Ackey Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 I would say the Wests control of that region has actually been very good so far... Iran and Iraq would have WMDs by now and be beyond the wests control if we hadn't played the games we have been playing over the last 200 years... The long term plan was never to stay there... With a 3 year death toll (2003-2006/7) estimated anywhere between 100,000 and 1,000,000 I'd question the term "very good" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 With a 3 year death toll (2003-2006/7) estimated anywhere between 100,000 and 1,000,000 I'd question the term "very good" Question all you want but the point remains the same... The objectives have largely been achieved... It really also needs noting that we didn't kill those people... We really didn't... But of course we have to accept some responsibility due to the security situation but I think we all know by now that wasn't really ever planned for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 There's not much oil in Afghanistan. An oil pipeline has some strategic significance, however I don't think it has any wells of yield or any areas of worthy expedition. The strategic significance was that it was a base for people who wish to bomb the west. There ain't no money there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Ritchie Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 I would say the Wests control of that region has actually been very good so far... Iran and Iraq would have WMDs by now and be beyond the wests control if we hadn't played the games we have been playing over the last 200 years... The long term plan was never to stay there... Where the hell did I leave those Weapons of destruction? I could have swore that I left them 'round here somewhere. Did I leave them in the car? Did they fall down the back of the sofa? I could have swore that I left them 'round here somewhere. Where'd I loose my head? It was screwed... up. I sure can't wait for this to blow over Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 We could perfectly well have bombed the :censored: out of Iran without spending a decade :censored:ing up the countries either side of it. And you can plot terrorism from anywhere in the world. Helmund on it’s own is the size of Wales (and about as hospitable), does anyone really believe that nobody could be sitting in a hut somewhere plotting something because we are there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 I would say the Wests control of that region has actually been very good so far... Iran and Iraq would have WMDs by now and be beyond the wests control if we hadn't played the games we have been playing over the last 200 years... The long term plan was never to stay there... Depends how you define WMD- Saddam killed thousands of Kurds in one go using what most people would call a WMD. He did that long before September 11 2001. Iran will have the same capability to kill thousands quickly now (if it didn't back then)- Iran doesn't have an internal problem like Iraq did though. I doubt either of them would have the capability to launch a WMD on Europe or the US now if we hadn't invaded, due to the sheer logistics involved. There is one country in the middle East which does have the capability to do so- Israel. Even if they had the ability to launch one WMD it wouldn't work as our air defences (not to mention to Yanks) will shoot it down before it did any damage. The blokes who did the bombings in London, the ones who tried to blow up Glasgow Airport, the ones who destroyed a train station in Madrid didn't need training wherever they got theirs (I think it wasn't Afghanistan nor Iraq, IIRC it was Yemen). They needed the ability to use a bomb- something which can be created in a kitchen, using knowledge obtainable through A-level Chemistry and Physics or online, and a clean record so they weren't followed by the cops. They need a cause backing them, the Irish didn't kill a lot of people from the 60s to the 90s without anything more; (they did have a load of rich Yanks backing them though). The question remains would as many British people been killed if we did nothing post 11/9/01, probably. Would as many been killed once we had forced Bin laden into hiding, in Pakistan, who we haven't invaded, or when Saddam was captured and tried for the crime mentioned above? I'm inclined to say no. However, when this question came up on question time, there was one response from the audience which got more agreeing applause than anything the panel had to say. If we leave before the job is done, it means that we dishonour those British citizens who have given up their lives to get the job done, the job is not yet done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted March 14, 2012 Author Share Posted March 14, 2012 And you can plot terrorism from anywhere in the world. Helmund on it’s own is the size of Wales (and about as hospitable), does anyone really believe that nobody could be sitting in a hut somewhere plotting something because we are there? Given that our soldiers are invariably confined to baracks and wander out on a patrol to get their legs blown off every now and again, there is no way we "control" anything beyond base. I'd suggest you're just as likely to get a nutter in Burnley plotting something nasty. Should we send the troops in there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Given that our soldiers are invariably confined to baracks and wander out on a patrol to get their legs blown off every now and again, there is no way we "control" anything beyond base. I'd suggest you're just as likely to get a nutter in Burnley plotting something nasty. Should we send the troops in there? Fookin' dead right, there's a lot of pluses in ethnic cleansing the Dingles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafcprozac Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Given that our soldiers are invariably confined to baracks and wander out on a patrol to get their legs blown off every now and again, there is no way we "control" anything beyond base. I'd suggest you're just as likely to get a nutter in Burnley plotting something nasty. Should we send the troops in there? Back to being serious, and I think you've nailed it here…. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Ritchie Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 Given that our soldiers are invariably confined to baracks and wander out on a patrol to get their legs blown off every now and again, there is no way we "control" anything beyond base. I'd suggest you're just as likely to get a nutter in Burnley plotting something nasty. Should we send the troops in there? Not read the rest of your argument but definitely send the troops into Burnley. Nuke Burnley. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Burns Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 I would say the Wests control of that region has actually been very good so far... Iran and Iraq would have WMDs by now and be beyond the wests control if we hadn't played the games we have been playing over the last 200 years... The long term plan was never to stay there... And I would say I'm talking about Afganistan, Who never lose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Burns Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 There may be no oil, but there are lots of diamonds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 However, when this question came up on question time, there was one response from the audience which got more agreeing applause than anything the panel had to say. If we leave before the job is done, it means that we dishonour those British citizens who have given up their lives to get the job done, the job is not yet done. That's the most dangerous argument of all. We stay on in honour of past losses, meaning more get lost, meaning we have to stay in their honouur... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Burns Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 However, when this question came up on question time, there was one response from the audience which got more agreeing applause than anything the panel had to say. If we leave before the job is done, it means that we dishonour those British citizens who have given up their lives to get the job done, the job is not yet done. If we take that attitude we will be there forever. Forever losing more lives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 (edited) The problem with war is that it is grizzly and people get injured and killed. In history, it was deemed often noble to be a warrior and tales were told of 'Bob the Great' who killed 10,000 men in an hour with his own hands. In this war and perhaps rightfully so, one side is unable to talk about such heroics or sucesses as it would be deemed insensitve. Therefore we only really talk about the death of our own and each one is considered to be failure. Edited March 15, 2012 by jimsleftfoot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Ritchie Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 There may be no oil, but there are lots of diamonds. If we take that attitude we will be there forever. Forever losing more lives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Burns Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Unintentional!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tangerinedreams Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 I'll tell you what'll happen- the US and British government will reduce threats number of ground forces and bring in US and British private security companies, the media will broadcast that all British troops have been withdrawn which will just leave the American, ANA, ANP and private security companies to mop up like they are doing in Iraq. There's some tidy salaries (tax free) to be earned in the Close Protection world! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.