# The 'freedom' our troops are dying for?



## Tez3 (Apr 5, 2009)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6036521.ece

All our troops are fighting and dying for is so that Afghanistan can go back to exactly how it was before? The 'new' Afghan government is bringing in laws that legalise rape in marriage among other things, they are changing nothing,in fact they plan to change everything back to the way it was. The people are going to be no better off than they were before and the terrorists will sit there laughing at us for, of course, they will have won.

"_From London to Ottawa, officials questioned whether they should risk their soldiers lives to bolster an Afghan government that not only failed to protect women but *was also planning to reverse their hard-won freedoms*_*"*

It was announced yesterday that more troops are to be sent into Afghistan, our (the British) share was to be over 900, a regiment. It makes me angry for so many reasons, they say its because there will be elections but how are these elections going to be free when women can't come out of their houses, does anyone really think women will be allowed to vote? or basically anyone who the 'government' doesn't want to vote. 

We have lost nearly 160 soldiers in Afghanistan with hundreds more suffering horrendous injuries, (I'm sorry I don't know the figures for non British troops, I suspect they are equally as high if not higher) all in the name of freedom. they really thought that going there and fighting the Taleban would make a difference to the peoples lives, give them the freedom and liberty we know but no, it's just so things can stay the same only with a different faction in charge. 

On Wednesday one of my students was buried, a talented martial artist and a good soldier he was blown to pieces in Afghanistan 'defending' freedom. It was a good send off, the 'old boys' of the regiment, the World War 2, Korea and Falklands soldiers were there. All with memories of their own losses fighting for freedom. The worst bit was at the end when  silence as the coffin was taken out of the church was broken by the lone piper playing a lament.

 Now I want to shout and scream WHY, why are our troops fighting and dying for nothing!


----------



## Big Don (Apr 5, 2009)

This is what happens when those in power decide that we cannot force our morals on others. This is what happens when a segment of a religion is so feared our leaders won't dare speak against obvious evils, lest they offend some whackos that may explode with little provocation.


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 5, 2009)

Big Don said:


> some whackos that may explode.


 
That part right there is on the money.


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 5, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6036521.ece
> 
> All our troops are fighting and dying for is so that Afghanistan can go back to exactly how it was before?


 Nope, all our troops (U.S. & Britain) are fighting and dying to keep the banking folks rolling in the money from their respective *ahem* governments that will continue to borrow (at interest of course) to keep the war going so that our troops can keep fighting and dying for a cause that has NOTHING to do with our respective freedoms... kinda like Vietnam... that war was not MEANT to be won (or lost) at all... but Sustained. 

War is damned good business and highly profitable. We can't have peace now, not when there's boo-koos of money to be made.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 5, 2009)

I don't believe we can force our morals on people and frankly we shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan in the first place. There's a number of reasons why not, firstly being British and having already fought an unsuccessful war there we should have known better. The Russians who were far more 'forceful' not to say brutal about war were defeated there also, what the hell did we think we could do that they couldn't?
The big 'but' is that we did however and what's done is done, however you would have thought that the Allies would have at least chosen Afghanis who at least shared western values to work with. The whole situation is a complete mess.
Why Bush thought that invading Afghanistan was such a good idea we'll never know and never ever will I forgive his poodle BLiar for this.


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Apr 5, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> never ever will I forgive his poodle BLiar.



:angry::angry::angry:


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Apr 5, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Why Bush thought that invading Afghanistan was such a good idea we'll never know and never ever will I forgive his poodle BLiar for this.



Actually, we do know.  If you were saying 'Iraq' instead of 'Afghanistan', then I'd agree with you, but we know quite well why we invaded Afghanistan.

The Taliban controlled Afghanistan.  We didn't much like them, and they didn't much like us, but we left each other alone.  Afghanistan has no oil, no strategic interest to the USA.

But we tracked the plotters of the 9/11 attacks in the USA to terrorists who were hiding in Afghanistan, and whose training bases were in Afghanistan.

We (the US) demanded that the Taliban surrender the terrorists to us.  They refused.  We gave them an ultimatum, which they ignored, and then we invaded them.

We easily routed the Taliban, who fled.  We failed, however, to locate all the terrorists, including the ring-leader, Osama bin Laden.  

In the years since then, we have faced insurgent action from the remnants of the ousted Taliban, as well as indications that both Al Quaida and the Taliban are working together on and around the Pakistan border, in some cases with the cooperation of the hardline Muslim villages in the areas of Pakistan not firmly under Pakistani control, and perhaps from some factions within the Pakistani armed forces.

It is important to remember the original situation.  We did not go into Afghanistan to bring democracy to Afghanistan.  We did not go in to enforce regime change in particular, that was just a side-effect of kicking their asses.  The world, unlike the invasion of Iraq, was on our side.  Even our traditional foes stood back and went 'oh, hell no, we're not saying nothing'.  We (the US) were mad, we were hurting, Afghanistan was harboring the people who were proudly admitting they did it, and we were going to get us some.  There was nothing in HELL that would have stopped that invasion.  Bush didn't even have a choice - we'd have strung him up and gone in using commandeered shrimp boats if he'd refused.

Unlike Iraq, we don't particularly care what happens to Afghanistan after we leave.  They can fall back into warlordism, or the Taliban can come back and tear down all the schools and whatnot.  All we want is to save some face and capture or kill bin Laden and his cronies, finally put a bow on that little package, and get the hell out.

I don't know why your fellow countrymen are in Afghanistan with us, but I am sorry for your loss, and I honor the sacrifice your servicemen and women have made.

Wikipedia War in Afghanistan


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 5, 2009)

I have been involved in tracking terrorists and their activities since 1971, it would have been far better to have gone for the bankers who payroll the terrorists in Syria and Iran than invade Afghanistan. Brute force and ignorance rarely works well other than make the munitions manufactorers
 extremely happy and rich. 
America may have wanted to go in and wham bam the Afghans but British troops are there on a _hearts and minds mission_ too. Several of my colleagues are also out there teaching the Afghans how to be police officers, other civil servants are out there trying to make the country run and teach the Afghans how to run the adminstration of the country.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...SoldiersHelpImproveEducationForAfghanKids.htm

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...neersReturnHomeAfterHelpingRebuildHelmand.htm

"UK forces are in Afghanistan as part of a multi-national mission designed to help stabilise Afghanistan and bring security back to the region."

