Goafer Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 I take it you didn't loose any relatives in 7/7 then? I was going to post about this, but it could be argued that 7/7 was a result of going to war in the first place. Although 9/11 wasn't. And seeing as America is our closest ally, it was only right we went to war to support them in Afghanistan, just as they supported us in WW2. The war in Iraq is a different matter... I fail to see how anyone can even promote the idea that lads should be sent to fight without the risks being minimised. The mind boggles. Couldn't agree more. I think some people are mixing the point of this thread up with the general "war is wrong" arguement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danny Posted July 13, 2009 Author Share Posted July 13, 2009 I was going to post about this, but it could be argued that 7/7 was a result of going to war in the first place. Although 9/11 wasn't. And seeing as America is our closest ally, it was only right we went to war to support them in Afghanistan, just as they supported us in WW2. The war in Iraq is a different matter... Plus 60 odd brits were killed in that attack. There is a case for Iraq as well. If you can look past the media. But thats a topic for another thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ipaul Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 Support the troops, end the war and get them out of that hell hole. We should never have gone into Afghanistan and we should get out a.s.a.p. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
navarre Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 Support the troops, end the war and get them out of that hell hole. We should never have gone into Afghanistan and we should get out a.s.a.p. Any valid points to back up your opinion, or just general speculation with little/no subject knowledge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ipaul Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 Any valid points to back up your opinion, or just general speculation with little/no subject knowledge? Well most of it's opinion obviously, I just happen to think the troops might prefer it if they were at home instead of fighting a war out there. It was never any of our business going into Afghanistan, we went in there (and Iraq of course) purely because the Americans did and we - sorry, Tony Blair - did not have the guts to say no. Last year alone, over 2,000 Afghan civillian casualites were caused and as we all know, over 150 soldiers have died. Or do you need more facts to be convinced that war isn't all that good? On a seperate note, this thread isn't really about the whole 'war is right/wrong' argument. If the government has to send them there (which it doesn't) they could at least tax the rich just a bit more to pay for proper equipment. I don't understand the 'they signed up to it, they should have known they might have terrible equipment and underfunding' logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blender Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 i think it just makes a case for more gurkha regiments Better to die than live a coward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shino Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 I think armies are highly needed in most countries and that the Afghan war is crucial, however the military always tries to push more and more of the countries budget to stay competitive and it reaches extremes of the US. What do you need more to fight this already one sided guerilla war? Carpet bomb the place? Maybe even a nuke? The UK army is one of the most well prepared and supported in the world, why would the country go total war on the tallibans on the other side of the world. I'm sorry but this doesn't sound any more important than the occasional causality in a war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danny Posted July 13, 2009 Author Share Posted July 13, 2009 Well most of it's opinion obviously, I just happen to think the troops might prefer it if they were at home instead of fighting a war out there. I understand what you mean. But most young lads in the forces have joined up since 2001. And most are very up for it, and want to take the fight to them. Most of the storys about moral being low are rubbish lads want to go and make the difference. We just want the govenment to do its part. No one joins the forces to stay in the UK there full career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raining_again Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 No one joins the forces to stay in the UK there full career. This is very true. I'm pretty sure the servicemen/women aren't stupid, and are full aware of the fact they may have to take part in battles they don't fully agree with.. But they should have the kit and the manpower they need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 Well most of it's opinion obviously, I just happen to think the troops might prefer it if they were at home instead of fighting a war out there. It was never any of our business going into Afghanistan, we went in there (and Iraq of course) purely because the Americans did and we - sorry, Tony Blair - did not have the guts to say no. Last year alone, over 2,000 Afghan civillian casualites were caused and as we all know, over 150 soldiers have died. Or do you need more facts to be convinced that war isn't all that good? . Sorry what? Ignoring Iraq for now, as it is a much more complicated (and mostly seperate) issue. I don't suppose you've ever heard of a little thing called Article 5? The one where it states that an attack on a NATO member is an attack on every NATO member? If we were attacked, I'm pretty sure we would expect our allies to support us. We joined NATO for a reason. It's ignorance of the highest order to pick up on the whole "Tony Blair is Bush's lapdog" media bullshit and apply it to the Afghan conflict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ipaul Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 Sorry what? Ignoring Iraq for now, as it is a much more complicated (and mostly seperate) issue. I don't suppose you've ever heard of a little thing called Article 5? The one where it states that an attack on a NATO member is an attack on every NATO member? If we were attacked, I'm pretty sure we would expect our allies to support us. We joined NATO for a reason. It's ignorance of the highest order to pick up on the whole "Tony Blair is Bush's lapdog" media bullshit and apply it to the Afghan conflict. Fair point, but should we really be there just because the Americans are? We haven't any real reason to be there, we just capitulated to American pressure. Perhaps Blair really did go in with the best intentions but we can't win this war now, both countries need to get out. I would like to be proved wrong, that we might leave the country in five years time and that it will be a more prosperous nation, but I just don't think we are up to the task. