# Afghanistan - Why Are We There?



## Sukerkin (Jul 11, 2010)

Having read the MOD obituries of another two fine soldiers lost in this conflict that isn't even a war, I am struck by need to ask the question flat out -

- what on earth are we doing there?

Even the conspiracy theorists favourite of it being to secure a pipeline for Haliburton doesn't make any sense to me at this juncture.

Exactly what freedoms of ours are we protecting or what threats to us are we suppressing by having our troops on Afghan soil, largely fighting indoctrinated idiots from Pakistan?

If the threat is in Pakistan, then deal with that rather than spending our blood one soldier at a time in an endless fight that will do no good.


----------



## Blade96 (Jul 11, 2010)

no idea what the bloody hell we are doing there. Its gonna be another vietnam; i knew that from the beginning.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 11, 2010)

Live training exercise for Iran...


----------



## seasoned (Jul 11, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Live training exercise for Iran...


 If so, lets hope we do a better, and more thorough job.


----------



## geezer (Jul 11, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> no idea what the bloody hell we are doing there. Its gonna be another vietnam; i knew that from the beginning.



I have _no idea_ what the Brits and Canadians are doing there. The Yanks are there because...

1. After 911 something drastic had to be done. Osama Bin Ladin had to be caught, and an example had to be made!

2. Now, we can't pull out. Osama is still out there, so is Mullah Mohammed Omar and the Taliban. If we leave without killing Osama, Mullah Omar, or at least establishing a "stable democracy", we might as well admit our impotence. And any president who allows _that_ to happen will be out of office and relegated to the same doghouse of shame as Jimmy Carter (who  famously failed to nuke the Iranians). 

So we keep on mucking around hoping for some kinda miracle... like Jesus coming and turning all the Afghans into Republicans.

It also reminds me of the ordeal I have to go through if my wife sees a cockroach in our bedroom at night. I have to get up, move every scrap of furniture and keep hunting, for hours if need be, until I catch and kill the little SOB. It does no good to point out that it has gotten away into the wall through a crack in the baseboard, and besides there are probably dozens more back there anyway, and for _chrissakes_ can I just go back to bed and get a couple of hours of sleep??? No, I have to stay up till I get the bugger. After the second time this happened I finally learned to keep a dead roach in a jar that I can produce as "proof of the kill" should this happen again. God, I hope my wife never reads this! Anyway, maybe the CIA could do the same thing! You know, doctor up a body to look like Bin Laden and then we could all go home and get some sleep.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jul 11, 2010)

The best of intentions.

The USA was attacked and we, NATO, and various other US allies went after the SOBs who aided and supported the terrorists who carried the attacks out. And we damn well should have!

The issue is of course, after almost 9 years, things dont look a great deal better. 

Military might is not how you win wars in Afghanistan. A political solution is needed to end this and we are no where close to achieving that.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jul 11, 2010)

geezer said:


> the same doghouse of shame as Jimmy Carter (who famously failed to nuke the Iranians).


 
WTF?? Why??


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 11, 2010)

seasoned said:


> If so, lets hope we do a better, and more thorough job.



Defeating armies doesn't appear to be our problem...


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 11, 2010)

Quite so, Angel.  

Iraq, I think, was something of a turning point in 'modern' warfare.  It proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that quality can beat quantity, despite Stalin's assertion that quantity has a quality all of it's own.

That resounding lesson on what happens to second/third tier armies when the honed technology evolved to fight the USSR is turned on them has been well learned by those with grievances {real or imagined} against the West.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jul 11, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> Quite so, Angel.
> 
> Iraq, I think, was something of a turning point in 'modern' warfare. It proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that quality can beat quantity, despite Stalin's assertion that quantity has a quality all of it's own.
> 
> That resounding lesson on what happens to second/third tier armies when the honed technology evolved to fight the USSR is turned on them has been well learned by those with grievances {real or imagined} against the West.


 
Yes and no.
Iraq is perfect territory for airpower and tank warfare. Its flat, flat land. 
Iran and North Korea are mountainous, a real ***** for airpower and tanks to be used effectively. 
The Germans certainly had quality over the Soviets circa WW2, but in the end, for various factors, it meant nothing.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jul 11, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Live training exercise for Iran...


 
In a way you are right. The more combat veterans we have the more experienced our army would be if it locks paws with Iran. Everything from ground GIs, to snipers, to smart bomb throwers, to SF....

But why are we there? We came to overthrow the Taliban government as we had evidence that Al-Qaida had training bases in Afghanistan with the Taliban&#8217;s knowledge AND support.

If you remember Bush said on TV that governments that supported Al-Qaida were the same as a terrorist and would be treated as enemy. And thus in Afghanistan we invaded to take out the Taliban government and destroy as much of Al-Qaida as we could.

It was also our policy to be proactive during Bush&#8217;s Administration. That is take the war to the terrorist bases and NOT wait for them to attack us.

Between our invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq we forced the terrorist Al-Qaida to focus on protecting these two bases and NOT focus on attacking the U.S. interest around the globe. And that is why so few attacks were even attempted while Bush was president.

We are still in Afghanistan because a) the Taliban are hiding along the border of Pakistan and still a threat, and b) using Iraq as a model, we are trying to build up the Afghans, both militarily, economically, and socially to be able to function as both a capable government and society and not revert to the Taliban. It is difficult because so much of Afghanistan is tribal and very closed to any foreigners, even tribes not 50 miles away are considered foreign to other tribes!

It will be a much more difficult process to turn Afghanistan around than was Iraq. And Obama&#8217;s cutting the request the generals gave for troops and supplies hurt! They wanted 40,000 he gave 30,000, and changed the rules of engagement, ROE, making them much more restrictive and costly, and that hurts are efforts quite a bit.

It would be over much sooner if he did a REAL SURGE, as President Bush did in Iraq.

And that is why we are in Afghanistan and why it will take a while to finish this.

Deaf


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jul 11, 2010)

Although Afganistan may have had original intent to destroy those who attacked the U.S. on 9/11, two words sum up what it, and Iraq, have ended up being:

Proxy wars.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 12, 2010)

Sukekin, at the risk of sounding callous the service personnel who have died in Afghan have at least been honoured and are at rest, the wounded we are getting back are in a horrendous situation. We have had, and this isn't publicised, over a hundred back wounded since our Brigade deployed at the end of April. We have triple amputees, double amputees,single amputees, massive head trauma and one guy in a coma from which everyone is praying he doesn't wake up from, he's in that bad a state, blown away from the waist down. These people will live the rest of their lives asking why we were in Afghan. Even our government has given up saying they are defending their country.

We, the Brits are there, because Tony Blair couldn't -wouldn't say no to America, he bent down and licked Bush's ****. So our troops went off to war...again. Iraq? well same thing , Bush senior couldn't follow through so son decided to, said to Blair jump and he said how high. Simples as the meerkat would say. 

Oh yeah it stopped the terrorist bombing around the world..not. Look at the news and see where the bomb went off today, 34 dead so far, some Americans too so didn't make life safer at all did it? 

Bollocks to thinking any of us are in Afghan to turn things around, a 'surge' will just get more of our soldiers killed. Any good that is being done there is done by individuals. The police are under paid, drug addicts and corrupt, the army is the same. No one can be trusted. The government is ten times worse and the warlords still run things as they have done for centuries, there is so little difference being made there that if it wasn't so tragic it would be a bloody comedy.

How nice it would be to think we are making a difference, it's what the troops would like to believe but they aren't stupid they know it's political and they are being killed and maimed for nothing other than politicians egos. 

_"Forward, the Light Brigade!"_
_*Was there a man dismay'd*?_
_*Not tho' the soldier knew*_
_*






 Someone had blunder'd:*_
_*Theirs not to make reply,*_
_*Theirs not to reason why,*_
_*Theirs but to do and die:*_
_Into the valley of Death_
_





 Rode the six hundred."_

*Nothing changes*, two soldiers from the regiment that took part in the Charge of the Light Brigade were killed in Afghan recently. Our Brigade are the Desert Rats, they took over in Afghan from the Light Brigade. Both brigades have regiments that have Afghan battle honours from the last time we were fighting there in the 19th century...we lost. The reasons we aren't winning now are the same now as then. We need to get out and we need not to go to war with Iran. Sheer stupidity to start more wars, gunboat diplomacy my ****!


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jul 12, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Defeating armies doesn't appear to be our problem...



QFT.

The US is extremely good at defeating armies. It's what you do best.
Sadly, the US leadership is clueless as to what comes after the bullets stop flying.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 12, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> The Germans certainly had quality over the Soviets circa WW2, but in the end, for various factors, it meant nothing.