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...mbatMedicsTreatTroopsAndCiviliansInSangin.htm
"On many occasions we have formed bonds with local people due to the follow-up treatment of their injuries and medical complaints. This is important as it helps all our forces operating in the area - we are here to win the consent of the local people after all."

This is the official reason we are in afghanistan.
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/F...perationsInAfghanistanBackgroundBriefing2.htm


_"We, along with the rest of the international community, are determined never to allow Afghanistan to become a safe haven for terrorists again. We are working hard towards a common goal  *to develop a self-sustaining, stable and democratic Afghanistan*._
_Real progress has been made in the last five years, but clearly there will be many challenges and opportunities in the year ahead. _
_Important to remember that the institutions of a functioning democracy are being established from scratch. *Children, including girls, are back in school. Women are participating in political life. 
*The Afghan economy is picking up. Afghanistan has reclaimed its place in the community of nations._
_UK troops, as part of the 37-nation strong NATO International Assistance Force (ISAF), are aiming to create a stable environment to enable the Afghan Government extend its authority across the country and reconstruction and development to take place. _
_We can and will succeed, but only if we all stand and work together, adopting a comprehensive approach that encompasses all our international partners and organisations."_

Thats the mission statement for the Ministry of Defence (who I work for), thats what our troops and civil servants are working towards. Yes we believe in it and it seems we are to be shafted yet again by the politicians.


----------



## seasoned (Apr 5, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Actually, we do know. If you were saying 'Iraq' instead of 'Afghanistan', then I'd agree with you, but we know quite well why we invaded Afghanistan.
> 
> The Taliban controlled Afghanistan. We didn't much like them, and they didn't much like us, but we left each other alone. Afghanistan has no oil, no strategic interest to the USA.
> 
> ...


 
My only comment to this is, if we lose the Pakistan government to Al Quaida and the Taliban, they will effectively have nuclear weapons, that can be turned onto the world. Our presents in Afghanistan, although not well understood, I feel, is needed as a deterrent to this end.


----------



## Scott T (Apr 5, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6036521.ece
> 
> We have lost nearly 160 soldiers in Afghanistan with hundreds more suffering horrendous injuries, (I'm sorry I don't know the figures for non British troops, I suspect they are equally as high if not higher) all in the name of freedom. they really thought that going there and fighting the Taleban would make a difference to the peoples lives, give them the freedom and liberty we know but no, it's just so things can stay the same only with a different faction in charge.


So far, the cost in Canadian lives is 116 and rising. It's a depressing thought really, that the more of these backsliding laws are contemplated or put into practice, the more pointless and valueless those deaths really were.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 5, 2009)

Scott T said:


> So far, the cost in Canadian lives is 116 and rising. It's a depressing thought really, that the more of these backsliding laws are contemplated or put into practice, the more pointless and valueless those deaths really were.


 
Absolutely. Accepting these deaths is easier if one knows they died for a reason. If it was for nothing it would be heartbreaking.

 I have to say too that I have only heard good things about the Canadian troops.
Btw the troops that aren't in Iraq or Afghanistan at the moment are all due in Canada over the next couple of weeks for a six week exercise at BATUS Suffield. The troops always look forward to going over to Canada.


----------



## CoryKS (Apr 5, 2009)

They're not fighting for the freedom of the Afghans.  They're fighting for our freedom to go to work and not be run over by a 747.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 5, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> They're not fighting for the freedom of the Afghans. They're fighting for our freedom to go to work and not be run over by a 747.


 
I think thats the difference between us then, our troops firmly believe they are fighting to do some good not to stop Americans being run over by aircraft.


----------



## CoryKS (Apr 5, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> I think thats the difference between us then, our troops firmly believe they are *fighting to do some good not to stop Americans being run over by aircraft*.


 
You stay classy, Irene.


----------



## seasoned (Apr 5, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> I think thats the difference between us then, our troops firmly believe they are fighting to do some good not to stop Americans being run over by aircraft.


Yes, we are there for the same reasons. I communicate with a loved one that tells me of the progress being made, but at the same time, trying to stay safe, from the nut jobs that dont have a clue what life is all about and only have destruction as their intent.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 5, 2009)

The invasion of Afghanistan is a fait accompli, nothing we can do about that now even though to many professional terrorist hunters minds it was fairly pointless. As I said before, proper human intelligence should have been heeded first before a headlong rush for revenge was launched. Al queda may have been at that time in Afghanistan but it was fairly obvious to most that bombing a whole country and invading them wasn't going to be the answer as they would simply move on to another one of the countries that supported then.

However now the troops are there it is imperative that change is made in Afghanistan, firstly to ensure that a democratic government is put in and allows freedom to all, this isn't just a humanitarian action though it should be reason enough in its self, no this is because such a country will be an ally to the West in its hunt for terrorists. The invasion and the high handed manner in which it was executed has angered many in countries like Pakistan thus alienating the very people we want onside. High handness and arrogance were deadly mistakes to make. 

By invading Afghanistan and as countries who say we pride ourselves on democracy and humanitarian beliefs we are now duty bound to try to improve the conditions under which the people live. To say oh we don't care about the people and they can all go to hell is to put us in the same category as the people we are trying to defeat. We can't take the moral high ground saying we are fighting for *our* freedom not to be bombed when the Americans are sending drones into Pakistan to bomb people there. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5575883.ece

We can't say we are in the right unless we truly try to help these people and not leave them to be destroyed by the Taliban, what sort of people can we say we are if we invade countries, destroy homes, kill innocent people as well as the guilty under the pretext of fighting for freedom for *only* ourselves?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Apr 5, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> I think thats the difference between us then, our troops firmly believe they are fighting to do some good not to stop Americans being run over by aircraft.



So are you saying that Americans getting run over by 747's is a good thing, and not worth fighting for?

Are you suggesting that the UK shouldn't help us from getting run over by 747's?


