A just cause

daniel maris

I generally agree with your sentiments here Rod. It's quite obscene to see grieving families asked for their views on our involvement in Afghanistan as if their grief somehow confers geopolitical insight.

If we want to turn ourselves into a pacifist nation that won't risk a single soldier's death - fine. And let us face the consequences. But if not, then let us try and disentangle the several issues here.

- The are questions concerning our objectives. Are we trying to dislodge Al Queda and the Taliban, or only AQ, or AQ and only parts of the Taliban etc???

- There are questions about how our troops are operating. Are the right tactics being employed.

- There are questions about whether our allies are doing enough (and if not, why we are so polite as not to tell them that in public, at NATO assemblies and so on).

- There are questions as to why this is a NATO mission.

- There are issues about what sort of power structure in Afghanistan we should support and whether we are trying to do too much or too little.

- There are questions about how this all relates to Pakistan.

- Finally (possibly firstly) there is the moral issue about ensuring how troops are properly equipped. I don't agree with you on that one Rod. The government has had 8 years to get this right. The deficiencies of armoured vehicles and helicopter numbers have been well known for a long time. I would add I have been absolutely appalled at TV footage about how we fight in Afghanistan. We seem to expose soldiers to gunfire unnecessarily in my view. The UK has an honourable tradition of military inventiveness to avoid human casualties - we successfully employed various tricks at the D Day landings and we were first to invent tanks. I can't believe that in this day and age we can't go in with something like motorised Kevlar shields to protect our advancing troops.

Tyndale

Quite right, though we weren'talways rubbish at armies: "The Victorian military historian, Sir George Wrottesley, who might be expected to know, remarked that Edward III’s army in 1346 was the best equipped of any to leave England prior to Sir Garnet Wolseley’s expedition to Egypt in 1882"

egh

Your post makes sense to me Rod -if I were young enough to sign up for the armed forces, I would do so on the understanding that I'd be risking my life in combat. I would, though, also expect the government in charge to provide the best conditions for enabling victory for the troop** I fought with.

I have one quibble, though:
"The Taliban was possibly the most vile regime to have taken office on earth and, more to the point, it was a regime which directly threatened our security" ... ummm - strikes me theres a regime nearer home that's just as nasty, but sneakier; and it has successfully breached our security beyond the dreams of any other invader. That is what renders the sacrifice of our soldiers - past and present - so insulting.

Unless, of course, they come home and launch a successful coup to restore freedom and independence to our own country.
Our masters couldn't be afraid of that, could they?.....

**And I'm really tired of the ignorami who insist on calling one soldier a 'troop.'

David

How far and for how long can you sustain a foreign war when there is no public support at home?

People can't see why we are in Afghanistan and don't believe the politicians who tell us we're keeping our streets safe, especially as there is no sign of victory and no end in sight.

We've had enough of it, and of the bluster of Blair/Brown in pretending we can impose our values and standards on these countries by military force.

It'll end up in a messy compromise when we pull out, just like in Iraq, with a corrupt elite barricaded in a fortified capital city, while chaos and communal violence erupt in the rest of the country. Meanwhile our despicable leaders will lie to us again, pretending we've fulfilled our mandate and done a good job.

Fergus Pickering

Labour are particularly bad at waging war because they don't like soldiers (Tory voters)and they don't like spending money on guns which could be better spent on outreach officers. Also they are Internationalist. Wars are best fought and won by those that love their country. The war cannot be won while Brown or any Labourite prosecutes it. Tories are better at this sort of thing and have been since Tories began. We will perhaps see whether victory is possible when Cameron is in control.

EC

egh, "Unless, of course, they come home and launch a successful coup to restore freedom and independence to our own country.
Our masters couldn't be afraid of that, could they?....."

A similar thought had occurred to me. Why else have they been sent on a hopeless mission, a historical folly, with inadequate equipment and inadequate orders?

They are being routinely killed and demoralised.

An election in 2010? I was going to say, "Don't bank on it." But we can't bank on anything or indeed with anybody with certainty any more!

Tancred

Liddle, you seem to have promoted yourself to armchair General.

If this war is so great then sign up. It's easy to be casual about other people's lives and, despite being largely white working class chaps, soldiers are still people and better than most.

What sickens us is not the fighting, its the whole shit sandwich that we, the British, are forced to swallow by our scummy politicians.

The threat is greatest not in Afghanistan but in Bradford, Luton, Birmingham etc.

We fight abroad whilst letting in hundreds of thousands of muslims. We bow and scrape to Islamists, fund their activities with tax payers money, we accommodate, we feed our kids halal meat at school, we turn a blind eye to honour killings and hateful demonstration, church and cemetery vandalism, vicars being beaten up etc etc.

Enough is enough.

Only one party, the BNP, will speak out.

That says more about the other parties than the BNP because what the BNP is saying the British public is saying - and the Political "elite" never listens.

How bad will it have to get before something is done?

We all know how crap the UK has become since mass immigration and multiculturalism.

And it will get much, much, worse. We have been handed a one way ticket to hell.

That's why we want our soldiers home - because the greater threat is on our own streets - from the muslim community.

Meanwhile a US muslim soldier murders 12 US soldiers in Texas.....

Paul B

Afraid so say it, but the person making most sense on the issue is Paddy Ashdown. Lucid, realistic and with command of the subject. He understands it from a politicians viewpoint and soldiers. His voice needs to be listened. The war is fair and just and it is a fight worth fighting. It maybe far away, but its vital to a safety of our nation.

I especially agree with Rods last sentence.

GaryO

It is not the length of time that we've been this war. My God the whole British Empire war one long war that span almost the entire globe and lasted for centuries!

When will there be a victory or indeed what will it look like? This is not a conventional war where armies fight, one side looses one wins and the loosing side disarms – and then reconciliation begins.

No, it is neither of the above because first and foremost, this is a war of ideology. It has nothing to do with left or right or rich or poor or oil or myriads of other usual suspects trotted out by the media and the politicians (and in this and the "global war on terror", the media is totally in cahoots with politicians in an exercise to mollify and manipulate us the general public). And as long as we do not fight this war as a war of ideology, we'll loose.

I have never subscribed to the theory that if we don't fight them there then we'll have to fight them here. What kind of convoluted argument is that? Have we no control of our borders? Can't we screen those that come to our shores from Pakistan or Afghanistan, unless of course it upsets the Pakistani ambassador here and we can't have that, can we? Can't we call upon, forcefully so, those living amongst us whom we suspect of supporting these fundamentalists to put their own house in order? Must we tip toe around them so as not to incur their wrath? The only reason we let terrorists bomb us at home is our political correctness ruling our hearts and not the stark reality staring us in front of our eyes.

We are fighting an army that has no helicopters or fighter jets, no satellite intelligence aids, no modern war machine paraphernalia or anything but a deep devotion in their religious beliefs and a deep dislike of those that don't. Nothing that we can ever do, no matter how many hospitals, roads, schools or bridges we built for them there or surrender to their every whim here, this will never change unless we do not confront it head on.

