Why do we waste British lives on this load of deadbeats?

[Dingus]

More Brits died in 911 than were murdered in 7/7, and last time i checked Leeds was in the UK and as such we have Jurisdiction over that part of the land!

 

I always considered ex pat Brits living working and paying tax in the USA as American. Do you consider all the immigrants who have moved and now live & work in the UK as non British?

 

---------- Post added 18-05-2013 at 17:38 ----------

 

Are you aware that we are actually fighting in Afghanistan now, and not fighting them here in this country?

 

If you read the OP I'm perfectly aware of that. The question I asked was why?

 

---------- Post added 18-05-2013 at 17:45 ----------

 

 

 

 

I know a number of Afghan families.

 

If you had known the 7/7 bombers would you have known that they were terrorists?

[JFKvsNixon]

I always considered ex pat Brits living working and paying tax in the USA as American. Do you consider all the immigrants who have moved and now live & work in the UK as non British?

 

Well yes! It's really not that difficult is it? Ok, if you were born in France, and you held a french passport and you lived in London, what nationality would you be? I'd say French.

 

If you read the OP I'm perfectly aware of that. The question I asked was why?

 

So why are you talking about people trying to smuggle tanks into this country if we have to invade their country again if they carry out further atrocities against us in the future?

[Dingus]

 

So why are you talking about people trying to smuggle tanks into this country if we have to invade their country again if they carry out further atrocities against us in the future?

 

I take it you don't read your own posts.

 

I said we should sell arms to both sides. They can't use tanks against us if we don't invade. Besides selling obsolete tanks isn't going to be a problem. Iraq had about 5000 of them when we invaded . The current American and UK tanks went through them unscathed. So if (I can't fathom out why we would want to) we did invade again the weapons we sold them would be as much use as water pistols. but pretty handy if you were being attacked by forces with similar obsolete rubbish. The General Belgrano springs to mind.

[JFKvsNixon]

I take it you don't read your own posts.

 

I said we should sell arms to both sides. They can't use tanks against us if we don't invade. Besides selling obsolete tanks isn't going to be a problem. Iraq had about 5000 of them when we invaded . The current American and UK tanks went through them unscathed. So if (I can't fathom out why we would want to) we did invade again the weapons we sold them would be as much use as water pistols.

 

Well yes I do read my own posts, maybe you should try it!

 

I commented that it was a really daft idea to arm the Afghans because they'd only use the weapons on us when we have to invade them again due them carrying out further atrocities against us; just like they did last time?

 

Or do you think that if we pulled out they'd leave us alone, unlike they did last time?

[Dingus]

Well yes I do read my own posts, maybe you should try it!

 

I commented that it was a really daft idea to arm the Afghans because they'd only use the weapons on us when we have to invade them again due them carrying out further atrocities against us; just like they did last time?

 

Or do you think that if we pulled out they'd leave us alone, unlike they did last time?

 

Well I wouldn't have invaded in the first place, but I'm sure our troops would rather be fighting an enemy armed with obsolete tanks than roadside bombs.

You fire a tank shell at troops and you can't simply melt away into the village. You have to sit there and take the return fire. Hence the rapid advance of our troops in Iraq, and the big heaps of blown up Iraqi army vehicles. .

 

By the way do you think we won't be leaving tanks behind in Afghanistan when we pull out? What do you imagine the puppet government will use to hold on to power for those 6 weeks before they are overwhelmed, and into who's hands that equipment will fall when they do?

[JFKvsNixon]

Well I wouldn't have invaded in the first place, but I'm sure our troops would rather be fighting an enemy armed with obsolete tanks than roadside bombs.

You fire a tank shell at troops and you can't simply melt away into the village. You have to sit there and take the return fire. Hence the rapid advance of our troops in Iraq.

 

What make you think that the enemy in Afghanistan wouldn't use both methods, although I believe that they would stick to the asymmetric war method, because they know it's their only effective way to fight against us.

 

By the way do you think we won't be leaving tanks behind in Afghanistan when we pull out? What do you imagine the puppet government will use to hold on to power for those 6 weeks before they are overwhelmed?

 

I'm not sure if we'll be leaving tanks behind as they are really expensive war fighting machines, ours cost over £4 million per tank.

[Dingus]

What make you think that the enemy in Afghanistan wouldn't use both methods, although I believe that they would stick to the asymmetric war method, because they know it's they only way to fight against us.

 

 

 

I'm not sure if we'll be leaving tanks behind as they are really expensive war fighting machines, ours cost over £4 million per tank.

 

All the more reason to flog them a load of old stock. Centurians T55 etc are about £30K each.

 

Anyhow. It wouldn't make any difference to the threat they posed. Drones with heat seaking missiles would take out the lot within 5 minutes of a conflict starting and at least you would inflict a lot of casualties on the enemy without risking our own. Enemy you kill in tanks aren't around to plant roadside bombs.

 

 

Incidentally what do you imagine we will be leaving for the Afghan army? Do you think we expect them to take over the fight with nothing more than a couple of dozen Lea Enfields and a few horses?

[Parvo]

Afghanistan once had a government friendly to Russia. A great deal of education was going on (OK, so it was run by godless, atheistic communists).

So the USA, with eyes on defeating Russia in one way or another, took up the cause of traditional beliefs, and of fundamentalist religion.

IT WORKED !!!

With the help of Pakistani tribes, and with weapons and training from the USA, Afghanistan became FREE !!

Free to return to their traditions, which certainly do not include equality for women, and to join with their Pakistani fellows in believing that a girl who speaks out for female education deserves to be shot.

 

Maybe if we'd let the Commies have them for a century or two, things would be different!

 

 

if I remember rightly the fundamentalists that the west supported in those days was actually the taliban...................what goes around comes around but...

pity the Afghan people, especially the women and girls...At one point there was no healthcare for them...women were not allowed to work....nor was a man not their husband allowed to touch their body....no education either.....

the poor ordinary people have suffered decades of war on their own soil...something we are lucky not to be able to imagine....

 

Also pity all the western soldiers killed or maimed (and their families) fighting in a war that it looks increasingly either unending or likely to polarise as soon as they leave...

[JFKvsNixon]

All the more reason to flog them a load of old stock. Centurians T55 etc are about £30K each.

 

Anyhow. It wouldn't make any difference to the threat they posed. Drones with heat seaking missiles would take out the lot within 5 minutes of a conflict starting and at least you would inflict a lot of casualties on the enemy without risking our own. Enemy you kill in tanks aren't around to plant roadside bombs.

 

 

Incidentally what do you imagine we will be leaving for the Afghan army? Do you think we expect them to take over the fight with nothing more than a couple of dozen Lea Enfields and a few horses?

 

To be honest I don't believe that whoever makes the decisions will be left with a straight choice of leaving the Afghans a load of main battle tanks or a few rifles and horses.

[SavannahP]

The main reason we embarked on the afghan adventure was in response to 911 - anything is just window dressing. We've got bin laden, time to go home. I feel for the afghan women but they aren't alone. Women in Pakistan, parts of India, sub Saharan Africa (to name but a few) probably know exactly how they feel. Should we send troops to fight (with one hand tied behind their backs) and die in a load of other oppressive countries. No.

 

Precisely, we can’t even protect Muslim women from the Muslim men that live in the UK, let alone the rest of the world.