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 5, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> So are you saying that Americans getting run over by 747's is a good thing, and not worth fighting for?
> 
> Are you suggesting that the UK shouldn't help us from getting run over by 747's?


 
If I was saying that I would have, no I'm saying you are in Afghanistan for revenge and have no intention of making the country a better place. It's already been said on this thread that there is no interest in the people whatso ever.

If you want to stop Americans getting run over by aircraft then invading Afghanistan was not the way to do it. It's all very well saying oh we asked the Taliban to hand them over and they wouldn't so then invade and destroy the whole country. Al Queda only moved on anyway. You have to destroy the root of the problem and in doing so then you will protect Americans and everyone else from being run over.

The 'whole' world wasn't on America's side when Afghanistan was invaded, the majority of Brits weren't that's for sure! People understood and sympathised with Americas need to punish those responsible for the damage but most of us weren't convinced that invading Afghanistan was the answer.the British military didn't want to go in, after all we'd already had three wars there. It's too simplistic an answer causing too much death and suffering by innocents. Bombing the hell out of Afghanistan may seem like a good idea but won't rid us of the terrorists.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...nder-Brigadier-Mark-Carleton-Smith-warns.html

Our troops believe that they are in Afghanistan to do some good, to make a difference. They aren't there for revenge or to wipe out villagers celebrating weddings. They believe and many of the rest of us do too that if we do the right thing and we can bring a peaceful solution to the area and its problems that will safeguard us in the future. So no we aren't there primarily to stop Americans being run over by planes, we are there to do as much as we can for as many innocents as we can, to make the world a better place ( you can sneer at our idealism but remember the guys who are dying believe this) this could stop all people being run over by planes not just Americans.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 5, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Afghanistan has no oil, no strategic interest to the USA.



Since the Caspian oil and gas fields turned out to be duds, this actually is true NOW.  However, when we first invaded Afghanistan, there were plans to secure a route for a pipeline across the country.  These plans were in place before 9/11 and by the summer of 2001 the US was informing countries in the regions that we would be "on the ground before the snow fell."

On top of that, Afghanistan was part of a broader strategy laid out by the conservative think tank Project for the New American Century, in which Iran would be surrounded with troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Naval bases would be secured in Qatar and air bases in Uzbekistan.  For a time span of about 18 months, war with Iran was imminent, but factions within the US government were able to block it and decide upon a different strategy.

"Terrorists" were always the excuse that was sold to us.  If were just about the "terrorists" things on the ground would have been a lot different and I don't think we would have been there for years and years.  The scary part about this current regime is that they seem to have switched the focus from Iran to Russia.  The Obama administration (a puppet of Brzezinsky) seems to want Afghanistan and Pakistan under it's thumb in order to curb Russian influence.  

This little bit of craziness could restart the Cold War.  

If it were up to me I'd pull the troops out and hunt down the petty war masters within our own country.  They should rot in jail cells for the rest of their lives for the simple fact that these people consider war to be a tool to arrange the world to their tastes.


----------



## Big Don (Apr 5, 2009)

Yeah, you're right, we should have just ignored the opium farming, women abusing little bastards. How dare we decree that women have the same rights as men? If the Taliban decrees that women are property and not entitled to more consideration than livestock, well, shoot, that is just the way it is in Afghanistan and we have to respect that, the very idea of forcing them to treat all people as equal is just forcing our morals on them and therefore wrong.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 5, 2009)

Are you sure you're not being disingenuous there, *Don*?  It's a weak argument at best and certainly on the opium growing side of things at least I'm not certain you have your facts straight.

It is also true that if a country simply cannot resist going and enforcing it's views on other countries, then it should be an Equal Opportunity Imperialist and go to all such places where things that offends them occur.

Of course, the reason why that does not happen is because a country will only expend resources in a way that it feels will benefit it i.e. where there is a 'pay off' to compensate for what is expended.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 5, 2009)

Big Don said:


> Yeah, you're right, we should have just ignored the opium farming, women abusing little bastards. How dare we decree that women have the same rights as men? If the Taliban decrees that women are property and not entitled to more consideration than livestock, well, shoot, that is just the way it is in Afghanistan and we have to respect that, the very idea of forcing them to treat all people as equal is just forcing our morals on them and therefore wrong.



Don, I don't know what the solution to that is.  This may sound like a Red Herring, but I'm not sure how else to say it, but here I go, if we were to send in troops to an area every time we disagreed with aspects of an area's culture, we'd be the most hated country on the planet.  There's more to going into Afghanistan then simply attempting to enforce human rights.  I would argue that human rights are NEVER a consideration when the US decides to go to war.

That said, I think the solution to what you are talking about is simple.  It's found in our Constitution.  War and our military forces were meant to protect our country not gallop across the globe and be the world's policeman.  If we decide that we do not like how a country operates, we simply do not trade with them.  Consider the effect this would have on the world?  You want US trade and money, you need to conform to a reasonable standard of human rights.

I don't think that's a polly anna solution.  Money can be a very positive and motivating factor and I think it would generate a lot less hatred toward the US then bombing the crap out of wedding parties until the people are forced to listen.

IMO, the only way an external force can cause real cultural change within a society is by resorting to genocide.  The Brits found this out (again) in the Boar War and we discovered with our own indigenous populations and there are countless other examples throughout history.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Apr 5, 2009)

> They aren't there for revenge or to wipe out villagers celebrating weddings.


 
Do you think that this is the motivation of U.S. soldiers?



> It's already been said on this thread that there is no interest in the people whatsoever.


 
So because it's been said here, it must be true?

In that case, I say that there U.S. military does care about the lives of the people.  So, now it must be true.



> So no we aren't there primarily to stop Americans being run over by planes, we are there to do as much as we can for as many innocents as we can, to make the world a better place ( you can sneer at our idealism but remember the guys who are dying believe this) this could stop all people being run over by planes not just Americans.


 
No offense, but you seem to be idealising your country's military, in the same way the you denegrate us for doing with ours. I find that very interesting.



