People don't understand the mentality of regular soldiers. The best 6months I spent in the army was 67 in Aden. The guys loved it, but there was casulties,(22 in one day) but you don't hear about it now.
Then NI, well everybody knows about that one.How many did we lose there.
It's what the majority of the guys sign up for, if you don't like it don't join.
Iv'e had to watch the tele with the rest when my son was in, and prayed with everbody else. I was lucky, he was lucky, I now pray that my nephew with the "Green Machine" is lucky as well.
Thats what it's about. You go where your told.
The only doubt I think I ever had was when there was a rumour that we might have to go in against Smith in Rhodesia (Zimbabwee) for those that don't know.
Rant over.
Share This Page:
Bring 'our lads' home?
I think there is an inability by civilians as to why soldiers want to go into combat - 'who in their right mind would want to get shot at?'
The point has been well made, you have got to be motivated both by yourself but also by the regimental environment that you choose to become part of - in my own case it was a matter of going to the place and regiment that would get the most involvement in the conflict. Both living and working in the same place was about as totally involved as you can get. I don't say this for brownie points or cred - it a statement of fact.
But it comes down to choice - and sometimes as also previously stated, this is thrust upon you.
The point has been well made, you have got to be motivated both by yourself but also by the regimental environment that you choose to become part of - in my own case it was a matter of going to the place and regiment that would get the most involvement in the conflict. Both living and working in the same place was about as totally involved as you can get. I don't say this for brownie points or cred - it a statement of fact.
But it comes down to choice - and sometimes as also previously stated, this is thrust upon you.
-
GreyWing
- Guest
Personally going against the grain, I think the public's got this one right.
Just like in Iraq and now afganistan, we can't win. No one knows what victory is.
It's a politicians war, with political objectives and no military ones, that's why the military can't win. The politicians say it's about drugs, well is it me being simple, but for the money that we've spent on weapons ect, I think we could have bought the whole poppy production of afganistan up several times over and there by raising the price of drugs on the street out of the average users pocket, plus the taliban hated drugs.
The taliban were far better in charge of afganistan than what is there now, all the terroists were in a box and we knew where they were. Now they're running around in several african states planning whatever they are planning. We could have taken them out, one by one with special forces, no tv cameras, no martyrdom, in and out, what just hit us.
Plus while they were in afganistan, they were the biggest advertisement for an islamic state, one that was braodcast across the world. All the muslims saw it and had second thoughts about being in one, now they have forgoten what a islamic state is really like,
Best thing to do is withdraw, let the taliban go back in and show the world what islamic life is really like, a word of warning to muslims, "beware what you wish for, you might get it".
In Iraq, there has been a civil war coming for the last 50 years, we just took the cork out the bottle. I think we should be withdraw and take out the leaders of these groups as they show themselves,
but there is one exit stratergy in Iraq, that will let us leave with our heads held high and not look back, ask the Iraqi people in a referendum, "Do you want foreign troops on your soil", they'll vote no, and we leave and the terrorists can never say they forced us out.
I guess it's me being simple.
Just like in Iraq and now afganistan, we can't win. No one knows what victory is.
It's a politicians war, with political objectives and no military ones, that's why the military can't win. The politicians say it's about drugs, well is it me being simple, but for the money that we've spent on weapons ect, I think we could have bought the whole poppy production of afganistan up several times over and there by raising the price of drugs on the street out of the average users pocket, plus the taliban hated drugs.
The taliban were far better in charge of afganistan than what is there now, all the terroists were in a box and we knew where they were. Now they're running around in several african states planning whatever they are planning. We could have taken them out, one by one with special forces, no tv cameras, no martyrdom, in and out, what just hit us.
Plus while they were in afganistan, they were the biggest advertisement for an islamic state, one that was braodcast across the world. All the muslims saw it and had second thoughts about being in one, now they have forgoten what a islamic state is really like,
Best thing to do is withdraw, let the taliban go back in and show the world what islamic life is really like, a word of warning to muslims, "beware what you wish for, you might get it".
In Iraq, there has been a civil war coming for the last 50 years, we just took the cork out the bottle. I think we should be withdraw and take out the leaders of these groups as they show themselves,
but there is one exit stratergy in Iraq, that will let us leave with our heads held high and not look back, ask the Iraqi people in a referendum, "Do you want foreign troops on your soil", they'll vote no, and we leave and the terrorists can never say they forced us out.
