nightrider Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 How come this "war" in Afghanistan is still ongoing? it seems to have been running longer than the first and second wars put together. The enemy do not seem to be well armed with artillery, helicopters, planes etc yet they are sending our boys home in bodybags. Is it as I think that the coalition forces are actually using Afghanistan as a training ground for our troops and as a proving ground for all the state of the art weaponolgy that America has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duetto owner Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 down to restrictions put on them buy out of touch whitehall mandrians. they cannot bomb the taliban bases unless fired on first. they should employ drones out there like the americans do in pakistan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted February 9, 2011 Author Share Posted February 9, 2011 How much is this war costing and what will be the end product? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tracker Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 The true cost is too much in terms of lives on both sides. The end result will be a 'tactical withdrawal' which is political speak for we failed to win - aka - we lost. After which Afghanistan will return to what it has always been - a collection of regional warlords all supporting the 'leader' who will give them the most favours - and sod the rest of the population who will carry being the victims of deprivation and brutality - all in the name of religion of course - so it must be right? Cynical? Me? You betcha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted February 9, 2011 Author Share Posted February 9, 2011 If the Afghans run a brutal regime, so be it, I'm not interested. Let the Afghan people sort it out for themselves if they dont like it, why should our boys die to change the Afghan leaders way of thinking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 duetto owner - 2011-02-09 7:22 PM down to restrictions put on them buy out of touch whitehall mandrians. they cannot bomb the taliban bases unless fired on first. they should employ drones out there like the americans do in pakistan The trouble with drones is that they are likely to kill a lot of innocent people as well as the ones you are aiming at. Every time innocent people are killed their relatives are likely to join the opposition, so the situation gets worse. :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peter Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 knight of the road - 2011-02-09 7:37 PM How much is this war costing and what will be the end product?The end product will be more expensive Wacky Baccy and Heroin. The Government will need to capture and sell it themselves to get their money back. Perhaps the Yanks already are. Wouldn't be surprised they'll do anything for a fast buck. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Collings Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 I am presently reading a book about the history of the British Empire. In 1839 the East India Company (a sort of early British owned PFI outfit running India) were scared the Russians would invade Afghanistan and then India so sent their private army to occupy the place. The locals rewrote the rule book winning decisively and by 1842 The EIC decided their profits were in danger and got out. Return matches over the next century or so by Britain produced the same result but later generals and politicians from Russia, USA and UK omitted to study history and appear to be continuing the agony. The various mad organisations that think they can terror bomb the west ern world into doing their bidding ought to read a little history as well. The highly efficient air forces of both sides in WW2 failed to terrorise the civilian population into capitulation so what chance have a few suicide bombers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tracker Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 George Collings - 2011-02-09 10:54 PM The various mad organisations that think they can terror bomb the west ern world into doing their bidding ought to read a little history as well. The highly efficient air forces of both sides in WW2 failed to terrorise the civilian population into capitulation so what chance have a few suicide bombers. As you say George, we in the West all know this, and I suspect the terrorist leaders know it too but it would spoil their perceived fanaticsim and maybe detract from their hold over the gullible massses if they told would be suicide bombers how pointless it really was?. In may cases these poor people desperately seek any way out of their own despairing world - a world ironically brought about in no small way by the very terrorists who claim to offer them salvation - and so the spiral perpetuates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted February 10, 2011 Author Share Posted February 10, 2011 Its for the Afghans and other people who are caught in the yoke of a tyranical dictator to overthrow said dictators, not us? Over the centuries we in Britain have got rid of unpopular monarchs etc etc, by all accounts Afghanistan is rich beyond belief in raw materials under the ground, is that what the Yanks are after? A few dead Afghan and American/Britsh troops is no problem to uncle Sam are they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.