Posted July 12, 200916 yr Does anyone else get annoyed when the relatives of men killed in Iraq, Afghanistan etc bleat on and blame Gordon Brown, the Defence Secretary and lack of equipment for their sons' deaths? The men joined the Army knowing full well the risk of death in combat. Surely none joined thinking they were going to a Teddy Bear's Picnic? :wacko: You know when you sign up of the risks involved. Yes I admit it's sad when deaths occur but unavoidable in combat. A woman who's Grandson has been killed by a roadside bomb in Afghanistan was on yesterday's news calling Bob Ainsworth, Defence Secretary, all the names under the sun. She said we shouldn't be there. Her grandson joined the Army to be sent wherever the top brass decided he'd to go. :wacko: Get real, it's not Ainsworth's fault but the fault of whoever planted the bomb! Edited July 12, 200916 yr by Crazy Chris
July 12, 200916 yr People join the army to defend one's country, going into places we have no business or valid reason to be going to or getting involved in is not what people should expect to join the army for We had and have no business being in Iraq or Afghanistan and Iraq was an illegal war and Afghanistan can hardly fire nukes into London can it :rolleyes: We should quit being America's pet poodle and go back to what the army should be which is to DEFEND Britain
July 12, 200916 yr Crazy Chris living up to his name... yet again. If you were working (stretching it here I know) in a steelworks and you were put to work with white-hot liquids WITHOUT the necessary protective gear and then you burnt to death..... whose fault would it be? Yes, you'd made your choice to work in a steelworks, in a hazardous environment, but don't you think, by LAW, the company that employs you MUST ensure your safety at work? MUST provide you with ample safety gear so that, in the event of an accident, you're protected as much as humanly possible? Exactly the same for the soldiers, really, isn't it? I think it's absolutely disgusting that we KNOWINGLY send 18 year old kids to these hell-holes with 3rd-rate equipment, tanks that were considered unsafe 30 years ago, helmets that don't prevent bullets..... if they are there on the orders of their country, as these people are, then our country obviously has a DUTY to ensure they are fully equipped. Of course, in whatever job you undertake, you should be, and usually ARE aware of the risks..... but your employer is surely negligent if they fail to ensure your safety. Christ..... look at Health and Safety laws in this country right now.... you need a bloody license to use a stapler! I work with various authorities getting people into work.... you need a certificate to STRIM GRASS these days.... and safety training... and a safety uniform that makes you look like a Ghostbuster...so please don't tell me strimming grass is any more lethal than driving in areas where there are bombs in unsafe vehicles simply because defense cuts have ensured the Americans have enough money for the obviously safe route (helicopters) and the British lot... ah.... send them through in a truck, we can't afford the necessary helicopter. The facts are simple.... if our government doesn't have the money to FULLY protect these people - THEN GET EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM OUT OF THERE. It's embarrassing, crazy.... and if I had lost a relative in Iran or Afghanistan due to scrimping on safety.... I'd never rest until SOMEONE paid for it in high Government. How would you feel if YOUR son was blown to smithereens because our Defense secretary decided to risk your kid's life by sending him into death-traps with a faulty rifle? A 20-year old helmet? A truck that wouldn't prevent a firework nevermind a roadside bomb? Would you shrug your shoulders and say... ahh... well silly bugger knew the risks, eh? :rolleyes: I wonder if any of our MPs, from any side, would send THEIR kids to these places unprotected? Or is it always a case of "someone else's kid"? I for one can't think of a better place than Iraq for Mr Blair's son...... I wonder if he'd have been so keen to invade if HIS son had been on the frontline instead of p***ing it up in his luxury flat down the road from me in Bristol?????
