pslewis

Lock it mate and then we can get to bed

Pete

gsm1

Let's all have a breakdance competition. I'll start.

Tiggs

i certainly hope your friend is fine....lets hope so. on that assumption, what plans is he making now that he's leaving the army? i assume he is? now that he know he can be moved wherever the gov want and that may not match his own belifs of right and wrong.

is he planning to get out?

Jerome

Good question. [Please let this thread get back on track BTW Pete] I don't know the real reason, I simply don't believe the official version.

In my opinion, they were moved to make Bush look good in the lead up to a very close presidential election. It simply doesn't make logistical or military sense to move such a relatively small number of troops when the US has so many troops out there.

Here's hoping this thread doesn't need to be locked. If everyone just ignores pslewis' posts from now on, maybe this thread can be salvaged.

imlach

He?

Tiggs

he /she/it is your friend a sniffer dog?


whatever, my point/question remains.

Tiggs

is there any possibility you are wrong? any possibility that greater milatary minds have good reason to do what they do?

maybe?

pslewis

OK, sensible now - my opinion is:-

They were moved to close the door between Baghdad and Fellujha (sp?) - to cut off the escape route and to cut the supply line. Why them? Because they are way better than the yanks at doing that job, thats why.

Why are they coming under fire? Because they are effective.

To hint that it was all part of an election scam is insulting and shows a complete lack of knowledge

There we go - the facts as I see them - you might not like them, tough

Pete

the moose

Am I the only person who thinks this press coverage is wierd?

We're there as an ally of the Americans, and as such have to support their riskier manoevres. I don't support our being there, but until such time as we pull out we have to provide support, surely?

This means that, sadly, soldiers get killed from time to time. That's what happens in the armed services, and everyone who signs up know this is a possibility.

Obviously I feel for the families, but to wintess the hysterical press reaction you'd think soldiers had never been shot at before.

Jerome

At last. Well done for finally being sensible. You may well be right, but if there is a good military reason for them being there, why not tell us rather than trot out the flannel they have so far. If it was classified, they should tell us that as well. I'm afraid I will always be cynical when it comes to professional liars, sorry policitians, especially when our troops are fatally affected.

Jerome

Quite possibly - see my reply to Pete.

Jerome

(I did reply to this last night, but SN seemed to crash just as I posted. Here's more or less what I was trying to post last night)

I wouldn't be surprised if you were directing this partially (or wholly) at me. I have been hurling a fair few insults at Pete, here and elsewhere. This is because I'm convinced he is simply a troll invention of another regular poster. The fact that he has never responded to any of my insults indicates to me that he really isn't genuine. He deliberately disrupts threads unecessarily and always avoids overstepping the line that would get him banned. I, and many others, are tired of his method of posting and I childishly resorted to insults to try and get him to stop. It hasn't worked and I will refrain from directing any further insults at Pete.

Aztec Performance Ltd

iTrader: (234)

When was the last time WE were attacked by a non-christian terrorist group

BTW Iraq has sod all to do with terrorism.


Bob

Aztec Performance Ltd

iTrader: (234)

Helped win some swing states didn't it!?! Some people (usually american) are so easily fooled.

Bob

Aztec Performance Ltd

iTrader: (234)

WTF has this got to do with voting ...our vote doesnt count in America Britain politicians are always gonna be americas lapdogs

Bob

backdoors

I really have to agree with Pete. No-one told these soldiers to join up.

Why on earth would you join the Army, if you didn't want to fight?

Aztec Performance Ltd

iTrader: (234)

Looking at the bigger picture 3 Soldiers have been killed. Over 100,000 people have died in this war....many innocent women and children.

The whole war is wrong and an absolute bloodbath. We are there now and I dont see a way out other than vote out the people who put us there. Bush has just been re-elected so kinda killed that idea off


Bob

Pete: I really think your on your own planet

johnfelstead

I would say a large percentage of soldiers join for reasons other than wanting to fight. This is just as much the case in the USA as here. Most people join the armed forces because it is an excellent carreer in terms of personal development, it is also recognsed in the UK that the armed forces have traditionally fulfilled a role that is to protect sovereign and state and to provide peace keeping forces used by the UN.

This pre-emptive war in Iraq is going to damage armed force recruitment because that traditional view of how the forces are used is being harmed by the actions of this government.

davegtt

big f#*king deal. OK its bad that these guys died, very unfortunate and I have sypathy for them and their families but come on... at the end of the day a soldiers job is to follow orders and enter dangerous situations, someone has to do it dont they and who would if the army dont? you expect to have casualties and deaths in these situations. if you dont then your a fool. OK there is half an argument as to what we are doing out there, I didnt support the war to begin with but nothing we say or do can change that and we cant just pull out of iraq after we've destroyed half the country and took their leadership (even though he was a right cvnt) we are now there to try and restore order and rebuild the place until its capable of doing it on its own again which if we face facts will be a hell of a long time away yet, and until then british troops will stay out there and encounter dangerous situations, they aint the first to be killed and they certainly wont be the last...

