Brown to defend Afghan strategy

2009-09-04 05:15:30

#1

CammRobb: Banned; +1,510|6417|Carnoustie MASSIF

Man, this guy get's me pissed.

BBC wrote:
Gordon Brown will say Britain is doing the "right thing" in Afghanistan in a speech later, a day after a ministerial aide quit over government strategy.
Labour MP Eric Joyce, a parliamentary aide to the defence secretary, resigned saying a time limit should be set on troop deployment.
The prime minister will say: "When the security of our country is at stake we cannot walk away."
He will also say that financial and logistical support is being increased.
The BBC's political editor Nick Robinson said Mr Brown's aides were keen to stress that the speech was not a response to Eric Joyce's resignation and had been planned for some time.

Source

[rant]

Yes, that's right Mr. Brown, send more of our troops out there to be shot at, even though the situation has barely progressed in recent years.

Brown wrote:
Each time I ask myself if we are doing the right thing by being in Afghanistan and if we can justify sending our young men and women to fight for this cause, my answer has always been yes.

How can you justify this? How much work have they done in Afghanistan? The death tool for British troops is up to 212, why can't we just let the Afghans deal with it themselves now? Surely out involvement has gone far enough, what more can we do?

He will argue that the mission's purpose is to protect British people from the threat of terrorism and involves over 40 countries, "with the full support of the UN, the G8, NATO and the EU - because we all face the same threat".

Yes, he argues that we all face the same threat, but surely we don't? You don't see extremists burning efigees (sp) portraying British culture, there's not burning of the Union Jack. The Americans dragged us in there, it's time for us to get out. If they want to stay there, fine, but don't keep us there any longer.

Yes, this may appear woefully hypocritical coming from someone who is enrolling in the Navy, but it's how I feel.
[/rant]

Last edited by CammRobb (2009-09-04 05:16:05)

2009-09-04 05:38:20

#2

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6510|Escea

Need more helicopters.

2009-09-04 05:41:13

#3

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6698|'Murka

So...because (in your assessment) it hasn't progressed in recent years, you should keep doing more of the same? So it can continue to not progress?

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-09-04 05:50:05

#4

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|6908|London, England

Well the two options would be to either get out or send in more troops and equip them more. Either go all in or fold. I agree with Brown this time, a bigger troop presence will change things around. Now if it were to be funded more it could also help things. But right now is not the best time to be asking for more money. The whole situation is a giant fuck up, and Iraq was the main reason for Afghanistan being so. And Pakistan being gay until relatively recently where they seem to be getting their act together. At the end of the day, we're gonna have to leave before the job can be called "done" - there's no way we can last the whole 10 yards.

The Americans on their own will probably have to finish it off themselves and they know it. They're the only one's that probably can, and need to, anyway.

2009-09-04 05:52:15

#5

Barrakuda777: Member; +86|7024|Somewhere near a shrub or rock

I bet a lot of the squaddies actually enjoy the idea of getting to ply their trade (I bet when it hits the fan they feel less happy about it mind you)

I have a mate that really enjoyed Iraq, he should be off to Afghan soon, i dont think he likes the idea of that as much, plus he does not get to play in his Warrior over there....

I cant stand brown either, but I do believe that if we have started a job we should see it through. I would like a much clearer set of objectives and timetable etc but I would much rather that came from the General's than some self serving politician.

CammRobb wrote:
The death tool for British troops is up to 212

212 over the years we have been there is hardly an epic failure!!! If we had balked at similar numbers in any of our other campaigns I doubt we would have had much of an empire, pretty sure we would not have messed with the nazi war machine either...

Last edited by Barrakuda777 (2009-09-04 06:38:39)

2009-09-04 06:01:25

#6

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6393|eXtreme to the maX

The more Brown speaks the more we realise he has no clue.
Afghanistan is simply making no visible progress.
As soon as forces leave it will regress to where it was before, maybe worse.