July 12, 200916 yr Crazy Chris living up to his name... yet again. If you were working (stretching it here I know) in a steelworks and you were put to work with white-hot liquids WITHOUT the necessary protective gear and then you burnt to death..... whose fault would it be? Yes, you'd made your choice to work in a steelworks, in a hazardous environment, but don't you think, by LAW, the company that employs you MUST ensure your safety at work? MUST provide you with ample safety gear so that, in the event of an accident, you're protected as much as humanly possible? Exactly the same for the soldiers, really, isn't it? I think it's absolutely disgusting that we KNOWINGLY send 18 year old kids to these hell-holes with 3rd-rate equipment, tanks that were considered unsafe 30 years ago, helmets that don't prevent bullets..... if they are there on the orders of their country, as these people are, then our country obviously has a DUTY to ensure they are fully equipped. Of course, in whatever job you undertake, you should be, and usually ARE aware of the risks..... but your employer is surely negligent if they fail to ensure your safety. Christ..... look at Health and Safety laws in this country right now.... you need a bloody license to use a stapler! I work with various authorities getting people into work.... you need a certificate to STRIM GRASS these days.... and safety training... and a safety uniform that makes you look like a Ghostbuster...so please don't tell me strimming grass is any more lethal than driving in areas where there are bombs in unsafe vehicles simply because defense cuts have ensured the Americans have enough money for the obviously safe route (helicopters) and the British lot... ah.... send them through in a truck, we can't afford the necessary helicopter. The facts are simple.... if our government doesn't have the money to FULLY protect these people - THEN GET EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM OUT OF THERE. It's embarrassing, crazy.... and if I had lost a relative in Iran or Afghanistan due to scrimping on safety.... I'd never rest until SOMEONE paid for it in high Government. How would you feel if YOUR son was blown to smithereens because our Defense secretary decided to risk your kid's life by sending him into death-traps with a faulty rifle? A 20-year old helmet? A truck that wouldn't prevent a firework nevermind a roadside bomb? Would you shrug your shoulders and say... ahh... well silly bugger knew the risks, eh? :rolleyes: I wonder if any of our MPs, from any side, would send THEIR kids to these places unprotected? Or is it always a case of "someone else's kid"? I for one can't think of a better place than Iraq for Mr Blair's son...... I wonder if he'd have been so keen to invade if HIS son had been on the frontline instead of p***ing it up in his luxury flat down the road from me in Bristol????? Spot on Russ, and Craig as well.. Quite frankly Chris, either you're just deliberately posting this thread simply to wind people up or you're being deliberately offensive to people who have family fighting this piece of sh!t war instigated by the Bush administration to get oil for fat Americans SUVs..... <_< Yes, people do know what they're getting into when they join the armed forces, BUT their lives should not be thrown away cheaply or on a lie, soldiers are supposed to defend our country, and that's it, I dont see how on earth either Iraq or Afghanistan are "defensive" conflicts, when the terrorist threat is right here... In fact, there really WAS no "terrorist threat" on the streets of this country until we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan... You can talk about 9/11, but that was AMERICA'S problem, not ours, no one had even targeted us, or indeed the EU as a whole, and frankly why the fukk should BRITISH soldiers die on the streets of Basra or Kabul just to suck up to the Yanks.... Neither Chirac nor Shroeder saw any worth in joining the invasion of Iraq, and they were both right to criticise America... The defective equipment situation is just an absolute fukkin' national disgrace.... We send young men and women out to a bloody warzone with defective gear and expect them just to "make do", well, frankly, that is just not good enough... Russ is right, if this bloody Govt cant even show these guys whom we expect to fight and die on our behalf the respect to give them the proper gear, then, frankly, I say that they would be totally within their human rights to withdraw their labour and go on strike (yeah, I know exactly how that sounds, and frankly, I dont give a flying fukk. You can call it treason or mutiny if you like, but it's the Govt who's betrayed our lads and lasses on the front lines, and frankly, I'd wouldn't be at all surprised if the overwhelming majority of the country supported a strike action by the armed forces on the grounds of faulty or defective equipment....); there is no other occupation, be it the police, ambulance service or fire service, where the lads and lasses there would be expected to tolerate their health and safety being put at risk due to faulty equipment, so why should the armed forces be expected to put up with this sh!t.....? It's wrong on so many levels.... Perhaps, Chris, if you actually had a friend of family member in the armed forces, you'd actually understand this... Perhaps if you actually fukkin' well went out and WORKED FOR A LIVING, like on a building site or summat, you'd perhaps come to understand the issues involved in health and safety.... And, indeed, spot on about fukkin' Blair's brat as well..... Little c/unt.... I mean, I do heavily criticise the Royals, but by bloody GOD, the young Princes actually have the balls to go out and serve their mum and country, on that level, they get my respect at least, which is more than can be said for Blair Jr who's just a fukkin' WORSE parasite and idle middle class, bourgeois, nouveau riche piece of sh!t than any Royal....
