Withdraw the troops call heard

[sevenhills]

Times 2010

With Afghanistan recently scoring amongst the highest in corruption levels, Milliband realises that things are as good as theyre going to get. That in today's Afghan world, having the Taliban running areas, is much like how we have the Lib Dems run areas.
Milliband thought he was replacing the Taliban with a democratic process, only to realise there was no one the west would vote for, most of the politicos being heroin flogging warlords who mutilate families to secure votes (there is no going to the police for fraud since the warlords people joined the police force).
We would literally need to background check everyone in a position of power, and watch over each official and keep their families safe for Afghanistan's institutions to work like western Europe's.
To stop powers that are Taliban in all but name we would need an overseer man for every Afghani in power, from the police to the president. Today's Afghanistan is as good as it's going to get this century.

Lord forbid we pull the troops out because they are being shot at and that the world becomes 'tired of the war'. Lets face it, Footballers sign up to play football, Politicians to do politics. Anyone who signed up hoping to play war games on Dartmoor for their career should tender their signature a little more carefully, Bring footballers back home if they're being shot at, and doctors, but career soldiers? If your business is war, be happy there's war.

[pauli007001]

Times 2010

With Afghanistan recently scoring amongst the highest in corruption levels, Milliband realises that things are as good as theyre going to get. That in today's Afghan world, having the Taliban running areas, is much like how we have the Lib Dems run areas.
Milliband thought he was replacing the Taliban with a democratic process, only to realise there was no one the west would vote for, most of the politicos being heroin flogging warlords who mutilate families to secure votes (there is no going to the police for fraud since the warlords people joined the police force).
We would literally need to background check everyone in a position of power, and watch over each official and keep their families safe for Afghanistan's institutions to work like western Europe's.
To stop powers that are Taliban in all but name we would need an overseer man for every Afghani in power, from the police to the president. Today's Afghanistan is as good as it's going to get this century.

Lord forbid we pull the troops out because they are being shot at and that the world becomes 'tired of the war'. Lets face it, Footballers sign up to play football, Politicians to do politics. Anyone who signed up hoping to play war games on Dartmoor for their career should tender their signature a little more carefully, Bring footballers back home if they're being shot at, and doctors, but career soldiers? If your business is war, be happy there's war.

Not to worry if the 17 year old signing was just looking for enough money to put a roof over his pregnant Girlfriends head, his buisness is war so let him die he knew what he was getting into, blah blah blah blah.
Career soldiers? Define?

War as a buisness, a soldiers buisness is War?, How much s the profit margin for a soldier on an investment in War?

Your entire post is stupid, the subject is retarded and you an an individual have no Idea what you are talking about.
However you do have the option of explaining the nonsence you have just posted, or is it just another Pro war anti military rant by another Nulabist?

[sevenhills]

The army is not the last option to people in the UK. The assumption that it is, is down to mis-education, or ignorance of learning.
So I disagree with you.
When you get paid to fight a war, it becomes a business. The idea that there is no profit in war is misguided. The fact that there is also loss is down to what business you are in.
After you have spent your contract in the National army, you can then renew, or work for a private company.

You seem to be mashing ideas that a soldier is investing in war. Lets not skew concepts.

[pauli007001]

The army is not the last option to people in the UK. The assumption that it is, is down to mis-education, or ignorance of learning.
So I disagree with you.
When you get paid to fight a war, it becomes a business. The idea that there is no profit in war is misguided. The fact that there is also loss is down to what business you are in.
After you have spent your contract in the National army, you can then renew, or work for a private company.

You seem to be mashing ideas that a soldier is investing in war. Lets not skew concepts.

Dont tell me what i seem to be doing.I am speaking from experience, at age 17 i signed up to join the Army in order to earn a very small income, slightly more that a government sponsored training scheme would offer.I stayed in the army and did very little of the buisness of war.I did get deployed on peace keeping missions and on humanitarian missions( hardly a profitable buisness) The first time i was involved in a role that i had specifically trained for was in the 15th year of my 16 years of service.
As i said you haven a bloody clue what you are talking about.Soldiers do not invest in the buisness of war when in the past 40 years the British and US Armies have spent 90% of their active service time NOT involved in wars, they have been involved in feeding those civillians at risk of harm because of wars, protecting civvies from warring factions etc etc.

Your type always refuse to see beyond the soldiers are paid automations and killing machines, You are completely wrong and probably VERY stupid if you have only this single view of who and what a soldier is and how he earns his pay.

[Midas]

As i said you haven a bloody clue what you are talking about.Soldiers do not invest in the buisness of war when in the past 40 years the British and US Armies have spent 90% of their active service time NOT involved in wars, they have been involved in feeding those civillians at risk of harm because of wars, protecting civvies from warring factions etc etc.

Whilst I quite agree with you Pauli in that individual soldiers are not in the 'business' of war (other than mercenaries), surely even you'll have to agree that many of those shadowy people who are behind the armed forces in both governments and defence contracting companies are in the 'business of war'. A we know from figures relating to the Iraq war, both companies and individuals in the USA have earned billions of dollars from it, essentially shifting taxpayers' money from the pockets of the average person in the street to the pockets of those who pull the strings well behind the scenes, all at the expense of those armed forces personnel unfortunate enough to be caught up in the war.

