Search Sort Posts:  Oldest to newest Newest to oldest

17/08/2009, 8:22 AM Storm Joined on 27/07/2009 Posts 379 The List Grows What a sad waste of lives. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7799610.stm    Report

17/08/2009, 8:43 AM Storm Joined on 27/07/2009 Posts 379 Re: The List Grows Just what have we got ourselves into? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8191018.stm    Report

17/08/2009, 12:52 PM ROBERT Joined on 16/08/2003 NR Gt. Yarmouth Posts 4,226 Re: The List Grows I agree storm, but that is the price to be paid in a war or conflict....death is a direct result of being involved, and was known before we started sending troops in to battle. The goalposts of conflict are so different in recent years, and death is not so much an issue to the enemy you are up against as we are all well aware of....    Report

17/08/2009, 2:45 PM Bemused Joined on 19/08/2003 Europe Posts 1,167 Re: The List Grows But, Robert, are we not entitled to ask if the war is justified? On another thread , nevermind has listed the reasons for opposing this enterprise. Are we for corruption, the drug trade and the subjugation of women?   Hasta La Victoria Siempre !    Report

17/08/2009, 3:40 PM Rupert Joined on 19/11/2007 Posts 1,412 Re: The List Grows The question about justification isn't that simple. Should the UK (or rather NATO, because the UK forces were committed through NATO) comply with requests for troop deployments from the UN?  Is the UN entitled (or qualified) to decide whether a war is justified or not? The UK - like every other member of NATO - can deny NATO the availability of its forces in a given theatre of operations, but were it to do so, where would NATO get replacements from? - Would NATO then be obliged to turn down the UN request? Rupert    Report

17/08/2009, 3:59 PM Snybarb Joined on 31/03/2005 Posts 573 Re: The List Grows  Rupert wrote: The question about justification isn't that simple. Should the UK (or rather NATO, because the UK forces were committed through NATO) comply with requests for troop deployments from the UN?  Is the UN entitled (or qualified) to decide whether a war is justified or not? The UK - like every other member of NATO - can deny NATO the availability of its forces in a given theatre of operations, but were it to do so, where would NATO get replacements from? - Would NATO then be obliged to turn down the UN request? France, Germany, Italy, Holland,----------- We are told that this war is to frustrate the terrorists (e,g.  9/11,  London bombings, etc) Do these other countries not benefit  from what our forces,  & the US forces, are doing?  Why shouldn't they share the burden ? Probably a very good way of making the rest of the UN face up to what all their speech-making  should lead to, instead of just being a talking shop. Snybarb    Report

17/08/2009, 6:06 PM Matty Joined on 29/01/2004 Posts 2,444 Re: The List Grows It makes me very annoyed that nobody appears to recognise that Canada has lost 127 of our fighting forces since 2002.  Yes we are part of Nato, but that was formed to protect Europe.   Canada is operating in the Helmand Province with the Brits and the USA forces and in Khandahar, where the heaviest fighting is being waged. And the costs are being born by our taxpayers just like yours.  Canada just had to purchase 15 chinnook helicopters[a 1.5 billion dollar layout],  for their required arilifts as they did not have the machines, and not one of the Nato forces was prepared to loan them. but needed their own - and many of them in use in Europe. The Brits and the US did their best, , but the other countries in Nato appeared to be most reluctant to help. Canada had previously provided the Peace corp sections of Nato, so did not have the airlifting capacity. Canada is due to come out of Afghanistan in 2011 but huge pressure is now being applied to persuade us that we are desperately needed.  What the hell for ?  If women are being treated like they are (now by law, according to the new constitution), I see no need to put our troops in harms way.  If PM Harper does another 180 and agrees to stay longer in Afghanistan, I doubt his government will last - jiggery pokery or not. See our Roll of Honour. 2002 - 2209 Aug 1st. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/casualties/list.html and on top of that one of the EU countries demands that Canada take in their economic refugees who arrive to gain entry jumping the queue of others who have waited for years for legitimate entry, just because we are part of Nato.  What a crock!! Time for us to come out of Nato also, Europe is able to stand on it's own.    Report