July 12, 200916 yr Author I'm not posting this thread to wind anyone up. It genuinely annoyed me seeing this granny on the BBC News yesterday being so disrespectful to the Defence Secretary. How is it his fault that her Grandson died, which is basically what she said? She was talking at the guy's funeral and calling everyone names, Ainsworth, Brown.... Wish I could find the clip. I'll try. Even my wife agreed with me and said that they're not forced to join up, conscription she meant, and they know that soldiers can and do die when they join the Army!!! I'm not being deliberately offensive to the familes at all but they shouldn't blame Politicians when it's the fault of the animals planting these roadside ambush bombs. I've every sympathy for the families and victims too. Edited July 12, 200916 yr by Crazy Chris
July 12, 200916 yr The Defense Secratary is, of course, DIRECTLY responsible when he's knowingly sending troops to dangerous areas WITHOUT the correct protection. Read the replies, Chris,.... if an employer puts a worker at risk - THE EMPLOYER (in this case, the MOD) is DIRECTLY responsible for their safety (or not in this case). And once again..... put yourself in the famils' position..... if you have a son.,..imagine him joining up - then getting slaughtered... then finding out his death could've been prevented if the MoD hadn't been scrimping so much. Not rocket science, is it? :rolleyes:
July 12, 200916 yr The Defense Secratary is, of course, DIRECTLY responsible when he's knowingly sending troops to dangerous areas WITHOUT the correct protection. Read the replies, Chris,.... if an employer puts a worker at risk - THE EMPLOYER (in this case, the MOD) is DIRECTLY responsible for their safety (or not in this case). And once again..... put yourself in the famils' position..... if you have a son.,..imagine him joining up - then getting slaughtered... then finding out his death could've been prevented if the MoD hadn't been scrimping so much. Not rocket science, is it? :rolleyes:
July 12, 200916 yr Author I don't have a son but my cousin thought of joining the Army but decided against it as he fancied living to old age. My point stands.
July 12, 200916 yr Got to disagree with you Crazy Chris, our soldiers have to have the best equipment available to them where possible. The USA have armoured cars that give them much more protection than our troops have, in fact I read that the ones we are buying now have been rejected by the Americans as unsafe. We can afford the best so why do we go for the cheaper option. When Brown was chancellor he deliberately cut back on the budget for the army because he preferred spending cash on social services and benefits so shore up his core vote. It is well known this was one of Blair's biggest bug bares with Brown, starving the army of cash for capital equipment. I am against the war in principal, I cannot see how this is preventing terrorism in this Country, in my opinion it is stoking up the hatrid for the future, we will pay a high price for this over the coming years. This is an unwinnable war, we couldn't defeat the Afghans back in Queen Victoria's reign, The USSR fought the Taliban for 10 years and gave up, we have been at it for 6 years, and we are no further forward today than 6 years ago, except a lot of soldiers have been killed, mostly by road side bombs, which are a direct result of useless vehicles(which are the MOD/governments fault). If the army had more helicopters they could be flown in and flown out. Of the 9,000 troops in Afghanistan, there are 5,000 in Helmand, who have just 10 Chinooks and five smaller, less-powerful Lynx helicopters, compared with the 120 Chinooks allocated to the 8,000 US marines in the centre and south of the province. Anyway most of the targets for this war have failed, as can be read in this article from the Independent..... Strategic aims: how Britain is faring in Afghanistan Stop terrorist plans for attacks on the UK * MoD's main stated aims include: "Deny al-Qa'ida its Afghan base". * Terrorist bunkers bombed out, training