> It is also true that if a country simply cannot resist going and enforcing it's views on other countries, then it should be an Equal Opportunity Imperialist and go to all such places where things that offends them occur.
> 
> Of course, the reason why that does not happen is because a country will only expend resources in a way that it feels will benefit it i.e. where there is a 'pay off' to compensate for what is expended.


 
And this is wrong why?  



> That said, I think the solution to what you are talking about is simple. It's found in our Constitution. War and our military forces were meant to protect our country not gallop across the globe and be the world's policeman. If we decide that we do not like how a country operates, we simply do not trade with them. Consider the effect this would have on the world? You want US trade and money, you need to conform to a reasonable standard of human rights.


 
You need to understand that money is the main reason that the government of these countries, which holds exclusive media rights in their countries, is because we are more properous then they are.  And, they want what we have.  So they incite the hatred of the U.S. to get what they want.  So by doing what you suggest, as we did in Iraq, where Saddam Hussein simply hoarded what they did have for themselves, while blaming the U.S. for the masses problems, would solve nothing, and perhaps even exacerbate the issue.


And as I side note, I further find it interesting that we keep talking about making it better over there. 

Better according to whom...???


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 5, 2009)

If I was London the planes crashed into Im wagering that this conversation would sound somewhat different. Regardless of what is probably going to be stated in response to this...


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 5, 2009)

Hearts and minds.
The only way forward now is to show people by positive action that we are the good guys, that we keep our word and that our intentions are for the greater good.
This is never going to defeat the terrorists
http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12009906
The war is on more than one front, it's being fought in the newsrooms, the newspaper and the market place. When we believe this war is about politics and oil lines not peoples safety and getting rid of terrorists how can we persuade anyone else? There were rumours long before 9/11 that America was planning on invading Afghanistan, more than rumours actually. The corridors of Whitehall were buzzing with it. None of this helps the ordinary people of any country though, the people of Afghanistan suffer and people of Iraq suffer and don't say they brought it on themselves they didn't, their countrie's leaders did as did ours.

To now bring about any sort of peace in Afghanistan we have to win over the people and show them there is a different way of living. Maunakumu is so right when he says we should have taken trading sanctions against them, made them feel the outcasts in a world that they need to be part of. Bombing the hell out of them is going to do nothing but make them hate us even more.

This is the type of action that will bring us closer to peace, we'd do well to listen to the Gurkhas, they are reputed to have liberated Afghanistan from the Muslims before in the 8th century. This isn't their first time in Afghanistan. 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/the-gentle-touch-of-the-gurkhas-1609186.html

Hearts and minds is not a new operation for the British.
http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA479660&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Apr 5, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> If I was London the planes crashed into Im wagering that this conversation would sound somewhat different. Regardless of what is probably going to be stated in response to this...


 

Not from anyone here.  We already did it.  It was called the Battle of Britain.  And if you look at the appreciation for that, all you will see is how we made them pay for material that they just finished paying off.  Even though it was at $0.10 on the dollar, neverminding the human cost to the U.S.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 5, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> If I was London the planes crashed into Im wagering that this conversation would sound somewhat different. Regardless of what is probably going to be stated in response to this...


 
You are so wrong. We've had bombings and killings on the mainland for many years now and our response wasn't to go and bomb the hell out of Northern or Southern Ireland. In all over 3600 people were killed and over 40,000 people injured in terrorist killings.
You are taking the view that vengence against anyone is fine instead of sitting and thinking that the first thing to do is get accurate intel, find out the ways, the wherefores, the hows then launch your plan against the perpetrators not a country where they are hiding and can leave at any moment. 
I'm all for the terrorists being destroyed preferably in the nastiest way possoible but I want it to be the terrorists killed not innocents. I want us to be the ones who can hold our heads up and say we are morally and undeniably in the right, I want people to look at us and say, see thats how a democracy should work, there's freedom and equality. I don't want us to be in the gutter with the terrorists comming massacres, torturing people and bobming the hell out of people just because we can. I want us to  be the good guys.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 5, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Not from anyone here. We already did it. It was called the Battle of Britain. And if you look at the appreciation for that, all you will see is how we made them pay for material that they just finished paying off. Even though it was at $0.10 on the dollar, neverminding the human cost to the U.S.


 
http://www.raf.mod.uk/Bob1940/roll.html

In 1940 America was not in the war. They didn't join until over a year after the Battle of Britain.

You do know what the Battle of Britain was?
http://www.raf.mod.uk/Bob1940/bobhome.html


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Apr 5, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Hearts and minds.
> The only way forward now is to show people by positive action that we are the good guys, that we keep our word and that our intentions are for the greater good.


 
That was the only way to ever go forward.  The fact of the matter is that the U.S. has never been good at guerilla warfare, at least not the political-military kind necessary for this type of engagement.  We have gotten better at it,but maybe not good enough.

The thing that I take issue with is the fact that you seem to belive that the average soldier is there for revenge, or to blow up wedding parties.  Perhaps it's because they have a sincere belief that they are doing what is necessary for their country.



> This is never going to defeat the terrorists
> 
> http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12009906


 
Terrorism will never be defeated.  It is a tactic, not an organization.  It will be used by whomever finds it useful.  And someone will always find it useful whenever they cannot successfuly engage a larger army.  Hell, the U.S. did it in the War of Independence.

The main difference between now and then is the efficiency of the attackers.



> The war is on more than one front, it's being fought in the newsrooms, the newspaper and the market place.


 
When you have a media that is predisposed to think along leftist lines, it is difficult, if not impossible, in a country with a free press, to win that front.  No matter how logical the argument.




> When we believe this war is about politics and oil lines not peoples safety and getting rid of terrorists how can we persuade anyone else?


 
But who is propogating the fact that it is about oil lines and politics? The same media as above.  



> There were rumours long before 9/11 that America was planning on invading Afghanistan, more than rumours actually. The corridors of Whitehall were buzzing with it.


 
I would be interested to see what you mean by "more than rumours actually".  What is your evidence?




> None of this helps the ordinary people of any country though, the people of Afghanistan suffer and people of Iraq suffer and don't say they brought it on themselves they didn't, their countrie's leaders did as did ours.


 
It is never the leaders that fight the wars.