 
The primary factor being the supreme leadership. Hitler lost his mind and didn't let his generals run the war. That "quality" kicked a lot of *** for a LONG time and probably would have overrun Russia if it were not for Hitlers scatterbrained generalship. It was a steamroll up till Stalingrad...that two front idea and the Stalingrad "fight till the last man" thing of ole Aldolph's was the beginning of the end. And the battle of Kursk..where hundreds of T-34's whomped superior German tanks, perhaps the centerpiece of the "quantity over quality" meme, is now being seen as somewhat of a myth. Again, appearing due to Hitler's leadership...or lack thereof.

http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-kursk-germanys-lost-victory-in-world-war-ii.htm



> ...
> The Soviets closed with the panzers, negating the Tigers' 88mm guns, outmaneuvered the German armor and knocked out hundreds of German tanks. The Soviet tank force's audacious tactics resulted in a disastrous defeat for the Germans, and the disorganized SS divisions withdrew, leaving 400 destroyed tanks behind, including between 70 and 100 Tigers and many Panthers. Those losses smashed the SS divisions' fighting power, and as a result Hoth's Fourth Panzer Army had no chance to achieve even a partial victory in the south.
> 
> While it makes a dramatic story, nearly all of this battle scenario is essentially myth. Careful study of the daily tank strength reports and combat records of II SS Panzer Corps&#8211;available on microfilm at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.&#8211;provides information that forces a historical reappraisal of the battle.
> ...


 
But I digress and don't want to take this thread on too wide of a tangent...


----------



## CanuckMA (Jul 12, 2010)

Deaf Smith said:


> In a way you are right. The more combat veterans we have the more experienced our army would be if it locks paws with Iran. Everything from ground GIs, to snipers, to smart bomb throwers, to SF....




The more combat veterans you have, the more tired and weary troops you have. The longer it drags out, the more casualties, the less you get people enlisting.



> But why are we there? We came to overthrow the Taliban government as we had evidence that Al-Qaida had training bases in Afghanistan with the Talibans knowledge AND support.


 
WADR, it was not about the overthrow of the government. It was about bombing the crap out of the training bases and capturing OBL. It was about defeating Al-Qaeda. But half way through, The US got bored and went and started something else.



> If you remember Bush said on TV that governments that supported Al-Qaida were the same as a terrorist and would be treated as enemy. And thus in Afghanistan we invaded to take out the Taliban government and destroy as much of Al-Qaida as we could.
> It was also our policy to be proactive during Bushs Administration. That is take the war to the terrorist bases and NOT wait for them to attack us.




But he did not follow through. If he did, the fight would have been taken to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 12, 2010)

All your poppies are belong to us.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Jul 12, 2010)

The U.S. invaded Afghanistan after 9/11 to engage the Taliban and al-Qaida. Several months later we were largely successful in that endeavor as the Taliban was overthrown and al-Qaida's strength had largely been broken. Elections were held and a government sympathetic to the U.S. was set up. That is when the country's attention was turned to Iraq. 

Anyone who thinks that Afghanistan is or ever was a prime candidate for "nation building" should take another look at the country and its history. IMHO, we got as good of a result as anyone could possibly hope for in Afghanistan. We had a sympathetic government in power, the former regime was toppled, al-Qaida was in disarray and we had a cadre of troops in place to deal with any attempted resurgence by them. 

The country itself still has its fair share of "warlords" and tribal loyalty which trumps all. That isn't the kind of thing you overcome. Throwing off the Taliban and al-Qaida was a definite positive for everyone involved, the U.S. and Afghanis alike. Iraq had a culture and infrastructure already in place that made it more suceptible to nation building, not least of which included a fairly educated populace that had western sympathies and a desire to get out from under the heel of a madman who liked to use chemical weapons on his own people.  

As for how things have been handled in Afghanistan recently, _that_ is another matter. You can't separate that out from the fact that the Democrats cast Afghanistan as a "war of necessity" against Bush's "war of choice" in Iraq. The merits of those appelations, I suppose, are debateable (although Iraq was a state that sponsired terrorism by giving aid and safety to terrorists, such as the 1993 WTC bombers and paid money to the families of suicide bombers). What is not is the likelihood of further success in Afghanistan. Anything more than we had already accomplished would be amazing if not miraculous. 

The reason why Obama is increasing our involvement in Afghanistan now is because he _has_ to do so. He spent a lot of time during the election denouncing Iraq and saying we had to concentrate on Afghanistan. He's been trapped by his own campaign simply because he - and the other Democrats - were unable to admit that we had accomplished pretty much everything we could accomplish there. 

As for the UK, it's there because its allies with the United States. That's what you do with allies, you support them in times of armed conflict at times with troops like now and at times with material support like with the U.S. aiding Britain in the Falkland Island war. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 12, 2010)

If we are allies why when Argentina is making warlike noises again has America said it won't support us?
http://momento24.com/en/2010/02/24/the-us-wont-support-british-claims-on-the-falklands-sovereignty/




In the UK poppies are the flowers used for the remembrance of our war dead.


----------



## CoryKS (Jul 12, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> If we are allies why when Argentina is making warlike noises again has America said it won't support us?
> http://momento24.com/en/2010/02/24/the-us-wont-support-british-claims-on-the-falklands-sovereignty/


 
Because we've been told that imperialism is a bad thing?

Cue the "no blood for oil" protests.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 12, 2010)

CoryKS said:


> *Because we've been told that imperialism is a bad thing?*
> 
> Cue the "no blood for oil" protests.


 


 Imperialism? And if the American Virgin Islands were invaded by someone and the islanders said well actually we'd like to stay 'American' so can you come and help us you'd ignore that then? Or would you expect us as allies to go to war along side you?


----------



## dancingalone (Jul 12, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> If we are allies why when Argentina is making warlike noises again has America said it won't support us?
> http://momento24.com/en/2010/02/24/the-us-wont-support-british-claims-on-the-falklands-sovereignty/



Because Obama is the president.  You can bet that Bush would have sided with the UK on this and so would have McCain if he had won.  

Here is a Telegraph opinion piece stating much the same.  

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...ands-is-a-symptom-of-us-foreign-policy-drift/

The left here in the US are fond recently of saying 'elections have their consequences'.  True enough.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 12, 2010)

Nothing helps though when the bodies arrive at Brize Norton. Nothing helps when the maimed have to try to find a life again. We need to get out, now.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 12, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> Because Obama is the president. You can bet that Bush would have sided with the UK on this and so would have McCain if he had won.
> 
> Here is a Telegraph opinion piece stating much the same.
> 
> ...


 

The government here that took us into the Afghan war was a 'left' (socialist) one and so far up Bush's bum you couldn't even see it's feet.


----------



## dancingalone (Jul 12, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> The government here that took us into the Afghan war was a 'left' (socialist) one and so far up Bush's bum you couldn't even see it's feet.



Sir Tony Blair is generally admired here in the US.  Time will tell what his legacy is in the UK.  The people I talk to think he'll go down in the history books as one of your most respected premiers.


----------



## CoryKS (Jul 12, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Imperialism? And if the American Virgin Islands were invaded by someone and the islanders said well actually we'd like to stay 'American' so can you come and help us you'd ignore that then? Or would you expect us as allies to go to war along side you?


 
Well, this isn't exactly a case of defending a protectorate against a hostile party, is it?  This is about a claim of ownership of the natural resources around the islands - the sort of thing that the US was accused of during the Iraq War, though we never went so far as to claim sovereignty over the area as the British are doing in the Falkland Islands.  I dunno, that's a pretty long damn way from London.  So is it only imperialism, colonialism, whateverthehellism when we do it?


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 12, 2010)

Looks like a genius is never appreciated in his homeland then, *Dancingalone* :lol:.

He was a lying, slimy, PR hack, who was no more a Labour PM than Thatcher was.  You won't find many British people who think any differently of him than that.  Of course, that description is a synonym for any politician, Blair just turned the smarm-ometer up to eleven .

It's off tack so I won't go on about it but I do find that American's seem to approve more of the PM's we like the least - not that we've had any in my life-time of which I have had particular admiration.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 12, 2010)

Meantime, does anyone have any insight into my original question?


----------



## dancingalone (Jul 12, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> Looks like a genius is never appreciated in his homeland then, *Dancingalone* :lol:.



 

Did you know GW Bush is very popular in certain parts of Africa thanks to the AIDS relief efforts he pushed?  Say what you want about Iraq, but it would take a true cynic to say that Bush didn't have his heart in the right place with regard to humanitarian efforts.



> He was a lying, slimy, PR hack, who was no more a Labour PM than Thatcher was.



Yeah, I don't know that calling Blair socialist is an accurate label.



> You won't find many British people who think any differently of him than that.  Of course, that description is a synonym for any politician, Blair just turned the smarm-ometer up to eleven .
> 
> It's off tack so I won't go on about it but I do find that American's seem to approve more of the PM's we like the least - not that we've had any in my life-time of which I have had particular admiration.



Really?  That's interesting to know.  Is Blair as unpopular in Britain as Bush is here?


----------



## dancingalone (Jul 12, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> Meantime, does anyone have any insight into my original question?



You really want to know the real answer?  You won't like it.

It's because withdrawing from Afghanistan at this point would be very damaging publicly and this would be true whether you had a Conservative coalition government or a Labour Party one.  The UK will be among the last countries to leave.  Heck, you'll see the Canadians wave goodbye to the Taliban before you Brits will.


----------



## CoryKS (Jul 12, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> Meantime, does anyone have any insight into my original question?