camps disrupted. * Operations did not prevent attacks on London transport network. * Fear plotting continues among terrorists in Pakistan and fghanistan. Verdict: Failure Avoid a bloody war * Former defence secretary John Reid said he hoped British forces would leave without "a single shot being fired". * More than four million bullets fired by the British Army in a year, as conflict intensified. * More soldiers have died there, 184 in all, than in Iraq. Verdict: Failure Catch Osama Bin Laden * Post 9/11, al-Qa'ida's most recognisable figure became world's most wanted man. * Afghanistan refused to extradite him before he went into hiding. * His whereabouts unknown, remains an inspiration to insurgents. Verdict: Failure End Taliban rule in Afghanistan * Taliban rule included laws against educating women and activities such as watching TV. Al-Qa'ida operatives were provided with shelter. * Military intervention ended its control in 2001. * Taliban still an insurgent force with undeterred remnants proving a dangerous enemy. Verdict: Pass Bring democracy to Afghanistan * First elections run solely by the Afghan government take place next month. * Provincial polls took place after Taliban's fall. * Elections generate waves of violent protests. * Nato warned the new government "remains limited" and prone to corruption. Verdict: Pass Keep the region stable * Armed forces want to contain targets to Afghanistan. * Taliban insurgents crossed borders, leading to bloody battle with Pakistan army in Swat Valley, with tens of thousands fleeing their homes. Verdict: Failure Make the streets safe * Troops completed missions to clear unexploded mines. * Soldiers gain increasing trust of civilians. * Nato recently warned recently the number of civilian deaths "remains a serious concern". * More than 2,000 Afghan civilians died last year in insurgent attacks. Verdict: Failure Improve life for Afghanis * British money repaired dams and provided irrigation. * Massive increase in children going to school, including large numbers of girls for the first time. * Average life expectancy is 44, while disease and poverty are widespread. * Large swathes of the country are unconnected to safe water supplies. Verdict: More work needed Stop the drug trade * Concentrated battle against poppy field drug barons who supply world's heroin market from Afghanistan. * US experts fear blowing up poppy crops backfired, driving desperate farmers to sympathise with insurgent forces. * Farmers struggling with alternative crops in the dry conditions. Verdict: Failure Preserve oil/gas access * Afghanistan traditionally a perfect route for exporting oil and gas to Western countries. * US set up deals with Afghanistan's neighbours to ensure smoother exports. * Agreements criticised for being made with countries having poor human rights records. Verdict: Pass so we have failed on 6 out of 9 war objectives, pretty abysmal if you ask me. Edited July 12, 200916 yr by brian91
July 12, 200916 yr I don't have a son but my cousin thought of joining the Army but decided against it as he fancied living to old age. My point stands. Well maybe he'd have though differently if out Government were prepared to give him some decent equipment which would vastly reduce the chances of him dying!
July 13, 200916 yr End Taliban rule in Afghanistan * Taliban rule included laws against educating women and activities such as watching TV. Al-Qa'ida operatives were provided with shelter. * Military intervention ended its control in 2001. * Taliban still an insurgent force with undeterred remnants proving a dangerous enemy. Verdict: Pass [ I'd hardly call that a roaring success though mate... They still control parts of Afghanistan, and now they're gaining a lot of ground in Pakistan... Last time I checked, the Taliban were about 75 miles away from Islamabad..... Frankly, kicking them out of Afghanistan (no nukes) just meant the problem got spread out, and now they're in Pakistan (lots of nukes...). A very, very big tactical error, IMO, at least they were contained in Afghanistan...