Loosing the war? I think we've already lost it!

Murgatroyd

Unwinnable.

EC

"They are being routinely killed and demoralised."

Before anyone has a go, how dumb does that sound!

What I meant to say was that they are being systematically demoralised, put in harm's way and needlessly killed. To what end? The tripartite political cabal in Westminster still haven't given us a convincing answer.

The overwhelming majority of wars in which the UK has been involved for the last 2,000 years have been against other European countries.

Such wars are now all but impossible because of the EU.

If Afghanistan was in the EU, we would not be having this discussion.

(Right, tin helmet on...)

Sir Graphus

Defeating the Taliban and clearing out Al Qu'ida (how DO you spell it?) terrorist training camps; that's a just war.

Propping up the increasingly discredited and corrupt Hamid Karzai; I wouldn't want to die for that.

hiro

Vietnamn, numero 2.

Lupus Lungfish

We attack Iraq when the real threat is Iran and attack Afghanistan when the real threat is Pakistan. Theres a poem in there somewhere!

Simon Denis

It's a pity that Tancred's somewhat intemperate language and ill judged approbation of the BNP should get in the way of what he has to say, which carries some weight. It is crazy that we are trying to quell Afghanistan in order to protect ourselves from terrors which are just as likely to be hatched in the midlands as in the middle east: if not Birmingham or Boston or Babylon, then anywhere else in the world. Indeed, although it was catastrophically handled, the Vietnam adventure was a more convincing proposition than this latest intervention because it stood some chance of success. Far eastern societies have developed sophisticated modern economies. Look at South Korea. Islamic societies, by contrast, have uniformly failed. Even the fabled case of Turkey is sliding backwards whilst we argue. Can anyone seriously suggest that the same is not true of the remote, clannish, tribal Afghans? It seems to me that the "liberal wars" of the turn of the twenty-first century will be seen in years to come as the last and most extreme effort of the multiculti technocrats to deny the role of ethnic nationalism in our understanding of man. To make sense of life, I submit, all of us rely on deep assumptions and associations which arise from the long past - the past to which we have a physical affiliation through our genes. This is as true of immigrants as it is of natives. Ignoring this, the lib-left elite have us toiling to turn remote places into banal suburbs of Euro-America and desperate to convert huge alienated populations which have hailed from such places to the same dreary superficiality. As for our own European culture, it has been successfully demolished over much of its stamping ground. This war is a bloody, futile nonsense, conceived in arrogance, conducted with complacency and terminating in a subtle but growing panic, as the lib-left elite slowly awakens to the human facts which it has systematically chose to ignore.

P. Carnehan, Esq.

Actually, the Taliban were no more able to govern Afghanistan ten years ago than we are today. They faced numerous local tribal revolts too. If you have it in your head that these are the Nazis in dishdashes, then I don't think you could be more wrong.

Jez

You have to remember;

The Russians had every province/district fighting against them.

We have one; Helmund, with the Taliban / other affiliated groups, the NW Frontier with an ever increasing serious Pakistan situation.

You've got to tell us, why are we there now?

What are the goals.

I know why we went but this is the big one;

If we were to come home, then are you saying the place would fall to the Taliban, still?

If the West was to pull out, would the Karzai coalition crumble with all their International/homegrown money from whatever sources, western aid, food aid or miltary hardware?

The Taliban would just take the place still?

If so, then we are looking at the worst possible scenario ever pal... and it's nothing to do with "a long, drawn out, war against an ephemeral enemy."

You are trying to control through violence, a concentrated 'purest' form of an ideology in the guise of a religion... it is in their eyes anyway.

This is really bad.

HairyNoddy

One half convincing argument for the EU super state is the military strength and technical expertise which the EU would then have to draw on.

If the EU states were to contribute a proportionate amount of their military equal to that of the UK's contribution then this war would easily be winnable.

The fact that our so called partners refuse to do so speaks volumes about the EU and Europes worthless leaders. Do they seriously imagine that these terrorists can be defeated without firing a shot?

They have been covered by the NATO security blanket for too long, watch what happens as Obama slowly lets it unravel.

John Levett

"The best way to support our troops right now is to give them our support, not to raise a white feather on their (unwanted) behalf".

I find it hard to believe this of you Rod. Is it not possible that many of the troops out in Afghanistan share some of our concerns and wonder what the hell they're doing there, fighting a jack-o-the-wisp enemy who not so long ago we feted and supported because they were killing Russian mothers' sons? And if we accept that premise, is it not also possible that what some of them are praying for is for the tide of public opinion to overwhelm the silly games of the political class and lay the way open for them to come home?

Nobody doubts the troops' considerable courage and their unswerving loyalty to a growingly undeserving country. It is a cheap shot to suggest that we are raising a white feather (flag?) on their behalf when some of us choose to demonstrate our support by expressing concern that so many service personnel are dying (and being maimed) in pursuit of our worthless politicians' nebulous objectives.

Jez

P. Carnehan, Esq;

"Actually, the Taliban were no more able to govern Afghanistan ten years ago than we are today."

They (Taliban) controlled the majority of the country.

Was it the Northern Alliance of Warlord tribes (that make up the present government) that were- er, trapped in the North?

hiro

" have never subscribed to the theory that if we don't fight them there then we'll have to fight them here. What kind of convoluted argument is that? Have we no control of our borders?"

This^

Dirty Euro

It is a tough issue.
They should train more Afghans to do some fighting. It would be cheaper. They are paid less than UK soldiers. But then that would mean we regard British people as more important than Afghans.

Dixon

At last you bring this up Rod.

The anti's say "its an unwinnable war". Well, the war on crime is unwinnable also. Does that mean we disband the police force? No.Does it mean we might need to "police" Afghanistan forever? Possibly.

Of course it all hinges on the notion of "winning". Nobody can deny that in any war there are ultimately no "winners". But the faff in place of clearly stated objectives is part of the problem. When it comes down to it, your summary of objectives is totally valid. However, if that is the objective, then therein lies the problem. For foot patrols along IED alley is merely a way of giving our people to the enemy, when we have plentiful tools at our disposal by which to utterly obliterate that enemy without exposing any of our people to risk.

Why then do we employ tactics that are pretty much as suicidal as any shaheed? Because our media and our whining classes cannot tolerate any "avoidable" deaths...of Afghan that is. So our people are sacrificially put out on what isin a way a mission of armed social-work, whilst we could quite simply pound the s-one-t out of the Taleban from the air.

So Afghan "civilians" will die. That is quite literally their problem. As in Viet Nam, we can rarely distinguish between "friend" ( although what doeas that mean when referring to stone-age savages ) and enemy masquerading in their midst. So yes, its their problem. They know who among them are our targets, if they dont want to be targets themselves its very simple, its their responsibility to expel those enemies ( often as not their friends ) from their midst. If they cannot, then a 500lb bomb maybe the consequence. How does that hurt me or my friends? Not one whit. Why should I care? Do I? Not in the least.