 
Trying to keep the region from reverting back to what it was post-invasion.  I don't think it's possible.  From here it may look like these people are bugshit crazy, but it's a way of life they're used to and that's a hard thing to change.  But the first politician to admit that it won't work will own the failure.  And so it continues.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 12, 2010)

Aye, it's not just Tories who call him "B-liar", *Dancingalone* .  I really don't want to veer this thread off-topic tho', so I sha'n't say anymore than "never has one man, disappointed so many, so quickly" :lol:.


----------



## dancingalone (Jul 12, 2010)

May be a new thread then, Sukerkin, but how on earth did Blair manage to last so long as PM then if he was so unpopular?  10 years right?  That's incredible longevity in a parlimentary system.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 12, 2010)

A very simple, short, answer - we didn't want the Tories back at any price and, despite what people felt and said in the pubs and clubs, when election time came around Labour was seen as the only choice.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Jul 12, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> If we are allies why when Argentina is making warlike noises again has America said it won't support us?
> http://momento24.com/en/2010/02/24/the-us-wont-support-british-claims-on-the-falklands-sovereignty/


 
Ask Obama, he's in charge of setting foreign policy. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 12, 2010)

Will you really need help with Argentina anyways? Seems like ya'll made swift work of them the last time.


----------



## Big Don (Jul 12, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> If we are allies why when Argentina is making warlike noises again has America said it won't support us?
> http://momento24.com/en/2010/02/24/the-us-wont-support-british-claims-on-the-falklands-sovereignty/


"Smart Diplomacy"


----------



## Big Don (Jul 12, 2010)

Part of the reason that we are all in Afghanistan, is to show, that ALL IDEAS ARE NOT EQUALLY VALID. You know, like not letting women drive, or learn...


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jul 12, 2010)

Big Don said:


> Part of the reason that we are all in Afghanistan, is to show, that ALL IDEAS ARE NOT EQUALLY VALID. You know, like not letting women drive, or learn...



Be that as it may, that is not a reason to invade a sovereign country.
The US had valid reasons to invade Afghanistan imo. Mullah Omar refused to hand over the man who admitted planning the 9/11 attacks. There was really no moral justification he could make and he should have seen that one coming.
The fact that women and gays had no rights was irrelevant. If that was a consideration, then Uganda and similar countries might be a far better choice.

But your choice of words is interesting though. Iran for example was a fairly progressive nation in the 50s, where women apparently had rights and the ability to learn. Only the US didn't like their democratically elected leadership so they pulled the rug from under it, had the CIA instigate a revolt and then nursed the current fundamentalist lunatics into place. Incidentally, under that regime, women and gays do not have any rights at all, except the right to die at the whim of a council. It mustn't have been an important consideration then.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jul 12, 2010)

Big Don said:


> Part of the reason that we are all in Afghanistan, is to show, that ALL IDEAS ARE NOT EQUALLY VALID. You know, like not letting women drive, or learn...



I probably shouldn't, but if you really believe what you just said, then I would like to point out the irony of US soldiers dying and fighting for an idea that they themselves are not allowed to express: the idea that being openly gay is not wrong.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 12, 2010)

Eh. We don't imprison or kill homosexuals here do we?


----------



## Blade96 (Jul 12, 2010)

geezer said:


> I have _no idea_ what the Brits and Canadians are doing there. The Yanks are there because...
> 
> 1. After 911 something drastic had to be done. Osama Bin Ladin had to be caught, and an example had to be made!
> 
> 2. Now, we can't pull out. Osama is still out there, so is Mullah Mohammed Omar and the Taliban. If we leave without killing Osama, Mullah Omar, or at least establishing a "stable democracy", we might as well admit our impotence. And any president who allows _that_ to happen will be out of office and relegated to the same doghouse of shame as Jimmy Carter (who  famously failed to nuke the Iranians).



I've often thought that americans might know where he is and its to their advantage not to catch him.

Then they could do all sorts of who knows what and say "yeah but...Osama's still out there!"



dancingalone said:


> Did you know GW Bush is very popular in certain parts of Africa thanks to the AIDS relief efforts he pushed?  Say what you want about Iraq, but it would take a true cynic to say that Bush didn't have his heart in the right place with regard to humanitarian efforts.



Ever hear of the global gag order? reagan put it into effectI believe, it was repealed, then GW Bush put it back.

Africans could have help, but they could go die if heaven forbid they mentioned anything about abortion or condoms or anything like that.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 12, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Will you really need help with Argentina anyways? Seems like ya'll made swift work of them the last time.



Not that I'm in the political loop with my finger on the pulse of the diplomatic channels but Argentina's political classes almost have to raise the issue of the Falkland Islands every year.  It is a 'touchstone' for them to prove their commitment to their country.

Sadly, they know that {thanks to Maggie again} we don't have the capability to pull off an operation {the liberation of the Falklands} of that scale again.  Happily, we do keep a more serious presence there now than we used to.

For those interested in a thumb-nail of the background history to the islands and why they are British territory, this site is concise:

http://www.mysterra.org/webmag/falkland-islands/history.html

For those after more detail:

http://www.falklands.info/history/hindex.html


----------



## dancingalone (Jul 12, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> I've often thought that americans might know where he is and its to their advantage not to catch him.
> 
> Then they could do all sorts of who knows what and say "yeah but...Osama's still out there!"



Good lord, Blade.  You are out there, aren't you?
  :barf:




Blade96 said:


> Ever hear of the global gag order? reagan put it into effectI believe, it was repealed, then GW Bush put it back.
> 
> Africans could have help, but they could go die if heaven forbid they mentioned anything about abortion or condoms or anything like that.



I suspect you're misinformed about this as well.  Bush blocked US funds from going to agencies worldwide that promote or offer abortion services.  That is the essence of the so-called 'global gag order'.  At the same time, he pushed billions of dollars to Africa for HIV treatment and economic development, but it's easy to forget about the good parts, isn't it.


----------



## dancingalone (Jul 12, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> Sadly, they know that {thanks to Maggie again} we don't have the capability to pull off an operation {the liberation of the Falklands} of that scale again.  Happily, we do keep a more serious presence there now than we used to.



That is also surprising to me.  You still have one of the mightiest navies and air forces on Earth, regardless of any military cuts made.  You truly cannot conduct an invasion/liberation of the Falklands if it came to that?


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 12, 2010)

The key loss is that we no longer have any amphibious assault ships.  

We could ferry troops and equipment there but we couldn't get them ashore under anything but unopposed and leisurely circumstances.

Of course, we do have an airfield there now, which gives us some options that weren't available first time around. As a flip-side, we don't have the Vulcan's anymore that were able to attack and deny the operational use of the runways that the Argentinians built for themselves {I am a contributor to the charity that is trying to keep the last Vulcan airworthy and flying}.

EDIT:  Oops, I stand corrected:  http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/surface-fleet/assault-ships/


----------



## chrispillertkd (Jul 12, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> Ever hear of the global gag order? reagan put it into effectI believe, it was repealed, then GW Bush put it back.
> 
> Africans could have help, but they could go die if heaven forbid they mentioned anything about abortion or condoms or anything like that.


 
Yeah, because _abortion_ has a ton to do with preventing the spread of AIDS. 

Sure, George W. Bush was the devil and all but can you please just stick to actual facts when talking about a topic, viz. the fact that W. does, in fact, enjoy quite a bit of popularity in some African nations for his AIDS prevention assistance.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## James Kovacich (Jul 12, 2010)

Deaf Smith said:


> It will be a much more difficult process to turn Afghanistan around than was Iraq. And Obamas cutting the request the generals gave for troops and supplies hurt! They wanted 40,000 he gave 30,000, and changed the rules of engagement, ROE, making them much more restrictive and costly, and that hurts are efforts quite a bit.
> 
> It would be over much sooner if he did a REAL SURGE, as President Bush did in Iraq.
> 
> ...


 How did we not see this coming??? Bush is the one that said "we won the war" so he could justify invading Iraq, a country that Alqueda was not in until after us. 

Not very smart invading a country "without" finishing the the "first war' first.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jul 12, 2010)

James Kovacich said:


> How did we not see this coming??? Bush is the one that said "we won the war" so he could justify invading Iraq, a country that Alqueda was not in until after us.
> 
> Not very smart invading a country "without" finishing the the "first war' first.


 
James,

Kind of hard to hurry up and finish one war while hoping the other situation does not go nuke. Now it turns out Saddam had 500 tons of uranium ore (they captured that) AND newest intel says Syria was shipped Saddams other 'weapons' when we attacked to keep them out of our hands (just as alot of his jets were moved to other nearby countries.)

Part of being a President is to make hard decisions fast while knowing some of the decisions will not turn out right. Fighting a second war while still being in the first one is not uncommon. Cases abound though out history.

And what is more, every President leaves problems for the next. There has NEVER been a president that gave a perfect economy, perfect foreign policy, perfect finances all to the next President.

And thus the problems and failures as well as successes are passed on. And it's bad for a President to say they inherited the problems. For you see, every President did that from the previous (if not from several previous Presidencies.)