> To now bring about any sort of peace in Afghanistan we have to win over the people and show them there is a different way of living. Maunakumu is so right when he says we should have taken trading sanctions against them, made them feel the outcasts in a world that they need to be part of. Bombing the hell out of them is going to do nothing but make them hate us even more.


 
You are making one assumption:  that they want your different way of living.

As I said before, trading sanctions would have been used against us, just as a military action.  The only real way to make change is to essentially *force* upon the common people economic prosperity. And I say force, because the leaders of those countries would lose power if they allowed the common man prosperity, and would fight it at all cost.
This is the type of action that will bring us closer to peace, we'd do well to listen to the Gurkhas, they are reputed to have liberated Afghanistan from the Muslims before in the 8th century. This isn't their first time in Afghanistan. 
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/the-gentle-touch-of-the-gurkhas-1609186.html

Hearts and minds is not a new operation for the British.
http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA479660&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf[/quote]


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 5, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> And this is wrong why?


 
You missed my point, *Kenpo*. 

I didn't say it was wrong (altho' at a purely moral level it is wrong). 

What I was implying is that there is always a 'profitable' reason for a country to intefere in the affairs of other countries. As peasants we might not be privy to what that reason is but there always is one.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Apr 5, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> You missed my point, *Kenpo*.
> 
> I didn't say it was wrong (altho' at a purely moral level it is wrong).
> 
> What I was implying is that there is always a 'profitable' reason for a country to intefere in the affairs of other countries. As peasants we might not be privy to what that reason is but there always is one.


 
I didn't, actually.  I just wanted it to be plainly stated that this is not necessarily a wrong-thinking concept. 



Tez3 said:


> http://www.raf.mod.uk/Bob1940/roll.html
> 
> In 1940 America was not in the war. They didn't join until over a year after the Battle of Britain.
> 
> ...


 
I was not referring to the battle itself, but our response to it.  We went to that war to assist those that we considered allies, in what was a European theater of conflict with no direct consequences to the U.S.A.

And all we get for it here anyway is the fact that we are arrogant in our movies, that we screwed Britain for making them pay 10% of war materials, etc.....


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 5, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> That was the only way to ever go forward. The fact of the matter is that the U.S. has never been good at guerilla warfare, at least not the political-military kind necessary for this type of engagement. We have gotten better at it,but maybe not good enough.
> 
> The thing that I take issue with is the fact that you seem to belive that the average soldier is there for revenge, or to blow up wedding parties. Perhaps it's because they have a sincere belief that they are doing what is necessary for their country.
> 
> ...


[/quote]

No I'm assuming nothing and you are putting words in my mouth.

this is why I think your people may be thinking that it's all about revenge, posted here on this thread by Bill Mattaocks.
"_It is important to remember the original situation. We did not go into Afghanistan to bring democracy to Afghanistan. We did not go in to enforce regime change in particular, that was just a side-effect of kicking their asses. The world, unlike the invasion of Iraq, was on our side. Even our traditional foes stood back and went 'oh, hell no, we're not saying nothing'. We (the US) were mad, we were hurting, Afghanistan was harboring the people who were proudly admitting they did it, and we were going to get us some. There was nothing in HELL that would have stopped that invasion. Bush didn't even have a choice - we'd have strung him up and gone in using commandeered shrimp boats if he'd refused.

Unlike Iraq, we don't particularly care what happens to Afghanistan after we leave. They can fall back into warlordism, or the Taliban can come back and tear down all the schools and whatnot. All we want is to save some face and capture or kill bin Laden and his cronies, finally put a bow on that little package, and get the hell out."_


_ 



_


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 5, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> If I was London the planes crashed into Im wagering that this conversation would sound somewhat different. Regardless of what is probably going to be stated in response to this...


 
Er, what?


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 5, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I didn't, actually. I just wanted it to be plainly stated that this is not necessarily a wrong-thinking concept.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Well sunshine what a chip you have on your shoulder don't you? 
Here let me give you one on the other to make the weight equal. We followed you into war with Japan, to help you. The war would have reached you anyway as Germany declared war on America so pal get your facts straight.We followed you into Iraq twice and Afghanistan.
We aren't discussing the Second World War here, so you are way off topic.
Get off your high horse and come down to earth, your people are dying and being horrendously wounded and all you can do is twitter about the second world war, get a grip man.
What on earth is your problem other than you like Brit bashing?


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 5, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I didn't, actually. I just wanted it to be plainly stated that this is not necessarily a wrong-thinking concept.


 
Fair enough, good sir. 




5-0 Kenpo said:


> I was not referring to the battle itself, but our response to it. We went to that war to assist those that we considered allies, in what was a European theater of conflict with no direct consequences to the U.S.A.


 
I think you need to dig a little deeper into the why's and wherefore's of this as you're, if you'll forgive the pun, off the money.



5-0 Kenpo said:


> And all we get for it here anyway is the fact that we are arrogant in our movies, that we screwed Britain for making them pay 10% of war materials, etc.....


 
You really don't want to divert the thread down this path, I'm sure.  I reckon this topic must have been touched on here before but if it hasn't it's worth a thread of it's own - or maybe not given the ire it will arouse in those of us who are so ungrateful for the selfless aid given to us in our time of need.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 5, 2009)

The question I was asking is that of whether our troops are giving their lives for nothing or are they being let down (again) by our politicians and leaders?

Please notice I said *our*, not yours. the responsiblity lies with all our governments.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 5, 2009)

Gentlefolk,
Arguing different national responses to terrorism within their countries, or the causes and reasons for different countries to enter WWII, is pointless.  Europe (and much of the rest of the world) has been dealing much more directly with terror attacks for many years longer than the US, where we've been very fortunate that most of our terrorist attacks prior to 9/11 were homegrown, and non-political, special interest actions like abortion center bombings.  The original post here seems to have questioned whether or not the cost to our troops is worth seeing essentially the same people come into power.  Perhaps we can return to that topic?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Apr 5, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> Gentlefolk,
> Arguing different national responses to terrorism within their countries, or the causes and reasons for different countries to enter WWII, is pointless. Europe (and much of the rest of the world) has been dealing much more directly with terror attacks for many years longer than the US, where we've been very fortunate that most of our terrorist attacks prior to 9/11 were homegrown, and non-political, special interest actions like abortion center bombings. The original post here seems to have questioned whether or not the cost to our troops is worth seeing essentially the same people come into power. Perhaps we can return to that topic?