Any analogy with the Soviet occupation is daft. The USSR wasnt driven from Afghanistan by stone age savages but by the combined and sustained actions of the US and UK to the extent that we even had training camps for "mujadeen" on UK soil. The only relevant connection with that era is that, essentially, WE created the monster we are fighting now. Although not the Taleban as such, that was, ironicallym, created by Mrs Bhutto, our "friend" in her brief term in office. So really, she got her comeuppance also.

But , hey, dont count me into that generation of idiots who thought our Afghan stooges fighting the USSR were heroes. When Sandy Gall was gallavanting around with the "freedom fighters" I was one of very few people saying that that "invasion" was really a war between modernity ( the USSR ) and savagery ( Afghan reactionary "mujahedeen" ).

Then theres Tony Benn and his ilk making analogies with past British forays to Afghanistan. News Mr Benn, they didnt have airborne heavy ordnance in your much-cited grand-dads day!

Nor did they have ANY modern weapons in Alexander of Macedons army. Yet he utterly subjugated the entirety of Afghanistan and its environs in a mere three years. So much so that it remained a province of Hellenic rulers even after his death. But of course, neither did he have to worry about the media observibg his army's every move. Nor did any Greek give a monkeys about the necessary laughter of very large numbers of Afghans. Let me be frank. If that I approve. It really is the difference between self-confident civilisation and the post-modern decadent society we live in now.

The last straw seemed to be at the start of the week when five men died in an "inside job". This seemed like the end of the road. A general predicted more such incidents. Then that prediction came true almost at once, in a very pointed and instructive way, at Fort Hood.

So, even if "we" ( broadly put ) dont go to Afghanistan, our forces are at least as likely to be murdered by Jihadist "colleagues" on their home base as "in country". Five dead in Afghanistan. Twelve dead and thirty shot up at Fort Hood!

Finally, the "anti's" need to accept that almost everyone who serves in Afghanistan today signed up after the start of this war began. They signed up not only knowing they would be going there, but in many cases, in order to go there!

Dixon

"The overwhelming majority of wars in which the UK has been involved for the last 2,000 years have been against other European countries. "

I dont think North America, India, China, the Caribbean, North Africa, South Africa, West Africa, East Africa, Malaysia, the Phillipines, Borneo, Indonesia, Burma, Aden, or any of a longer list of places I cannot take the time to recall...are parts of Europe!

That comment betrays a wealth of ignorance. Dont they teach any history in schools outside Napoleon and Hitler?

Dixon

"Dirty Euro
November 6th, 2009 1:47pm
It is a tough issue.
They should train more Afghans to do some fighting. It would be cheaper. They are paid less than UK soldiers. But then that would mean we regard British people as more important than Afghans."

Doesnt that comment neatly illustrate what I was saying.

Hes drawing an equivalence between the lives f our families, friends and community and the lives of a bunch of complete strangers living in another millenium.

Lungfish

You're right Jez, its a right bloody mess. There's no doubt its a more justifiable war than that barking mad Iraq escapade but whether its winnable in any sense of the word is doubtful to say the least. There don't seem to be any clear aims- are we trying to turn the place into a proper functioning country or are we just there to contain a few terrorists, nobody seems to know. If its the former we need to mobilise around 450,000 troops. The Pakistani border needs to be completely sealed and ground systematically taken and held. This isn't going to happen of course, its too obvious and too expensive.

P. Carnehan, Esq.

Jez,

There was an uprising in Khost (South East) and one in Nimruz (South West, supported by Iran) too. And no government administration to speak of.

Dixon

Ah, er, um, I meant "slaughter" of large numbers of Afghans, nit, er, "laughter".

Although that maybe what goes on at present.

Lungfish

According to Haroon Mir, head of Afghanistans Centre for Research and Policy on The World at One this afternoon, most Afghanis think we westerners have made a right cock up of the whole thing. We have been shoving money at the Pakistani government who have been passing it on to their army. The Pakistani army especially in Quetta have been supporting and equipping the very people blowing us up. Why am I not surprised by this?.
Its on iPlayer.

jon ryan

Poor old Dixon. Having problems reading English, are we? Or understanding it? Of the matters your alluding to, many were not wars, some were extentions of European wars, most were within the last 200 years. Anyone with an modicum of historical knowledge will know that Britain has fought far more wars in Europe than anywhere else.

This, darling boy, is what`majority` means, OK?

The point I made, and that flew over your head, is that thanks to the EU, war within Europe is all but impossible now. See if you can get someone to explain this to you, hmmm?

Coeur de Lion

Re casualties - I read in the TON class minesweeper's association mag that we've now reached a total of servicemen killed in Irag and Afghanistan equal to the number killed while trying to deal with EOKA in Cyprus in the 'fifties. Can this be so? Was there a daily body count by the BBC at that time? I don't remember that, but then I was in a minesweeper.

paulgilboy

Plainly stated & nicely put! Cpl Clegg, leader of the merry band of misguided, keeps on trying to insinuate that the PM should overthrow the afghan government as if it is a gift of the British Govt. Citing corruption as an unacceptable practice, blithely unaware of how ridiculous this looks debated by a bunch of cheap crook such as Cpl Clegg & Mr Brown.

The question needs to be asked what possessed the western government to hand over sums of £ 20 billions to a closed tribal society, without any strings attached, resulting in the ordinary people seeing nothing of it.

This sounds ridiculous, until you realise that master strategist incapability Brown, has done exactly the same with infinitely larger sums for the banks! Who have bought shares and paid themselves large bonus whilst the wider economy is now forced to barter with each other.

jon ryan

@ Coeur de Lion:
371 British servicemen — 28 Navy and Marines, 274 Army, 69 RAF — died between 1955-1959 in Cyprus duty.(RBL figures)
Casualty Monitor (http://www.casualty-monitor.org/) give a figure of 230 Afghan casualties and 179 in Iraq. Total of 409.

Polonius

EGH wrote: "**And I'm really tired of the ignorami who insist on calling one soldier a 'troop.'

May I remark that'ignoramus' is the first person plural of the present tense, active voice, indicative mood of the first conjugation verb 'ignoro, -are, -avi, -atum', as such it does itself have a plural. It means 'we do not know'.

The use of 'ignoramus'as a noun in English such that 'ignoramus', means something like 'an ignorant person', should therefore take a normal English plural form, for example 'ignoramuses'. Certainly a second declension Latin masculine plural formation (as dominus) is not legitimate.

Latin also has words which appear in plural form but are to our ears singlular, as in castra, castrorum, a second declension neuter plural which means '(military) camp' which we would regards as something singular.

But the point about 'troop' is surely correct, 'troop' is a collective noun applied (usually) to monkeys. Thus the use described is not only incorrect, but if used with a correct understanding would be insulting.