July 13, 200916 yr I'm not posting this thread to wind anyone up. It genuinely annoyed me seeing this granny on the BBC News yesterday being so disrespectful to the Defence Secretary. How is it his fault that her Grandson died, which is basically what she said? She was talking at the guy's funeral and calling everyone names, Ainsworth, Brown.... GOOD FOR HER...... Grannie Power!!!! I'm totally on her side frankly.... Please do post the clip, I could do with a good laugh tbh...... My cousin served in Iraq (an army man for over 12 years, service in Kosovo, he resigned his commission over the Iraq affair), he saw friends of his die, blown up by roadside bombs, and he said exactly the same thing about equipment..... Believe me, if my cousin had come home in a fukkin' body bag, I'd do a hell of a lot more than just shout names at the fukkin' Defence Secretary, Broon, etc..... <_< At the end of the day, the ultimate responsibility lies with the Govt... The "war on terror" is a lie and shambles, and the equipment issue is an extremely important one......
July 13, 200916 yr Author Well Foreign Secretary David Miliband apparently said on GMTV this morning that our men have all the right equipment and protection. I didn't hear it myself but they were talking to the mother of a soldier later and re-iterated what he'd said then. So there you have it. All this "lack of equipment" is just hyped up by the press and grieving relatives. The Foreign Secretary must know after all. Edited July 13, 200916 yr by Crazy Chris
July 13, 200916 yr He's hardly going to come on and say "No, we're awful, we can't afford to give our troops the equipment that ideally we'd like them to have. It is partly our fault that so many of our soldiers are losing their lives" is he? :rolleyes: Why would government actually want to admit blame?! Edited July 13, 200916 yr by RabbitFurCoat
July 13, 200916 yr He's hardly going to come on and say "No, we're awful, we can't afford to give our troops the equipment that ideally we'd like them to have. It is partly our fault that so many of our soldiers are losing their lives" is he? :rolleyes: Why would government actually want to admit blame?! Spot on.... These fukkers always use the 'plausible deniability' excuse..... So, Chris, are you calling my cousin and all his comrades-in-arms liars then....? <_<
July 13, 200916 yr Well Foreign Secretary David Miliband apparently said on GMTV this morning that our men have all the right equipment and protection. Maybe they do NOW (and frankly I believe nothing that David Miliband says, he's an utter tw@t, just look at his "reaction" to the whole head of MI6 on Facebook episode)... But what about eight years ago for Afghanistan....? Six years ago for Iraq...? Did they buggery mate..... And, pray tell, what bloody use is it now to have the proper gear in Iraq when we're basically holed up in bloody Basra airport almost on our way out of the fukkin' country inside of the next 9-12 months.....? <_< Just ever so slightly a case of bolting the door after the horse is already buggered off half way to the other village mate..... So, it's taken our lads almost eight years to get the gear they needed to do the job back in 2001, and you and that w@nker Miliband seem to think that this is the Govt doing a really sh"t hot job..... DO ME A FUKKIN' FAVOUR...... <_< <_<
July 17, 200916 yr I actually think Crazy Chris has a point. It's been nearly eight years since the Afghanistan war started, and six years since Iraq... anyone who's in the Army now has in effect given their approval to both of these wars, given there's now been plenty of time to resign if they disagree. Given both these wars are totally illegitimate, and any soldier fighting in either will have contributed to the killing of innocent civilians for an un-just cause, I have limited sympathy for any military fatalities. Given how much many people in this counrty are struggling right now, I would not support a huge increase in "defence" spending. I want British soldiers withdrawn from this pointless war asap, which will NOT end the Taleban, and which is propping up an Afghanistani "democratic" government which is barely any better than the Taleban themselves - earlier this year, they passed a law making a woman the offciial property of her husband, giving a man full legal rights to viciously beat his wife, and making it the woman's duty to have sex whenever her husband wants it.