Fuck Israel

2009-09-04 07:16:34

#7

CammRobb: Banned; +1,510|6417|Carnoustie MASSIF

FEOS wrote:
So...because (in your assessment) it hasn't progressed in recent years, you should keep doing more of the same? So it can continue to not progress?

Well, what's the point in hopelessly sending more troops to their death if it's not achieving something? If keeping troops posted there isn't achieving anything, why send more troops? Why not just pull them out and let the fuckers do one on themselves?

If, in recent years, we had been making some real progress towards peace in Afghanistan, then I wouldn't have a problem with Brown sending more troops, if it's going to put an end to the fighting, and restore peace.

I agree with Mek when he says that now is not the time to be trying to fund this.

@Moab, are you just regurgitating what has been said recently?

2009-09-04 07:22:01

#8

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6393|eXtreme to the maX

If there were a clear objective and a plan then, at this point, it might be worth continuing with.

Since the objective seems to be 'Er, spread democracy, is Afghanistan in Kabul or is it the other way?' and the plan is 'um, dunno, did we try more troops yet? How about bombing them more? Oh wait that was last year' I'm just not getting a good feeling.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-09-04 07:22:25)

Fuck Israel

2009-09-04 07:27:43

#9

CammRobb: Banned; +1,510|6417|Carnoustie MASSIF

Dilbert_X wrote:
If there were a clear objective and a plan then, at this point, it might be worth continuing with.

Since the objective seems to be 'Er, spread democracy, is Afghanistan in Kabul or is it the other way?' and the plan is 'um, dunno, did we try more troops yet? How about bombing them more? Oh wait that was last year' I'm just not getting a good feeling.

Lol, satire

Seems, as Clarkson put it, 'The one eyed Scottish idiot', hasn't got much of a clue. I think he's acting more on what the American's are doing than formulating his own ideas. Kinda scares me that I'll soon be acting under his guidance in a way.

The repercussions of pulling all troops out would be immense, yes, but I feel we're doing more harm than good to ourselves, and Afghanistan.

2009-09-04 15:42:41

#10

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6698|'Murka

CammRobb wrote:
FEOS wrote:
So...because (in your assessment) it hasn't progressed in recent years, you should keep doing more of the same? So it can continue to not progress?
Well, what's the point in hopelessly sending more troops to their death if it's not achieving something? If keeping troops posted there isn't achieving anything, why send more troops? Why not just pull them out and let the fuckers do one on themselves?

If, in recent years, we had been making some real progress towards peace in Afghanistan, then I wouldn't have a problem with Brown sending more troops, if it's going to put an end to the fighting, and restore peace.

I agree with Mek when he says that now is not the time to be trying to fund this.

@Moab, are you just regurgitating what has been said recently?

This makes no sense.

You're still saying that because (in your estimation) no progress has been made, that one shouldn't do anything to attempt to change things. I'd like to see your analysis of how progress has not been made. Go ahead and use the objectives and measures the NATO forces have been going off of.

BTW, they're likely to be far more involved and realistic than Dilbert's assessment. We mock what we don't understand...at least he does, anyway.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2009-09-05 00:03:08

#11

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6962|Canberra, AUS

If, in recent years, we had been making some real progress towards peace in Afghanistan, then I wouldn't have a problem with Brown sending more troops, if it's going to put an end to the fighting, and restore peace.

Huh?

This kind of sounds like 'only fix it if it ain't broke'.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2009-09-05 09:19:39

#12

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6510|Escea

CammRobb wrote:
FEOS wrote:
So...because (in your assessment) it hasn't progressed in recent years, you should keep doing more of the same? So it can continue to not progress?
Well, what's the point in hopelessly sending more troops to their death if it's not achieving something? If keeping troops posted there isn't achieving anything, why send more troops? Why not just pull them out and let the fuckers do one on themselves?

