pongo Posted July 22, 2010 Share Posted July 22, 2010 Pongo I do agree with you we are there because of the ego of brown and blair and their wish to be a major player on the world stage, and nothing to do with making the UK any more secure, however the troops on the ground doing their duty are not in a position to debate that and I for one are fully behind them in carrying out their roles. If that means upsetting the enemy then tough !! The troops are not conscripts or idiots. They are capable of forming their own opinions the same as anyone else. The longer they stay the more casualties there will be. And yet the war will not be won. Therefore I should have thought that the best way of supporting the soldiers (as people) is by arguing in favour of them being taken out of Afghanistan. What a pity that the west chose to covertly arm and train the Mujahideens in pursuit of a counter productive proxy war against the Soviets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 22, 2010 Share Posted July 22, 2010 @ Asitis: VERY well put, like it. Oh yes, how brilliant. Make a reference to an oft-repeated quote and somehow that becomes a very well put statement, just because so many people use it. Sorry, but I think it displays more of a lack of thinking when people have to resort to popular catchphrases, as in this case it only embodies an incorrect understanding of the issue.I'd be more impressed with an explanation of exactly how these brave men are making me lie safe in bed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted July 22, 2010 Share Posted July 22, 2010 Pongo I do agree with you we are there because of the ego of brown and blair and their wish to be a major player on the world stage, and nothing to do with making the UK any more secure, however the troops on the ground doing their duty are not in a position to debate that and I for one are fully behind them in carrying out their roles. If that means upsetting the enemy then tough !! What are you trying to say here? That you don't agree with what is going on in Afghanistan, in that it doesn't make the UK secure, but that you are 'fully behind' the Armed Forces. If that's the case, you're talking complete and utter nonsense. It's a contradiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
- Paul - Posted July 22, 2010 Author Share Posted July 22, 2010 The point being that the armed forces cannot pick and choose what they are tasked to do. Irrespective of the correctness or otherwise of the policy that puts them there, they are only doing their duty. As such, they deserve to be recognized and supported for the sacrifices they are making - them being there in the first place is an action the government is responsible for. Theirs not to reason why - to quote Tennyson. It's the government who sent them, it's the government who are responsible. Perhaps it is a contradiction but that's the way it is. Life is often not clear cut black and white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terse Posted July 22, 2010 Share Posted July 22, 2010 The point being that the armed forces cannot pick and choose what they are tasked to do. Irrespective of the correctness or otherwise of the policy that puts them there, they are only doing their duty. Theirs not to question why - to quote Tennyson. Pedantic mode: "Theirs not to reason why..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
- Paul - Posted July 22, 2010 Author Share Posted July 22, 2010 Quite right Apologies for misquote Now corrected Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted July 22, 2010 Share Posted July 22, 2010 The point being that the armed forces cannot pick and choose what they are tasked to do. Irrespective of the correctness or otherwise of the policy that puts them there, they are only doing their duty. Theirs not to question why - to quote Tennyson. The world would be a much better place if people stopped following orders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homarus Posted July 22, 2010 Share Posted July 22, 2010 Its whats called physiological warfare. No it's not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Ayres Posted July 22, 2010 Share Posted July 22, 2010 Probably means 'psychological', either way it's totally unnecessary. Nato forces are losing this 'war' get out before more innocent civilians get murdered by both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted July 22, 2010 Share Posted July 22, 2010 Pongo I do agree with you we are there because of the ego of brown and blair and their wish to be a major player on the world stage, and nothing to do with making the UK any more secure, however the troops on the ground doing their duty are not in a position to debate that and I for one are fully behind them in carrying out their roles. If that means upsetting the enemy then tough !! What are you trying to say here? That you don't agree with what is going on in Afghanistan, in that it doesn't make the UK secure, but that you are 'fully behind' the Armed Forces. If that's the case, you're talking complete and utter nonsense. It's a contradiction. The one thing not a contradiction is young men are dying for the UK in whatever circumstances because that is what the armed forces do, follow orders, and that to me means they are very worthy of my support. I do not agree with the armed forces being in Afghanistan I thought I made that clear but my support for them is unequivocal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted July 22, 2010 Share Posted July 22, 2010 It is necessary to remember that on Planet LaLa they are completely unable to understand the inevitable greys of real life, but live in their own prosthetic environment where only black and white exist, no shades in between. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted July 22, 2010 Share Posted July 22, 2010 I see that the Fifth Column is well represented on this thread. God save us from idealists! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted July 22, 2010 Share Posted July 22, 2010 Do they have NO idea how to behave as humans? None of this is necessary and they all need to just calm down a little bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellyup Posted July 22, 2010 Share Posted July 22, 2010 Probably means 'psychological', either way it's totally unnecessary. Nato forces are losing this 'war' get out before more innocent civilians get murdered by both sides. You are right! At least someone can make a small lateral step. A bad situation here time we were out of it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted July 22, 2010 Share Posted July 22, 2010 I see that the Fifth Column is well represented on this thread. God save us from idealists! It has nothing to do with idealism or 5th Columnists. The war was a lousy strategy and a failure. Nothing will have been achieved when NATO pulls out and the world is no safer. We could easily say that from way to the right of your position. So where is the strategic, political or even economic value or advantage for Britain or the NATO countries in getting involved in a war unless there are clearly defined aims and objectives and an exit strategy? How is that clever ? These were more or less the terms defined by Gen Powell IIRC in his analysis of the US defeat in Vietnam. Though in terms of the loss of life the war and ultimate stalemate in Ireland is a better comparison maybe. Which ever side you look at that from. The 'enemy' in Afghanistan can fight for the next few centuries if they chose to. As soon as NATO leaves they have won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.