I guess it's me being simple.
All fair points, and good analysis - even it is a bit off on a tangent from my original post.
But I would contend that, in the balance of things, the HMG and the US administration are well aware of the situation that has been created by their actions - and wanted things to go this way.
My contention is that these wars are a 'job creation scheme' for the Army and the defence industry - both big numbers in employment and as voters. Also it keeps the fat cats in big industry in big profit. The money moves among those who want it, rather than waste it on the proles.
Look for example, how much has been 'pledged' to the US intelligence agencies since 9/11 - tens of billions of dollars, that could have been better used at home. The cry is 'security, at any cost' and that is what they want us to be obsessed with, rather than more mundane things like pensions and a good standard of living.
these 'governments' know exactly what they are doing, and have their own best interests at heart.
But i digress...
But I would contend that, in the balance of things, the HMG and the US administration are well aware of the situation that has been created by their actions - and wanted things to go this way.
My contention is that these wars are a 'job creation scheme' for the Army and the defence industry - both big numbers in employment and as voters. Also it keeps the fat cats in big industry in big profit. The money moves among those who want it, rather than waste it on the proles.
Look for example, how much has been 'pledged' to the US intelligence agencies since 9/11 - tens of billions of dollars, that could have been better used at home. The cry is 'security, at any cost' and that is what they want us to be obsessed with, rather than more mundane things like pensions and a good standard of living.
these 'governments' know exactly what they are doing, and have their own best interests at heart.
But i digress...
I agree that we could possibly ask the people of Iraq and Afghanistan whether or not they want us there. But if they said no, we pulled out and left Iraq collapse into civil war I think the fear is it might spread to other Islamic countrys.
If it then involved a load of other countries ie. Iran, Syria etc terrorists and those countrys would probably point the finger saying we started the mess thats killing muslims across the world we are the one's to blame.
Meaning we'd probably have alot more 9/11, 7/7 scenarios on our hands and possible attempted invasions of Isreal (surrounded by Islamic countries) and other places it'd just dissolve into one big mess.
Then there would be an outcry from the public of why arnt we doing anything about it? Why are we sitting back and letting innocent people being killed.
If England faced a mass invasion tomorrow and the Armed forces had decreased funding and couldnt cope, then where would the people be?
It all comes down to religion, money and politics i think
just my opinion though
If it then involved a load of other countries ie. Iran, Syria etc terrorists and those countrys would probably point the finger saying we started the mess thats killing muslims across the world we are the one's to blame.
Meaning we'd probably have alot more 9/11, 7/7 scenarios on our hands and possible attempted invasions of Isreal (surrounded by Islamic countries) and other places it'd just dissolve into one big mess.
Then there would be an outcry from the public of why arnt we doing anything about it? Why are we sitting back and letting innocent people being killed.
If England faced a mass invasion tomorrow and the Armed forces had decreased funding and couldnt cope, then where would the people be?
It all comes down to religion, money and politics i think
just my opinion though
Big Stevie, "job creation scheme".
What is going on now is probably the best (worst) training area for the forces anywhere.
Thats what makes these lads the best there is, and thats where all the experiences of those before (and after ) bare fruit.
There is no substitute for experience.
Good on the the the lads that are there
What is going on now is probably the best (worst) training area for the forces anywhere.
Thats what makes these lads the best there is, and thats where all the experiences of those before (and after ) bare fruit.
There is no substitute for experience.
Good on the the the lads that are there
-
GreyWing
- Guest
I agree with you all that some people have become very, very rich from these conficts, and I'm no tree hugger, far from it. I wish I was out there, afganistan not so much iraq.
Afganistan was a great example to the world of sharia law.