 
From a purely strategic point of view, the answer is yes if they do not sponsor / continue terrorist attacks against the United States.  

If they do, then the issue is how do we make it so that they don't. 

It amazes me that the same people who insist that the U.S. has no right to force it's culture on other nations, are the same people who insist that we must make Afganistan a democracy and instill " basic human rights" into the country.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Apr 5, 2009)

Big Don said:


> This is what happens when those in power decide that we cannot force our morals on others. This is what happens when a segment of a religion is so feared our leaders won't dare speak against obvious evils, lest they offend some whackos that may explode with little provocation.


 
We went to Afghanistan to get Bin Laden, stop Al-Qaeda, and destroy their training bases. The Taliban was the religious government that was harboring them.

Bin Laden is stuck somewhere in a cave (with kidney problems if not dead), Al-Qaeda is scattered across the globe and right now incapable of making a serious terrorist incident, especially on the United States. The Taliban are hiding out near the borders of Pakistan and trying hard to make life difficult for Afghanistan.

We only offer to have them form a more-or-less democratic government in Afghanistan. That is all. We cannot and will not dictate just who and what makes up all the government. That is for them to decide. THEY ARE NOT A PUPUT REGIME FOR THE UNITED STATES.

This also applies to Iraq.

To think our GIs died for nothing is a mistake. *WE HAVE NOT HAD ONE TERRORIST INCIDENT ON THE UNITED STATES SINCE WE WENT TO WAR WITH THE TERRORIST GLOBALY. *

That's a win to me. The only question is, will Obama forfeit all that we have done for an illusion of peace.

deaf


----------



## Big Don (Apr 5, 2009)

Hearts and minds, Tez?
While we all agree that it is great to be loved. If you cannot be loved, feared runs a close second. When you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 5, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> You are making one assumption:  that they want your different way of living.



Then so be it.  Why do our soldiers have to be the guys with the guns telling others how to organize their lives?  What would you do if some folks rampaged down your neighborhood killed some friends and family members and then told you that you couldn't live your sinful wasteful consumptive lifestyle because you were killing the Earth?

It's that simple.  Plenty of people think American Pigs are wrecking the Earth for future generations.  Plenty of people think that the way the Afghans want to organize their lives is terrible.  I disagree with the sentiment that one group of people should be allowed to enforce their way of life on another group of people via the rifle.  

If you value freedom at all, then you must be willing to accept that people are going to make choices that are different from yours.  If you value freedom and you disagree with someones choices, then you have the freedom to choose NOT to have anything to do with that group of people.  I do not believe that social change needs to birthed in a pool of blood.


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Apr 6, 2009)

Big Don said:


> Hearts and minds, Tez?
> While we all agree that it is great to be loved. If you cannot be loved, feared runs a close second. When you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.



I'm sure the Israeli's would have an input on that.



Deaf Smith said:


> *WE HAVE NOT HAD ONE TERRORIST INCIDENT ON THE UNITED STATES SINCE WE WENT TO WAR WITH THE TERRORIST GLOBALY. *



The rest of the world has had plenty.  Of particular note Madrid (ISAF country) and London (ISAF Country).


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 6, 2009)

The point of hearts and minds isn't an airy fairy, lets all be friends thing, it's a hard nosed experience led policy to safeguard our future. After the first world war Germany was left bankrupt and demoralised, it didn't take long for people to capitalise on this and the Nazi party with Hitler at its helm took over and engulfed the world in war. 
Hearts and minds is why the British were successful in Malaya with less troops than America had in Vietnam where the Americans were not successful. 35,000 British soldiers as opposed to half a million US soldiers as well as others.
The British empire is much derided these days probably quite rightly but one thing we have learned is to deal with insurgencies. The Malayan insurgency like the Northern Ireland conflict has never been treated as conventional wars. proganda, psychological warfare and the training of soldiers to deal with guerilla warfare was used rather than the conventional means of carpet bombing etc. Good intelligence being more valuable than overwhelming firepower.

Afghanistan is no different. Hearts and minds brings good intel which is invaluable, it has benefits for the locals of course but much more so for us. Far better to have them with us than against us. 
Being feared will only work in the short term, ask yourself how scared Americans were of the British soldiers before the War of Independence, did having the redcoats there cow them or make them more determined to fight? resistance networks have always been active however much the people may be scared. During the Blitz in London and other cities the massive bombing only made the Brits more determined not less. The bombings by the IRA and now the Islamic extremists have the same effect.

I want us to be seen to be the ones who have the moral high ground but I'm also realist enough to know that with that we have to be strong and hard headed. Hearts and minds works, it has the effect that we don't have to behave as the terrorists do while destroying them. The benefits to the people is that less innocents get killed as well as less soldiers. That has to be a result.


----------



## Andrew Green (Apr 6, 2009)

Big Don said:


> Yeah, you're right, we should have just ignored the opium farming, women abusing little bastards. How dare we decree that women have the same rights as men? If the Taliban decrees that women are property and not entitled to more consideration than livestock, well, shoot, that is just the way it is in Afghanistan and we have to respect that, the very idea of forcing them to treat all people as equal is just forcing our morals on them and therefore wrong.



How about if some other country had invaded the US because it didn't like slavary before the Civil war?  Or didn't like the racism against blacks?  Or didn't like that women didn't get a vote not too long ago?

I don't think it would have worked, probably pushed things farther back, rather then bringing them forward.

If you want to combat religious fundamentalism violence is not the way to do it, education is.  Destroy the countries infrastructure and push everyone back into smaller and smaller communities and they will turn towards old beliefs more, not less.

Violence doesn't bend people to your will, whether you or right or wrong doesn't matter, all you will do is strengthen their own beliefs and get them to fear and hate yours.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 6, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> It amazes me that the same people who insist that the U.S. has no right to force it's culture on other nations, are the same people who insist that we must make Afganistan a democracy and instill " basic human rights" into the country.


