This is what 8 years of fighting war on a peace time budget has done....

[danny]

 

15 brave soldiers killed in a space of 10 days. This level of casualties has not be seen since the falklands. But unlike the falklands this is no 'suprise' conflict we have been in afghanistan now for the best part of 8 years. And yet the govenment is still trying to do things on the cheap.

Top people in the millitary have said that at least another 2000 soldiers are needed now to allow us to move forward and be able to hold groun that we have taken, rather than allowing it to fall back in to enemy hands again. We have no where near enough helicopters deployed to afghanistan. The reasons for us not having these troops and equipment are very simple COST. But in by not paying in financial terms we are paying a much higher price. All over the country and infact the commonwealth mothers, fathers, wifes are getting that dreaded knock at the door to tell them that there husband, son, wife or daughter is not going to come home again.

If the labour govenment is going to place people in the line of danger then they should be willing to do the decent thing and give them what they need to do the job with the least ammount of danger. We in the millitary are under no illusion when we join. People will die. But there is no excuse for people dieing due to lack of the correct equipment. I ask you to think about the familys of the 184 people that have died in afghan and the 179 who did die in iraq whn Gordon Brown finally does the one decent thing he can do and calls a general election.

[ShadowV7]

I dislike the army and military and that, but still, if they need to do a job, they should have the right equipment to carry it out.

[Goafer]

I was thinking about this the other day (it's hard not to at the minute, it's in all the papers). It's obviously a massive shame, but is anyone else impressed that the fatalities are so low (previous 10 days excluded), considering it's war and all. Speaks volumes about how efficient our army has become, especally considering how ill equipped they seem to be.

[blender]

I dont think people vote on the basis of iraq or afganistan and no party is calling to pull out?? but a few more weeks and who knows....I wonder if children grow up with an image of desert yellow soldiers. In my day, army men were always green.

 

I'm not trying to make light of this serious subject. i think they need to replace infantry with robots. then there would be "no cost" apart from the metal (and some collaterol) and the we could have wars everywhere we felt like... and some great tv ... but really there has to be a cost and i am glad the papers are stirring this one up.

 

the other strange thing is the number of non combat deaths... just from toughing it out in the desert

the breakdown

363 deaths in iraq and afgansitan

 

66% hostile

19% accidents

3% friendly fire

10% other

1% Suicide

 

surely there should be a fuss about all these acidents and "others".

 

They are more preventable than trying to deflect bullits with fancy new body armour

 

dare i say it but maybe they should invest in management consultants rather than helicopters

 

.

Edited July 12, 2009 by blender

[danny]

I dont think people vote on the basis of iraq or afganistan and no party is calling to pull out?? but a few more weeks and who knows....I wonder if children grow up with an image of desert yellow soldiers. In my day, army men were always green.

 

I'm not trying to make light of this serious subject. i think they need to replace infantry with robots. then there would be "no cost" apart from the metal (and some collaterol) and the we could have wars everywhere we felt like... and some great tv ... but really there has to be a cost and i am glad the papers are stirring this one up.

 

the other strange thing is the number of non combat deaths... just from toughing it out in the desert

the breakdown

363 deaths in iraq and afgansitan

 

66% hostile

19% accidents

3% friendly fire

10% other

1% Suicide

 

surely there should be a fuss about all these acidents and "others".

 

They are more preventable than trying to deflect bullits with fancy new body armour

 

dare i say it but maybe they should invest in management consultants rather than helicopters

 

.

 

No helicopters are deperatly needed. We have to move on the road due to the lack of them. This is by far the most dangerous place. You can only do so much to prevent hitting IEDs and mines. But if you move by helicopter you are not going to be affected by them.

 

And as for the comment about no political party saying they will pull us out. Thats because it is not an option. If afghanistan falls to the Taliban again stand by for carnage here in the UK. In 2001 it was America and they would still be there top target, But if the mission there fails we are in much more danger espessialy seen as there is a minority (very small) of British muslims who have been led to believe that jihad is in some way acceptable and would be willing to unleash it on the streets of the UK.