[pauli007001]

Whilst I quite agree with you Pauli in that individual soldiers are not in the 'business' of war (other than mercenaries), surely even you'll have to agree that many of those shadowy people who are behind the armed forces in both governments and defence contracting companies are in the 'business of war'. A we know from figures relating to the Iraq war, both companies and individuals in the USA have earned billions of dollars from it, essentially shifting taxpayers' money from the pockets of the average person in the street to the pockets of those who pull the strings well behind the scenes, all at the expense of those armed forces personnel unfortunate enough to be caught up in the war.

Yet his claim is that Soldiers have INVESTED in the buisness of war, he implies that all soldiers become private Military Contractors after leaving the Army, most do not.Not all mercenaries are in the buisness of war, most are not paid huge incomes and most, like the armies of nations, spend very little time actually engaged in war.They do a lot of Humanitarian work, peacekeeping and disaster relief, now i often make this point, it is always Ignored by those who have some deep seated desire to hate and attack sombody, they choose a Squaddie because it is not considered politically incorrect to do so.
The PC picture of a squaddie is one of a violent killer who single mindedly commits acts of violence for a job and for fun.This is not true as i have pointed out before. remember in the last 40 years the armed forces of the UK and the USA have spent less than 10% of their active duty engagement in theatres that would qualify as war zones.

[sevenhills]

A soldier is a man with a gun and a trade. This is how it is in the UK. You do 12 weeks basic training which revolves around fitness, discipline, and fighting. Then you specialise in a role. Upon entering the army every recruit is told he is a soldier first and a trade second. I know this pauli because I went through the process and can pop the paper work up on the net for you to look at. I was recruited in Torquay, and trained at Chicksands, please look it up and look at my paperwork before you jump to conclusions that I dont know what I'm talking about.
Why do you assume I think soldiers are in an investment point of view? can you point to where I said this so I can clarify.

Business is not all about investment pauli. Its about selling a service. Business is multi faceted, with many different ways to do business. A soldier sells his skill like a plumber does. A plumber is in the business of plumbing. There is no difference unless you are conscripted.

How much you get paid is no justification for the fact that you sign up to a company that expects you to put your life on the line for money. People who want to protect their country can join the police, people who want to help other countries can join humanitarian organisations, joining the army is about war.

War involves humanitarian work, it always has. It involves policing, it always has. But signing up as a soldier requires you get shot at when ordered to.

[pauli007001]

A soldier is a man with a gun and a trade. This is how it is in the UK. You do 12 weeks basic training which revolves around fitness, discipline, and fighting. Then you specialise in a role. Upon entering the army every recruit is told he is a soldier first and a trade second. I know this pauli because I went through the process and can pop the paper work up on the net for you to look at. I was recruited in Torquay, and trained at Chicksands, please look it up and look at my paperwork before you jump to conclusions that I dont know what I'm talking about.
Why do you assume I think soldiers are in an investment point of view? can you point to where I said this so I can clarify.

Business is not all about investment pauli. Its about selling a service. Business is multi faceted, with many different ways to do business. A soldier sells his skill like a plumber does. A plumber is in the business of plumbing. There is no difference unless you are conscripted.

How much you get paid is no justification for the fact that you sign up to a company that expects you to put your life on the line for money. People who want to protect their country can join the police, people who want to help other countries can join humanitarian organisations, joining the army is about war.

War involves humanitarian work, it always has. It involves policing, it always has. But signing up as a soldier requires you get shot at when ordered to.

So you were a Remf then!!

Too afraid to become a proper soldier, In the Infantry!!!

You may be a mercinary in it for the money and profit and the joy of killing.Most people i know joined for many reasons, mine were financial, i stayed because i enjoyed the job and enjoyed the culture.

You may have disliked your time in, or perhaps you couldnt cut it and were let go.Therefore all your anti soldier rants on here are simply Sour grapes.

I have no interest in seeing your service record or other personal info, i believe what you say, i just disagree with your claim that soldiers are in it for the money and the joy of killing.

Humanitarian aide often has nothing to do with war, it has to do with humanitarian aide to ease the risk to people suffering hardship due to many causes, some of which might be war, some may be natural disasters etc.
In my service if i was ordered to stand up and be shot at I would have laughed at the Idiot giving the order and offered to stand behind him.I would of course do my job(getting shot is not a part of a soldiers Job, the main part is to avoid being shot whilst completing you mission).

[sevenhills]

lol yes that is true, youre not supposed to take a bullet. you are supposed to not get hit. Good point. I'm sure you know what I'm referring to though.
Thank you kindly but kermits go on patrols just like everyone else, anyone who thinks int corp just sit in an interrogation room should speak to someone who has actually been one.
I certainly have no low opinion of soldiers. I've yet to see you cite where I say that. It isnt true is why.
My point isnt that soldiers love killing, please re read my first post. It's about war, and war is about protecting your side.
I wholly accept your point about the military being drafted in to relief zones. If there was a mobile relief-trained police force, you bet your boots theyd be called in instead of the military.
I think it's tragic how many people come into the forces not knowing what they've signed up for. Like it's a boys club of sports and adventure (which is how it's been advertised).