Dave

the moose

Actually, John, I think you're wrong on this. The reasons for armed forces recruitment/retention have far more to do with simple economics and possible career progression than with conflicts. After all, we didn't see a massive upsurge in recruitment after the Ulster question was (largely) resolved, did we? Nor did we see a massive drop-off following the Falklands or Gulf War I.

The fact is that events have shown that there was no real justification for attacking Iraq - sanctions were working, Hussein wasn't really much of a threat, and there was no great problem (in Iraq at least) with religious fundamentalism. All of this, however, is bye the bye - we're there now, and as Davegtt points out, we've blown the place to bits and cannot just walk out.

I hate the fact that our soldiers are out there at the moment, and hate even more the fact that they're being attacked, with the inevitable consequences this brings. But they are soldiers, they knew the risks, and like it or not, we're stuck there now.

johnfelstead

I may well be wrong, but i dont think i am based on events such as the stop loss program now in force in the USA. I did say that this is a diferent senario to past conflicts because of the nature of the way we sent our troops to war, the basis for war has shifted politically and i think that will affect recruitment numbers.

I have worked with plenty of ex armed forces personel, my own family has a tradition of serving in the armed forces, i dont know anyone from the armed forces who joined in order to fight although they all understood what joining meant. I was due to join the RAF until the medical discovered i was colour blind so couldnt do the job i was signing up to do.

Time will tell if i am right or wrong, i hope the government keeps its word (although they have been very non comital on this) and brings those troops home before christmas.

Leslie

Pity to see this thread deteriorate into childish insults, especially from one particular person whose head is so far up Blair's backside that he cannot see the truth of the matter.

This was an internationally illegal war which was not supported by the UN Security Council. We are a signed up member of that Council. Blair decided to throw his lot in with Bush for his own selfish motives. He and his cronies lied to us about the reasons for entering this war, and specifically said at the time that it was not for regime change which is also an internationally illegal act. They even drove Dr David Kelly to his suicide when he felt he had to speak out with the truth over their deception of Parliament and this country.

The Blair government has been notable during its whole existence for the way it has deceived the country over all its actions with its bunch of professional liars whose salaries are paid for by the tax payer.

The Black Watch were detached to their present position in Camp Dogwood in a cynical move to increase Bush's chance in the presidential election. As was stated earlier in this thread, it was not necessary to move them from the area where they are still desperately needed anyway since the US has more than enough troops to cover the job that they are now expected to do in a very dangerous environment. This environment was created by the US troops "gung ho" ho attitude and our boys are now going to suffer for that.

Now that this ill conceived war has been started, we cannot desert Iraq and leave them to the eventual conclusion of being ruled by yet another dictator who might be even worse than SH. The allies have killed many many thousands of innocent civilians and destroyed their country. We are responsible for the dreadful state that Iraq is in now. This is what shows the gross incompetence of the leaders who embarked on a unilateral pre-emptive war without any real idea of what they were letting themselves and the Iraqis in for. Even Bush's father and his advisors had more sense than that in the previous Gulf war.

Iraq has become the world centre for terrorism, Al Qaeda has leapt on the bandwagon as have so many other terrorist factions, and the danger to the western world, in particular the US and our own country has multiplied out of all proportion. Its a hornets nest and I wonder if it can ever be brought under control.

The only one bit of sense that came from PSL was that everyone should use their vote. At least the USA increased their voting statistics this time around. It is vital that we all use our vote in a democracy instead of being too lazy and using the excuse that you don't believe that it will do any good. That is a dreadful "cop out" and is the quick way to an end to democracy in the future. Hello Big Brother! It should be regarded as a duty to cast your vote, as it always used to be.

This idea that soldiers are paid to go out and be killed ***** nilly is totally out of line. I spent my career in the armed services and was ready to go on a one way mission if we were attacked in the defence of my country. I knew as we all did that we would not be coming back if the unthinkable happened. Our own bucket of sunshine would probably have finished us off! However I would not have been very happy at the idea of being sent off to further the career of the country's leader when my own country was not under a specific threat at the time. My duty, as is till the case, was to Queen and Country.

I very much regret the death of those soldiers and all the others who have died in Iraq, That they were sent out there in the first place with insufficient and ineffective equipment to do the job properly is yet another source of shame for their political leaders.

