Stinky, with all due respect mate thats like saying that rich people should enforce thier view of happiness on council estates. Its naive to think because the west is rich/safer it has the right to enforce its philosophies on others.
Iraq and Afghanistan were never anything to do with the people. Like evey other war, its to serve a political and strategic end. Personally, I believe the entire point of Iraq was to allow the US to keep a presence in the Middle East, particulary with the strategic threats of Iran. Afghanistan is more a result of 9/11, but its more complicated and realistic than the idealistic/moralistic viewpoint of helping people. Especially when you consider that most insurgents are Iraqi nationals, and thier is more evidence to suggest Iraqis are more capable of reconstruction than western contruction angencies. Alos, Afghanistan is still very much a fractured society that heavily relies upon warlord and tribal politics.
What i'm trying to say is that this whole idea of the rich westerner lining themselves up as the saviours of poorer nations is bollocks. If you consider reconstruction/HIV and AID/education programs throughout Africa that are the work of Africans themselves, you'lll see my point. Also, hundreds of thousands of people have died in both conflicts. Whether these deaths is the result of 'collateral damage', terrorist attacks, anti-terrorist attacks, anti-insurgent attacks is not the point. The consequences are still the same. It is delusional to think that Iraq and Afghanistan are better as a result. Even if you take into account the removal of Saddam and the Taliban, the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives still has far reaching consequences throughout a society.
But politics aside, personally I have not been put off in my ambition to join the Marines. Even after seeing countless IED attacks, the consequences of firefights, executions, bombings, airstrikes, etc, etc, my ambition still remains. The reason is simple. I never ever inteneded to join the Royals because of my political beliefs. I'm in it for the challange, for the lifestyle, the fitness, the respect, so my parents may be proud of me, etc, etc, etc. I have to accept that I might be sent to kill people I don't hold a grudge against - people that have every right to kill me. I've thought long and hard about it, and still do. I go to uni with people who are against the wars, and thus are against the military. I'm personally against the wars, but thats just my personal view. Nothing more, its not policy. But i've learned from a subjective view that it is unjustified to criticise something you have no experience of. I'm not willing to sit and listent o people who say soldiers are murdurers, just as i'm not willing to listen to people who say all insurgents are terrorists. At the end of the day, is the Marines what I personally want out of life? Yes. Thats all that matters.
I'm just not deluded enough to believe all the problems of the world will be sorted through war. Politcally, i'm a realist and know that British soldiers are in Iraq and Afghanistan to serve British interests. Not the interests of the Iraqis of Afghans, which would only be benign.
Share This Page:
Iraq and afghan
Some interesting comments.
I personally believe the key to solving any of the issues in the middle east is to sort israel and palestine out first. Then tackle the wider region rather than just keeping troops in iraq.
Otherwise we'll just sit in iraq with no 'exit strategy' for the next 30 years. Or withdraw as a defeat as in Vietnam.
Afghan- had we kept it our main attention in afghan and not become obsessed with iraq and its 'apparant' WMD we might be in a different or winning situation. Plus, i believe we need way more troops in helmand- also where the heck are the rest of the NATO troops, they're too bloody scared to go to helmand and get shot at, Its always the good old Brits who will do everyones dirty work!
Another thing that annoys me is that civvies simply dont care about our troops in theatre and casualties are 'their own fault, they joined the forces'
However i still want to join regular, as if i didnt id regret it for the rest of my life as well as the challenges, self confidence, pride and loyalty that no other career can give!
I personally believe the key to solving any of the issues in the middle east is to sort israel and palestine out first. Then tackle the wider region rather than just keeping troops in iraq.
Otherwise we'll just sit in iraq with no 'exit strategy' for the next 30 years. Or withdraw as a defeat as in Vietnam.
Afghan- had we kept it our main attention in afghan and not become obsessed with iraq and its 'apparant' WMD we might be in a different or winning situation. Plus, i believe we need way more troops in helmand- also where the heck are the rest of the NATO troops, they're too bloody scared to go to helmand and get shot at, Its always the good old Brits who will do everyones dirty work!
Another thing that annoys me is that civvies simply dont care about our troops in theatre and casualties are 'their own fault, they joined the forces'
However i still want to join regular, as if i didnt id regret it for the rest of my life as well as the challenges, self confidence, pride and loyalty that no other career can give!
Soldiers don't class themselves as heroes.
Hell, there's recently been a fil out about how the US Marines on Iwo Jima seemed like heroes but to themselves they were doing what they signed up for. 'Flags of our Father's.
Don't know if anyone's seen it but it's not all that good, the film made bacak to back with it though 'Letters from Iwo Jima' is awesome
P.S Our lads out there right now seem like heroes to me
Jamie
Hell, there's recently been a fil out about how the US Marines on Iwo Jima seemed like heroes but to themselves they were doing what they signed up for. 'Flags of our Father's.