July 22, 200915 yr I actually think Crazy Chris has a point. It's been nearly eight years since the Afghanistan war started, and six years since Iraq... anyone who's in the Army now has in effect given their approval to both of these wars, given there's now been plenty of time to resign if they disagree. Given both these wars are totally illegitimate, and any soldier fighting in either will have contributed to the killing of innocent civilians for an un-just cause, I have limited sympathy for any military fatalities. Given how much many people in this counrty are struggling right now, I would not support a huge increase in "defence" spending. I want British soldiers withdrawn from this pointless war asap, which will NOT end the Taleban, and which is propping up an Afghanistani "democratic" government which is barely any better than the Taleban themselves - earlier this year, they passed a law making a woman the offciial property of her husband, giving a man full legal rights to viciously beat his wife, and making it the woman's duty to have sex whenever her husband wants it. You seem to be totally forgetting one thing mate, not ALL of them can bloody resign at the same time FFS..... <_< They sign up to the armed forces to do a minimum service, and they go basically where they're told, they cant exactly say "Sarge, I dont really wanna go to Iraq, cant you give me a cushy guardpost duty in Germany instead...", kind of doesn't really work like that..... :rolleyes: If the armed forces had refused the govt order to go to Iraq or Afghanistan, then that would be a military Coup d'etat in effect, I wouldn't have thought that was something you'd be in favour of tbh.... The facts are, the ordinary soldier has no power to refuse a direct order from their superior officer or from the Govt, they dont have a 'shop steward' that they can go to to represent them... And you totally miss the point anyway, this is about soldiers being sent into the arena of conflict without proper equipment, or defective equipment, they should never have been sent to these warzones in the first place without the proper gear, but again, who can they actually turn to to object...? The actual 'moral case' for war is really kind of a side issue here, we mostly accept that the case for war in Afghanistan or Iraq is completely unjustified, but the decision was made (wrongly), and ordinary, working soldiers really have no say in it... If this govt didn't listen to the almost two million on the streets of London in February '03, they aint gonna listen to the ordinary squaddies..... I've said this in another thread, but I think it needs to be repeated - the way that the State treats the men and women it uses to fight its ridiculous battles is nothing short of a fukkin' scandal... The Russian army had the right idea in 1917, they revolted, killed their officers, killed the fukkin' Czar and his family for getting the ordinary Russian people involved in WW1... Shame us, the French and the Germans never followed suit - probably could have avoided WW2 if we had.....
July 23, 200915 yr I would have more sympathy for soldiers dying due to dodgy equipment near the beginning of the campaigns. But by now, surely anyone who signed up before Afghanistan/Iraq will have now already fulfilled their minimum service, and so, will have had to renew their commitment to the armed forces in full knowledge that they would likely have to serve in either of these wars (I'm not an expert on how long "minimum service" is, so I may be wrong, please correct me if I am). With that in mind, given these people have effectively endorsed these wars (again, I'm assuming) which are illegitimate, and that these soldiers have directly or indirectly contributed to killing innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq, I'm not going to lose sleep over any of these soldiers dying. I'm not GLAD they're dead, but I consider helping truly innocent families hit by the recession in this country to be a higher priority than people who are fuelling illegal wars. Jmo
July 23, 200915 yr Author I would have more sympathy for soldiers dying due to dodgy equipment near the beginning of the campaigns. But by now, surely anyone who signed up before Afghanistan/Iraq will have now already fulfilled their minimum service, and so, will have had to renew their commitment to the armed forces in full knowledge that they would likely have to serve in either of these wars (I'm not an expert on how long "minimum service" is, so I may be wrong, please correct me if I am). With that in mind, given these people have effectively endorsed these wars (again, I'm assuming) which are illegitimate, and that these soldiers have directly or indirectly contributed to killing innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq, I'm not going to lose sleep over any of these soldiers dying. I'm not GLAD they're dead, but I consider helping truly innocent families hit by the recession in this country to be a higher priority than people who are fuelling illegal wars. Jmo Well said and spot on. Agree with every word.
Create an account or sign in to comment