Blue on Blue...

[tvchimp]

Why are we still fighting in Afghanistan, when the only people that are a danger to us are the Americans?

https://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/06/british-soldier-friendly-fire-afghanistan

The Afghans don't want us there, we went there to 'free the people from tyranny etc' but all we've done is lost good soldiers to trigger happy fuck-heads!

Imo, we should have pulled out of there a while ago, but obviously, Blair and now Cameron enjoy being America's bitch too much to do whats in our best interest.


Sorry for ranting, but I've just woke up after a few hours sleep, had a argument with my folks now reading in teh news that Americans have killed one of us Brits, and I can bet he wont be tried for anything...
____________________
Bike: Currently Bikeless... Gahh

[Mister James]

I personally think we should withdraw from Afghanistan right now, we disrupted AQ there years ago, which was our objective.

That said, I grow tired of reading comments like yours. The reason you see so many Blue/Blue incidents with US pilots is because we have such pathetic air support elements there ourselves. We rely almost completely on the yanks to provide 'fast movers' to support our troops while on active operations.

War is a risk business with unpleasant surprises, especially in the realm of close air support of troops engage in close quarters fighting.
The Americans are providing the bulk of CAS for such requests, it's hardly a shock that they are involved in the majority of such incidents that go wrong. I'm pretty sure there've been a few Brit/Brit FF incidents too.

When interviewed, British troops have remained hugely supportive and thankful for US air support.

We shouldn't be there at all any more, but the continuing deaths are the fault of Cameron, not US pilots.
____________________
>Soultrader Mister James, I bet you are a copper
>Bazza Wow. Eyes like a shithouse rat, you...

[Silver]

[Itchy]

[colin1]

The true reasons for strategic decisions are unlikely to be discussed in public. I personally believe that Itchy's notion of some money making venture, are going to be a lot closer to the truth than that we are there to make sure afghan girls can go to school.

I note that american and afghan complainers in wiki leaks objected to british forces trying to target drug gangs, probably because its drug gangs who are the opposition to the taliban, as the taliban had banned opium poppy production.

Soldiers sign up to kill for their country, they don't get to decide on foreign policy as that has more to do with things like long term geopolitical interests and big business.

Obviously soldiers arent keen on dieing in a war they can't win, but it's a tough job and someone has to do it.

With Iraq, you could at least argue, that invasion forces have to stay long enough to stabilise the country after it was so comprehensively destroyed, but with Afghanistan it's a bit different as it has never been well-developed so not much to destroy and there has been war there for decades, and the people are pretty resilient against invasion.
____________________
colin1 is officially faster than god

[ThoughtContro...]

Yep, money and geostrategy. Pipelines and drug money which ends being laundered on Wall Street and the City of London. Over $500 billion a year according to the 1998 Senate report on correspondent banking. We need that liquid cash or the stock market would collapse.

It's nothing to do with Osama or 9/11. If it was anything to do with 9/11 they'd have invaded Pakistan, where Gen Mahmud Ahmad, the head of the ISI intelligence service had $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta, the lead hijacker, so reported Le Figaro in October 2001, but they're conspiracy theorists or communists, even tho they were owned by the Carlyle group at the time, now Dassault.

Long live the Central Eurasian meatgrinder. Long may it remain killing and maiming the cattle. Gotta keep that military-industrial complex economic pump primed somehow.
____________________
Prize cunt
--
"In a world of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act" - George Orwell