Deaf


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jul 12, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> The more combat veterans you have, the more tired and weary troops you have. The longer it drags out, the more casualties, the less you get people enlisting.


 
We are having no trouble with recruiting. Not at all even after years of war. That is what the volunteer army has done.

Or casualties where painful, are no where near Vietnam and way way less than WW2 or Korea. And that is why we still get plenty of recruits.

Deaf


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jul 12, 2010)

Deaf Smith said:


> We are having no trouble with recruiting. Not at all even after years of war. That is what the volunteer army has done.
> 
> Or casualties where painful, are no where near Vietnam and way way less than WW2 or Korea. And that is why we still get plenty of recruits.
> 
> Deaf


 
You have plenty of recruits because the US and much of the economy of the world is still crap. There are no more high paying manufacturing jobs left in the west anymore, hence the potential recruits see the military as one of the few places that provides a stable job, with good career prospects. If the US was a power house of high paying manufacturing jobs like it was decades ago, there would be a serious issue in getting people to sign up.


----------



## Blade96 (Jul 12, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> I suspect you're misinformed about this as well.  Bush blocked US funds from going to agencies worldwide that promote or offer abortion services.  That is the essence of the so-called 'global gag order'.  At the same time, he pushed billions of dollars to Africa for HIV treatment and economic development, but it's easy to forget about the good parts, isn't it.





chrispillertkd said:


> Yeah, because _abortion_ has a ton to do with preventing the spread of AIDS.
> 
> Sure, George W. Bush was the devil and all but can you please just stick to actual facts when talking about a topic, viz. the fact that W. does, in fact, enjoy quite a bit of popularity in some African nations for his AIDS prevention assistance.
> 
> ...



The organizations involved (with abortion and contraceptives too and lifesaving procedures) who found it hard to operate when the gag order was on them also found it harder to receive and distribute lifesaving condoms (and other contraceptives (condoms being instrumental in helping stop the transmission of aids from person to person). That didnt help the situation a whole lot.

Im not misinformed.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jul 13, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Eh. We don't imprison or kill homosexuals here do we?



No but they are not allowed to join the military because being openly gay in the US military is 'bad'. Thus them fighting for that right it is ironic.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 13, 2010)

Of course Tony Blair is a socialist, that's what being in the Labour party means. Labour *are* the Socialist Party. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)

Blair will go down in history here as a - well I can't say in polite company, certainly an idiot, weak, useless and as Bush's poodle. We're well rid of him. You only see what the spin doctors want to see about him, try having him as your leader, not that anything better was out there.

Our Navy and RAF is small, we have less than 250,000 regular forces all in, that's army, navy, RAF and Royal Marines. The army has stopped recruiting for the infantry, could be September before they recruit again. No money for the forces or anything else actually, I may not even have a job this time next year.

Woman aren't any better off in Afghan, no one is much being honest nor will they ever be until the people there have a massive change of mind. It's not going to happen because the Allies are there however much we'd like it to and however much we do for the people. Better to leave. To get rid of terrorists send in whoever is needed to do that work.

Every time you read of a service person being killed out there by a bomb remember there will also be more service people injured by that bomb. many Afghans are also being killed by their own people, if this is happening doesn't it show that there is no sanctity of life out there and we will never have a democratic and stable system in place there, it has to be done by the people themselves.


----------



## dancingalone (Jul 13, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Of course Tony Blair is a socialist, that's what being in the Labour party means. Labour *are* the Socialist Party.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)



So all the buzz we heard over the Atlantic about  'New Labour' was just propaganda?  I had understood that Blair deliberately moved towards the center to broaden his party's appeal.  As recently as 2009, Blair is on record as opposing Gordon Brown's 50% top tax rate on the wealthy in Britain.  That doesn't seem like the typical socialist line I would expect.


----------



## dancingalone (Jul 13, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> The organizations involved (with abortion and contraceptives too and lifesaving procedures) who found it hard to operate when the gag order was on them also found it harder to receive and distribute lifesaving condoms (and other contraceptives (condoms being instrumental in helping stop the transmission of aids from person to person). That didnt help the situation a whole lot.
> 
> Im not misinformed.



Blade, if a organization is denied funding due to one aspect of their operations, obviously that has major repercussions for the entire group as well.  That's rather the point of the executive order to begin with.

Nonetheless there were other groups that continued to receive American funding to continue their mission there in Africa.  The Red Cross and the WHO are two notable orgs I can think of off the top of my head and the WHO definitely is a distributer of condoms.


----------



## Mark Jordan (Jul 13, 2010)

I also don't know why we are there. This "war" was launched with expectations of a quick, decisive victory but whoever started this operation misinterpreted the nature of the conflict.

From what I heard, American soldiers are there to make sure that terrorist groups cannot use Afghanistan as a safe haven for launching attacks against us. But now that our troops are there they don't have to go far to kill Americans. 

I hope it's not too late to change course.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Jul 13, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> The organizations involved (with abortion and contraceptives too and lifesaving procedures) who found it hard to operate when the gag order was on them also found it harder to receive and distribute lifesaving condoms (and other contraceptives (condoms being instrumental in helping stop the transmission of aids from person to person). That didnt help the situation a whole lot.


 
If the organizations involved couldn't try to help people prevent AIDS without spreading abortion then they should have examined their own motivation. How about they give ot information on preventing AIDS if that's what they're trying to do. Maybe something like this: "Here's a way to prevent or decrease the likelihood of spreading the HIV virus..." _Not_ "Here's how to procure an abortion..." Yeah, those things are hard to distinguish. 



> Im not misinformed.


 
If you say so. 

If these organizations were interested in preventing AIDS instead of promoting abortion they could do so.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd (Jul 13, 2010)

Mark Jordan said:


> I also don't know why we are there.


 
We are there because we were interested in destroying al-Qaida's base of operations in Afghanistan. That was largely accomplished, as was over throwing the Taliban. 

This "war" was launched with expectations of a quick, decisive victory but 





> whoever started this operation misinterpreted the nature of the conflict.


 
The two primary goals I just mentioned were accomplished fairly quickly, as was the election of a pro-west government. Full on natinal building, as far as I know, was never a goal. Nor is it, IMHO, possible. 



> From what I heard, American soldiers are there to make sure that terrorist groups cannot use Afghanistan as a safe haven for launching attacks against us. But now that our troops are there they don't have to go far to kill Americans.


 
The troops remained in Afghanistan in order to prevent a return of the Taliban and al-Qaida. That fact is itself going to draw a certain amount of aggression when those elements do try to return to their former influence.

The current rules of engagement while not completely hamstringing the troops have certainly not helped. Then again if you can shoot at them and then walk into a house and not be followed lend themselves to it's amazing we don't have more casualities (nearly half of which have been suffered in the last two years). 

Every American death is a trajedy. But the fact is over 9 years we've had less than 1,200 of them (and a little over 300 British deaths over the same period). I believe we had about 300,000 deaths in WW II between Dec. 1941 and June, 1944. Things in Afghanistan could be so much worse.   



> I hope it's not too late to change course.


 
That really depends on what you mean by "change course."

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 13, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> We are there because we were interested in destroying al-Qaida's base of operations in Afghanistan. That was largely accomplished, as was over throwing the Taliban.
> 
> This "war" was launched with expectations of a quick, decisive victory but
> 
> ...


 

Oh well that's alright then, we've only had a few deaths, that makes it all so much better doesn't it? that's 1500 people we really don't have to worry about anymore, after all what are they to you? How many thousands injured, maimed and wounded? Oh right of course that doesn't matter either does it, all in the 'greater good' of course. 
Bandy figures around all you like, your skin is safe sat beind your computer. And don't tell me this is what they joined up for, they didn't deserve to die because of self serving politicians. 
How easy it is to pontificate about low numbers of deaths and wounded when one doesn't have to see the coffins lined up, speak to grieving widows and children, distraught mothers etc all asking '*WHY*?'

They need a better reason than that they were betrayed by politiicans and people who say oh it could be so much worse. Now excuse me while I go throw up, such sentiments make me sick to my stomach.

Get our troops out NOW.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Jul 13, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Oh well that's alright then, we've only had a few deaths, that makes it all so much better doesn't it? that's 1500 people we really don't have to worry about anymore, after all what are they to you? How many thousands injured, maimed and wounded? Oh right of course that doesn't matter either does it, all in the 'greater good' of course.
> Bandy figures around all you like, your skin is safe sat beind your computer. And don't tell me this is what they joined up for, they didn't deserve to die because of self serving politicians.
> How easy it is to pontificate about low numbers of deaths and wounded when one doesn't have to see the coffins lined up, speak to grieving widows and children, distraught mothers etc all asking '*WHY*?'
> 
> ...


 
Way to not read what I wrote in my post, Tez. I'm glad to see you never get tired of ignoring what I say.

Thanks again!

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 13, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> Way to not read what I wrote in my post, Tez. I'm glad to see you never get tired of ignoring what I say.
> 
> Thanks again!
> 
> ...


 
I read what was in your post, as always. it says what it says don't make out like I misread it. 