Iraq is a a more difficult place, but the iraqi people won't start to fight the foreign terrorists within until we've gone, they think we're going to do it all. From what I've seen there is 2 different types of terrorists in iraq, 1 the nationalists for iraq and 2 the jihadis who are going round bombing markets. If we leave I fully believe the first will turn on the second, they nearly come to blows before with the 1st group guarding polling stations in the north against the second. There is a split there and a massive difference in the kind of terrorist we are facing. We should be talking to the firsts, lets face it if the u.k was invaded tomorrow, would any of us do anything different?.
but I still don't think these are military wars, with military objectives. If iraq had a vote, we couldn't lose. If they vote, leave then we're happy and leave, vote stay and we'd have the backing of the people in iraq and those in this country who are trying to get us out everyday on the news would have to shut up.
Afganistan was a great example to the world of sharia law.
Iraq is a a more difficult place, but the iraqi people won't start to fight the foreign terrorists within until we've gone, they think we're going to do it all. From what I've seen there is 2 different types of terrorists in iraq, 1 the nationalists for iraq and 2 the jihadis who are going round bombing markets. If we leave I fully believe the first will turn on the second, they nearly come to blows before with the 1st group guarding polling stations in the north against the second. There is a split there and a massive difference in the kind of terrorist we are facing. We should be talking to the firsts, lets face it if the u.k was invaded tomorrow, would any of us do anything different?.
but I still don't think these are military wars, with military objectives. If iraq had a vote, we couldn't lose. If they vote, leave then we're happy and leave, vote stay and we'd have the backing of the people in iraq and those in this country who are trying to get us out everyday on the news would have to shut up.
-
GreyWing
- Guest
Tab... I'm hoping no countries would ever ever vote for it, out we go.
We are leaving iraq, we can't be seen to have been forced out by these guys. I don't think they have the power to force the military out, but the terrorists do have the power to force the politicians out. We all know that our military has kicked backside over there, but the public thinks we're getting a kicking,
I just think, no matter what we do over there, there is a lot more blood to be spilt, 50 year old scores that were in place before we ever got there. Iraq can't survive as one country with 3 large ethnic groups. Only fear of Saddam held it together for the last 30-40 years and now that's gone.
don't get me wrong, there is no right answers in this one, just answers that will lead to more pain than others.
We are leaving iraq, we can't be seen to have been forced out by these guys. I don't think they have the power to force the military out, but the terrorists do have the power to force the politicians out. We all know that our military has kicked backside over there, but the public thinks we're getting a kicking,
I just think, no matter what we do over there, there is a lot more blood to be spilt, 50 year old scores that were in place before we ever got there. Iraq can't survive as one country with 3 large ethnic groups. Only fear of Saddam held it together for the last 30-40 years and now that's gone.
don't get me wrong, there is no right answers in this one, just answers that will lead to more pain than others.
-
Paratrooper01
- Member
- Posts: 1158
- Joined: Tue 22 Apr, 2003 8:28 pm
- Location: Colly
- Contact:
Firstly having been there and seen the things that are going on i am telling you there are military objectives and missions which we are achieving. The main goal in afghanistan is stability and peace in order to start reconstruction and help the civilian population. We cannot do that if the construction companies are getting shot at. We are winning the battle against the taliban and the drug warlords out there and it will only be a matter of time until the construction work begins and we start to turn the war torn region into a peaceful place to live, perhaps even safe enough to kick start the tourism trade?!GreyWing wrote:Just like in Iraq and now afganistan, we can't win. No one knows what victory is.
I dont believe this statement is felt by the average afghan atall. Rule under the Taliban was extreme; public executions in the football stadium in Kabul and all over the country, beatings, rape, enforcing laws that nobody wanted such as growing beards and shaving heads, listening to music was banned and all links to the western world, treatment of women was discusting and the bitter repression of the Hazarah tribe people; ethnic cleansing on a mass scale.The taliban were far better in charge of afganistan than what is there now
The situation in Afghanistan now is that the Afghan people are finally beginning to rebuild their homes and lives after hundreds of years of war, and that is down to the democratic government being put in place and the Coalition Forces being asked to come and help stabalise regions such as Helmand and Kandahar.
To say that the work British and coalition soldiers are doing in Afghanistan is doing no good, is simply wrong.
Utrinque Paratus - READY FOR ANYTHING!
Got1 - i agree entirely - it is the best /worst place to be in a military context. No arguement there, and the guys that are doing the biz, i wish them all the best. I do not contend that.
My comments are from a political perspective, the HMG beancounters view that rather than be saddled with troops with no real 'work', i.e. NI, they are better being at war - having to find places in the UK costs money, if all the troops are doing is train. Don't forget, this is my view of the political perspective.