Baron Pipin II

Rod, admirable sentiment, and as emotion-free and logic-full outline of the conflict as it stands. The key question though remains. Can we win? Can we cleanse this harsh and enigmatic country of Al-Qaeda, can we rid it of corruption, can we switch the indigenous Taliban to our way of thinking, can we fully prevent the combat training of jihadists in the remote and inaccessible parts bordering with Pakistan?

Can we really do any of this when the root of the conflict lies primarily not in the caves of Afghanistan, but in preaching of the many leading mullahs who have been, and still are installing hatred and hostility towards the secular West into the minds of the young, and those easily seduced and led astray. The armed opponents that our brave soldiers are facing on the front line in Afghanistan, many with the ultimate sacrifice a human being can put forth, are but a product of years of indoctrination in jihad, and the killing of the infidels. To train the indoctrinated to shoot a Kalashnikov takes but few days. It seems hard to believe that by spending billions on the battlefield, but leaving the core of the disease unattended could get us the result we all desire.

And another thing. It pains to say it, but against the current geo-religious background is it reasonable to expect that an armed force from non-Muslim countries fighting in Afghanistan, an orthodox Muslim country, could successfully win the hearts and minds of the locals or Muslims anywhere? It may seem a fanciful idea but if, as we are told many Muslim countries are to lose as much as us if the militant wing of Islam takes over, perhaps we could jointly set up combat units of predominantly Muslims fighters. Units akin to the French foreign legion, under the auspices of the UN, funded and trained by the West, and those Muslim countries that share our worldwide view. Seeing that fellow co-religionists are willing to fight against a convoluted hybrid of Islam would win the hearts and minds of the local Afghan population that much easier. Without their genuine backing the battle’s unlikely to be won conclusively.

Flynn

We should either do this properly or not at all.
The problem is that doing it properly is not palatable. We would need to up troop numbers, but more importantly give them permission to actually wage war unrelentlessly and regardless of unintentional casualties. We would also need to remove the corrupt government right down to grass roots level and install an 'Allied forces' government while we set about locking down the whole region sector by sector.
If we weren't prepared to do it properly then we should have monitored by satellite and bombed from afar, sending special forces to take out intelligence based targets.
The mess we have is the folly of politicians. We have no real policies being talked about because of the upcoming election. The political consensus is "we're already there, so let's stay" without defining how to expedite or achieve our supposed objectives.

I can't help thinking that if we aren't fighting this war full on then we simply shouldn't be there. Are we there to install democracy? To stop terrorist camps springing up? Or to stop them throwing acid in to the faces of school girls?
Our lives are more threatened by the crazies we have living within our borders.

Mark

Sorry Rod, but I can't agree.

Brown's assertion that the continued presence of British troops in Afghanistan is necessary to ensure homeland security from incursions by Al-Qaeda was demolished by the events of 5 July 2005.

The jihadists are here amongst us already and we are not one iota any safer by being in Afghanistan. Action needs to be taken in this country against those who would seek to destroy us, and it pains me to say it, but the lives of British servicemen are being lost for nothing.

Dixon

"jon ryan
November 6th, 2009 3:46pm
Poor old Dixon. Having problems reading English, are we? Or understanding it? Of the matters your alluding to, many were not wars, some were extentions of European wars, most were within the last 200 years. Anyone with an modicum of historical knowledge will know that Britain has fought far more wars in Europe than anywhere else.

This, darling boy, is what`majority` means, OK?

The point I made, and that flew over your head, is that thanks to the EU, war within Europe is all but impossible now. See if you can get someone to explain this to you, hmmm?"

I see, so because the war in America was called a "revolution" it wasnt a war? Well the SECOND war in America ia actually called the "1812 War" ( when Britain invaded America from Canada and burned washington to the ground ), the war in Malaya was called an "emergency" so thats not a war then. When Britain ( secretly ) invaded Indonesia in the 1960's, that wasnt a war because it wasnt declared. The British war in China wasnt a war because it was a "rebellion", likewise the Indian "mutiny" cannot have been a war, even if 100,000 Indians died bu its end, etc, etc, etc.

Clearly, by your "logic" , all we need to do is rename the war in Afghanistan as something else, "emergency","rebellion", "inconvenience", maybe "policing operation" and voila, its not a war...according to you.

What a one-d-one-o-t!

Oh, incidentally, aside from the ones in america, British imperial forces crushed their enemies in every one of those engagements.

The difference between our grand-fathers era and today is not the quality of the soldiery but the undue influence of people like "jon ryan".

BTW, if you seriously think the EU has put an end to war in Europe, just consider that it was believed Titos Jugoslavia had put an end to internecine war in the Balkans.

egh

Polonius - I stand corrected. Thank you.

Lungfish

Barons right- we need to raze those maddrasses to the ground. All 40,000 of them filling young muslims with bile and hatred. Flyns right as well, we need to get serious, really up the ante or not bother, pack up and go home.

Dixon

Never mind that Pollonius, what about the idiots ( ignorami perhaps ) who think the plural of "aircraft" is "aircrafts", "hovercraft" is "hovercrafts". They are all over the iarwaves. The most egregious exponent of this being that bloke who played Rimmer in Red Dwarf. He presents CH5 documentaries in a ridiculous parody of a posh voice trumpeting out about "various aircrafts" all the way through.

Hello, the lights are on but nobodies homs!

David Ossitt

David
November 6th, 2009 5:44am
“How far and for how long can you sustain a foreign war when there is no public support at home?”
A very interesting question; but you could ask a similar question about, immigration, the EU, the labour government, Gordon Brown.

jon ryan

Dixon, stop running away from my point. You should be man enough (girl enough?)to admit that you got it wrong about this country having fought the majority of its wars in Europe.

Yes, I do think that a unified Europe has put an end to internal war, at least for the next umpty generations. If Tito, who died in 1980, is the best refutationation (and you can tell Polonius his pranks have been too broad to bear with)you can come up with, then my point is made.

PS: "The difference between our grand-fathers era and today is not the quality of the soldiery but the undue influence of people like "jon ryan"."

Coo! My Grandads (both of whom fought in wars for Britain, by the way)wouldn't half be impressed to learn that I have so much influence!

PPS: You've forgotten to tell us all which of the Services you fight with.

Baron Pipin II

Flynn at 5.50

What you are advocating would have been the way Britain (or the West) fought wars when the spell of the pseudo-liberal philosophy of moral equivalence and the rest didn’t yet morphed into a fully fledged doctrine backed by deluded few and hoisted on the rest of us. No country should go to war on a flimsy pretext. If it decides to go, its armed forces must have only one objective to focus on. To fully destroy the enemy either by killing, or capturing it. Far cry from the way we do it today. A human rights lawyer in Florida deciding whether to push a missile button on a drone flying over Afghanistan.

How long will it take the Americans to figure that the mismatch between their massive military might and the lack of willingness to engage it fully has widen so much that it borders on insanity to spend all the hard cash on the former only to dump in on a scrapheap.

