Search Sort Posts:  Oldest to newest Newest to oldest

07/11/2009, 10:30 AM thelibrarian Joined on 27/08/2009 Posts 392 Time to lock Brown in his cabin? In old movies, when the captain loses the plot and endangers the lives of his crew, along comes a hero to lock the captain in his cabin and to take control, thus saving the men and the day. If General Lord Guthrie, Admiral Lord Boyce and Field Marshal Lord Inge are making clear their disatisfaction with Brown's handling of this conflict and the treatment of the armed forces, and if Brown continues to faff about, at what point could someone say enough is enough and decide to ignore the " constitutional convention" that the Prime Minister is in command of the Armed Forces? What would it take- would it have to be Parliament or could it these days be a court, charging him with well I don't know- not giving the Army a fighting chance? Sending them to die for something pointless which shouldn't be out business any more? What's really annoying is that not only does Brown appear to be wilfully incompetent but he doesn't have the wit or humility to employ PR people to attempt to convince us otherwise. May be that is a PR job too big for anyone.    Report

07/11/2009, 11:17 AM wallis Joined on 10/07/2008 Posts 5,237 Re: Time to lock Brown in his cabin? thelibrarian what I find quite incredible is that Brown continues to intone the mantra of 'keeping our streets safe from terrorism' as the primary justification for the UK's particiaption in the Isaf débâcle in Afghanistan when this does not stand up to one nanosecond's scrutiny... to wit 1. the Taliban pose no threat to security on London's streets 2. the last 'thwarted' Islamic extremist terrorist plot in the UK was hatched not in Waziristan or Helmand, but in Hampshire 3. eye-witness accounts from British would-be jihadists who attended 'training camps' in the so-called 'crucible of terrorism' report them returning to Blighty highly pi88ed orf at having received no training, having paid their own fares, been charged over the odds for inferior digs and grub, been told to buy their own 'kit', and been given treated to endless spiritually uplifting spiels in madrassas in a culturally and linguistically alien setting... 4. al-Qaida are only tolerated by the Taliban as allies-of-convenience - alongside Chechens and hoo-nose-wot other motley jihadists - in their common endeavour to rid Afghan soil of feelthy infidel army boots 5. al Qaida are 'active' in dozens, scores, an unknown and unknowable [pace Donald Rumsfeld] number of sovereign nation states across the planet as a direct result of the Bush/Blair doctrine of demonising one-sixth of the world's population... so 'cramping their style' in AfPak territory will not make on jot of difference to their 'plotting' except to reinforce their determination to crush the infidel at home AND abroad. in other words, the Brown rationale is entirely self-defeating and utterly delusional HOWEVER, one does not need to be a Chatham House pointyhead to figger ite what we are doing alongside our chums in the region... ExxonMobil yesterday won the contract to develop the West Qurna oilfield near Basra. the entire region is littered with oil and gas reserves [nevermind probably has a map on his bedroom wall, as only he and Craig Murray really know where some of these countries/'stans actually are...] - reasons for US/UK boots on the ground to project military power to safeguard 'our' strategic national interests [AKA other people's scarce resources] it were ever thus    Report

07/11/2009, 3:36 PM nevermind Joined on 28/05/2007 Posts 3,173 Re: Time to lock Brown in his cabin? Good luck in your endeavour Librarian, don't foregt to throw away the key so Cameron can't find it. nevermind    Report

07/11/2009, 4:22 PM ROBERT Joined on 16/08/2003 NR Gt. Yarmouth Posts 4,226 Re: Time to lock Brown in his cabin? I think that many may think that forces abroad are fighting a lost cause. You may alter but not completly change another culture. To expect different cultures and religons to act as one does not even work in the uk that well. The deaths of our soldiers is sad, but like northern Ireland and Iraq  daily death reports whoever they are  become a way of life over a long period of time...the impact looses its shock factor and people tend to switch off.after hearing so much of the same bad news. And there is always a war or conflict somewhere in the world, which makes things in general a relentless uphill march with continued loss of lives........ PEACE being  hard to except and live by ...by some that have an endless band of followers not wanting it. I tend to think that there are black sheep in the world, wether they be Financial fat cats or Terrorists to name a just two. All hell bent on taking or wanting more than others live on or live by. Many of our lads will be lost at a cost that some deem expected, most conflicts create loss of lives, sadly getting around a table to talk is not an option in many cases.   These hot countries seem to breed hot headed people and live on a different logic of thought, and have little respect for life if they use humans as live bombs...... defeating these type of people is an open book. One can hope commonsense would win, but as all my life a conflict appears to be going in every decade. I don`t hold out in thinking it will stop anytime soon......     Report