Don't know if anyone's seen it but it's not all that good, the film made bacak to back with it though 'Letters from Iwo Jima' is awesome
P.S Our lads out there right now seem like heroes to me
Jamie
A lot of the other nato countries troops arent there because their respective leaders dont want to commit them. They've seen how devided a country can become from entering those theatres and are scared of having that happen to them, also the governments have decided that its not their place. I know a lot are more than happy to supply peace keeping troops once the situation is less of a war zone and more of a country that (as stinky says) just needs a helping hand.Ali3 wrote:
...also where the heck are the rest of the NATO troops, they're too bloody scared to go to helmand and get shot at, Its always the good old Brits who will do everyones dirty work!...
but at the moment with the infighting in iraq and the taleban and pakistani militants in afghanistan there is still a lot of fighting to be done untill the country and start working on peace and reconstruction. A lot of people dont realise that this is a war in the true sense of it, they want to see it as a few skirmishes during a peace keeping operation.
'Peace is to important to be left to politicians'
I beleive iraq was a complete mess and since the yanks and ourselves have been there its just become even more of a mess x5. I think we should be in Afghan to get shot of these f**kin taleban Rag heads and thats one of the reasons I've joined up, but i think we should only be out there when we have a sufficient amount of soldiers. the lads out there are doing a fantastic job aswel.
Like I was stating before. If they are not fighting over oil, its politics, society, and most important religion. There conflicts will never stop unless they come to an agreement on religion, and somehow the economy picks up.
The above will probly never happen. They are just too over populated, and they have to much hate for eachother. The States, Canada, and Britain united are just the big bully standing between the two little kids telling them to stop fighting. However, we can't be there forever, and everytime we pull some troops out, everythings going to re-escalate. The media thinks it is us that is escalating the fighting in the hate, but they don't realize that we are in the middle, trying to halt it.
It's a war that will never end. It's like trying to stop poverty, racism, and crime anywhere in the world. Our presence there might make it somewhat better, but if you believe we can put an end to it, I think we are mistaken.
The above will probly never happen. They are just too over populated, and they have to much hate for eachother. The States, Canada, and Britain united are just the big bully standing between the two little kids telling them to stop fighting. However, we can't be there forever, and everytime we pull some troops out, everythings going to re-escalate. The media thinks it is us that is escalating the fighting in the hate, but they don't realize that we are in the middle, trying to halt it.
It's a war that will never end. It's like trying to stop poverty, racism, and crime anywhere in the world. Our presence there might make it somewhat better, but if you believe we can put an end to it, I think we are mistaken.
I just think if we stayed focussed on afghan, we could have got somewhere by now, but op telic enabled the taliban to re-org their force aligned with US/UK waltzing into iraq with no UN mandate and false policies.
However, what i do think is interesting is Gordon Browns relationship with George 'doubleya,' he isnt so keen to be all matey at the ranch as Blair was! Maybe the tide is changing for bush and iraq- He's losing friends and he knows it!
However, what i do think is interesting is Gordon Browns relationship with George 'doubleya,' he isnt so keen to be all matey at the ranch as Blair was! Maybe the tide is changing for bush and iraq- He's losing friends and he knows it!
not that bush cares, hes out of there soon. where as G. Brown has a point to prove and so has no problem with declining bush's offer of tea and crumpys at the ranch if you see what im sayingAli3 wrote:I just think if we stayed focussed on afghan, we could have got somewhere by now, but op telic enabled the taliban to re-org their force aligned with US/UK waltzing into iraq with no UN mandate and false policies.
However, what i do think is interesting is Gordon Browns relationship with George 'doubleya,' he isnt so keen to be all matey at the ranch as Blair was! Maybe the tide is changing for bush and iraq- He's losing friends and he knows it!
'Peace is to important to be left to politicians'
For the most part I agree with Dangermouse, I don’t believe that the western political structure is ever going to work in our rebuild efforts in the Middle East. I also agree that both the UK and America are there to serve our own interests, along with other humanitarian efforts and such like. However I don’t believe that these humanitarian efforts would be taking place if there was no financial or political gain to be had.
My personal belief is that in a modern day political structure there should be no elements that falter with reason or rational thought. I don’t believe that religion of any kind should hold a political footing in modern society. There are too many disputable elements within any religion for it to be part of the political structure of any stable society. I’m not saying that people shouldn’t practice religion only that it shouldn’t have a bearing on elements of society that should be built around reason.
I don’t believe that these conflicts will end with Iraq or Afghanistan, there are deep political and religious problems that need to be resolved. Despite obvious difficulties this is possible with the political elements however while faith is allowed to rule over reason we are always going to be in a religious dispute in one form or another.
As far as joining up goes, if anything the situation in the Middle East reinforces my decision. I hope that if I ever get sent to either of these places that my being there will have a positive affect and that maybe I’ll get to see and understand the situation better, as it is on the ground as a pose to as it is in the newspaper, in books and on the television.
My personal belief is that in a modern day political structure there should be no elements that falter with reason or rational thought. I don’t believe that religion of any kind should hold a political footing in modern society. There are too many disputable elements within any religion for it to be part of the political structure of any stable society. I’m not saying that people shouldn’t practice religion only that it shouldn’t have a bearing on elements of society that should be built around reason.
I don’t believe that these conflicts will end with Iraq or Afghanistan, there are deep political and religious problems that need to be resolved. Despite obvious difficulties this is possible with the political elements however while faith is allowed to rule over reason we are always going to be in a religious dispute in one form or another.