Lungfish @ 6.34

Your serendipity doped DNA sequence has fallen rather dormant. Any more old Etonians languishing inside we should have a go at freeing?

Noa Zrk

I agree that we were right to attack and destroy the Taleban.
There it ends.
As in Iraq there was no plan for what happened after. We just stayed, trying to buy friends and becoming hated and targets. Does that sound familiar? Think of Northern Ireland and Iraq. In staying we have lost the initiative. Afghanistan is tribal and muslim.
The better way is withdrawal, developing and maintaining suitable strategic and tribal alliances and if necessary, policing and partition by the neighbouring powers.
We understood this much better in the days of the Raj.
Our political objectives would be better served by buying the heroin crop and destroying it. Our military requirements, that is, preventing an Al Quaeda resurgence, are best secured by military surveillance, and swift interdictive strikes. This would free our military for an active mobile role in addressing the growing Islamo-terrorist threats from other badlands such as Sudan and Somalia.
The loss of lives is always to be deplored.The squandering of lives in a war with no discernable point or purpose is both a national shame and a disgrace. It is not an acceptance of responsibility but an abdication of it. Both soldiers and citizens will accept casualties where these are incurred in a just cause. To accuse those who oppose the war of not supporting our soldiers is a barren argument of either the scoundrel or the fool. It is saying that, whilst the situation is unwinnable and getting worse, we must continue to make our previous mistakes because of the deaths and injuries they caused!
It is not a white feather we are raising Rod. There is a war on terror to be fought. Our demand is for far better and truly courageous thoughts from both our Generals and our politicians in pursuing this war. We and our troops, have been denied both for too long.

Dixon

"jon ryan
November 6th, 2009 8:35pm
Dixon, stop running away from my point. You should be man enough (girl enough?)to admit that you got it wrong about this country having fought the majority of its wars in Europe.

Yes, I do think that a unified Europe has put an end to internal war, at least for the next umpty generations. If Tito, who died in 1980, is the best refutationation (and you can tell Polonius his pranks have been too broad to bear with)you can come up with, then my point is made."

Well, the evidence I earlier put before the court of bloggers is, I think, suufficient to prove that I was right. You are obviously one of those time-wasters who thinks that if you keep repeating a claim so long and tediously in spite of the dacts that everyone else decides to ignore you that you have somehow "won" the "argument".

Only a dullard decides that an army killing people in one place is a war whilst an army killing people in another place is, what exactly, if not a war.

But since you asked for it, tell me how many wars did Britain fight in Europe, as you prattle about the "overwhelming majority over 2000 years". For a start, Britain itself is only a few centuries old ( the act of Union was when exactly ), Over which time, apart from the French, the Spanish, the Turkish, the Italians and the Germans who exactly has Britain been to war with in Europe? Maybe you can come up with some examples. But so far thats just five in your "majority" as opposed to the dozens elsewhere in the world.

Meanwhile:
"If Tito, who died in 1980, is the best refutationation you can come up with, then my point is made."

The point is that, like Europe in microcosm, the Balkans were a bunch of warring states. Tito only uhified them in the forties. That unity was thought, like your view of the EU, to be permanent. Yet, as you irrelevantly point out, Tito died in 1980. It then took little more than a decade for what had been the Jugoslav meta-state to break apart into numerous warring factions. That peace had lasted less than fifty years. Not only is it absurd to propose that the EU caused peace in Europe, it flies in the face of history to imagine that it will either last forever or prevent future conflicts occurring.

As for your suggestion, which I took as a joke but now see you actually meant, that Afganistan be made part of the EU....what can one say.

Meanwhile:
"
Coo! My Grandads (both of whom fought in wars for Britain, by the way)wouldn't half be impressed to learn that I have so much influence!"

I didnt say that YOU had influence, but people "like jon ryan". Now this brings us back to your accusation that I didnt read your earlier assertion correctly. Obviously that was a pot calling me a kettle.

and as far as..

"PPS: You've forgotten to tell us all which of the Services you fight with."

thats a daft ad-hominem, given that the prior comment reveals that you dont serve in any services either ( eleswise, why need to cite to grampappy ).

Heres a question in return: explain to me how a single person serving in Afghanistan didnt choose to be there.

Dixon

I agree with Pipin and Zrk. If you missed my first entry on this thread I put similar views. I especially endorse the view that once a war starts the only criterion governing its conduct should be the defeat of the enemy by the swiftest means to ones own advantage. Which in Afghanistan would mean simply pounding them to a bloody pulp from the air, wherever our opponents dare appear. And an end to the ridiculous sacrifice of men to the IED.

But I do go further than most "civilised" people. I basically take the view that if a region cannot be brought under our control or the control of our proxies, we should render it totally uninhabitable by means of chemical and biological agents.

Lungfish

Baron- its not a very funny subject is it- depresses the hell out of me old friend. I did like Noa Zk's Guardian post though, soft strong and thoroughly absorbant!. And in fact he's nicely summed up things with his last post. As for Jon Ryan, he's obviously extremely mis-guided. According to Jon the EU is a gift from God, the ultimate answer, hallelujah, peace on Earth its the European Union!.
I'm not sure about Dixons assertion that the common soldier was better in the old days- I think not. Our forces are superb, its a shame they are not represented by politicians with half the dedication and balls of our lads and lasses in Afghanistan (I'v lapsed into redtop mode!).

Lungfish

Dixon- Chemical and biological agents are banned under international law. (chortle chortle). I therefore feel compelled to report you to the United Nations. I now expect you to quiver and quake in your boots !

daniel maris

Couple of lateral thoughts:

If Britons won't sacrifice fellow Britons to fight this war, is there any reason we should use an international legion or mercenaries.

Mercenaries have an honourable tradition stretching back over several centuries. It's not entirely clearly why military occupations, alone virtually of all occupations, should be reserved to ill paid patriots.

Alternatively, there are people all around the world who would be happy to fight for us. For some reason we seem to restrict opportunities to the Nepalese as regards non-Commonwealth countries. No idea why. A British Foreign Legion sounds like a good idea to me.

Dixon

"Lungfish
November 6th, 2009 10:47pm
Baron- its not a very funny subject is it- depresses the hell out of me old friend. I did like Noa Zk's Guardian post though, soft strong and thoroughly absorbant!. And in fact he's nicely summed up things with his last post. As for Jon Ryan, he's obviously extremely mis-guided. According to Jon the EU is a gift from God, the ultimate answer, hallelujah, peace on Earth its the European Union!.
I'm not sure about Dixons assertion that the common soldier was better in the old days- I think not. Our forces are superb, its a shame they are not represented by politicians with half the dedication and balls of our lads and lasses in Afghanistan (I'v lapsed into redtop mode!)."

No Noah, you mis-read me. what I said was:
"The difference between our grand-fathers era and today is NOT the quality of the soldiery but the undue influence of people like "jon ryan"."

