Landmark troops deaths in Afghanistan reaches 100

Infinite Chaos · 06-09-08, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Three British soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan, bringing the number of UK troops killed there to 100 since 2001, the Ministry of Defence said.

The men, from 2nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment, were on foot patrol near their Helmand Province base when they were killed in a suicide attack.

Another man was injured in the blast. Their next of kin have been informed.

Defence Secretary Des Browne said his thoughts were with the loved ones of the 100 "courageous" personnel.

Suicide bomber

Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, commander of British forces in Helmand Province, said the foot patrol was returning to base through some villages when it was attacked by a single suicide bomber.

BBC news article.

We are right to be there, Afghanistan is a clear objective unlike Iraq which was based on lies and fabrication, however the soldiers at the very least deserve proper equipment. Today's weasel words by Gordon Brown that "the soldiers are in our minds all the time" don't ring true. Certainly when it comes to the military covenant.

Volker · 06-09-08, 02:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite Chaos

BBC news article.

We are right to be there, Afghanistan is a clear objective unlike Iraq which was based on lies and fabrication, however the soldiers at the very least deserve proper equipment. Today's weasel words by Gordon Brown that "the soldiers are in our minds all the time" don't ring true. Certainly when it comes to the military covenant.

I really liked EAGLE1, he was a funny guy with good ideas and we both sided here on every topic I remember. He is a British soldier in Afghanistan now.

EAGLE1 got banned from DebatePolitics a few days before he left to Afghanistan for a reason I don't know.

Britons are not right to be there.

This being said, I hope, EAGLE1 comes home well. He is a paramedic, he is not there to kill people. He is a good guy.

Red_Dave · 06-10-08, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Volker

Britons are not right to be there.

They are there on a united nations mandate to remove a threat to peace. Why should they not be there? Would you rather we left and let the taliban take over?

Volker · 06-10-08, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red_Dave

They are there on a united nations mandate to remove a threat to peace.

They can be there with the blessing of the pope, it is still wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red_Dave

Why should they not be there? Would you rather we left and let the taliban take over?

You guys leave and we will see what happens.

Iriemon · 06-10-08, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red_Dave

They are there on a united nations mandate to remove a threat to peace. Why should they not be there? Would you rather we left and let the taliban take over?

I have no problem with the intervention in Afghanistan.

But whether or not an attack is justified, it is not a license for a indefinite occupation of the country. That smacks of imperialism. At some point NATO has to set a date for withdrawal.

Red_Dave · 06-10-08, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

I have no problem with the intervention in Afghanistan.

But whether or not an attack is justified, it is not a license for a indefinite occupation of the country. That smacks of imperialism. At some point NATO has to set a date for withdrawal.

We,re there with the consent of the Afgan government. How is that imperialism [or "wrong" as Volker put it]?you also have to bear in mind that setting a date for withdrawel would make the talibans task alot easyer. All they have to do is lay low untill a set date.

Iriemon · 06-11-08, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red_Dave

We,re there with the consent of the Afgan government. How is that imperialism [or "wrong" as Volker put it]?you also have to bear in mind that setting a date for withdrawel would make the talibans task alot easyer. All they have to do is lay low untill a set date.

Long term occupation by a foreign power to prop up a government that does not enough support from its own people to stand smacks of imperialiasm. Or maybe colonialism. Some ism.

Red_Dave · 06-12-08, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

Long term occupation by a foreign power to prop up a government that does not enough support from its own people to stand smacks of imperialiasm. Or maybe colonialism. Some ism.

They vote for it, thats enough support.