 

Many of the accidents are air accidents, some of which are pritty unavoidable considering the condiaitons which flying is taking place. And some of which are avoidable ie having up todate aircraft. Other accidents will just happen sometimes when you have 8000 people on the ground with a multitude of weapons systems. Other accidents are RTA theres no such thing as 'driving hours' when you are on operations. It once took a vehicle i was in 14 hours to drive 80 miles. You cant pull over at a service station to stop.

[Dyson]

I was going to post my thoughts on the matter in here but I know I'd get heavily berated for it.

 

Let's just say I don't share the same opinion as you danny.

[danny]

I was going to post my thoughts on the matter in here but I know I'd get heavily berated for it.

 

Let's just say I don't share the same opinion as you danny.

 

 

Share your opinion. I would be intrested to hear it.

[nightwolf]

I was going to post my thoughts on the matter in here but I know I'd get heavily berated for it.

 

Let's just say I don't share the same opinion as you danny.

 

I think I understand your opinion and if it is correct - I happen to agree.

[danny]

I would like to hear what your opinions. I would not start name calling, as people have done to me on these forums but i would probably tell you why your opinions are wrong.

[Sheikah]

Not trying to sound harsh, but far more people die of disease in developing countries every day than those suffering casualties in the British Army. Over 3,000 African children die every day from Malaria...in the face of which, 15 British soldiers dying in 10 days seems pretty irrelevant. It's funny how we should care more for a certain band of strangers simply because they lived on connected land. Even if they are a small slice of the army protecting us, we can at least say that those soldiers have experienced life somewhat.

 

Never has life been so unequal!

[danny]

Not trying to sound harsh, but far more people die of disease in developing countries every day than they do in the British Army. Over 3,000 African children die every day from Malaria...in the face of which, 15 British soldiers dying in 10 days seems pretty irrelevant. It's funny how we should care more for a certain band of strangers simply because they lived on connected land. Even if they are a small slice of the army protecting us, we can at least say that those soldiers have experienced life somewhat.

 

Never has life been so unequal!

 

But the govenment employ these people and put them in harms way, so should therefore take car of them. Hence the difference.

[nightwolf]

I would like to hear what your opinions. I would not start name calling, as people have done to me on these forums but i would probably tell you why your opinions are wrong.

 

Opinion is never wrong, fact is. If I were stating the wrong facts then by all means, but I'm not going to start writing an opinion with an attitude like that.

[McPhee]

I'd expect the reason why the army is short on funds is because there isn't any money to give them. Cutting costs elsewhere would cause more damage to the country than allowing ~20 soldiers a year to die in Afghanistan. It's a horrid thing to admit, but very likely to be true. The lives of the soldiers dying over there are far cheaper than the equipment that would be required to reduce those casualties.

[Sheikah]

But the govenment employ these people and put them in harms way, so should therefore take car of them. Hence the difference.

The government could instead spend more money on aid for Africans, saving far more lives. But British lives are much more important!

[tissuetown]

I dislike the army and military and that, but still, if they need to do a job, they should have the right equipment to carry it out.

 

 

Er.. why?

[danny]

Opinion is never wrong, fact is. If I were stating the wrong facts then by all means, but I'm not going to start writing an opinion with an attitude like that.

 

Well if your opinion is that my friends and colleagues should be catching it up in record numbers with no end in sight. Just because of fiscal concerns then yes your opinion is wrong.

If your opinion is we shoudnt be there, then your opionion isnt wrong but flawed at best.

If you think people who join the millitary know deaths are inevertable and should deal with it then you are a fool.

[nightwolf]

Er.. why?

 

Because you wouldn't give a second hand needle for a doctor to use, so why leave a soldier without stuff he needs for his job..

 

EDIT: Danny I haven't actually stated my opinion, so don't assume. Its like telling me that if I thought a film was rubbish then my opinion is wrong because it made a mass amount of money. Etc etc.