[Tete123]

Having never served in the Armed Forces I fail to understand how any reasonable 17 year old recruit is unaware of the inherent dangers of becoming a soldier should they be required to deploy into a warzone; either as an active combatent or on humanitarian relief?

Lets face it most 17 year olds understand the concept of death and the consequences of war so I cannot accept they feel that their training in use of guns etc offers no dangers.

That said am I understanding the original OP correctly in that the soldiers should remain in Afghanistan merely because they entered the British Army? If that is the case then the deaths that are occuring is something we the British public should just accept without questioning the validity of the mission? If I was mistaken by the first post then accept my apology.

I feel it is time we concetrate on British interests as I am fed up with hearing that our safety at home is protected by our mission in Afghanistan. Since 2001 we have experience homeland terrorism, surely not a coincidence of our involvment in the wars post 9/11 and these attacks were carried out by UK based terror cells by UK citizens. It is indeed time to question our involvement and bring our troops home now .. so no more die in vain on a mission that can never be won in a country that will never be altered.

[sevenhills]

No I think you'll find there is evidence that shows most 17 year olds dont actually understand death and the consequences of killing someone. I can, if you like, show you documentary work which is a study on PTSD which shows what happens to a percentage of soldiers who have no idea how to deal with what they have seen and done.

We should always question why we are deployed. Just not pull out because things get bloody. I suppose we all justify the war to ourselves for different reasons.
There is the fact. We are in Afghanistan. The reason Gordon Brown gives you is his reason. It may or may not be the reason, we will never know, nor does it matter to the individual who is weighing benefits against cost. No one should accept it as justification unless they too understand it. So long as you can prove it to yourself you can think we are in Afghanistan for whatever reason you wish. Good or bad.

I dont think you will ever get rid of the Taliban. Get the gangs off the streets of new york and you will get the gangs that plague Afghanistan to go using the same methods. In my experience our continued presence has given the Taliban a lot more people and authority. This is due to mis-education and mistakes which has led to poverty and anger, dispite rebuilding efforts. I think we can make Afghanistan better, but it will never be as good as we want it. We cant stop corruption in our own countries, so we will never get it in that one, it just so happens that the corruption there is far more deadly.

[pauli007001]

Having never served in the Armed Forces I fail to understand how any reasonable 17 year old recruit is unaware of the inherent dangers of becoming a soldier should they be required to deploy into a warzone; either as an active combatent or on humanitarian relief?

Lets face it most 17 year olds understand the concept of death and the consequences of war so I cannot accept they feel that their training in use of guns etc offers no dangers.

That said am I understanding the original OP correctly in that the soldiers should remain in Afghanistan merely because they entered the British Army? If that is the case then the deaths that are occuring is something we the British public should just accept without questioning the validity of the mission? If I was mistaken by the first post then accept my apology.

I feel it is time we concetrate on British interests as I am fed up with hearing that our safety at home is protected by our mission in Afghanistan. Since 2001 we have experience homeland terrorism, surely not a coincidence of our involvment in the wars post 9/11 and these attacks were carried out by UK based terror cells by UK citizens. It is indeed time to question our involvement and bring our troops home now .. so no more die in vain on a mission that can never be won in a country that will never be altered.

Tete, every 17 year old i have ever met has been thick, even the geniuses, they are still thick, most kids under 25 i meet are also thick.I have met kids aged between 17 and 25 who have no concept of reality at all, never mind the reality of war.I at age (nearly anyway) 40 cant say i know all about the realities of war, even with my past service, i would personally give up all i have to be back alongside my mates in either Afghanistan or Iraq, I am so arrogant that i think i would make a difference!!
the forces hire em young for a reason, many stay out of a sense of responsibility for eachother, it is quite an easy concept, people jump under Busses to save a Jack Russell!!!

[Don]

It is indeed time to question our involvement and bring our troops home now .. so no more die in vain on a mission that can never be won in a country that will never be altered.

Having fought a war in which over 50,000 of my brothers and sisters were allowed to die in vain and which could have been won but for lack of resolve, I agree with you on Afganistan. I don't think it can be won in spite of some magnificent sacrifices on part the soldiers of both our countries. Historically, in spite of the Russian invasion, it is a land that has never been truly subjugated since Alexander (and I'd say the jury is out on that one). They are a hard tribal people and the democratic principles are foreign to them. Add in endemic corruption top to bottom and I personally believe them to be ungovernable.

[Don]

many stay out of a sense of responsibility for eachother, it is quite an easy concept, people jump under Busses to save a Jack Russell!!!

Exactly, in a fight all I have is the faith that you will die for me and vice versa. Anything else is incidental and irrelevant in spite of what you believed going in to it.

That said, the Jack Russell is on his own!