If my memory serves me, the 'redundant' Berlin garrison troops were the first to be assigned to form the forces for Op Granby in 1991 - and this were my comment 'job creation' is valid.
I don't argue that that is the purpose of soldiers - I am merely stating the HMG view of ensuring that defence forces are cost-effective - 'what is the point of all those soldiers if they aren't fighting someone?', notwithstanding that a 'good war' can get a government another term of office.
My comments are from a political perspective, the HMG beancounters view that rather than be saddled with troops with no real 'work', i.e. NI, they are better being at war - having to find places in the UK costs money, if all the troops are doing is train. Don't forget, this is my view of the political perspective.
If my memory serves me, the 'redundant' Berlin garrison troops were the first to be assigned to form the forces for Op Granby in 1991 - and this were my comment 'job creation' is valid.
I don't argue that that is the purpose of soldiers - I am merely stating the HMG view of ensuring that defence forces are cost-effective - 'what is the point of all those soldiers if they aren't fighting someone?', notwithstanding that a 'good war' can get a government another term of office.
-
GreyWing
- Guest
Paratrooper01... I'd have to listen to you on what you say about the people in afganistan, you've seen them first hand and I can't argue with that, nor would I want too, I have absolutley no military arguments on this one, just as big stevie says, purely the politicians who are selling this tour campaign so badly.
But the things you mentioned, Executions, rapes and beatings ect, were a geat advert for the idiots in this country and those in pakistan who want to live like that, they can't convince others to join them in a society that's so brutual.
I know its a bit brutual but the afgans were paying a price for the rest of the world.
I think only time will tell, on this one. I genuinely do hope your right. Although I've booked iraq for my next holiday so afganistan will have to wait
But I don't think the taliban could have held these people under for long, just like the under current of youth in Iran, they see what's going on in the west and will eventually try to topple from within,
p.s Caught Rambo 3 on the TV last night, how ironic is that film, he's training the taliban
But the things you mentioned, Executions, rapes and beatings ect, were a geat advert for the idiots in this country and those in pakistan who want to live like that, they can't convince others to join them in a society that's so brutual.
I know its a bit brutual but the afgans were paying a price for the rest of the world.
I think only time will tell, on this one. I genuinely do hope your right. Although I've booked iraq for my next holiday so afganistan will have to wait
But I don't think the taliban could have held these people under for long, just like the under current of youth in Iran, they see what's going on in the west and will eventually try to topple from within,
p.s Caught Rambo 3 on the TV last night, how ironic is that film, he's training the taliban
-
Alfa
- Guest
The public haven't got anything right, they think what the media tell them. Ask most people their opinion on Iraq/Afghanistan and all they will give you is a rehash of the report/article they saw/read on the news or in the paper last night.GreyWing wrote:Personally going against the grain, I think the public's got this one right.
Just like in Iraq and now afganistan, we can't win. No one knows what victory is.
That's the biggest argument, in my opinion, for why we "can't win the war" as the reports are always negative, over sensationalised and quite frankly are, generally, of poor quality.
"There's no news like bad news" and the media will always stick to this adage even if it's subcontiously. Also people are so impatient these days they want results yesterday and with the age of 24hr news every story has to be a drama and repeatedly over analysed by so called "experts" otherwise they'd have nothing to broadcast.
This is a war we can more than deal with, causalties are obviously a terrible pain for the families, but militarily they aren't significant in that they are unsustainable, as got1 mentioned earlier in Aden we lost 22 men in a single day, we aren't being beaten on the battlefield and we will be able to stick it out for the foreseeable future.
If these wars were being fought 20 years ago they wouldn't seem half as bad or futile as they do at the moment but because of the constant coverage and the generally negative reports on the events over there they appear unwinnable.
-
Artist
- Guest
Prior to the Falklands quite a few Small Wars were fought by various members of the British Armed Forces when seconded to Friendly Nations who needed help to quell the odd uprising or invasion. The Media never heard about them as the MOD and the government wanted it kept that way. These days the Troops are open to the media all the time and this has resulted in the troops having to deal with more rules and regulations than they need to.
Artist
Artist