07/11/2009, 5:39 PM wallis Joined on 10/07/2008 Posts 5,237 Re: Time to lock Brown in his cabin? ROBERT once again you have the happy knack of putting your finger on the nub of the issue "You may alter but not completely change another culture" 'training' the Afghan police? I cannot believe for one moment that the young men delegated from from the tribal elders and warlords need any training either in traffic control [apart from the drugs traffic, most of them are off their faces on heroin and good ol' Afghan Black!!!] or in 'weapons handling'... it is 'attitudinal change' which Isaf is trying to inculcate cultural imperialism, by any other name and stark staring bonkers one vox pop spokesman put it eloquently on the telly the other day, when stopped in the street by a roving reporter and asked for his opinion about 'the war' in Afghanistan: he replied [in terms] "it is COMFORTING to think that Afghanistan (and Pakistan) are now the front lines against the commission of acts of terrorism on the streets of London" Jolly Good Show, what what.. train the 'good' rag-heads to kill the 'bad' rag-heads OVER THERE so that we can sleep soundly in our beds dream on, pal the Afghan 'police' are just re-equipping and up-skilling literally at our expense... so that when Isaf leaves they'll be better placed to ditch their uniforms and rekindle their aeons-old internecine rivalries and, should the need arise, coalesce to form a coalition of the willing Insh'Allah [sic] to oppose an overhwhelmingly Tajik [nevermind?] army bent on defending an 'infidel-compliant' Kabul regime which every Afghan knows is rotten to the core it is Isaf - not the chimerical 'Afghan police' - who are badly in need of 'training', of 're-education', of getting re-acquainted with the realpolitik and the military history of the region how many tribes in Afghanistan? about 80    Report

08/11/2009, 10:22 AM Peter Waller Joined on 07/06/2009 Posts 34 Re: Time to lock Brown in his cabin? Lock him in his cabin by all means, but what of the alternative? We have Cameron doing his bit to inflict a less than snow white 'outsider' candidate on a Norfolk constituency, clearly he hasn't picked up on the fact that voters expect the next bunch of MPs to have cleaned up their act before they take power. The Broads is the Broads, much more than just a national park.    Report

08/11/2009, 10:39 AM ROBERT Joined on 16/08/2003 NR Gt. Yarmouth Posts 4,226 Re: Time to lock Brown in his cabin? Wallis, I think that our troops are on a road of big objectives and limited achievements. I question why if many troop deaths are due to vehicle explosions, restricting their movemnt by road would be a benefit. I am not an expert, nor am I there to form a balanced opinion. Wether you use a chooper or just march it is open to different dangers, so as I said it limits your objective of achievement if you are on the constant lookout for mines and terrorists on a daily basis, while training others to do certain jobs. Now wether the probabilty and uncertainty of actually making things better in the widest context, has to some to be balanced against the costs financially and lives lost. To some the fact that stopping things getting worse by troops being there, could well go on for years and still be at the status quo we are at the present time. With 200 UK troop deaths reported to date, whats the cut off number as time goes by, 300, 500 or heaven forebid 1000. As I said I am no expert but I have become tired of constant upeveil and conflicts around the world over many years...... and media coverage of the same has grown more over passing years with muliple death tolls, and an underlined sense of the powers that be, who can achieve so limited a move foreward fighting an enemy with no respect for human life.    Report