18/08/2009, 12:52 AM ROBERT Joined on 16/08/2003 NR Gt. Yarmouth Posts 4,226 Re: The List Grows  Bemused wrote: But, Robert, are we not entitled to ask if the war is justified? On another thread , nevermind has listed the reasons for opposing this enterprise. Are we for corruption, the drug trade and the subjugation of women? Yes Bemused we can all ask if it is justified, and probably the more people you ask the more different answers will be the result. I really don`t have a logicial answer as the situation of fighting todays enemy, is like fighting robots. Kill ten and ten more appear elsewhere, and its hard to fight suicide bombers. Some leaders have so much power and we are not fighting just any enemy but a culture as well. The best we can hope for is to keep some sort of lid on it all, but the problem i fear may never go away in the near future. I am not in the know to form a full justfied opinion, other than if everyone pulls out you give a free obligation for the enemy to grow into something we may regret..... it is the nature of the beast that is being fought and hunted..... and we respect life, but the enemy appears not to do so and maybe spreading global. So the fight apears to be being fought on different levels.. In my view its a cancer against peace.    Report

18/08/2009, 11:31 AM Rupert Joined on 19/11/2007 Posts 1,412 Re: The List Grows  Snybarb wrote: France, Germany, Italy, Holland,----------- We are told that this war is to frustrate the terrorists (e,g.  9/11,  London bombings, etc) Do these other countries not benefit  from what our forces,  & the US forces, are doing?  Why shouldn't they share the burden ? Probably a very good way of making the rest of the UN face up to what all their speech-making  should lead to, instead of just being a talking shop. Snybarb I've posted this before, but anyway: Summary of major troop contributions (over 500, April 3, 2009)   ISAF (International Security Assistance Force)  total - 64,500    United States - 29,950  United Kingdom - 9,000  Germany - 4,050  France - 3,160  Canada - 2,830  Italy - 2,795  Poland - 2,000  Netherlands - 1,770  Australia - 1,090  Romania - 1025  Spain - 780  Turkey - 730  Denmark - 700  Belgium - 510  Norway - 485  Bulgaria - 470  Sweden - 397  Czech Republic - 340 The Americans (5% of the world's population) are providing over 46% of the troops.  The Brits (1% of the world's population) are providing 14% of the troops.  The figures are disproportionate, but they're not 'going it alone'. The countries on the list represent less than 15% of the world's population.  The other 85% aren't involved. The UN has 192 member states (including Afghanistan, which seems to be exporting large numbers of  'males of military age' to the UK.)  Afghanistan does provide many (apparently very determined and brave) soldiers and that brings the number of UN countries providing significant numbers of troops up to 19.  Less than 10%.   (There are about 24 other countries making very small contributions.) The list doesn't include Pakistan, which is also fighting against the Taliban on its own territory and is suffering huge losses - both military and civilian.  Easy to say "It's their own fault for allowing the Taliban to set up so many bases on their territory" but that was under the 'old management'. - The current regime in Pakistan is trying to do something about it - and paying a very heavy price. I thought we weren't allowed to say "the UN is just a talking shop?"  I seem to remember that about 6 years ago, when people in the US (and some in the UK) said that the UN was just a talking shop, there was an outcry. - And there was an outcry on this forum, too. Rupert    Report

18/08/2009, 8:16 PM Snybarb Joined on 31/03/2005 Posts 573 Re: The List Grows  Rupert wrote:  Snybarb wrote: France, Germany, Italy, Holland,----------- We are told that this war is to frustrate the terrorists (e,g.  9/11,  London bombings, etc) Do these other countries not benefit  from what our forces,  & the US forces, are doing?  Why shouldn't they share the burden ? Probably a very good way of making the rest of the UN face up to what all their speech-making  should lead to, instead of just being a talking shop. Snybarb I've posted this before, but anyway: Summary of major troop contributions (over 500, April 3, 2009)   ISAF (International Security Assistance Force)  total - 64,500    United States - 29,950  United Kingdom - 9,000  Germany - 4,050  France - 3,160  Canada - 2,830  Italy - 2,795  Poland - 2,000  Netherlands - 1,770  Australia - 1,090  Romania - 1025  Spain - 780  Turkey - 730  Denmark - 700  Belgium - 510  Norway - 485  Bulgaria - 470  Sweden - 397  Czech Republic - 340 The Americans (5% of the world's population) are providing over 46% of the troops.  The Brits (1% of the world's population) are providing 14% of the troops.  The figures are disproportionate, but they're not 'going it alone'. The countries on the list represent less than 15% of the world's population.  The other 85% aren't involved. The UN has 192 member states (including Afghanistan, which seems to be exporting large numbers of  'males of military age' to the UK.)  Afghanistan does provide many (apparently very determined and brave) soldiers and that brings the number of UN countries providing significant numbers of troops up to 19.  Less than 10%.   (There are about 24 other countries making very small contributions.) The list doesn't include Pakistan, which is also fighting against the Taliban on its own territory and is suffering huge losses - both military and civilian.  Easy to say "It's their own fault for allowing the Taliban to set up so many bases on their territory" but that was under the 'old management'. - The current regime in Pakistan is trying to do something about it - and paying a very heavy price. I thought we weren't allowed to say "the UN is just a talking shop?"  I seem to remember that about 6 years ago, when people in the US (and some in the UK) said that the UN was just a talking shop, there was an outcry. - And there was an outcry on this forum, too. Rupert Thanks for the timely reminder of your table of figures. To my mind  these other nations should be supporting the military action to a much greater extent. It's the disproportion which sticks in my gullet. Matty The Canadians have taken a horribly large number of fatalities, and could justifiably claim that they have more than "done their bit".         It isn't some sort of morbid competition, but the USA & UK forces have reason to feel   resentful of countries like Germany & France, etc., when you look at Rupert's figures. Regarding the UN,  why on earth can't we recognise that all it ever seems to do is talk, or send in "peace-keeping forces" which stand by & watch as ethnic murder continues.  Just consider Sudan, Kosovo, or Palestine, and tell me what difference the UN made to any of those situations ! Snybarb    Report