In other words, I have the greatest respect for men and women of the military and dont doubt that they are at least a match for their predecessors. Indeed, their profession is surely a vastly more complicated, physically and mentally more demanding thing than it was in the past. My point was that it is NOT therein that we find the difference between our grandfathers time and our own, but the fact that our military are now heavily constrained and their actions circumscribed by the culture of our wider society.

Dixon

Sorry, I meant Lungfish, not Noah.

Dixon

"Lungfish
November 6th, 2009 11:01pm
Dixon- Chemical and biological agents are banned under international law. (chortle chortle). I therefore feel compelled to report you to the United Nations. I now expect you to quiver and quake in your boots !"

Sshh, just between you and me, I know a place where I can still buy 100Watt lightbulbs!

Lungfish

OK Dixon- come over and join me on the New Statesman blogs- there's much fun to be had over there- I think we should create a blog army of New Statesman invaders. I'm tempted to send in Wilhelm and Dirty Euro as cannon fodder on the first salvo, then the infantry, maybe Fergus and David Ossit. I will of course direct operations from behind enemy lines. As commander in Chief Baron Pipin has selected you Dixon to launch a suicide mission, it will be glorious and your family will be proud! etc etc.

Lupus Lungfish

I can't help feeling that Mohamed Atta and his revolting friends actually achieved their objective. They sucked us into a religious war that we should have grown out of about two hundred years ago. This war in Afghanistan is such old hat, why the hell are we wasting lives on this nonsense. Rod Liddle says its a 'justified' war, I say complete and utter bollocks. You go to any of these desert muslim water starved countries and you will find hatred for the West. Just last year I was down in the Sahara and I was spat upon and had my hair pulled etc- its pure envy!- Blah blah zzz narcolepsy is zzz taking over- goodbye United Kingdom- let Islam zz snore take over. We should not waste our spit on these people let alone fight a war for them.ZZZZ grunt fart.

Flynn

I'm still not clear. Politics & history aside,with war being the question, do we smash them with everything we've got or pull out?
The Amerians are going around the same bush (but for different reasons, and the wrong way :))
Is consription on the table as an option for a must win war or is this a holiday romance to look the part?

Whay aren't the Germans as arsed? Wasn't it their bunkers where the plans were hatched?

How long can we keep the 'man on the street' oblivious to the fact we're at war?

The Masked Marvel

Oh dear, Rod. You will soon be asked to turn in your Leftist card. Supporting a US war, one in which British lads actually die? Can't have that.

jon ryan

Oh dear.
Dixon, you sound just like one of my more intellectually challenged students, desperately clinging to a single thread of argument in the hope that it will support the rest.

Which it doesn't of course.

You say:
"For a start, Britain itself is only a few centuries old ( the act of Union was when exactly )"

Then in your weird,rambling rant of November 6th, 2009 2:19pm in this thread you claim that:
"Nor did they have ANY modern weapons in Alexander of Macedons army. Yet he utterly subjugated the entirety of Afghanistan and its environs in a mere three years."

Afghanistan did not exist for nearly 2,000 years after young Alex was laying that area to waste through it. And to say he had "no modern weapons" is up to your usual standard of pure gonads. He had the most modern weapons that were available in the world of his time. What did you expect? Spitfires?

If you think that England/Britain/UK/Whatever has fought more wars outside Europe than within it in history, then I'm afraid that you are beyond being capable of accepting provable and incontrovertible historical fact and are away into the realms of pure denial. It is harder to think of a country with which England/Britain &c &c has NOT been at war in the last 2,00 years than those it has not fought. If you want examples, I suggest 1066 And All That (Sellar & Yeatman, Methuen, London 1930)as about the correct intellectual level for you.

Any reason why Afghanistan shouldn't become part of the EU (suitably renamed, of course)? Former USSR countries are applying, Turkey is trying to bring its self up to an acceptable standard of peace -and peace continues to rule throughout Europe, thanks to the EU, and has done now for longer than in the whole of history.

Finally:
"Heres a question in return: explain to me how a single person serving in Afghanistan didnt choose to be there."

Sorry. Don't get a word of that one, young man. Can you try it again in something resembling English?

jon ryan

@Lungfish:
"As for Jon Ryan, he's obviously extremely mis-guided. According to Jon the EU is a gift from God, the ultimate answer, hallelujah, peace on Earth its the European Union!."

Well,no,Lungfish. That is neither what I said, nor did I imply it. If your are going to use quotes, the convention is to respect the original words.

What I am saying, backed by observable fact, is that the work started by Robert Schuman on 9th May 1950 in which his stated intenion when forming the European Coal and Steel Community was to 'make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible.' You Little Englanders can squirm as much as you like, but this is close to fruition. Even Cameron and Hague are now acknowledging that Europe is here, and that it works. There are bits that don't, yes - no system is perfect - but I'm of the opinion that an end to European war is a fair exchange for some insignificant legislation about bendy bananas.

Frank P

Good to see you in mode gravitas Rodney. Well said! Much as I enjoy your default comic talents you should should try more of this; it suits your intellect.

Baron Pipin II

Lupus @ 1.28

Pulling your hair, were they? Jesus, what has the world come to. Avoidance’s the word, my hairy friend. Next time, avoid the experience, dispatch one your underlings. I volunteer freely. Nothing to pull anywhere. Well, perhaps…but let’s not go there.

Now back to the front lines. All considered, one can see some advantages in bashing the Taleban. Irrefutably, the world would have been nicer without them. Their take on even the most basic rights lacks any inspirational uplifting, leaves one cold, to put it at its mildest, and their taste in fashion up to the black turbans cuts it only marginally better. What makes one despair is that it’s unwinnable. Pushing the Al-Qaida over the Pakistani border was one thing, subduing the Taleban’s another. We cannot truly defeat them in any sense. Will they change their outlook on life? Nope. Will they abandon their tribal customs? Nope. Will they keep killing us if we persist telling them how to live their lives? Yap. I suspect that the latest American idea of buying some of them out may backfire, too. It may give the Coalition some breathing space, but backfire it will. In our culture, money’s everything, it theirs it’s also valued, they no fools either, but tribal, blood allegiances trump any amount of greenbacks.

Noa Zrk

Ha Lungfish. You're right, took a quick trip across no mans land, past the fetid front line trenches of guardianista footsloggettes to the rear echelons of leftist thinking in the New Stalinists. Obviously the spiritual home of the Zod and other mischievous bloggies who kindly give us numerous opportunities to demonstrate and test our arguments.
By and large they're an intolerant dictatorial lot, as you'd expect i suppose. But I shall be making further trench raids in the future as the doctrine of reason needs to be spread and of course they rise like a Salmond to the bait!

test our little front linehear

Dixon

Jon Ryan "What I am saying, backed by observable fact, is that the work started by Robert Schuman on 9th May 1950 in which his stated intenion when forming the European Coal and Steel Community was to 'make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible.' You Little Englanders can squirm as much as you like, but this is close to fruition. Even Cameron and Hague are now acknowledging that Europe is here, and that it works. There are bits that don't, yes - no system is perfect - but I'm of the opinion that an end to European war is a fair exchange for some insignificant legislation about bendy bananas."