_" But the fact is over 9 years we've had less than 1,200 of them (and a little over 300 British deaths over the same period). I believe we had about 300,000 deaths in WW II between Dec. 1941 and June, 1944. Things in Afghanistan could be so much worse."_ 


How does comparing deaths in wars make anything seem better? How could things be much worse for the troops and the families? Do you sit waiting for the Welfare Officer and the Padre to knock on your door? A friend of mine has been to nine funerals in a month, her husbands rgiment has lost nine soldiers, thats nine families bereft. Shall I pass her your wise words, without comment from me and I'll pass her reply on to you. No, its not me misreading. This is an emotive subject, I have friends, students, colleagues and many people out there that I'm close to, there's no way I'm going to let cold hearted comments pass. It's not just my people either, the disregard for your own amazes me but of course it could be worse only a 1000 of yours dead, a trifling amount except to their familes who I have every sympathy and thoughts for. My thoughts too are for those who nurse and support the wounded and maimed, don't tell them that it could have been worse.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Jul 13, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> I read what was in your post, as always. it says what it says don't make out like I misread it.


 
The fact that you simply "forgot" to quote the part where I said every American death (and by extension every allied troop's death) is a trajedy just shows that you're not serious about having a discussion on this topic. Which is fine, it's understandable that emotions run high on topics like this. You'd rather rant. That's OK. Not helpful, but understandable. 




> How does comparing deaths in wars make anything seem better?


 
It doesn't make it "better" but it does give perspective. As I said in my previous post, things could be much, much worse. 

But you're not interested in seeing things in perspective. That's fine. 



> How could things be much worse for the troops and the families?


 
There could be countless more of them, that's how. 



> It's not just my people either, the disregard for your own amazes me but of course it could be worse only a 1000 of yours dead, a trifling amount except to their familes who I have every sympathy and thoughts for.


 
This statement, in light of what I have said before just demonstrates how classless you are, Tez.  

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 13, 2010)

I saw where you said it was a tragedy, meaningless platitude.

Classless, yep thats me. Grieving too but hey things could always be worse so save your insults for someone who actually cares sunshine. Lost a student this week in Afghan but hey could be worse.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Jul 13, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> I saw where you said it was a tragedy, meaningless platitude.


 
I'm glad to see you can make such a judgement about me based on a single post. 



> Classless, yep thats me. Grieving too but hey things could always be worse so save your insults for someone who actually cares sunshine. Lost a student this week in Afghan but hey could be worse.


 
Yes, Tez you are classless if you're going to level those charges against me based on what I said. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you actually read my post. But you're not interested in discussion, you're interested in demonizing people who disagree with you.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 13, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> I'm glad to see you can make such a judgement about me based on a single post.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
You don't know what my interests are in the least. I took expection to one part of your post, which I pointed out. I told you this is an emotive subject, I have no perceptio on it, how could I in my situation, there is no perception, only grief, hope and the effort of carrying on. Apart from the Royal Marines every  single British soldier killed or wounded since April is from  right here where I am, I live and work with them, I train with them, see them every day. the children I teach martial arts to, their fathers are out their, brothers and sisters too in many cases. My adult students are out there. British regiments are family affairs, you will have, fathers, brothers, uncles, etc etc all in the same regiment. One woman could have her husband, sons, brothers, uncles, father, her in laws all out there at the same time. We have a rehab centre here, I see amputees sruggling to get fit, I see flowrrs placed around the garrison for the dead. No I have no class, no perception, nothing except emptiness and grief so don't ever tell me things could be worse.
It may be a cold dispassionate argument to some but not me, I am angry, sad and very very afraid of hearing the next announcment of who's been killed. I don't care whether you disagree or not, I care that the sacrifice of others is trivialised with the expression 'it could be worse'. This isn't a soulless discussion for me, it's personal.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Jul 13, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> You don't know what my interests are in the least.


 
I can only judge your intentions based on your posts. The ones you have directed to me are quite obviously void of any interest in discussion on this topic. They are only geared towards demonizing a person who takes an opposing viewpoint from you. 



> is an emotive subject, I have no perceptio on it, how could I in my situation, there is no perception, only grief, hope and the effort of carrying on.


 
Of course you have a perception on the subject. If you didn't you wouldn't have an emotional reaction in the first place. 



> Apart frI took expection to one part of your post, which I pointed out. I told you this om the Royal Marines every single British soldier killed or wounded since April is from right here where I am, I live and work with them, I train with them, see them every day. the children I teach martial arts to, their fathers are out their, brothers and sisters too in many cases. My adult students are out there. British regiments are family affairs, you will have, fathers, brothers, uncles, etc etc all in the same regiment. One woman could have her husband, sons, brothers, uncles, father, her in laws all out there at the same time. We have a rehab centre here, I see amputees sruggling to get fit, I see flowrrs placed around the garrison for the dead.


 
Those are all horrible things that are, sadly, much too common in any war. But if you are therefore arguing that because of the results the war should be ended that was why I brought up WW II, a conflict in which massively greater casualties were suffered over a much shorter period of time. 



> No I have no class, no perception, nothing except emptiness and grief so don't ever tell me things could be worse.


 
As I said, you're just interested in demonizing people, not discussing this topic. Which is fine. Except for the fact that this is a discussion forum. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## CanuckMA (Jul 13, 2010)

WWII was a war that needed to be fought.

What has Afghanistan acheived? Bin Laden is still out there. The Taliban still rule the country. Hell, the puppet in charge just invited them back in the government. 

I'll tell you how your allies see this. The focused operation was going pretty good until the Americans got bored and pulled out to go to Iraq, leaving us with not enough resources to actually fight this thing. 

It's never going to change there. It's actually worse now because you have a lot more Iraqis who can't stand Americans. The life in Iraq is worse now than it was under Saddam.

I've stood along the Highway of Heroes. It's high time we bring our boys home.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 13, 2010)

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...erations/ThreeSoldiersKilledInAfghanistan.htm

Whatever you say chris, every post I have ever put on any subject on MT you have taken the same aggressive attitude to, if I annoy you so much that you feel the need to insult me, press the ignore button.

There are some posts on this thread I disagree with the views put, yet there is still a discussion. I demonise no one and _have said_ _often that we_ _need to leave there because it is doing no good_.  I would suggest based on my experiences with your posts when they concern me is that it's a personal thing with you where you try constantly to belittle me and insult me. As I said you can press the ignore button.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Jul 13, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Whatever you say chris, every post I have ever put on any subject on MT you have taken the same aggressive attitude to, if I annoy you so much that you feel the need to insult me, press the ignore button.


 
Thank God you haven't stooped to needless exaggeration, Tez. A quick glance at your current post count reveals that you've made about 8,300 posts. And apparently I have had an "aggressive attitude" towards all of them, regardless of the topic. 

Strangely, I feel pretty confident that is not the case. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you had the same attitude towards my posts. Granted, I'd never say that applied to them on "any subject" since it seems more geared towards my posts in the Study instead of any other area.

I will say, however, that your statement above is a good example of your argumentation put forth in this thread so far. 



> There are some posts on this thread I disagree with the views put, yet there is still a discussion. *I demonise no one*


 
Well, this bolded part is obviously not true.



> and _have said_ _often that we_ _need to leave there because it is doing no good_. I would suggest based on my experiences with your posts when they concern me is that it's a personal thing with you where you try constantly to belittle me and insult me. As I said you can press the ignore button.


 
Interestingly, from my point of view I could say much the same towards you, Tez. I stand by my statement that you aren't interested in an actual discussion on this topic and that you are trying to demonize me because I have an opposing view since you've consistently appealed to pure emotion instead of any sort of rational argument in answering my posts. If you want to take an accurate description of your behavior as an insult or belittlement you might want to do a little self-examination.

As for ignore buttons, I don't use them on anyone. It's a public discussion forum and I like reading opposing view points. On the other hand, you can certainly use yours if you are incapable answering my posts without simply appealing to emotion as the main basis of your argument. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd (Jul 13, 2010)

CanuckMA said:


> What has Afghanistan acheived? Bin Laden is still out there. The Taliban still rule the country. Hell, the puppet in charge just invited them back in the government.


 
I already listed what the conflict in Afghanistan has achieved. Whether you think that is "enough" or not is a different matter. Whether anything more could be achieved is, however, extremely unlikely. 

As for Karzai, he's made some overtures to the Taliban since Obama has taken to insulting him on a fairly regular basis as being corrupt. In the world of diplomacy and foreign relations that isn't exactly a good thing to do since his regime is 1) friendly for the most part towards the west, and 2) dependent on the presence of U.S. troops for stability against al-Qaida. With Obama making noises such as he was it isn't surprising that Karzai would think things are going south as far as U.S. military support was concerned. He's probably trying to come up with anything he can to prevent the area from falling back into an al-Qaida stronghold and, absent any perceived support by Obama he might think the Taliban is the lesser of two evils. 




> I'll tell you how your allies see this. The focused operation was going pretty good until the Americans got bored and pulled out to go to Iraq, leaving us with not enough resources to actually fight this thing.


 
Tell it to Obama. He's in charge, and the last two years have been a slide downwards. 