18/08/2009, 10:03 PM Rupert Joined on 19/11/2007 Posts 1,412 Re: The List Grows  Snybarb wrote: ...To my mind  these other nations should be supporting the military action to a much greater extent. It's the disproportion which sticks in my gullet.... Which other nations? - the remainder of the 15% of the world's population - less the Brits and the Americans - who are doing something, or the 85% who are prepared to do nothing, but just sit around hoping somebody else will do the work?  The UN asked NATO to help.  NATO did and NATO has shouldered the burden for a long time.  Why has the UN not asked those of is member states who aren't involved to provide troops? Each NATO nation (and indeed each of the non-NATO nations) is a sovereign state and may commit - or decline to commit - as many or as few troops as its leadership chooses.   Snybarb wrote: Regarding the UN,  why on earth can't we recognise that all it ever seems to do is talk, or send in "peace-keeping forces" which stand by & watch as ethnic murder continues.  Just consider Sudan, Kosovo, or Palestine, and tell me what difference the UN made to any of those situations ! I agree completely.  People have been talking about 'reforming' the UN for years, but nobody is willing to do so.  The UN is a 'talking shop' - a shop which provides a pretty good living for a number of people (and their relations.)  Perhaps the UN should go the way of the League of Nations. - Or perhaps they should start their own internet forum and waffle there. - It would be far cheaper and probably have aabout the same affect. What sticks in my gullet is not the fact that the UK is sending large numbers of troops to Afghanistan, but rather that Afghanistan is sending large numbers of  'military aged' men to the UK (to get them out of harm's way?)  It is their country and their people should be called upon first to solve their  internal problem. Has Mr Khazi thought about introducing a draft?  Has he asked the British (or the French) Governments to repatriate the young Afghans queueing up on the French coast, or who have already crossed into the UK? If, as General Sir David Richards says, Britain can expect a 40-year presence in Afghanistan, then there could in the future be difficulty in recruiting enough soldiers.  It's all very well for Gordon Brown to insist that we need to keep British Soldiers in Afghanistan, but what is he (or his successor) going to do if people won't join the Army? The French have a Foreign Legion.  When a legionnaire retires, he is entitled to French citizenship. Gordon Brown has finally been shamed into allowing Gurkhas who retired from the British Army to live in the UK. Why not: 1.  Form a Foreign Legion. 2.  Offer all  illegal immigrants of military age (the UK minimum enlistment age is 16 years; the maximum is 33) a choice between:  (a) serving in that legion and on retirememnt, obtaining British Citizenship or   (b) the alternative of immediate deportation with a 10-year suspended sentence for illegal immigration - to be enforced should they re-offend. Howls of horror! "You can't force them to serve in the armed forces." Why not? - We've had conscription in the UK before and if the Army experiences a severe shortage of recruits, it could happen again. It seems to me to be ludicrous that we are sending our soldiers to fight in Afghanistan and they are sending their young men to the UK.   Anyway, they would not being forced to serve.  They would be offered well-paid employment (same rate of pay and same conditions as the Gurkhas) and although they've made one choice - they chose to be illegal immigrants - they are being given another. If they don't serve in the foreign legion (a well-paid job; a job in which they would be needed) how are they going to earn their living? I'm not just picking on Afghan immigrants - Make the offer to all illegal immigrants.           Rupert    Report