He prattles on about the EU but doesnt even know the factual basics: As most of us here know, its inception originated with Jean Monet in 1948.

Ryan says:
"Dixon, you sound just like one of my more intellectually challenged students, desperately clinging to a single thread of argument in the hope that it will support the rest."

Its called nailing his b-u-one-one-h-one-t one piece at a time. It has nothing to do with any arguments than the single point in question. Upon which, clearly, as readers here can have no doubt, he has been trounced.

His style of "argument" is the very opposite, to fire off a load of irrelevant points and rely on their volume to get away with it. "Spray and pray". But to anyone who cares to bother, every single thing he says is irredeemably silly. For example:

"Afghanistan did not exist for nearly 2,000 years after young Alex was laying that area to waste through it."

Thats like saying that Ceaser didnt invade Britain because the state of Britain didnt nominally exist until centuries later. Dont you agree its really, incredibly silly. Like his statement that a war is not a war if you choose to call it something else.

Then he says:
" He [ Alexander] had the most modern weapons that were available in the world of his time. What did you expect? Spitfires?"

He had, in point of fact, only the same weapons as had his enemies ( barring training and the reach of his Sarissas . That was the point of my saying he had no modern weapons of any kind. US and NATO forces have tools of utter devastation in their regular arsenal, Alexander didnt. Yet he managed to totally subjugate the same people, in the same region, that "we" are fighting now, using nothing more devastating than a sword or a spear. If Jon Ryan cannot understand that simple point...rather than making the above remark...then he is very stupid. If he can understand it and yet still makes the above remark, then he is very dishonest. I think its a bit of both.

Heres another:
"If you think that England/Britain/UK/Whatever has fought more wars outside Europe than within it in history, then I'm afraid that you are beyond being capable of accepting provable and incontrovertible historical fact..."

So why hasnt he risen to the challenge and named one such country in Europe other than the five I offered?

As for...
"Any reason why Afghanistan shouldn't become part of the EU (suitably renamed, of course)? Former USSR countries are applying, Turkey is trying to bring its self up to an acceptable standard of peace -and peace continues to rule throughout Europe, thanks to the EU, and has done now for longer than in the whole of history."

Very simply, all those countries are geographically in Europe. Afghanistan isnt.

As for that last assertion, he seems oblivious to the fact that peace reigned in Europe from the end of the Franco Prussian War and the First world War, a period of 42 years, nearly as long as the 64 years weve had lately. Back then, it was assumed by school-teachers like jon Ryan that a network of treaties kept the peace. It was ultimately the network of treaties that escalated a local incident on the streets of Sarajevo into a world war.

Finally, I said:
"Heres a question in return: explain to me how a single person serving in Afghanistan didnt choose to be there."
He quips:

"Sorry. Don't get a word of that one, young man. Can you try it again in something resembling English?"

Maybe English isnt his first language.I would suggest he try reading it again, very slowly.

I do have more rewarding things to do than wipe a school-teachers arse, so I shall let him go on aping about like a kid at the back of his class on the assumption that any further responses from him are equally childish and pointless to respongd to.

So I wont bother to read them either. If a person cannot argue sensibly, they dont deserve to be listened to.

Dixon

"Lungfish
November 7th, 2009 12:42am
OK Dixon- come over and join me on the New Statesman blogs- there's much fun to be had over there- I think we should create a blog army of New Statesman invaders."

The thought crossed my mind. Just how would they cope with such challenges in my arsenal as "why should I give a monkerys". Thats surely the most fundamental question beneath all policy and the one that lefties generally are constitutionally incapable of confronting, let alone answering.

But, on the whole, one jon ryan dumping in public creates a shitey enough environment for me to bear, let alone a whole site-load of them.

Dixon

"daniel maris
November 6th, 2009 11:48pm
Couple of lateral thoughts:

If Britons won't sacrifice fellow Britons to fight this war, is there any reason we should use an international legion or mercenaries.

Mercenaries have an honourable tradition stretching back over several centuries. It's not entirely clearly why military occupations, alone virtually of all occupations, should be reserved to ill paid patriots. "

Any British born citizen is eligible to enroll in the US armed forces. Upon leaving, they automatically become US citizens. If the British were more aware of this little known fact I think it would prove much harder to recruit into the British forces. Ive been told more than once by recent ex-service men that they wish they had known that beforehand.

Back when the major constraint on the US using their military
was the "fear of body bags" and its effect on voters, I had the idea that they should in effect recruit the British as their mercenaries. This would provide the British with the best equipment and the Americans with a way of fighting wars without US citizens dying ( provided the Brits remained Brits ).

Now of course, theyve got over the "fear of body-bags". Body-bages have become a way of life! Its only the expense that seems to be an issue.

Coming back to your point, the British used to have entire regiments and armies raised overseas. Tens of thousands of Indians alone served in Europe during WW1. Then of course, we still have the Ghurkas.

The French Legion D'etranger is I believe a very useful tool for the reason I mentioned of enabling military action without fear of large French casualties. As I understand it, most legionairies are British, American and German. Although there are French as well and they must all learn to speak French in basic training.

jon ryan

I wasn't going to bother because I have some grown-up things to do, but this one has to be answered as it is so utterly mad:

Dixon says: "Any British born citizen is eligible to enroll in the US armed forces. Upon leaving, they automatically become US citizens. If the British were more aware of this little known fact I think it would prove much harder to recruit into the British forces. Ive been told more than once by recent ex-service men that they wish they had known that beforehand."

Even for you this is beyond belief. Before being allowed to join the US army,you must be a permanent resident of the USA. You must have a INS-551 Card (Green Card). Until then you cannot join any component of the US Armed Forces. You literally have to live in America, and apply for the card from the INS.

You really must tell your care worker that the medication isn't working, Dixon.

While we're here:

Partial list of European countries England has been at war with:
Scotland, Ireland, Wales, France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Italy, Austria, Hungary, Russia, Holland, Yuogslavia, Iceland,Cyprus, Greece, Turkey. All of those may, just about, be classed `modern` involving states with names we still use (though borders have changed). Wars against the Romans, Vikings, Angles,Saxons,Jutes,Huns, Goths,Visigoths,Ostrogoths etc. were more or less constant during the first millenium. Of course England fought more than one war against many of these.

I see you are running away now, Dixon. Doesn't suprise me.

Oh, and I'm not a school teacher.

Fergus Pickering

I actually READ the New Statesman for bloody years. I used to take it to school to show how intellectual I was. My wife and I won their crossword three or four times (fat chance with the Speccie!) So, you see, I know how their horrible little minds work. They are stuck forever in adolescence and intellectual snobbery and it really doesn't need me to reduce them to gibbering rage. So I'm staying comfy in my shell hole here, thank you very much. Good God, you'll be asking me to read the Guardian next.