As I mentioned before, there was no way Afghanistan was going to be even a candidate for full on nation building. It was a mission to break al-Qaida's grip on the area - which succeeded - and eventually to topple the Taliban - which also succeeded. Troops remained in the area to prevent a resurgence. 



> It's never going to change there. It's actually worse now because you have a lot more Iraqis who can't stand Americans. The life in Iraq is worse now than it was under Saddam.


 
You have jumped form Afghanistan to Iraq in this statement but the idea that life in Iraq is now worse than when Saddam was in power is laughable (and I'm not fan of the Iraq war). Do you know how he treated, for example, the Kurds? I mean, they're no longer being gassed by the own government and all but sure things still could improve. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 13, 2010)

Chris, _you don't like me or my posts_ so give it a rest mate, it's boring.

Life in Iraq infinitely worse now, it's a matter of scale. No one said Saddam was great or even alright but he was a non religious buffer. Our 'allies' the Turks also kill and persecute the Kurds, nothing said about that.

Karzai* is* corrupt through and through. He doesn't care who'd in charge as long as it's him, he's long been an Al Queda sympathiser, you can't blame Obama for that.   Obama is being honest and there's little point in him not telling the truth. While the government, police (they are very corrupt, we work with them out there, untrustworthy and mostly druggies) and army in Afghan is corrupt it's a waste of breath trying to even think there's going to be a decent standard of living or democracy there. Karzai is an example of evrything wrong about that place.
Most of the Al Queda terrorist cells are in Pakistan and Kashmir not Afghanistan, they are training Muslims from the UK and the States then sending them back. Suicide bombers are still reaching us in all parts of the world, I believe the death toll in Africa is in the nineties now. The condition of women and girls is no better now than before, acid is thrown on girls who dare to go to school, women still beaten and killed. Even the military medics have to treat the men of the villagers before being allowed to treat the women and girls. The way of life there is entrenched and has been for centuries, our presence there does no good, we don't keep the terrorists down, they are in neighbouring countries, they hit and run back there. 
New strategies and fresh thinking are needed on the terrorist situation, we aen't going to stop them by being in afghan.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 13, 2010)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10610068.stm

As I said, the soldiers are untrustworthy and this,  as quoted is 'a serious breach of trust'.

Murdering scum.


----------



## Grenadier (Jul 13, 2010)

Ladies and gentlemen,

There's a bit more leeway, regarding the rules, when it comes to the Study, compared to the rest of the forum.  Heat is allowed, and even to be expected, since discussion of such topics will generate strong feelings on one side or another.  

You're allowed to attack the message, but not the messenger.  If you don't like what someone has to say, and if you're tired of reading such statements, then you can always use the ignore feature.  

-Ronald Shin
-MT Supermoderator


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 13, 2010)

I've argued the scale and perspective points myself, repeatedly and I stick to them.  The losses in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other fronts (yes, there are several other fronts you aren't hearing much on) has been nothing compared to and 1 week during combat during WWI, WW2, Korea or Vietnam.  But each person lost still hurts. We can toss around statistics like "At Gettysburg 60,000 fell, all brothers", yet how many of them did we grow up with, goto school with, dine with, train with and now have a dark void in our hearts knowing we'll never hear their laugh again.  

I've got friends over there myself. I know people about to deploy. 2 of my clients have been there that I know of.   It's rough.

All the statistics out of dusty history books seeking to put things into perspective pale when faced with personal loss.  It would do us well to remember that and .  When your in pain, you're in pain. Period.

We're stuck in 2 wars now that at one time made sense, and now seem to be little more than quagmires of uncertainty.  I don't know why we're still there...I just hope we're not there too much longer, and that the costs in personal pain and loss don't go much higher.


----------



## CanuckMA (Jul 13, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> I already listed what the conflict in Afghanistan has achieved. Whether you think that is "enough" or not is a different matter. Whether anything more could be achieved is, however, extremely unlikely.


 
The only thing that's been acheived is Al-Qaeda is training in Pakistan now,



> As for Karzai, he's made some overtures to the Taliban since Obama has taken to insulting him on a fairly regular basis as being corrupt. In the world of diplomacy and foreign relations that isn't exactly a good thing to do since his regime is 1) friendly for the most part towards the west, and 2) dependent on the presence of U.S. troops for stability against al-Qaida. With Obama making noises such as he was it isn't surprising that Karzai would think things are going south as far as U.S. military support was concerned. He's probably trying to come up with anything he can to prevent the area from falling back into an al-Qaida stronghold and, absent any perceived support by Obama he might think the Taliban is the lesser of two evils.


 
Karzao knows that as soon as the troops leave, it's back to normal with the Taliban in power. He's just trying to stay in himself and doesn't care who he has to sleep with.




> Tell it to Obama. He's in charge, and the last two years have been a slide downwards.
> 
> As I mentioned before, there was no way Afghanistan was going to be even a candidate for full on nation building. It was a mission to break al-Qaida's grip on the area - which succeeded - and eventually to topple the Taliban - which also succeeded. Troops remained in the area to prevent a resurgence.


 
If I recall, it's Bush that cut and run out of Afghanistan for his little foray into Iraq.




> You have jumped form Afghanistan to Iraq in this statement but the idea that life in Iraq is now worse than when Saddam was in power is laughable (and I'm not fan of the Iraq war). Do you know how he treated, for example, the Kurds? I mean, they're no longer being gassed by the own government and all but sure things still could improve.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris


 
The life of the avarage Iraqui before the war was much better than it is now. The infrastructure was there, bombs didn't go off randomly. Saddam was not great, but this is worse, and when the US leaves it will revert to a full blown civil war.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jul 13, 2010)

All wars end, eventually.
We, the allies, need out of this one ASAP.
The cost, (lives, $$), vs. benefit is way outta whack.
This needs a political solution and quite frankly I dont see anyone stepping up and creating the framework for one.
The Brits proved in Northern Ireland, that you beat terrorists by covert operations and intelligence. Yes some will get through, some innocent allied deaths will occur, but in the long run you will stop a great deal more attacks.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 13, 2010)

More troops = more fighting = more humanaitarian aid needed
http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=89806

Afghan war unwinnable under Karzai
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SGE66B0CT.htm

all from an official MOD blog.
http://www.blogs.mod.uk/afghanistan/


this BBC report is from 2007.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6254375.stm

*A few hours ago a Royal Marine from  40 CDORM was killed, four soldiers killed today. *


----------



## Blade96 (Jul 13, 2010)

dancingalone said:


> Blade, if a organization is denied funding due to one aspect of their operations, obviously that has major repercussions for the entire group as well.  That's rather the point of the executive order to begin with.
> 
> Nonetheless there were other groups that continued to receive American funding to continue their mission there in Africa.  The Red Cross and the WHO are two notable orgs I can think of off the top of my head and the WHO definitely is a distributer of condoms.





chrispillertkd said:


> If the organizations involved couldn't try to help people prevent AIDS without spreading abortion then they should have examined their own motivation. How about they give ot information on preventing AIDS if that's what they're trying to do. Maybe something like this: "Here's a way to prevent or decrease the likelihood of spreading the HIV virus..." _Not_ "Here's how to procure an abortion..." Yeah, those things are hard to distinguish.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks guys. Those are great points, and I would agree with you completely except there's the fact that many of these people (like bush and people with beliefs like his) who tend to oppose things like condoms and artificial birth control and prefer abstinence teaching and the like instead. Yes they have supported things like the WHO and RC but i wondered really about this. This doesnt contribute much to helping stop the spread of aids. Thats why i mentioned abortion, there is a link between all of these things.

as fpr karzai, he also allowed a rule that allowed men of some tribes or something to rape their wives. He is  no angel.

and the USA fighting to install a 'pro-west government' Sounds like the cold war all over again.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 13, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> All wars end, eventually.
> We, the allies, need out of this one ASAP.
> The cost, (lives, $$), vs. benefit is way outta whack.
> This needs a political solution and quite frankly I dont see anyone stepping up and creating the framework for one.
> The Brits proved in Northern Ireland, that you beat terrorists by covert operations and intelligence. Yes some will get through, some innocent allied deaths will occur, but in the long run you will stop a great deal more attacks.



What? The Brits didn't occupy Ireland? 

It's kind of hard to run "covert ops" without a base of operations in the mideast when you are America. And when you do you get criticized for it anyway.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 13, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> *What? The Brits didn't occupy Ireland?*
> 
> It's kind of hard to run "covert ops" without a base of operations in the mideast when you are America. And when you do you get criticized for it anyway.


 

No Britain didn't 'occupy' Ireland.
 In 1066 the Normans invaded England, in 1169 they invaded Ireland bringing them under the same rule, the invader Normans. Theres been wars between the ruling houses of England and the Irish for centuries. But no we've never actually invaded Ireland as such. The Northern Irish chose to stay as part of the UK while Eire went independant as a republic. 

The CIA seems to have managed it's operations all around the world so far.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jul 13, 2010)

I know what *Angel* is trying to say tho', *Tez* viz that without a presence in the part of the world you want to operate in it's a lot harder to pull things off successfully.