19/08/2009, 3:08 AM Matty Joined on 29/01/2004 Posts 2,444 Re: The List Grows The nations contributing to the war and showing the number of them in Afghanistan lacks a true picture, unless you show the map of where the fighting is rampant and who is taking on the master task. Doing the fighting in Helmand Province, and the south since 2006 are the Canadians, Austrailians, Brits and United States, with a very small contigency of other nations in specialist roles.. The fatalities reflect the intesity of the conflict.  Agreed nobody can say there is really one single front, but the south is the area which is causing most of the problems, and only four of the main participants are getting stuck in there. This old lady understands war, and it's repercussions, and I get mightily pi88ed off on hearing constantly 9from the media in Europe and the USA ) that the USA and the Brits are the only ones fighting the bulk of the insurgency.  You only meet death in these circumstances if you are in heavy fighting.  It is obvious that other nations are remaining in 'safer areas'..Really, it is where you are and what role you have taken on, rather than how many soldiers you offered. http://www.icasualties.org/OEF/ByNationality.aspx I would suggest that France and Germany get their fingers out and move some additonal troops to the south.  Perhaps there would less death for any country. Matty ps. thinking about your foreign legion style enlistment Rupert.    Report

19/08/2009, 9:32 AM Rupert Joined on 19/11/2007 Posts 1,412 Re: The List Grows  Matty wrote: ...I would suggest that France and Germany get their fingers out and move some additonal troops to the south.  Perhaps there would less death for any country. Matty ps. thinking about your foreign legion style enlistment Rupert. It seems that France and Germany choose not to do so - as is their right. NATO as a whole has done its bit; it's time for the UN to 'finger' somebody else. If you think back to the end of May/beginning of June 1940 (you can do that, Matty - most of us would have to look it up in books) the British, Canadian and French forces were driven out of France and crossed the Channel to the UK. Had they kept going - got on a train to Liverpool, got on ships to the US and said to the Americans: "We've been driven out of France, please feed us, give us homes and send your soldiers to finish the job" what would the reaction of the Americans, Canadians and those left behind in England have been? Disgust, perhaps. They didn't, of course.  They re-grouped, licked their wounds, mobilised more of their people and attacked back. The war in Afghanistan has been going on for nearly 8 years now. - Rather longer than WWll.  Is Afghanistan fully mobilised?  Is it hell.  Large numbers of their potential troops are legging it as fast and as far as they can.   If the people shown on the video footage filmed  around Calais, and those caught on lorries and trains entering the UK were the sick, the elderly, women and children one could understand it.  They are not, though. The Afghans aren't the first to do this.  During the war in Kosovo there were plenty of Kosovan refugees, but they weren't just the sick, the elderly,  the women and children, were they?  I've no doubt that the Kosovans needed help to stop the Serbs, but it seems that many of them decided they didn't want to be involved; they'd rather somebody else did the job. Any male who emigrates to the US is obliged to certify that either (a) he is too old to be considered for the draft, or (b) that he has completed the Selective Service Registration paperwork (registered for the draft.)  That's not to become a US citizen;  that's merely to get the right to stay there.    Citizenship through Military Service  is not a new idea.   "Members and certain veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces are eligible to apply for United States citizenship under special provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). In addition, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has streamlined the application and naturalization process for military personnel serving on active-duty or recently discharged. Generally, qualifying service is in one of the following branches: Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, certain reserve components of the National Guard and the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve."  Matty in an earlier post wrote: ...and on top of that one of the EU countries demands that Canada take in their economic refugees who arrive to gain entry jumping the queue of others who have waited for years for legitimate entry, just because we are part of Nato.  What a crock!! Time for us to come out of Nato also, Europe is able to stand on it's own. I suspect that a number of people in both Canada and the US may feel the same way.  When NATO asks for additional funding and additional personnel from certain members, the answer is "We can't afford it.  We need to keep our money to pay for our social and welfare programmes." Fair comment, but the US under Obama is also trying to improve its social and welfare programmes.  I've heard a number of Americans say: "Why should we, who don't have very much in the way of social and welfare programmes be spending our tax dollars on European defence so that the European governments have money to fund their programmes?" The muttering about defence expenditure is getting louder. In  NATO Funding Disparity Persists, (Feb 2009) the author notes: "European NATO members continue to spend, on average, well under 2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) on defense, according to new figures provided by the Atlantic alliance. The average for European allies is 1.7 percent, whereas the U.S. GDP allotment in 2008 was 4 percent, NATO says. The U.S. spends by far more per-capita on defense than any other NATO members. In fact, the U.S. last year spent about 44 percent more on defense than all other NATO members combined. According to NATO, among European members, Greece spent the highest percentage of GDP on defense, with 2.8 percent. France, not a full NATO member, had the highest absolute outlay on defense last year among the European countries, taking over from the United Kingdom, which held that distinction in 2007." Should Obama - who is not widely seen as being a proponent of huge defence expenditure - decide that the defence budget should be trimmed to help him pay for social and welfare programmes in the US, then the Eruopean members of NATO will have to dig deeper into their own pockets.   Rupert    Report