 
{raises hand} I must be an oddity as I am 'affirmative' on the first and 'negative' on the second.

Our own countries are a mess, thanks in some part to the freedoms of 'Democracy' (Western style) and the aftermath of ideological/power-struggle wars combined in some caes with centuries old religious schisms.

So, as well as having no moral right to go in to other peoples home countries and tell them what forms of government they can have, I can well see why they would not want that anyhow.

Of course, Afghanistan is a more complex situation than any of us are painting it.  

The Taliban are not quite the Spawn of Satan that the media fronting for our governments would try to make them out to be.  Neither are they the sort of people I would like having power over me - mass executions not being an acceptable way of making a point in my book.  

The present 'installed' incumbent 'government' has some views that are just as bad, if not worse, than the Taliban but their methods (the publicised ones at least) are a lot less unpalatable.

From what I have seen, as far as the people in Afghanistan are concerned, they would rather not have the Taliban in control and welcome the presence of our armed forces ... for as long as those forces are in place near them.  Whether they are equally enthusiastic for the Taliban when they are the ones at hand I don't know.

Then you have to add in the 'commercial' layer to this.  One reason why the Taliban is now 'out' is that they would not play ball with American interests.  That could be viewed in several ways, depending on how you see the Great Game.  

The most marked 'problem' to my mind tho' is the opium trade that the country now has.  Before they were ousted, a beneficial side-effect of the Taliban was the severe reduction in the drug trade {http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20060921&articleId=3294}.  Now their draconian regime is not 'keeping the lid on', production has soared.  Where is all the money from that illegal trade ending up?  As important is what would happen if it was stopped (granting some _deus ex machina_ that could achieve that)?

So it would seem that "What to do about Afghanistan?" is not an easy thing to take a decisive view on at all.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 6, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> {raises hand} I must be an oddity as I am 'affirmative' on the first and 'negative' on the second.
> 
> Our own countries are a mess, thanks in some part to the freedoms of 'Democracy' (Western style) and the aftermath of ideological/power-struggle wars combined in some caes with centuries old religious schisms.
> 
> ...


----------



## KELLYG (Apr 6, 2009)

TEZ3

First I am sorry that one of your students died.  This has to be a terrible shock.   I also have know people that have lost love one's in the current battles as well.  I can also understand your anger at them dying and it seems that the progress that had been made in that country seems to be reversing itself. Which is unfortunate.  

The thing that bothers me the most in previous post's (not from you) is all the American/Britt bashing that is going on.  American pig's comes to mind.  If we have similar language and beliefs and we can not get along how is anyone else to get along with us. 

 Let me ask you all this.   What on an individual level can we do.  If you could, would you force the people of Afghanistan to change there core beliefs.  Isn't the protection of core/religious beliefs what well all want anyway.  I AM NOT FOR ASSAULT/ABUSE/RAPE/OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF SUBJECTION OF WOMEN.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 6, 2009)

KELLYG said:


> American pig's comes to mind.



You have to look at the context of that comment.  It was not meant to bash anyone.



KELLYG said:


> Let me ask you all this.   What on an individual level can we do.  If you could, would you force the people of Afghanistan to change there core beliefs.  Isn't the protection of core/religious beliefs what well all want anyway.  I AM NOT FOR ASSAULT/ABUSE/RAPE/OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF SUBJECTION OF WOMEN.



This is the core of the point I was trying to make before.  I am not for any of those things, but neither am I for trying to force a group of people to change their culture via rifle point.  I don't think that one group of people should be able to do that to another group of people and I won't support it.  In my mind, I can see that coming back through some karmatic wheel and I know that my kith and kin would not appreciate it.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 6, 2009)

KELLYG said:


> TEZ3
> 
> First I am sorry that one of your students died. This has to be a terrible shock. I also have know people that have lost love one's in the current battles as well. I can also understand your anger at them dying and it seems that the progress that had been made in that country seems to be reversing itself. Which is unfortunate.
> 
> ...


 
Kelly, neither I nor any other British poster said anything about American pigs. No British poster has bashed America here at all, I think you need to reread the posts if you think we have. The British bashing was done by _one poster_ who chose to bring up the second world war.
No I wouldn't force anyone to change their core beliefs, i have already said what I think should be done and it's in fact what our troops are doing out there as is British policy.
I am disturbed that you think any British person here are calling the Americans names.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Apr 6, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> We went to Afghanistan to get Bin Laden, stop Al-Qaeda, and destroy their training bases. The Taliban was the religious government that was harboring them....
> 
> ...To think our GIs died for nothing is a mistake. *WE HAVE NOT HAD ONE TERRORIST INCIDENT ON THE UNITED STATES SINCE WE WENT TO WAR WITH THE TERRORIST GLOBALY. *



deaf,

Respectfully heard and duly noted. Now, consider for a moment that the Afghanistan mission is a multi-country affair with the backing of the UN. Other countries are serving there for many reasons, including the capture/killing of Bin Laden, the dismantling of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and the opportunity to bring peace and stability to region that has suffered greatly.

This isn't just about 'your GIs.' Other countries have lost people in Afghanistan too. My own country has continued to recommit to this effort, along with others. Lots of people around the world are in Afghanistan on principle -- and it is very discouraging to see the government of that country take a deliberate, calculated step backwards in human rights.

This is one time, I think, given the sacrifices being made in Afghanistan, that the allies should speak up and place some expectations on the region.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Apr 6, 2009)

KELLYG said:


> TEZ3
> 
> 
> The thing that bothers me the most in previous post's (not from you) is all the American/Britt bashing that is going on. American pig's comes to mind. If we have similar language and beliefs and we can not get along how is anyone else to get along with us.


 
I don't see any of the things said here as bashing anyone's country or people. Questions have been raised, which were answered, to other people's ire. 

It is quite easy for people to get upset when people refuse to look at context. My post, and the "American Pig" post are but some examples.  At least here, we are "fighting" with words and concepts, and not bullets and bombs.