Simon Newman

This sounds a lot like what Donald Rumsfeld used to say, that victory was achieved by killing lots of the enemy. It's ridiculous - the more we kill, the more they recruit.

If victory is occupying Afghanistan, we won 8 years ago. If it's remaining in afghanistan without taking casualties, we can never win, and you know that. If it's nation-building, we can't do that either. If it's keeping up pressure on al Qaeda, what we are doing is not helping; the only Western action somewhat threatening AQ is predator drone attacks inside Pakistan.

The whole thing is really stupid and pointless. It was right to punish the Taleban for aiding AQ, but we should never have sought to nation-build.

Baron Pipin II

Fergus, quite right on the New Statesman, the call of our Supreme Leader Lupus of the Chordata phylum to invade the rag was ill judged. One lacks the time to just peruse the pompous, and more often than not totally and blindingly irrelevant musings of the semi-deranged scribblers. And that’s only the stuff writers. Two for inst. ‘Jesus as a leftie’, and ‘Gay rights and cultural relativism’.

roman lee

the premise that the war was unwinnable was started by failed generals and staff officers, probably the same ones who said the same about northern ireland. both can or could have been won with a change of policy. in afghanistan take retributive action against the family/tribe of individual terrorists they will soon stop risking loss of family influence. in nothern ireland the shoot to kill policy was working all to well till the gutless leaders at the time pulled the plug. remember a dead martyr kills no one

Lungfish

Baron- I note your son and heir has been commenting on the 'Jesus is a leftie' article. Oh and they were chucking stones as well as the evil hair pulling!

jon ryan

"take retributive action against the family/tribe of individual terrorists they will soon stop risking loss of family influence."

Just like Hitler did against the French Resistance? Remind me,roman lee: just how well did that work?

Baron Pipin II

Lungfish, that little bit on Judas missed it somewhat. I reckon one has to initiate a chain reaction by gently questioning others. Well, sort of copying your technique. My son has now attempted to deploy this new strategy on the same blog. Also, he couldn’t help to chip in on another NS blog that you may have missed. The one on gay rights and cultural relativism. A powerful entry, hence no challenge.

strapworld

daniel maris writes "It's quite obscene to see grieving families asked for their views on our involvement in Afghanistan as if their grief somehow confers geopolitical insight"

So it is obscene for the parents or wife/ husband whose loved one has been slaughtered in an obscene manner, to have no view whatsoever!

What I find obscene is the pontification of people like Maris who obviously believes himself to be better than most.

As a parent with a son in the army who has served in Iraq and will be in Afghanistan shortly, I will, should, God forbid, anything happen to him or his colleagues, be available for quotes from any news organisation. I will tell them that our armed services should not be there and like the majority of people want them OUT.

I do appreciate that maris is of a greater intelligence than me but I believe I live in a democracy where rule by the majority has been accepted for hundreds of years!

Perhaps, in MarisLand, his should be the only voice.

What a conceited, snobbish attitude. He must be a Burlingham Club member.

God save us from the maris's of this world!

Fergus Pickering

Slightly off topic, Baron, but have you seen the Gay Jesus Tee Shirt? And when are we going to get the Gay Mohammed Tee Shirt? Except I'm not sure I would wear it, to be brutally honest. The Gay Alex Ferguson Tee Shirt?

toby forward

Congratulations, Rod. I thought that Damian Thompson in the Telegraph had the biggest collection of complete morons and the criminally insane on any blog, but I think you've just overtaken him. Is there a prize?

jon ryan

You lay off, toby forward. Back in the old days you had to pay a penny to be able to laugh at the loonies in Bedlam. Here, I can do it sitting on my yacht in the middle of Pedi bay - and it doesn't cost me even a penny.

Besides, if you frighten them off, how will the authorities be able to check up on the nutters? None of this lot are bright enough to realize that the latent exif IP data can be used for source identification even on a third generation post!

Baron Pipin II

toby forward:

welcome to the club.

Lungfish

Jon Ryan- I am extremely impressed with your yacht in Greece and amazing technical know-how but am a little concerned by your desire for the 'authorities' to check up on us nutters.

jon ryan

I have no desire to check up on you, Lungfish. To me, you are, quite literally, a simple source of entertainment. But trying to hide behind a pseudonym is a bit of a waste of time if you send from your own computer. Hasn't it occurred to you that a collapsing administration may check opposition publications for seditious elements? And that electronic fingerprints are far, far easier to trace than those deposited from eccrine glands?

Lungfish

Jon Ryan- OK, stay out of the sun and enjoy your trip won't you.

logdon

strapworld
November 8th, 2009 10:59pm

Maris lives up to his moniker, spudbrain.

I tangled with him a few weeks ago when he accused me of being a BNP clone.

His arguments were rambling, self defeating garbage and his assumptions quite outrageous. That didn't stop him.

You must be feeling trepidation mixed in with pride about your son, anyone would.

Maris's insensitivity is the mark of a man buried alive in his own misconceptions.

jon ryan

The sun is rather the point, but thanks anyway.

daniel maris

Strapworld -

I am perfectly happy for you to have a view on Afghanistan and any parent of a soldier sent to fight there has my complete sympathy, especially when one considers the undeniable evidence that our soldiers have been sent to war underequipped (as I said earlier, we are 8 years into this war, so pace Liddle, there ain't no excuse for that).

I don't consider my view any more important than anyone else's. IN a democracy these matters should be openly debated just as Pericles and others debated war and peace before the citizens of Athens.

I simply observe that grief does not confer geopolitical insight, it confers only the raw power of emotion. The raw power of emotion is part of the moral debate, but it is obscene in my view to use grief as a substitute for debate.

There is a debate to be had about why we are in Afghanistan and whether, if there is good reason for us to be there, we are conducting the war properly. I certainly object to the fact that this debate in our country is patchy in the extreme. But I think if you went out on the street and asked people, probably less than 50% would recall that this was Osama bin Laden's base.

The world is now an extremely dangerous place in my view. Essentially this comes down to the ease with which terrorists and rogue regimes can hurt us. Our success in the war on terror has, paradoxically tended to obscure this truth.

Those who wish us to disengage need to make the case rationally.

Baron Pipin II

Rod, you hibernating or what?

RichieP

Most of the "argument" here has a saloon bar quality about it. Lots of beery bluster and no bloody substance at all. Try reading this piece by William Polk, who does know his AfPak from his elbow. Then try some real discussion.

http://www.williampolk.com/pdf/2009/William%20Polk%20on%20the%20Afghanistan%20Folly.pdf

A. MacAulay

Soldiers do not go to war to "purpose their death". They do know they are taking a risk which is balanced off by their willingness to kill, when necessary. Better equipment may reduce the risk and increase success, and as soldiers love life too, then the more they have, the better they feel.

To paraphrase Bismarck (on the Balkans), the whole of Afghanistan is not worth the bones of one British grenadier.