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 No, we are there because we are defending our allies. Article 5 states that an attack on an ally is an attack on us. So are we going to just let ourselves be attacked and not retaliate / stop them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ipaul Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 No, we are there because we are defending our allies. Article 5 states that an attack on an ally is an attack on us. So are we going to just let ourselves be attacked and not retaliate / stop them? Well yes, so presumably we wouldn't be there if America weren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 No, of course we wouldn't. Because we are there with America as an ally. I don't see what your point is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintendohnut Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 No, of course we wouldn't. Because we are there with America as an ally. I don't see what your point is. I think he means: Why are we there? America were the ones that were attacked and yes they are an ally, but why are we there when other nations are not? And more importantly, are we there because of America? I understand Article 5, however would we have gone to war if America hadn't? Were we forced to enter this war simply because America wanted to retaliate and as an ally we had to back them up? If they had done nothing/not invaded, would we be there now, or are we only there because they invaded in the first place? I think that's what he's saying, tell me if I'm wrong iPaul! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 So Britain shouldn't have taken action after Hitler invaded Poland? Just because it's not our land doesn't mean it isn't our planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fierce_LiNk Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 (edited) I think maybe he meant that America shouldn't be there in the first place. So, if America weren't there, then Britain would also not have been involved. It's on the same lines as Nintendohnut's post, the second part of it. Not agreeing or disagreeing with him, but I think that's what he meant...I think. I say "I think" a lot. Edited July 14, 2009 by Fierce_LiNk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shino Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 There are more countries there besides US and UK, and at the time made perfect sense after the shock of 9/11 and personally I think it's still important as to stop the taliban from breeding more terrorists and making money from opium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuD Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 Gizmo... I'm glad someone who is debating in this thread actually has some knowledge on the subject. I'm not going to say who, but i'm finding some people's opinions disturbing :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The fish Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 I personally believe that everyone should support any action, regardless of scale, against the pure, malevolent evil that is the Taliban. They're so ridiculously anti-human they make Pol Pot look like an alright kind of chap. I believe that there is little more honourable that fighting against the Taliban. Anyone who wants us to pull out of Afghanistan obviously wants to make it so the soldiers who died all did so for nothing, and they clearly think death is an appropriate punishment for being a rape victim, and girls shouldn't be allowed education. If you don't believe those things, then stop being a fucking hypocrite. Oh, and would the government/MOD finally get round to giving the soldiers something other than tin cans to drive around in, and possibly send enough troops so we can hold the ground we take? Cheers! On a side note, notice how, in Helmand, the Yanks have turned up late and are taking the credit! I'm joking, of course, and this would have been avoided if this country had actually pulled it's full military weight/its finger out its arse... Just because it's not our land doesn't mean it isn't our planet. Indeed! Saying "there's a man in my kitchen cutting the head off a rape victim, but it's not my room, so it doesn't matter!" is an obviously stupid idea. Changing it to the countries, and nobody seems to have an issue with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blender Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 I personally believe that everyone should support any action, regardless of scale, against the pure, malevolent evil that is the Taliban. They're so ridiculously anti-human they make Pol Pot look like an alright kind of chap. I believe that there is little more honourable that fighting against the Taliban. . you need to watch rambo III . Remember the taliban (mujahadin) were supported by the West as was Sadam Hussein. Osama had direct CIA training. We should be fighting the causes of evil ---> CAPITALISM and ungodliness and western civilisation. We need sa biblical flood to clense this earth. If we were all farmers, we would only worry about the snakes rather than THE SNAKE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McPhee Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 I think he means: Why are we there? America were the ones that were attacked and yes they are an ally, but why are we there when other nations are not? And more importantly, are we there because of America? I understand Article 5, however would we have gone to war if America hadn't? Were we forced to enter this war simply because America wanted to retaliate and as an ally we had to back them up? If they had done nothing/not invaded, would we be there now, or are we only there because they invaded in the first place? I think that's what he's saying, tell me if I'm wrong iPaul! If America didn't go in to Afghanistan then the same al-Qaeda infrastructure that launched the 9/11 attacks would still be in place. Can anyone honestly say that they'd have gone "right, 9/11 is done, lots of Americans are dead, lets go home!"? Are you that deluded? There'd have been more attacks. Who knows, maybe they had plans that would even overshadow the events of 9/11? As for our part in the war, who's to say that these attacks would only take place on US soil? Even before these wars we were already al-Qaeda's public enemy #2. The war in Afghanistan effectively protected us, the people of Great Britain. It wasn't just about US vengance or the protection of US liberties, it is about out liberties too. If we didn't join the war i'd feel ashamed to be part of this nation, our government would have let our allies down and they would have let us down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LazyBoy Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 Foregoing all the rights and wrongs of this subject, where do the supporters of this idea suggest we getting the money to 'support the troops' from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightwolf Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 Foregoing all the rights and wrongs of this subject, where do the supporters of this idea suggest we getting the money to 'support the troops' from? You know, I just wrote a massively long - somewhat valid post to your reply and then deleted it. *goes to sit in another thread* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LazyBoy Posted July 14, 2009 Share Posted July 14, 2009 You know, I just wrote a massively long - somewhat valid post to your reply and then deleted it. *goes to sit in another thread* Am I that intimating? Give it to me brief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts