With Tony buttmunch asslicker blair trying to conquer the world for his own legacy is it fair to send our lads to go fight in Afghanistan when we are already overstretched in Iraq. Should we not sort out one conflict before sending men and women to die in another country ? As an ex soldier from the TA i find it a joke that Mr blair and his administration think we are a viable force to tackle all and any world conflict. When i first started my training for the parachute regiment they didn't even have enough boots for us in our size. I had to wear odd sizes for a month!!We have the best service people in the world to my mind yet the governemt sell the forces short because it's not their kids going to fight! Anyone else have similar stories of kit mismanagement?
2007-01-11
09:24:28
·
10 answers
·
asked by
Bailey P
2
in
Politics & Government
➔ Military
My point here to clarify is not that British soldiers cannot be expected to fight on two fronts when half the soldiers don't have enough kit to fight the war. All soldiers expect to fight in their time but surely the government has a duty to provide them with the appropriate kit if they expect them to lay down their lives.
2007-01-11
09:44:02 ·
update #1
sorry that was badly worded. I meant it is a requirement that the appropriate kit should be given if a soldier is expcected to fight. To not do is immoral
2007-01-11
09:46:06 ·
update #2
I fully agree with you.
Our troops are supposed to be supporting President Hamid Karzai, when his brother is an Afghanistan Heroin drug baron & Heroin production has risen from 7 tons in 2001 to 526 tons in 2005.
Why should our boys die for drug barons and Oil Traders?
2007-01-11 10:11:02
·
answer #1
·
answered by Cracker 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
I read in the "Mail on Sunday" an article that said some British Military personnel and thier families were living in conditions nothing short of squalor...then I read that some illegal immigrants are coming off the proverbial banana boat only to be dished out luxuries such as gymnasiums, 5* food, warm clothing (from John Lewis no doubt), free healthcare and reading glasses whilst they await possible housing in a new barrett home with all mod cons.......wake up Tony Blair, why do you think 3 million Brits have left this sorry isle???
2007-01-11 09:38:23
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Your country's involvement is part of the NATO force that has taken over much of the responsibility from the US. The US is there too, both part of the NATO group, and independently running special ops but as US troops and not part of NATO.
I can sympathize with your concern of British troops being in both theaters of operation and taking on so much of the responsibility.
The fact is, other NATO members are refusing to let their troops do too much in Afghanistan. They don't want their troops being placed in harms way by moving in to the south of the country where most of the action is, or moving along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border where it's even more volatile. Countries like France, Germany, Italy, and Spain are resisting NATO in keeping their troops out of the real heat of battle.
What are friends for?
2007-01-11 09:39:48
·
answer #3
·
answered by briang731/ bvincent 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
As to when the British will pull out of Afghanistan depends on how long can the British troops hold on to the war. The Soviets war in Afghanistan lasted 15 years before they finally pulled out. Do you think the British troops can hold this long?.
2007-01-11 13:58:33
·
answer #4
·
answered by roadwarrior 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
particular because of the fact all they are doing is protecting American opium smugglers who're smuggling billions of opium in a foreign country. it relatively is the only reason anybody is there in any respect. you have observed how the main effective military interior the finished background of all commonplace background has been there for 8 years and the ever mysterious Bin weighted down has on no account been got here across, nor considered, no longer tracked with tips from satellite tv for pc. no one is familiar with the place he's, if he's alive, and so on. The troops are searching for ghosts over there, and that they have got been for 8 years.
2016-10-07 00:33:42
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think they should, now ! its OK for Blair to act the big man or poodle. We had buffhoon as defence minister who sent troops to Iraq without firstly giving them the proper equipment. We had a ex drunk of a jock who sent troops to Afghanistan telling us all that he hoped a shot wouldn't be fired. What people tend to forget is that Troops are people with families and need to be supported all the time not just when it suits our idiots of politicians. Christ where did we get them from ! The one above me can't read so please excuse him !
2007-01-11 09:52:53
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Well now, since your great statesman Winston Churchhill pulled us into two world wars, what are you complaining about. Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush have a job to do, it's called the war on terror. As far as England being overstretched, where else are they fighting? They are very professional, your army/navy, but they need to get out and do what they practice or they'll get bored.
2007-01-11 09:36:35
·
answer #7
·
answered by bigbro3006 3
·
0⤊
2⤋
If you ask a question and not make a statement I may be able to answer it. Politics sux Blah Blah Blah
2007-01-11 09:46:49
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
The Brits will never pullout of any war that America is involved in, they obediently trail Uncle Sam, come what may!!!
2007-01-11 09:29:51
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
if all they are doing are stretching and not shooting people then i think so.
2007-01-11 09:40:22
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