08/11/2009, 1:24 PM Snybarb Joined on 31/03/2005 Posts 573 Re: Time to lock Brown in his cabin? Afghanistan: Time to leave Patrick Cockburn, our award-winning reporter who has covered the region for more than 30 years, explains why it is best for the world, and Afghanistan, if our troops are brought home  Independent on Sunday             Sunday, 8 November 2009 Britain should start withdrawing, not reinforcing, its troops in Afghanistan. Sending extra troops is unnecessary and will prove counter-effective. The additional number of British troops is small, but the US is poised to send tens of thousands more soldiers to the country. The nature of the conflict is changing. What should be a war in which the Afghan government fights the Taliban has become one which is being fought primarily by the American and British armies. To more and more Afghans, this looks like imperial occupation. With regard to disputes in Washington and London about sending more troops, it is seldom mentioned that Afghans are against the deployment. Contrary to Western plans, just 18 per cent of Afghans want more US and Nato/Isaf forces in Afghanistan, according to an opinion poll carried out earlier this year by the BBC, ABC News and ARD of Germany. A much greater number of Afghans – 44 per cent – want a decrease in foreign forces. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the Taliban have been able to win some support. The cruelty of their rule before 2001 is becoming a distant memory and they are successfully portraying themselves as the defender of the country against foreign occupation. Matthew P Hoh, the senior American civilian representative in Zabul Province east of Kandahar, resigned last week convinced that the US military should not be in Afghanistan. As a former US marine officer who served in Iraq, he says in his resignation letter that the US has joined in on one side in a 35-year-old civil war between the traditional Pashtun community and its enemies. "The US military presence in Afghanistan greatly contributes to the legitimacy and strategic message of the Pashtun insurgency," he says. "Our backing of the Afghan government in its current form continues to distance the government from the people." What is true for the Americans in Zabul is true for the British in Helmand. It may seem to military commanders on the ground that, with more troops, they could hold more ground and send out more patrols. Throughout history, generals have believed they are a few thousand troops short of victory. But Afghans, who have long experience of war, think more foreign troops means greater violence, more dead and wounded Afghans. Support for the Taliban is highest in those areas where there have been US or Nato shelling or air strikes inflicting civilian casualties. In other words, the Taliban's best recruiting sergeants are the American and British armies. The future good of Afghanistan is not the first reason why Britain has an army of 9,000 troops there, according to Gordon Brown. He said on Friday that they are there to protect people walking the streets of Britain: "Our children will learn of the heroism of today's men and women fighting in Afghanistan protecting our nation and the world from the threat of global terrorism." We are fighting there, he adds, so we are safe in our homes and guarded against the atrocities carried out by al-Qa'ida not only in London, but across the world. The problem with this argument is that al-Qa'ida is based in Pakistan not Afghanistan. There is no particular reason why its leaders should return to Afghanistan since they have a measure of support in the Pakistani intelligence services and among fundamentalist jihadi organisations. If Britain has sent 9,000 troops abroad to fight al-Qa'ida, then they are in the wrong country. Mr Brown slyly tries to evade this point by claiming that "three-quarters of terrorists' plots originate in the Pakistan-Afghan border regions". His sudden geographic imprecision avoids having to admit that they originate in Pakistan and not in Afghanistan. The US military says there only 100 al-Qa'ida militants in the whole of Afghanistan. In reality, the presence of a large British military force in Afghanistan is making Britain a more dangerous not safer place to live in. Interrogation of would-be suicide bombers captured before they could blow themselves up reveals that their prime motive since 9/11 has been opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In portraying Britain as being at war with al-Qa'ida, Mr Brown, like President Bush and Tony Blair, has walked into the trap laid by al-Qa'ida at the time of 9/11. Its aim was not only to show the US was vulnerable to armed attack, but to provoke retaliation against Muslim countries. Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qa'ida's chief strategist, stated soon after 9/11 that the purpose of the provocation was to tempt the US into reprisals and open the way for "clear-cut jihad against the infidels". In Afghanistan and Iraq, the US and Britain have faced similar dilemmas. These wars were started by President Bush, with Tony Blair trotting along behind, in the expectation that they would be short and cheap. The initial military assaults were wholly successful, but the American and British armies were then caught up in prolonged, bruising, guerrilla wars. By then, too much prestige was at stake and too much blood had been spilt for a withdrawal. The puniness of the armed insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan, in each case probably a few tens of thousands of fighters, makes the humiliation of retreat all the greater. The main reason for Britain's military commitment in Afghanistan was to maintain its position as America's principal ally in the world. As recently as 2006, this seemed a sensible strategy, but any engagement in Afghanistan, as a brief look at any history of the region will show, is always going to be dangerous. The Taliban had not really been defeated on the battlefield in 2001: its militants had gone back to their villages or taken refuge over the border in Pakistan. It took time for the Pakistan government, on which they were highly reliant, to decide that it was safe to unleash them once more because the US was too bogged down in Iraq to do much about it. By this time also, the government of President Hamid Karzai, below left, had gone far to discredit itself. It is less of an administration than a racket. Its officials probably make more money out of opium and heroin than the Taliban. Some 12 million Afghans, 42 per cent of the population, live below the poverty line, trying to survive on 45 cents (just over 25p) a day. They are malnourished or starving, and feel little loyalty to a government in which ministers live in their "poppy palaces", built with the profits of the drugs trade, and foreign aid consultants earn $250,000 a year. "Sadly, the government of Afghanistan has become a byword for corruption," said Mr Brown. "And I am not prepared to put the lives of British men and women in harm's way for a government that does not stand up against corruption." Taken at face value, this means Britain will withdraw its troops since it is a certainty in Afghanistan that a government so viscerally crooked is not going to reform. "Cronies and warlords should have no place in the future of Afghanistan," continued the Prime Minister, but Mr Karzai's election victory was attained by allying himself with the most blood-stained warlords in the country. Presumably, Mr Brown's pledge is no more than rhetoric. The US and Britain have tumbled into a second war in Afghanistan that they weren't expecting. Justifying their own misjudgements, American and British leaders claim that Afghanistan is a war that has to be fought because it is the epicentre of the war against international terrorism. These threats are all grossly exaggerated. The Afghan Taliban comes from the Pashtun community, which is 42 per cent of the population. The majority of Afghans will always oppose them. Of course, present Afghan or Pakistani leaders have every interest in painting themselves to their foreign backers as the one alternative to the Taliban. "The Pashtun insurgency," says Mr Hoh, "is fed by what is perceived by the Pashtun people as a continued and sustained assault, going back centuries, on Pashtun land, culture, traditions and religion by internal an external enemies." Britain should not be part of that assault that will not succeed in crushing a regional Pashtun rebellion on behalf a non-Pashtun state. Once this is accepted, then the need for a large combat force in southern Afghanistan disappears. What ultimately happens in Afghanistan should be left to the Afghans. Developments yesterday * Nato airstrike kills seven Afghan soldiers and police. * Two-thirds of Britons polled say Afghanistan is a "lost cause". * UK troops should be prepared to die in "fight against fundamentalism", says army chaplain. * Obama's national security adviser: "We will not solve the problem with troops alone". * UK army commander says troops fighting and dying for stability in "hotbed of terror". Cause is "worth the sacrifice".    Report