If, in recent years, we had been making some real progress towards peace in Afghanistan, then I wouldn't have a problem with Brown sending more troops, if it's going to put an end to the fighting, and restore peace.

I agree with Mek when he says that now is not the time to be trying to fund this.

@Moab, are you just regurgitating what has been said recently?

Actually what I'm getting at, is that the number of British troop deaths are stemming from the lack of investment in more helicopters. Troops are driving/walking to locations rather than flying and are therefore moving into areas with IED's.

More helicopters would help to dampen down the effects of those IED's. More troops is all well and good, but they need the equipment for those troops as well.

2009-09-05 09:41:42

#13

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|6908|London, England

Yeah, right now it seems the government is going it half assed. Either they go all in and send in a proper amount of troops and proper equipment, or just get them the fuck out and tell the Americans with their trillion dollar military budget to handle it

2009-09-05 09:49:41

#14

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6510|Escea

I can't remember the exact figures, but it was something like, 4000 British troops to 20 Chinooks, where the U.S. military in the area was only 2000 and had over a 100 helicopters. They need to put more money into this if they want to be seen as a leading military force. We've got the training, now we just need the equipment to be used. I'd heard of the expression 'the borrowers' used for British forces, because they have to get a lot of their stuff from other militaries operating in the region. Pretty terrible to short change them, considering what's being asked of them.

Lost two Chinooks recently as well.

2009-09-07 03:05:31

#15

CammRobb: Banned; +1,510|6417|Carnoustie MASSIF

M.O.A.B wrote:
I can't remember the exact figures, but it was something like, 4000 British troops to 20 Chinooks, where the U.S. military in the area was only 2000 and had over a 100 helicopters. They need to put more money into this if they want to be seen as a leading military force. We've got the training, now we just need the equipment to be used. I'd heard of the expression 'the borrowers' used for British forces, because they have to get a lot of their stuff from other militaries operating in the region. Pretty terrible to short change them, considering what's being asked of them.

Lost two Chinooks recently as well.

Well said, we need more equipment, but we can't afford it just now. So why, if Brown realises this (which he fucking well should) is he going to send more troops out there, underfunded, and underprotcted, and underequipped?

He's practically sending them to their death.

He should be equipping the soldiers out there first, and seeing if that has the positive effect we need, then sending more troops out, equally-well equipped.

2009-09-07 03:58:11

#16

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6393|eXtreme to the maX

So why, if Brown realises this (which he fucking well should) is he going to send more troops out there, underfunded, and underprotcted, and underequipped?

Because he's a total fuckwit.

Cancel the Olympics and spend the money on equipment, or pull out, nothing is really being achieved since there is no real plan or strategy.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-09-07 04:00:50)

Fuck Israel

2009-09-07 04:00:47

#17

CammRobb: Banned; +1,510|6417|Carnoustie MASSIF

Dilbert_X wrote:
So why, if Brown realises this (which he fucking well should) is he going to send more troops out there, underfunded, and underprotcted, and underequipped?
Because he's a total fuckwit.

Cancel the Olympics and spend the money on equipment.

Why cancel the Olympics? Having the Olympics could well be one of the things that will help get the economy back on it's feet. Granted, the total cost of the event is a tad ridiculous.

And yes, he is a total fuckwit.

2009-09-07 04:08:42

#18

jsnipy: ...; +3,277|6810|...

All military actions of a country should be based on the popular vote of the people.

2009-09-07 05:58:54

#19

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6698|'Murka

jsnipy wrote:
All military actions of a country should be based on the popular vote of the people.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

They are based on the decisions of elected leaders, who are elected by vote of the people.

The people don't have the information to make effective decisions of that nature, nor do situations allow for the time required to hold a vote for every military action required.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

BF2S Forums Brown to defend Afghan strategy

BBC wrote:

Brown wrote:

CammRobb wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

CammRobb wrote:

FEOS wrote:

CammRobb wrote:

FEOS wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

jsnipy wrote:

Board footer