As far as joining up goes, if anything the situation in the Middle East reinforces my decision. I hope that if I ever get sent to either of these places that my being there will have a positive affect and that maybe I’ll get to see and understand the situation better, as it is on the ground as a pose to as it is in the newspaper, in books and on the television.
"As a rule, men worry more about what they can't see than about what they can." - Julius Caesar
Recruit Training: 11th February, 2008
Recruit Training: 11th February, 2008
My personal belief, based on nothing in particular, is that whilst the reasons for invading Iraq and perhaps Afghan were questionable at least, dwelling on them solves nothing, we are there now and we need to do the best we can, for the people of that country, but more importantly (yes, the priority of a government should be first and formost it's own people) for the security of our country. Whilst Iraq may not have posed a threat to us, radical islam does, and every fighter or bomber killed in Iraq or Afghan is one less that threatens us. I see Afghan and Iraq as a pressure valve, if there wasn't this conflict going on, would the fighters settle down and let the decadent west alone?
Not really botheres about it pissing you off but, It looks like a one off. FAC's are in high demand so its not unusual to have someone from RAF reg on the ground coordinating airstrikes, I bet the rest of his section is base bound. Just like the rifles were in kabul for 6 months without seeing action.riflebutt wrote:Felias.
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Defen ... Palace.htm
Just recently we have seen a wave of Rockape casualties!!
2 Squadron of the RAF regiment were the last unit to mount an operational attack by Parachute in the British Armed Forces. I know 1 or 2 people personally in 51 Sqn out in Afghan right now. They're not seeing any 'action' but every day they are coming across IED's, weapons caches, buildings to raid etc!!
Once in the RAF regiment you can serve amongst the SFSG who knows if they're getting action?? It's secretive.
No the RAF reg do not just 'patrol airbases'.
Sorry mate but that pissed me off
Jamie
THinking about leaving already!
I think you'll find quite a lot of units havn't seen action whilst on tour during our stay in the sandy places recently. The Royal Marine Commandos and Paras just get extra special media attention to them on their fights. No need to cause offense but is truth. Why not present some BBC documentaries and extra long news coverages with news presenters follwing them around a bit more with other regiments.
Can see where it's coming from though. Royal Marines and Para's are our major units and have great reputations.
Can see where it's coming from though. Royal Marines and Para's are our major units and have great reputations.
That article kind of proves his point, he was doing an airfield security patrol.
I'm not getting involved in the underlying discussion, I have no idea what they get up to out there, however your article points in Felias's favour, not yours.modoracle wrote:...conducting a routine security patrol around Kandahar Airfield
I havn't read all the posts on here but i will add my say.
We should not be in Iraq. No matter how much of a b*stard Saddam was to his people he was not harbouring terrorists, probably didn't have "WMDs" and kept all the warlords under the thumb. However, i don't believe we went in for oil because the cost of the war is probably much more than what the oil is worth.
I do believe it can be sorted out though. It needs the right attitude, which isn't all military (perhaps talks with Al Qaeda and other "insurgents"), the right amount of troops because british numbers at the moment are nowhere near at the right level and support from the whole nation.
Tim collins also makes some good points in his book "Rules of Engagement".
Afghanistan was perhaps right because there definitely was terrorists there and they were a threat to our countries but we went in, kicked out the taliban and then just kind of left. Wrong. It needs the same kind of strategy as I have said from Iraq. In both cases you need to completely get rid of anyone who wants to disrupt things, which means massive numbers of troops, then start the rebuilding with a secure democracy in place.
Basically the real problem is that both the USA and us have bitten off way more than we can chew over, especially us with our depleted, topheavy and undersupplied armed forces, and, as has been said very recently by two hgh ranking retired officers, the post-war strategy was narrow minded and stupid.
Just my view, you are welcome to your own.
Mitch
(hopefully that would satisfy them at POC!)
We should not be in Iraq. No matter how much of a b*stard Saddam was to his people he was not harbouring terrorists, probably didn't have "WMDs" and kept all the warlords under the thumb. However, i don't believe we went in for oil because the cost of the war is probably much more than what the oil is worth.
I do believe it can be sorted out though. It needs the right attitude, which isn't all military (perhaps talks with Al Qaeda and other "insurgents"), the right amount of troops because british numbers at the moment are nowhere near at the right level and support from the whole nation.
Tim collins also makes some good points in his book "Rules of Engagement".
Afghanistan was perhaps right because there definitely was terrorists there and they were a threat to our countries but we went in, kicked out the taliban and then just kind of left. Wrong. It needs the same kind of strategy as I have said from Iraq. In both cases you need to completely get rid of anyone who wants to disrupt things, which means massive numbers of troops, then start the rebuilding with a secure democracy in place.
Basically the real problem is that both the USA and us have bitten off way more than we can chew over, especially us with our depleted, topheavy and undersupplied armed forces, and, as has been said very recently by two hgh ranking retired officers, the post-war strategy was narrow minded and stupid.
Just my view, you are welcome to your own.
Mitch
(hopefully that would satisfy them at POC!)