26/08/2009, 12:12 AM Matty Joined on 29/01/2004 Posts 2,444 Re: The List Grows It appears that Canada has no intention of remaining in a fighting role in Afghanistan after 2011 as previously agreed. Rarely does the Defence Minister get so blunt and issue such a statement. It will be up to other countries to fill the gap.    Our PM dare not do a 180 on this as he has on other issues.  The electorate is just not with him if he does.  Everyone at home here is saying " we do not fight to enslave women", the soldiers appear to be quite content to stay however, and I don't understand their reasoning. http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/NationalNewsArticle.htm?&src=n082557A.xml    Report

27/08/2009, 1:04 PM nevermind Joined on 28/05/2007 Posts 3,173 Re: The List Grows The war in Afghanistan has been going on for nearly 8 years now. Rupert, this is your view of the war and its current consequences, that is not how an Afghan would perceive it, Afghnaistan has been at war for over 20 years and the country is ruined, still. Our soldiers are dying to bring democracy by the sword and the Taliban threatens voters and out of 60.000 merely 150 turn up. So we are not promoting any democratic discourse, the Taliban has more clout in Helmand after 8 years of fighting. meanwhile Karzais family business in opium and oil is siphoning monies into tax havens and foreign bank accounts, and the election now finished for days, has still not been counted, but messages from many monitors shows that hardly anybody outside major urban connurbations bothered to vote. Far from accusing other NATO countries from shirking their responsibility, NATO should ask itself whether its vague aims and objectives are achieveing anything, whether their effectual protection of the heroin trade, a result of Karzai's and Dostums value adding operation in huge labs, is excusable. Further NATO should realise that their support for huge bases like karshi khanabad, holding three US squadrons, once a Russian base in Uzbekistan, is erroding its moral base to this intervention by supporting torture and regression in a totalitarian state. The US was more cockahoop about taking over a russian airfiled than fit cared for the human rights of the population, just as in Diego Garcia, Columbia, Nicaragua and other places werte its hegemony has led them astray from their once noble goals.   NATO is being subverted and should get out of Afghanistan, it is not a US poodle and fighting there has never achieved anything but more fighting.   If America cannot afford its hegemonial machinations anymore, thats fine with us, they should save their money and bring their troops home, they do not need to spend 4%of GDP on violence torture and war just to keeep the vested interests happy, they can spend more money on healthcare, just stop supporting pushers like Karzai and torturers like Karimov.   Far from Europe digging deeper for a fairer share of this dying for nothing much, secretive India and Israel should stop mongering in Pakistans inner affairs and rescind from arming factions, such a Lashka I Toibar, that can be described as professional terrorists, it is not tennable that those who ally themselves to US interests, nuclear or otherwise, should not work to undermine the stability of Pakistan and Afghanistan, its counterproductive, will not solve the problem just create more. nevermind              Report

Page 1 of 3 (32 items) 1 2 3 >

EDP24 Forums » EDP24 General » News » The List Grows

(Quick links) Forums Home |- Search Forums |- Active Topics |- Unanswered Posts User Options |- Sign In |- Join this community |- Forgot Password EDP24 General |- Announcement |- News |- Sport |-- Bowls |-- Golf |-- Horses |-- Cycling |-- Tennis |-- Sailing |-- Local football |-- King's Lynn FC |-- Speedway |-- Cricket |-- Boxing |-- Rugby |-- Hockey |-- Angling |-- Motorsport |- Favourite East Anglian book |- Community Noticeboard |- User Polls |- EDP Event magazine - Your Reviews |-- Music - Next Big Thing |---- 2004 |---- 2005 |---- 2006 |---- Band promotion EDP24 Features |- Norfolk's Big Quit |- Family History |- Arts, Antiques and Collectables |- Norfolk Equestrian |- EDP Book Club |- Frontline - forces forum |- Memories |- Reunion |-- ExPats |-- Workplace |-- Forces |-- Friends & Neighbours |-- Schools |-- Family History and Local Connections |- Spooky Norfolk |- Shop Here |- Support your pub |- Your Rubbish, Your Choice