09/11/2009, 9:25 AM john Joined on 07/08/2007 Posts 1,887 Re: Time to lock Brown in his cabin? At least his party voted to save the Norfolk Coast last week Peter.More than can be said of the rest.John    Report

09/11/2009, 11:12 AM Scaramouche Joined on 02/04/2006 obscure Posts 1,935 Re: Time to lock Brown in his cabin? Patrick Cockburn's - polemic piece is one of many that treats that treats the Afghanistan isolation  and leaves aside the most likely effect of an immediate military withdrawal. In doing so, one may argue, it ignores the only sustainable reason for continuing this wearisome and apparently fruitless blood-letting. Put simply,  the direct result of a UK troop withdrawal would be met with a collective sigh of relief by other coalition nations, (especially the reluctant European contingent) who would quickly follow suit by pulling out their combat and logistic forces. In the wake of this, the US becomes isolated with the Obama administration increasingly vulnerable to hostile political opinion in the US. So the Americans follow suit. Although the US continues military support to Pakistan, the situation in Afghanistan hands such a boost to the extremists that Pakistan's war against its insurgents  falters and fails. Democracy quickly falls in Pakistan, leaving India faced with a hostile muslim fundamentalist and nuclear-armed neighbour. The likely first nuclear strike would be from India, to pre-empt a hostile launch or territorial incursion. The conflict would spread quickly into the Middle East  which has long been cited as the most likely  flashpoint for a third world war, triggered, (on this occasion) not by superpowers, but by third or fourth ranking (in military terms) nations, which just happen to have nuclear capability If you accept these scenarios as in any way realistic, then the only alternative is to continue to fight in Afghanistan, at least until the Pakistani military has won its civil war against terrorism and insurgency. That Pakistan forces should loose this battle may not be contemplated. That they should be abandoned at this critical stage may be an argument beyond sanity.       Report