 

As it is, I do believe they should be there, to help protect people who didn't ask for any of this, who didn't wish to be ruled by certain people and I'm not so far up my arse to realise what happens to these men and women when they come back and half their friends have been blown up or set on fire, nobody should have to deal with that, but they wish to serve their country and helps others and if that is their wish I will support it.

 

It doesn't mean I like it, it doesn't mean I want it to be happening, I certainly don't want to be seeing 8 people being brought home in boxes.

Edited July 12, 2009 by nightwolf

[tissuetown]

Because you wouldn't give a second hand needle for a doctor to use, so why leave a soldier without stuff he needs for his job..

 

 

Oh no no. I meant him disliking the army.

[Dyson]

If you think people who join the millitary know deaths are inevertable and should deal with it then you are a fool.

 

Elaborate for me?

[D_prOdigy]

Oh no no. I meant him disliking the army.

 

Maybe he's like me and is quite pacifist, anti-war, and generally doesn't see the point in spending tax-payer's money on destroying our fellow man.

 

But I'm not getting into it. I'm sure there are plenty of people here who would just call my opinion primitive or naive.

[danny]

I'd expect the reason why the army is short on funds is because there isn't any money to give them. Cutting costs elsewhere would cause more damage to the country than allowing ~20 soldiers a year to die in Afghanistan. It's a horrid thing to admit, but very likely to be true. The lives of the soldiers dying over there are far cheaper than the equipment that would be required to reduce those casualties.

 

There is money it just goes to people who a born and die in benfits. Who claim benefits because they get more in doing so than they would in working. The govenment has its prioritys wrong. 20 a year? I dont not think so. If there is no money then the govenment should not place people in danger. But they have so they should do everything in there power to make the money available to win the war and secure the countrys safety.

 

Elaborate for me?

Well i joined to serve my country and do something to help the world and the people in it. Not to go on operation certain death. I have no wish for my body or more likely pieces of my body to be returned to the UK in a box. Im aware that it is a possablity but it is my belief that everything that can possibly done to prevent it should be done.

The americans got there heads of the services out to afghanistan and said what do you need?

Our generals have said we need 2000 more men so that we can hold land we are taking rather than allowing the taliban back in. The govenment said no on financial grounds. Its getting to the point of WW1 and sending men over the top. Why where at a standstill we cant move the war forward. Were just loosing more good young men and women.

[tissuetown]

Maybe he's like me and is quite pacifist, anti-war, and generally doesn't see the point in spending tax-payer's money on destroying our fellow man.

 

But I'm not getting into it. I'm sure there are plenty of people here who would just call my opinion primitive or naive.

 

That's fair enough, but why dislike the army? Dislike the government who sends them on these missions. Armies are supposed to be there for defensive purposes. If this country started getting attacked, they're supposed to protect us. I find it highly ignorant to dislike the army.

[Dyson]

See, I think your view is flawed in that you're saying the government are placing people in danger, but they're the ones that signed up for it knowing full well that that is what the job asked of them. Ultimately if you sign up for a job in the army you can't complain about being put in harm's way because, well, it's your job.

[D_prOdigy]

That's fair enough, but why dislike the army? Dislike the government who sends them on these missions. Armies are supposed to be there for defensive purposes. If this country started getting attacked, they're supposed to protect us. I find it highly ignorant to dislike the army.

 

I think it was meant more as disliking the idea of war and the connotations military actions have. I want to say I appreciate all the good intentions that every man and woman has who enlist in the armed forces, even if I do feel hugely alienated from actual armed conflicts.

[Ashley]

Well if your opinion is that my friends and colleagues should be catching it up in record numbers with no end in sight. Just because of fiscal concerns then yes your opinion is wrong.

If your opinion is we shoudnt be there, then your opionion isnt wrong but flawed at best.

If you think people who join the millitary know deaths are inevertable and should deal with it then you are a fool.

 

If you want to discuss the current situation and the merits of war in light of recent events fine, but if you want to spout propogandist arguments with no desire to even consider anyone's opinion but your own as potentially having merit than this thread will be closed.