----------



## KELLYG (Apr 7, 2009)

TEZ3
maunakumu stated

'It's that simple. Plenty of people think American Pigs are wrecking the Earth for future generations. Plenty of people think that the way the Afghans want to organize their lives is terrible. I disagree with the sentiment that one group of people should be allowed to enforce their way of life on another group of people via the rifle.'

Highlighted in red is pretty heavy yes?

I stated
TEZ3
'the thing that bothers me the most in previous post's (not from you) is all the American/Britt bashing that is going on. American pig's comes to mind. If we have similar language and beliefs and we can not get along how is anyone else to get along with us. '


----------



## Grenadier (Apr 7, 2009)

Folks,

This thread is starting to drift away from the original topic.  We have our differences, but arguing about name calling or accusations of name calling isn't being too helpful here. 

That being said....

Please, return to the original topic.

-Ronald Shin
-MT Supermoderator


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 7, 2009)

KELLYG said:


> TEZ3
> maunakumu stated
> 
> 'It's that simple. Plenty of people think American Pigs are wrecking the Earth for future generations. Plenty of people think that the way the Afghans want to organize their lives is terrible. I disagree with the sentiment that one group of people should be allowed to enforce their way of life on another group of people via the rifle.'
> ...


 
But you do know that Maunakamu is American don't you? And he explained his post in terms of context, he didn't call Americans pigs at all, he was simply saying thats how others ie the Afghans think of Americans ( and probably Brits) that way because they invaded their country.


----------



## KELLYG (Apr 7, 2009)

It really does not matter where maunakumu comes from the term AMERICAN PIG, what ever the context is, said by whom ever  sets my teeth on edge. 
I am sorry if I overreacted.  ​How can we influence a people that has been invaded and occupied repeal over the course of history, to give up the ideals that they have held on to throughout.?   How can we offer them the same freedoms when their own religious and cultural  beliefs state otherwise?  ​​


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 7, 2009)

Kelly, I don't think you've over reacted I think you have misread the post.
the truth is that many people do think of us, that is Americans, British and Europeans as pigs and probably even worse than that. We are actively hated in some parts of the world. Thats a fact, a sad one but it's a fact. No one here was calling us, any of us, names, Maunakamu was pointing out the fact as I have. In fact I agree with his views completely. You made it seem as if he was British and calling Americans names, you said if we couldn't get on among ourselves how could we make peace anywhere else.
"_The thing that bothers me the most in previous post's (not from you) is all the American/Britt bashing that is going on. American pig's comes to mind. If we have similar language and beliefs and we can not get along how is anyone else to get along with us."_ 


Now what we do about the fact we are hated is a different matter. *It would be much better to get back to the subject in hand.*


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 7, 2009)

KELLYG said:


> It really does not matter where maunakumu comes from the term AMERICAN PIG, what ever the context is, said by whom ever sets my teeth on edge.
> I am sorry if I overreacted. ​
> *How can we influence a people that has been invaded and occupied repeal over the course of history, to give up the ideals that they have held on to throughout.? How can we offer them the same freedoms when their own religious and cultural beliefs state otherwise? *​


 

As I said before the British Empire is treated with derision these days but it has left us with a long history and experience in dealing with other cultures and beliefs and of working with them to the benefit of the majority. Probably more to the benefit of the British at the time but a side product of that was that trade and governing a country was easier all round if there was peace so great efforts were made to win hearts and minds of the local inhabitants. The motives at the times were obviously dubious but the means worked and still can.


----------



## KELLYG (Apr 7, 2009)

out


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Apr 7, 2009)

KELLYG said:


> I am not trying to be a smart a@@.  But can you give me and example of someting done to win hearts and minds of the local inhabitants.?



http://www.mod.uk/defenceinternet/defencenews/militaryoperations/kajakidamtroopsreturntobase.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kajaki_Dam

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...SoldiersHelpImproveEducationForAfghanKids.htm

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/december292006/tim_122906.php



> (KABUL, Afghanistan) - It may be deceiving at first glance, but the health of Afghan nationals will advance significantly today.
> 
> A joint U.S./British medical assistance operation will treat nearly 400 people. For Oregon Guard Specialist Angel Morrow, it's better than treating people who were exploded by an IED.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 7, 2009)

KELLYG said:


> I am not trying to be a smart a@@. But can you give me and example of someting done to win hearts and minds of the local inhabitants.?


 
Kelly, I already have done on this thread! But here again

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...SoldiersHelpImproveEducationForAfghanKids.htm

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...mbatMedicsTreatTroopsAndCiviliansInSangin.htm

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/SappersBridgeOpensInGarmsir.htm

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D.../BritishAndDanishSoldiersHelpReconstructGeres
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...AfghanPoliceOfficersCompleteVitalTraining.htm
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D.../HelmandHospitalsBenefitFromRefurbishment.htm

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...sHelmandBecomeTheBreadbasketOfAfghanistan.htm

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...iness/AddressingWomensRightsInAfghanistan.htm
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...ndBusiness/ImprovingHealthAccessInHelmand.htm

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...tions/RiflesHelpBringSeedToHelmandFarmers.htm


thats just this years work.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 7, 2009)

If you look at the links there's everything from helping farmers, medical services, police force and women.

Our troops are working so hard out there to make a difference, it would be awful to think it had all been done in vain.


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Apr 7, 2009)

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...mbatMedicsTreatTroopsAndCiviliansInSangin.htm

That's the one I was after.  Cheers.


----------



## Tez3 (Apr 7, 2009)

FieldDiscipline said:


> http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...mbatMedicsTreatTroopsAndCiviliansInSangin.htm
> 
> That's the one I was after. Cheers.


 
Quoted from there 

_The medics have also aided the hearts and minds approach to the locals by treating low-level cases, especially children, for example, cuts and sores. _
_Petty Officer Medical Assistant Rab Pope, the practice manager for the FOB Jackson Regimental Aid Post, said:_
_"We have had to deal with some bad injuries - the fighting has been fierce here, but the medics have worked incredibly hard._
_"On many occasions we have formed bonds with local people due to the follow-up treatment of their injuries and medical complaints. This is important as it helps all our forces operating in the area - we are here to win the consent of the local people after all."_​


----------