Where the problems lies with dealing with this particular crop of terrorists is that their race, culture and religion are all at variance with 'ours'.  There is no 'similar' population within which to mask covert operations by our 'side' and it makes it very hard.

Mind you, with your training and duties I know you know this and I am preaching to the converted .  

I also know that recent times are hitting you hard and you have my deepest sympathies.  I feel much the same as yourself with regard to this wasteful and pointless un-winnable conflict but I cannot truly feel what you are having to deal with as the people involved are not known or connected to me.


----------



## James Kovacich (Jul 13, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> Then again if you can shoot at them and then walk into a house and not be followed lend themselves to it's amazing we don't have more casualities (*nearly half of which have been suffered in the last two years). *
> 
> Every American death is a trajedy. But the fact is over 9 years we've had less than 1,200 of them Pax,
> 
> Chris


 
I'm not sure where you got your numbers from and whose "watch" is being blamed ("bolded" text above) but these are the numbers I've found for Irag and Afghanistan. It seems that since Obama took office on 1/20/2009 the total deaths are not even close to the "half in last 2 years" as suggested. Iraqs numbers are included but they should be. Of the 5524 American deaths (excluding July 2010) in Iraq and Afghanistan, 689 deaths occurred after Obama took office and 4835 (2001-2008) were before Obama took office.

2010: 228 (excluding July) http://projects.washingtonpost.com/fallen/dates/2010/
2009:461 http://projects.washingtonpost.com/fallen/dates/2009/
2008:465 http://projects.washingtonpost.com/fallen/dates/2008/
2007: 1019 http://projects.washingtonpost.com/fallen/dates/2007/
2006: 918
2005: 942
2004: 900
2003: 531
2002: 48
2001: 12 http://projects.washingtonpost.com/fallen/dates/

If anyone wishes they can "click" to see the actual faces.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Jul 13, 2010)

James Kovacich said:


> I'm not sure where you got your numbers from and whose "watch" is being blamed ("bolded" text above) but these are the numbers I've found for Irag and Afghanistan.


 
http://www.icasualties.org/oef/

317 U.S. deaths in 2009, 228 U.S. deaths in 2010. Compared to a total of 1175 U.S. deaths since 2001. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd (Jul 13, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Chris, _you don't like me or my posts_ so give it a rest mate, it's boring.


 
Actually, Tez, I'm indifferent to you. If you post about something and I disagree (or agree) with it I'm perfectly capable of posting since this is a public forum. 



> Life in Iraq infinitely worse now, it's a matter of scale. No one said Saddam was great or even alright but he was a non religious buffer. Our 'allies' the Turks also kill and persecute the Kurds, nothing said about that.


 
So, since people haven't invaded Turkey they shouldn't have invaded Iraq? Is that what you're saying? This is a serious question because this statement of yours isn't clear to me. 

You can't involve yourself in every possible conflict in the world. A country has limited resources and there will be some conflicts that simply will be unwinable. The people who are in the government are generally the ones who have to exercise prudential judgments about which conflicts - if any - the country gets involved in. They generally have more information on the matter than a private citizen. If people don't like enough of their decisions they can be, at least in the U.S. and other democratic countries, voted out of office. 



> Karzai* is* corrupt through and through.


 
And here in the real world you don't get to deal with angels all the time. He was probably the best we were going to get in Afghanistan. It was him of the Taliban.  



> He doesn't care who'd in charge as long as it's him, he's long been an Al Queda sympathiser, you can't blame Obama for that.


 
What I "blame" Obama for is stuipidly insulting Karzai to the point where he feels he has little if any support from the U.S. and so will be much more willing to cozy up to al-Qaida. Foreign policy isn't exactly Barak's strong suit, as he continues to demonstrate since day one (how's that bust of Churchill look back at 21 Downing St or wherever you guys stashed it since he threw it back in your faces?).  



> Obama is being honest and there's little point in him not telling the truth.


 
And his honesty is going to have severe consequences. For all his lip service about diplomacy he's demonstrated he has no idea what he's doing in that area.  



> While the government, police (they are very corrupt, we work with them out there, untrustworthy and mostly druggies) and army in Afghan is corrupt it's a waste of breath trying to even think there's going to be a decent standard of living or democracy there. Karzai is an example of evrything wrong about that place.


 
Oh, for the good old days of the Taliban! You're really beginning to sound a bit like people who would say "At least the made the trains run on time!" when talking about Mussolini. 



> Most of the Al Queda terrorist cells are in Pakistan and Kashmir not Afghanistan, they are training Muslims from the UK and the States then sending them back.


 
So, we should have invaded Pakistan? Or Kashmir? because either one of those areas would've been better to fight a war in? Conflicts there would've been more winable? 

Entering any conflict is a matter of prudential judgement based on your ability to win (aming other things). Pakistan in ostensibly a U.S. ally, despite Obama's statement that he would invade it. That is generally frowned upon by people who are allies. YMMV But, again, remember that behaviors - even "diplomatic" statements like that one - have consequences.  



> New strategies and fresh thinking are needed on the terrorist situation, we aen't going to stop them by being in afghan.


 
Perhaps not, but Afghanistan was never supposed to be a one size fits all theatre of operations.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jul 14, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> What? The Brits didn't occupy Ireland?


[/quote]

No, not really. Ireland and Englad were in an English led union since the 1500s in one form or another, similar to Wales and Scotland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Union_1800

You are referring to the troubles they had, but that was not the English invading Northern Ireland, it was the UK sending in the military to halt a violent conflict between 2 groups of people, one of which wanted to stay in the union and the other didn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles

It would be more like if half the population of Texas wanted to secede, and the other half didn't want to, and they started a civil war. Then the National Guard would be sent in to stop the violence.



Archangel M said:


> It's kind of hard to run "covert ops" without a base of operations in the mideast when you are America. And when you do you get criticized for it anyway.



Well, it would help if the US didn't suck at it and had some sense of reality. 1 such covert op put Saddam in power. Another turned Iran from a democratic country into the current fundamentalist regime. That's hardly a good track record, considering all the long term damage that has been done, and considering how much people died because of it.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 14, 2010)

Chris, again with the words in my mouth! Thank you for the lecture, unnecessary though, as you've put the words in my mouth the whole  of your lecture is skewed..badly. So we'll leave it there shall we. If you chose to ignore the mods warning about making personal you do it on your own, don't involve me.

As for me being classless, you'll find that's not an insult here, Maggie Thatcher's aim was for a classless society, we still have the working class of course, the middle class and the upper class but on the whole being classless is probably best as one can move between these classes easily fitting in anywhere.

Bruno is correct about Northern Ireland, we went in to separate the two sides intent on killing each other, it led to a bloody conflict not over yet. it's Marching Season there, where the Proptestants march through as many Catholic areas as they can get away with and there's been riots and injuries to the police ( that army no longer is used so the police are on their own)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lence-Northern-Ireland.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Thank you, Sukerkin for your thoughts, it's like having your sons away at war, my instructor and I both wince then hold our breath whenever a death is announced. Being not long out of the army many of his mates are out there too. The good thing is the cheerfulness and stoicism of the soldiers left here and in training (so young they are only 17 and to my old eyes, children) they have unfailing good humour and still manage to get into enough trouble to keep us occupied lol! We've had troops away before but this time it's worse, it's not even the numbers being killed, it's the numbers being wounded. It's every young mans nightmare I think to lose a limb, worse if it's legs and the lost of his genitals, the fear is quite real. For such young fit men you can only imagine the despair yet they are going out their having lost limbs and are climbing mountains, running marathoms etc but it's still so wrong that these young people are being maimed for life. You wonder at the feeling deep down at not being whole anymore. Long after the war is over we will be counting the cost.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Jul 14, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Chris, again with the words in my mouth! Thank you for the lecture, unnecessary though, as you've put the words in my mouth the whole of your lecture is skewed..badly. So we'll leave it there shall we. If you chose to ignore the mods warning about making personal you do it on your own, don't involve me.


 
I'd be interested in seeing the words I put in your mouth, Tez. 

I've already pointed out how you've completely exagerrated my "reaction" to your posts (see the comment you made above about me having a negative reaction to every post on any topic here on MT) and this comment seems to me to be just another example. If the mods have a serious problem with my posts I expect they would let me know. In fact I hope they would do so. 



> As for me being classless, you'll find that's not an insult here, Maggie Thatcher's aim was for a classless society, we still have the working class of course, the middle class and the upper class but on the whole being classless is probably best as one can move between these classes easily fitting in anywhere.


 
Where's the rimshot smiley when you need it, Tez?  

It's a shame that vaunted English humor isn't a universal characteristic. Keep trying, though. 

The rest of your reply was irrelevant to my post.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 15, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> I'd be interested in seeing the words I put in your mouth, Tez.
> 
> I've already pointed out how you've completely exagerrated my "reaction" to your posts (see the comment you made above about me having a negative reaction to every post on any topic here on MT) and this comment seems to me to be just another example. If the mods have a serious problem with my posts I expect they would let me know. In fact I hope they would do so.
> 
> ...