The thing that really made me feel ill was the sight of our leader posturing his grief over their deaths. His acting is not as good as it was. I keep remembering his statement that he was prepared to pay the blood price as he put it to go to war in Iraq. Not his blood though!

Les

kob999

I certainly would not disagree with you that politicians of all backgrounds would be prepared to sarcrifice other safety for political gain. If that really was Bush's intention on this occasion then it did not work because neither he nor the media even mentioned it in the run up to the election.

In fact Iraq is much more of a political issue in the UK than over here (I live in the UK but over here working during final run up to elections). Iraq is only really metioned in the context of whether as a result of the invasion Americans at home are saafer from terrorist attack.

The three maajor issues that the Republicans focused on were

Homeland Security
Gay Marriage
& Abortion

Even the economy was relegaated to a more regional issue in locations where the economy is suffering

unclebuck

Yuk - it made me feel really angry when I saw that pathetic attempt at sincerity this morning. Once you know it's just an act it becomes so easy to see through it. Possibly the most sickening display of cynicism ever from Blair.

UB

Jerome

Many people are not listening.

As I said before, if these troops had been killed in the Basra area, it would be a different story (while still tragic). The fact is, these troops(+1) were killed directly because they were moved north. I am still of the opinion that these troops were moved for political reasons rather than military ones. Therefore, these guys were killed to gain some political points for someone. THIS is what I find so abhorrent.

THis has nothing to do with voting or whether or why these troops signed up.

||VaNDaL||

Of course this troop redeployment has absolutely nothing to do with american troops no longer wishing to be where they may be "shot at" or otherwise put at risk......

I quote here an example;






err?????? so the scots are expendable??????

TonyBurns

iTrader: (3)

Unfortunately, during the 70's, 80's and 90's we had our own terrorist problems, and they were christian.
A terrorist, no matter what religion, is someone who causes terror to the rest of the community, be they any religion, that doesnt matter, because they dont worry about what race/colour or age you are, they just want to kill you.

As for Iraq having sod all to do with terrorism, well did the yanks deserve 9/11?
and considering how many "terrorists" are now in Iraq, mainly non Iraqi ones, or those hard line militants that just "appeared" from no where..... Makes you think.....
This war on terror is only a part of everything, Iraq should have been taken back in 91, unfortunately everyone stopped and needless Iraqi's were killed thinking that they were to be liberated

Now for all you people who think this war is wrong.....
It took more than just satalites to find the scud missle carriers back in the early 90's, it took ground based intel ops, and scud carriers aint exactly small things.....
A box of weapons grade material in a country the size of Iraq, would be like finding a needle in a haystack. Just because no one has found any, doesnt mean that there isnt any, and what would you all be saying if someone let off a nice nuke on your front door if these troops hadnt had gone in?
Is it speculation or is it something that just hasnt been found yet?

Tony

fruitloop

Terrible news.

||VaNDaL||

Since the attacks on the United States in September 2001, there have been more than a thousand references in British national newspapers, working out at almost one every single day, to the phrase "dirty bomb". There have been articles about how such a device can use ordinary explosives to spread lethal radiation; about how London would be evacuated in the event of such a detonation; about the Home Secretary David Blunkett's statement on terrorism in November 2002 that specifically raised the possibility of a dirty bomb being planted in Britain; and about the arrests of several groups of people, the latest only last month, for allegedly plotting exactly that. BBC2 has been broadcasting a three-part documentary series that will add further to what could be called the dirty bomb genre. But, as its title suggests, The Power of Nightmares:

The Rise of the Politics of Fear takes a different view of the weapon's potential.

"I don't think it would kill anybody," says Dr Theodore Rockwell, an authority on radiation, in an interview for the series. "You'll have trouble finding a serious report that would claim otherwise." The American department of energy, Rockwell continues, has simulated a dirty bomb explosion, "and they calculated that the most exposed individual would get a fairly high dose [of radiation], not life-threatening." And even this minor threat is open to question. The test assumed that no one fled the explosion for one year.


During the three years in which the "war on terror" has been waged, high-profile challenges to its assumptions have been rare. The sheer number of incidents and warnings connected or attributed to the war has left little room, it seems, for heretical thoughts. In this context, the central theme of The Power of Nightmares is riskily counter-intuitive and provocative. Much of the currently perceived threat from international terrorism, the series argues, "is a fantasy that has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians. It is a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned through governments around the world, the security services, and the international media." The series' explanation for this is even bolder: "In an age when all the grand ideas have lost credibility, fear of a phantom enemy is all the politicians have left to maintain their power."

gsm1

Tony, I wish you did think.

Did the yanks deserve the Dukes of Hazzard or Fantasy Island? Neither of which had anything to do with Iraq.