09/11/2009, 3:20 PM wallis Joined on 10/07/2008 Posts 5,237 Re: Time to lock Brown in his cabin? Scaramouche Patrick Coburn's 'polemic piece'? really? do you set no store at all, then, in his mere three decades' experience of reporting in the region, or are we to be asked to believe that your own much vaunted reporting on the Cod War makes you a bit of an authority on AfPak and the Indian sub-continent? your post-withdrawal 'scenarios' are fanciful in the extreme, Scaramouche. dare I say straight out of La-La land? and your posturing and portentous language... "That Pakistan should loose [sic] this battle... That they should be abandoned..." is truly risible. have you been at the glue again? "If you accept these scenarios as in any way realistic" I do not. Neither would anyone else with an iota of sense go back to reporting on traffic cones, Scary    Report

09/11/2009, 4:01 PM Baconsdozen. Joined on 02/09/2003 Lowestoft Posts 1,702 Re: Time to lock Brown in his cabin? Yes by all means lock Brown in his cabin.Lets be really cruel and lock him in with someone who'll bore him to distraction for the whole time he's under lock and key. Kiroy Silk or Alan Duncan maybe,or any other suggestions ?. WDC and its caravan site.    Report

09/11/2009, 4:09 PM wallis Joined on 10/07/2008 Posts 5,237 Re: Time to lock Brown in his cabin? BD moi    Report

09/11/2009, 4:24 PM Scaramouche Joined on 02/04/2006 obscure Posts 1,935 Re: Time to lock Brown in his cabin?  wallis wrote: Scaramouche Patrick Coburn's 'polemic piece'? really? do you set no store at all, then, in his mere three decades' experience of reporting in the region, or are we to be asked to believe that your own much vaunted reporting on the Cod War makes you a bit of an authority on AfPak and the Indian sub-continent? your post-withdrawal 'scenarios' are fanciful in the extreme, Scaramouche. dare I say straight out of La-La land? and your posturing and portentous language... "That Pakistan should loose [sic] this battle... That they should be abandoned..." is truly risible. have you been at the glue again? "If you accept these scenarios as in any way realistic" I do not. Neither would anyone else with an iota of sense go back to reporting on traffic cones, Scary I'm sorry if I offended by repeating some arguments, and posing some questions dear Grommit. Sorrier still that I chose to comment on a serious issue. Perhaps I should have eased the strain on your attention-span by speaking in cutesy geezer vernacular? Or added some pics? I don't know about Cod. but I am certainly an editorial (if not piscatorial) Hasbeen. as I haven't written for newspapers or broadcast as a journalist on either TV or radio for two decades. Little bits of Eye surely don't count. and odd bits of  amateurish humoresque are merely for self-gratification.Well (as Onan said) if you can't please yourself, who can you please? On evidence, I'm sure you'd agree that. I suppose what's worse is,l I've only ever written one pathetic Letter to the Editor of the EDP in my entire worthless life. So I'm hardly in your league dear chum, and if I write something you don't agree with. you can well afford a relaxed and dispassionate dismissal. Less strain on your hard-taxed arteries. and you'll be able to save the vitriol for the Letters Page. You know it makes sense.    Report

09/11/2009, 4:51 PM POG Joined on 31/08/2003 Round and about Posts 1,232 Re: Time to lock Brown in his cabin?  wallis wrote: ...your post-withdrawal 'scenarios' are fanciful in the extreme, Scaramouche. dare I say straight out of La-La land?... Fanciful, perhaps, but any more fanciful than the reasons given as justification for being there in the first place...?   To the uneducated an A is just three sticks    Report

Page 1 of 2 (22 items) 1 2 >

EDP24 Forums » EDP24 General » News » Re: Time to lock Brown in his cabin?

(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