 

That might be because it was addressed to Sukerkin?

Again the snarky remarks, though, wasted because I haven't got he foggiest idea what a 'rimshot' is. You are making posts that are personal attacks on me. Fine but don't expect me to play.


----------



## Hand Sword (Jul 15, 2010)

Many have their views as to why, and I won't argue with any of them. For me, it's a simple reason as to why. Ultimately, for the US military it comes down to orders. The ultimate buck stops at the desk and mind of the Commander and Chief of the forces which is the President of the United States. So, why are we there? Because he hasn't recalled the forces from there. Simple.
The why to that reason is a whole 'nother thread


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 15, 2010)

*Folks, can you work out the personal differences via PM, or use the ignore feature, or let it go already?  Some comments and tone are getting dangerously close to breaking any of a dozen rules and we'd appreciate it if we didn't have to start issuing infractions cards. Be nice to finish a month without them you know.....

Thanks.
The Mgmt.
*


----------



## teekin (Jul 16, 2010)

Tez and Chrisp, you know you both have made some very good points. It got me to look at the conflict from a few different angles. The Content of your posts was highly informative, well thought and argued. Our involvment in Iraq and Afgan one of those "Doublethink" kind of things. It's so complicted, like jackstraws. How can you make one move one without disturbing the whole strucuture? Thanks for giving me the Doublethink moment. I enjoy those. :drinkbeer

Now if you two didn't snipe and bicker it would make reading and enjoying your posts so much easier. Please , please desist._ Dente'_ OK? Please? :dramaqueen:

Lori


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 18, 2010)

Grendel308 said:


> Tez and Chrisp, you know you both have made some very good points. It got me to look at the conflict from a few different angles. The Content of your posts was highly informative, well thought and argued. Our involvment in Iraq and Afgan one of those "Doublethink" kind of things. It's so complicted, like jackstraws. How can you make one move one without disturbing the whole strucuture? Thanks for giving me the Doublethink moment. I enjoy those. :drinkbeer
> 
> Now if you two didn't snipe and bicker it would make reading and enjoying your posts so much easier. Please , please desist._ Dente'_ OK? Please? :dramaqueen:
> 
> Lori


 
Thank you for thinking I was being childish, sadly if I was I'd be happy to thought that if I was indeed being petty but I'm watching daily as people I work with, train with and am friends with are being killed and maimed so don't expect me to be all sweetness and light where this subject is concerned. Four soldier were killed yesterday, one from my husbands old squadron, one from the Royal Marines, a bomb disposal tech and a soldier from a regiment I work closely with. I've lost two martial arts students in a year and  a three close colleagues, we have double and triple amputees who we are trying to help back into work in the military in a useful capacity so they don't feel they are being condescended to.

I have 20 martial arts students out there, countless colleagues, a dozen or more fathers of the children I teach, my next door neighbour, my 'neighbour' across the road and one three doors up. A couple in the next street, the boyfriends and husbands of our clerks, the husbands of hundreds wives who we check with as to their security, the fathers and mothers of three primary schools and one secondary school here on the garrison, our club fitness coach and his 19 year son are out in Afghan. We have thousands of soldiers out there, just from here, not the rest of the UK from right here and dammit if I don't know most of them so its never going to be an academic subject for me, its always going to be passionate, worrying and I'm never, even if it means being thrown off MT, going to stand by and say nothing when something I feel strongly about is said wrongly. For you it may be small and relatively unimportant but for me, never.


----------



## geezer (Jul 18, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> I have 20 martial arts students out there, countless colleagues, a dozen or more fathers of the children I teach, my next door neighbour, my 'neighbour' across the road and one three doors up. A couple in the next street, the boyfriends and husbands of our clerks, the husbands of hundreds wives who we check with as to their security, the fathers and mothers of three primary schools and one secondary school here on the garrison, our club fitness coach and his 19 year son are out in Afghan. We have thousands of soldiers out there, just from here, not the rest of the UK from right here and dammit if I don't know most of them so its never going to be an academic subject for me, its always going to be passionate...



Tez, you clearly have a closer connection than most with many who are serving, or have served, and in some cases have even been wounded or killed in Afghanistan. Here in the states, few outside of military communities have that direct a connection to what's going on "over there". And that is a big factor in how people view things. For most of my life, I've had relatively little direct contact with servicemen. But when I became a high-school teacher in a blue collar community, that changed a bit. Now some of my former students are serving. Former students from my district have died. None of mine yet, thank God. But just out of curiosity, as a person living in a long ways away, how is it that you have so many contacts with servicemen and women? Are you or your spouse or family in the military, or living near a base? I ask, because I value your informed perspective.


----------



## elder999 (Jul 18, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> Having read the MOD obituries of another two fine soldiers lost in this conflict that isn't even a war, I am struck by need to ask the question flat out -
> 
> - what on earth are we doing there?


 
Look at your U.S. history, and you can trace it right back through Viet Nam (an excellent parallel, IMNSHO) directly to Texas, and see that what we're doing there is _remembering the Alamo..._ :lol:


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 18, 2010)

geezer said:


> Tez, you clearly have a closer connection than most with many who are serving, or have served, and in some cases have even been wounded or killed in Afghanistan. Here in the states, few outside of military communities have that direct a connection to what's going on "over there". And that is a big factor in how people view things. For most of my life, I've had relatively little direct contact with servicemen. But when I became a high-school teacher in a blue collar community, that changed a bit. Now some of my former students are serving. Former students from my district have died. None of mine yet, thank God. But just out of curiosity, as a person living in a long ways away, how is it that you have so many contacts with servicemen and women? Are you or your spouse or family in the military, or living near a base? I ask, because I value your informed perspective.


 
I'm employed by the Ministry Defence in uniform but not in the military  (though I am ex RAF as is my husband) and live on Catterick Garrison, I work with the military and our MA club is Catterick Garrison Martial Arts Club, we train in the Scots Guards Barracks. Most of our students are soldiers (male and female) and our childrens class is made up of dependants of the military, the women's class I teach is specifically for the wives and daughters of soldiers. The Garrison is bigger than the local town, Richmond which relies to a large extent on the Garrison for employment and support, it's a huge part of local life.
Poignantly, the  barracks, schools, roads etc are named after First World war battles... Somme,Ypres, Bourlon, Gaza, le Cateau etc. The Brigade HQ is in Baden-Powell House which became Lord Baden-Powell's HQ during the first war, before that it was in the local castle in Richmond, in the Garrison HQ Perrone House there is a collection of photos dating from the the first world war time through the second world war to the present day. As well as the regiments and corps here we have the Infantry Training Centre which trains all the infantry as well as the Paras, Gurkhas and the Guards regiments. We have three primary schools, one secondary school, a radio station - part of BFBS, a sports/leisure complex even our own town centre! We have a very large training area for tanks as well as the infantry. the married quarters here are spread in estates throughout the Garriosn but there's a couple of thousand houses as well as block of accomodation for the 'singlies'.
Stationed here are two medical regiments, a REME regt, the Scots Guards, the Lancashire Regmient, 5 Regt Royal Artillery, 1 Mercian Regt, 150 RMP Det. The Queens Draggon Guards, the Queens Royal Lancers. Part of the Brigae but half an hour down the road we have the Army Air Corps and a Royal Horse Artiilery regt. Twenty mins down the road is RAF Leeming with it's flying sqns and the RAF Regiment. All of these units are currently in Afghan ( with 40 CDO RM currently attached to the Brigade along with other units) leaving only rear parties. The Brigade returns in October. 

http://www.army.mod.uk/structure/9958.aspx


BTW I'm not saying I'm right about things just how I feel.


----------



## Blade96 (Jul 18, 2010)

_I've been reading the snipes and tbh i was enjoying the snipes, maybe not the name calling but I think those two are great_ but the fact that Tez was so passionate, i just knew it was something that affected her personally. Maybe Chris too because they argue so much. and it seems to affect both of them.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 18, 2010)

Blade96 said:


> _I've been reading the snipes and tbh i was enjoying the snipes, maybe not the name calling but I think those two are great_ but the fact that Tez was so passionate, i just knew it was something that affected her personally. Maybe Chris too because they *argue so much. *and it seems to affect both of them.


 
It's not just my posts, or this thread or even this subject.

I had said several times why I was so het up about it, I explained exactly why and what.


----------



## Blade96 (Jul 18, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> It's not just my posts, or this thread or even this subject.
> 
> I had said several times why I was so het up about it, I explained exactly why and what.



That you did. I'm sorry for you and everyone who lost a loved one, family, friends, pets, etc. in wars. Not good.

My sympathies go out to you, Irene, and everyone else.


----------



## teekin (Jul 18, 2010)

Tez, my friend, I don't think you are being childish in the least. I am deeply sorry if I convayed that. I can sense your passion and compassion for your Mates, students and all the young boys that serve in that quagmire. I do not diminish either their sacrafice or your feelings towards that gift. 

All I am saying is you make your points ellquently with facts without taking personal shots at anyone. I get that you are invested in this as deep as one can be. I wish you nothing but peace, however you find it.

Lori


----------

