More dead British Soldiers

[Von Boy]

What a bloody mess.......and whats the former prime minister, Mr Blair, who sent them to war, doing at the moment....

After dinner speaking in USA at an average fee of $100,000 per speech....I bet that vintage champagne tastes good...eh Tony?

!furious!
!furious!
!furious!
!furious!
!furious!
!furious!

[max_tranmere]

It really angers me. We lost 5 yesterday and another 1 today. And there is nothing the public can do. Some of our guys died just to make that recent election run smootly, it didn't and hardly anyone voted in it. People have said today that what we are doing in Afghanistan is failing. It was all totally pointless. I feel so sorry for the widows and the young kids, one guy who died yesterday left behind a pregnant partner.

[justincyder]

Folks, whilst I agree that politicians have made a complete cock of it all, and that each life lost is particularly tragic, please don't forget that its not all bad news.

The main trouble is predominantly in one province, and sporadically eleswhere. Please don't think the answer is to pull out its not.

The rest of the country is seeing far better times than it did under taliban rule, hard though that might be to believe. Its a very backward country made of of clans, tribes and other fragmentations and it will take years to sort out, but if there is to be any hope of stabalising it then I'm afraid you have to dig in and see it through to the end and many different types of tactics and strategies have yet to be brought to the table. Noone knows yet what particular formula will work.

If you abandon it now, what good work has been done which you'll not see as there's little media interest in good news will all be undone. Women in particular will see their lot fall back to medieval times again, where simply being able to read is sufficent to be killed.

It'll take more lives undoubtedly but unfortunately throughout the course of history human sacrifice has always been a price that has had to ultimately be paid in war/struggle in order to prevail.

Peace comes at a price there's no two ways about it.

[max_tranmere]

But why should it be up to us to sort it out?

[Sam Slater]

Please remember that conscription ended a long time ago. All British soldiers in warzones around the world are volunteers.

I agree that governments should make sure they're properly equipped etc and we can argue the politics of the current conflicts all we want, but please remember that those killed made their own choices in life.

[max_tranmere]

They choose to join the army in order to defend their own nation, or if it is necessary, then another nation. Like when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. This war, and the Iraq war, were bullshit and we shouldn't have been in them. I'm not sure that all soldiers joined totally out of choice, like how someone goes to film school wanting to eventually become a film maker, for example. Some people from very poor backgrounds, in unemployment black-spots who are poor and their families have always been poor, join up as it is a career they can do that will mean an income for life and something you can get into without having many qualifications. It will also mean you will leave the area you live in, and be stationed somewhere else in the UK, which is what a lot of people from rundown, bleak, depressed areas want to do. This is true in America aswell. If you see Michael Moore's film "Fahrenheit 9/11" it covers this. It says 'isnt it interesting how the people from the most despressed areas, who are the ones who have been most ignored by the Government and by the country, are always the first to step up and defend it, and all they ask in return is that they never be put in harms-way unless it is absolutely necessary.' Interesting.

[Sam Slater]

The 'unless it's absolutely necessary' point isn't what I'm debating. That's politics. Whatever a person's reasons for joining the forces they're not forced.

It's not in the army's interests to have soldiers that do not accept or can comprehend that they will no doubt be putting their lives in danger at some point, be that peace-keeping or war. Any soldiers they believe unable to understand the consequences are no doubt weeded out during selection.

[Jonone]

Agreed. Historically there have always been dangerous occupations. I don't recall huge sympathy for miners and yet not so long ago accidents were fairly routine and people went underground every day unsure about whether they would be coming back up.

If you spoke to a doorman and they told you 'Someone had a pop at me the other night' you would think 'occupational hazard'. Why is the army singled out for special attention ? Because they're serving the nation and the nation's interests and making parts of the world fairer and safer ? Okay, that's worthy, but look at sea fisherman .. that's a very dangerous occupation and they're catching food to feed the nation and yet no-one thinks twice about them. What about health and social care professionals ? The can work with very dangerous client groups and yet they don't receive special praise. Prison officers ... and the list goes on.

Yes the soldiers are doing good work but as Sam said they're doing it voluntarily. They're not suddenly being presented with situations that are 'small print' in terms of what they signed up to.

[justincyder]

Well who else should it be Max? you could say well we should never have gone, fair enough, but there's no time machine we're committed now.

[David Johnson]

"But why should it be up to us to sort it out?"

Remind me now, did Afghanistan ask to be invaded by the Coalition forces to "sort it out".