serious brain damage.

Yes 300 would have been considered a scrimmage in WWII, but look and think behind the headline figure. And it's a totally, unnecessary war - not even counting civilian casualties.

And I really don't buy the line 'It's keeping the streets of Britain safe from terrorists' - I'm sorry it just doesn't wash.

P.S. Not bashing servicemen and servicewomen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest X-QUORK

I'm not sure what your point is in regard to my post.

I don't, frankly, care how 'certain' exact numbers of deaths are, it is barely relevant.

I want to know what the justification is for being there in the first place, maybe there is a very, very good one - that is why I am asking - all I have heard so far is that it is to do with terrorism. Whilst any of the deaths from terrorism associated with the region are awful and more should certainly be prevented, I do not understand the logic of sending hundreds of UK citizens to die and killing hundreds of non-UK citizens to stop people being killed in the UK.

These terrorists can move, re-form, be replaced.

As I stated before maybe I'm dumb, but as yet I have not heard a single justification that is grounded in logic or that stands up to even the most flimsy analysis.

Squabbling about the exact number of deaths in response to this question is entirely absurd. Many people have died, many billions has been spent, many more will die, many more millions will be spent. I'd just like to know - after all this time - WTF it is considered the best option.

I believe the logic is that it's better to have the battlefield in Afghanistan than in the UK. Seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the logic is that it's better to have the battlefield in Afghanistan than in the UK. Seriously.

Would the battlefield really be here? Really?

One out of the four 7/7 bombers had gone to Afghanistan - he'd also been to Israel, make of that what you will.

I think two of the 7/7 bombers had been to Pakistan - that's another story - stabilising Pakistan

But that Afghanistan is a threat to us? nope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what your point is in regard to my post.

I don't, frankly, care how 'certain' exact numbers of deaths are, it is barely relevant.

It's relevent in that you can't report a number you don't know, and you appeared to be dismissing the 300 number because of a lot more other deaths - fair enough, but my point is that it IS relevent to mention the 300 number simply because it's an argument some people are using for withdrawal.

The numbers are very relevent, of course, otherwise how can you judge whether you're being worse than what you're fighting against? There very definitely is / was a terrorism issue with Afghanistan. Would you ignore it because of the risk of one or two deaths (absurd) or because you don't see how you can deal with it without doing even worse than what you claim to be fighting against? (sensible)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't just 300 - or don't you count foreigners?

No I'm just talking about us. Considering we are the second biggest "good guys" there, 300 is nothing over such a long period.

Wars in history, many of them you were lucky to survive. These days you have to be unlucky to die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's relevent in that you can't report a number you don't know, and you appeared to be dismissing the 300 number because of a lot more other deaths - fair enough, but my point is that it IS relevent to mention the 300 number simply because it's an argument some people are using for withdrawal.

I was not dismissing that figure at all - I was making the point that just mentioning the 300 is only part of the story.

I didn't mention withdrawal - that is a totally different issue.

The numbers are very relevent, of course, otherwise how can you judge whether you're being worse than what you're fighting against? There very definitely is / was a terrorism issue with Afghanistan. Would you ignore it because of the risk of one or two deaths (absurd) or because you don't see how you can deal with it without doing even worse than what you claim to be fighting against? (sensible)

You have totally misunderstood my point.

In regard to the justification for being there - exact numbers are not required to reach conclusions or adopt opinions. From everything I have read, there is absolutely no question that hundreds of civilians have died, as a minimum - I'm pretty sure the number of soldiers dead is very accurate. Not knowing the specific number does not render the question void. The figure is somewhere between a lot of dead people and more than that - thus a specific figure is irrelevant in regard to the question because we know it is a large number, we just don't have consensus on how large.

If Politicians were saying - look we thought we would go in kill some terrorists and leave - but we totally misjudged the situation or totally fvcked it up and now have to stay to clear up the mess - then I would see logic, but that isn't what anyone in authority is saying. In fact quite frequently we hear that they knew it would be a very difficult situation (i.e loads of dead people).

Again, I regardless of exact numbers - hundreds of dead soldiers and hundreds of dead civillians seems an illogical, actually an insane, strategy for preventing death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whichever way you look at it, Britain is not paying a high price. Only 300 soldiers. Yes, every one had a family but in the grand scheme of things it is nothing.

