P.K. Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Our boys should be sent back home on the first available plane/boat. The place is littered with British war memorials dating back centuries. Nothing is ever learned it seems, not even from the Russians who lost 14,000 men there in the 80s. It's unwinnable for a whole raft and variety of reasons, not least because we don't know what 'our' wooly aims and objectives are all about. The previous efforts were ALL wars of occupation. This isn't. The aims and objectives are very obvious - stability for Afghanistan and by default Pakistan. Must try harder - 0 / 10. PS - Afghanistan is landlocked - it's a bit tricky getting a boat home from there. I just thought you should know that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 I always thought of Al Quida as a facilitator rather than an army, could they really muster enoughmen to attack the Pakistani army or is it rather the tribes sharing common grievance with them.Al quida should really not be elevated to a National size just to create a "bogey man ", Al Qaeda are just a terrorist group, not really a militia. Non-state terrorists do not seek to confront national armies in any case. I don't know what you mean about tribes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Politically the whole region is like a house of cards. If Pakistan, a nuclear power, drops into chaos then the whole region could go the same way. This is why Al Queda and it's nefarious supporters are based in Pakistan's virtually ungovernable neighbour, Afghanistan, and are attacking Pakistan's authorities in an attempt to make it just how they like it - ungovernable and vulnerable. Which is why the planks are in Afghanistan to try and stop them. They're taking casualties but wars do tend to have that effect. Simple as... Politically the place was not a house of cards until the USA and Britain invaded. Afghanistan was stable and Pakistan was relatively so. The US and British didn't arrive to resolve problems of instability, they created them. Al Qaeda are have a significant presence but they are based in Afghanistan. It is by largely the Taliban who are causing the mayhem in the far North. In any case, British soldiers are just there wipe out any opposition to a future government, Taliban and Al Qaeda. The issue with Pakistan is very recent and involvement there only arises because this stupid conflict has led the insurgents to use northern Pakistan as a shelter of sorts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sneak Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Did you ever watch that documentary/film called Farenheit 9/11, that said alot about what the war was really about. Dodgy dealings or what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Our boys should be sent back home on the first available plane/boat. The place is littered with British war memorials dating back centuries. Nothing is ever learned it seems, not even from the Russians who lost 14,000 men there in the 80s. It's unwinnable for a whole raft and variety of reasons, not least because we don't know what 'our' wooly aims and objectives are all about. The previous efforts were ALL wars of occupation. This isn't. The aims and objectives are very obvious - stability for Afghanistan and by default Pakistan. Must try harder - 0 / 10. Well instead of sending them all around afghanistan to get killed, and then allowing the taliban to retake the same ground etc. they are all dying unnecessarily for - stick em on the afghan/pakistan border in a UN role (and just inside in the taliban/sympathiser terrotories in Pakistan too). Meanwhile, train the Afghan and Pakistani forces so they are more capable of anti-insurgency and maintaining their own security. Locate and bomb the sh1t out of any talibans attacking near the border - remotely. Your way will go on forever, and a solution will never occur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Well instead of sending them all around afghanistan to get killed, and then allowing the taliban to retake the same ground etc. they are all dying unnecessarily for - stick em on the afghan/pakistan border in a UN role (and just inside in the taliban/sympathiser terrotories in Pakistan too). Meanwhile, train the Afghan and Pakistani forces so they are more capable of anti-insurgency and maintaining their own security. Locate and bomb the sh1t out of any talibans attacking near the border - remotely. Your way will go on forever, and a solution will never occur. My way!!! Think I'm a staffer or something???!!! Unlike you I'm just telling it how it is. According to that nice Mr Churchill "You can take the ground any way you like but you can only hold it with men". You've already been told that this is NOT a war of occupation so holding the ground with boots is simply not an option. There 's far too much of it in any case. So you let them concentrate to come to you at the same time creating a very nice target for air power. Having lost serious amounts of manpower trying that the Taliban are now reduced to roadside bombs and so forth. Victory of a sort i.e they can only take on soft targets and not actually threaten the country. Before you ask it is what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 My way!!! Think I'm a staffer or something???!!! Unlike you I'm just telling it how it is. You said the 'aims and objectives were very obvious'. Objectives are verbs - doing words - and they are not doing it right IMO, that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Bottom of the class. "Objectives" are nouns. Possibly even adjectives. But semantics will not change the serious situation the planks face in Afghanistan. Which I think they are doing in the only way that is possible and doing it very well indeed. You know the Brainless Brown Bashers give themselves away every time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Bottom of the class. "Objectives" are nouns. Possibly even adjectives. Sorry you're wrong. Objectives are verbs (or contain them), aims are the nouns. I had that one drummed into me for two years studying for a teaching certificate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Bottom of the class. "Objectives" are nouns. Possibly even adjectives. Sorry you're wrong. Objectives are verbs (or contain them), aims are the nouns. I had that one drummed into me for two years studying for a teaching certificate. Presumably not history then... Actually my OED disagrees with you - fancy them getting that one wrong! Bottom of the class. "Objectives" are nouns. Possibly even adjectives. But semantics will not change the serious situation the planks face in Afghanistan. Which I think they are doing in the only way that is possible and doing it very well indeed. You know the Brainless Brown Bashers give themselves away every time... Piss up a rope about the definition of "objectives" all you like, your view of Afghanistan, coupled with clearly not having a clue where it is geographically, is totally out of touch with reality. Perhaps you should stick to wondering what the death of Gately has to do with the price of fish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Bottom of the class. "Objectives" are nouns. Possibly even adjectives. Sorry you're wrong. Objectives are verbs (or contain them), aims are the nouns. I had that one drummed into me for two years studying for a teaching certificate. Presumably not history then... Actually my OED disagrees with you - fancy them getting that one wrong! Bottom of the class. "Objectives" are nouns. Possibly even adjectives. But semantics will not change the serious situation the planks face in Afghanistan. Which I think they are doing in the only way that is possible and doing it very well indeed. You know the Brainless Brown Bashers give themselves away every time... Piss up a rope about the definition of "objectives" all you like, your view of Afghanistan, coupled with clearly not having a clue where it is geographically, is totally out of touch with reality. Perhaps you should stick to wondering what the death of Gately has to do with the price of fish. You're a very poor loser PK. Who ever heard of 'Happiness that hill' or 'Takeable that hill'. Plonker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 You're a very poor loser PK. Who ever heard of 'Happiness that hill' or 'Takeable that hill'. Plonker. Thank you so much for the personal attack, it says more about you than cash ever can. Now kindly explain to me how I'm a "very poor loser" - I mean, I've lost what exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 You're a very poor loser PK. Who ever heard of 'Happiness that hill' or 'Takeable that hill'. Plonker. There's that Kate Bush song "Running up that Hill". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Did Kate Bush ever do a song about throwing your toys out of the pram? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 You're a very poor loser PK. Who ever heard of 'Happiness that hill' or 'Takeable that hill'. Plonker. Thank you so much for the personal attack, it says more about you than cash ever can. Now kindly explain to me how I'm a "very poor loser" - I mean, I've lost what exactly? I've told you before I respond in kind - "brainless Brown basher' I think were your words. Don't get so worked up...here's a picture of a squirrel for you to look at: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.