>300 people die each year from many more mundane things that nobody bothers to give a minutes silence for so let's get real here.

Actually, there is a bigger price we are paying. And that is for the damage done to our people and interests in the next few decades, thanks to our supporting the "War on Terror".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have totally misunderstood.

First of all I didn't mention withdrawal - that is a totally different issue.

Fair enough. I assumed the reason for the 300 number being brought up in the first place was the withdrawal argument.

Again, I regardless of exact numbers - hundreds of dead soldiers and hundreds of dead civillians seems an illogical, actually an insane, strategy for preventing death.

Not if it prevents a lot more deaths than that, and there are other reasons too. Is it ever right to cost some lives to improve many? Do you resist the attacker? Bowing down to the threat of force will result in fewer people being killed, but is it the right thing to do? I'm talking in general here and not being specific to Afghanistan. All too often I see and hear people say "This is wrong, end of," without apparently being able to consider that whether or not an action is justified or not very much depends upon the circumstances. If invading Afghanistan had been achieved bloodlessly, kicked out the Taliban, rounded up what of Al Qaeda who are there and installed a decent government in their place would you criticise it? If it had killed one person in doing so would you have? Of course you'll get me looking out for flying pigs if I ever thought that was possible, but it's simply one end of the scale where I suppose the other is killing just about everyone in the country and still nothing changes. Where right becomes wrong doesn't lie at either end of that scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US demands "Send us Osama". Afghan government responds, "Well, we don't have an extradition treaty with you, nevertheless, show us some evidence that his is involved in the crimes, and we'll look for him - we don't exactly know where he is at the moment."

US goverment responds "Nobody treats us like that, we'll nail you barstewards. How dare you ask us for proof of anything".

US demands "Tony, we have to slaughter another country because we want their mineral resources and that pipeline we have to fight terrorism and it'll look bad if we do it on our own, hey we've got a nice sinecure for you lined up, Gordo can carry the can for later"

Meanwhile, the official FBI wanted poster makes no reference to the events on 9-11., and still doesn't. When asked why, they said, "We've never seen any evidence to connect Osama Bin Laden with the events of 9-11". Here's the poster:

MURDER OF U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; CONSPIRACY TO MURDER U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; ATTACK ON A FEDERAL FACILITY RESULTING IN DEATH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough. I assumed the reason for the 300 number being brought up in the first place was the withdrawal argument.

Not if it prevents a lot more deaths than that, and there are other reasons too. Is it ever right to cost some lives to improve many? Do you resist the attacker? Bowing down to the threat of force will result in fewer people being killed, but is it the right thing to do? I'm talking in general here and not being specific to Afghanistan. All too often I see and hear people say "This is wrong, end of," without apparently being able to consider that whether or not an action is justified or not very much depends upon the circumstances. If invading Afghanistan had been achieved bloodlessly, kicked out the Taliban, rounded up what of Al Qaeda who are there and installed a decent government in their place would you criticise it? If it had killed one person in doing so would you have? Of course you'll get me looking out for flying pigs if I ever thought that was possible, but it's simply one end of the scale where I suppose the other is killing just about everyone in the country and still nothing changes. Where right becomes wrong doesn't lie at either end of that scale.

This is actually the point I am making. However, I don't believe that you need to know exact numbers. Knowing thousands are dead as a result is enough - yes it might be many more or a few less, but we know enough to reach a valid opinion.

I have not seen anything even remotely compelling to suggest that terrorists would kill thousands of people if they had remained unmolested in Afghanistan. Again, I'm not criticising the war directly I'm asking for the justification. All I ever hear is that it is to keep Britain's street safe - with no further analysis. Personally I'm inclined to believe it has made Britain less safe - I wouldn't consider that a valuable use of life or billions of pounds.

Maybe 'they' really did not see this happening and just thought it would be a 'smash and grab' and it went to shit - but nobody is saying that (maybe because they would be asked why they thought that was possible despite years of evidence that it very clearly wasn't).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Care should be taken to differentiate between UK and US actions, the latter being responsible for the vast majority of Afghani/Pakistani civilian casualties.

Fair enough, XQ, but I'm not convinced the Afghan-in-the street can differentiate between US and UK very effectively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 152 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.