Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    No way! We shouldn't be taxed extra just because the Government wont fund the Armed Forces properly.

    The money is there, Labour just aren't handing it out where it is needed. Instead we are spending billions bailing out and nationalising banks!

    There are British soldiers dying in an unjust, undeclared war, and our sorry excuse of a Government won't even raise spending on the Armed Forces. It is beyond a joke.
    That maybe so, but i wouldn't mind paying an extra 3.5p per day to see the army getting what they need.

    Even if the Government are a bunch of money grabbing *******.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stevie0444)
    Of course it's a guerilla war. There not fighting us on the battlefield, because they are not powerful enough. So there using guerilla warfare/tactics and it's working.
    (Original post by already been said, read the thread)
    we aren't fighting the same sort of war we fought in iraq. the media plays this off as an insurgency because saying it's a "conventional war" makes the public ask very different questions. although there are insurgency elements, this IS a conventional war. the taliban do hold ground, they do have bases and centres of C3I, they do have supply routes, all of which we can hit. the first step to destroying the taliban is actually occupying all of afghanistan.
    And do You know that for a fact? If they haven't reported it how do you possibly know.
    It is reported we see it on the news occasionally, but only occasionally because its nothing special. The news papers are currently focusing on the deaths of our 15 or so servicemen while failing to report the huge casualty rate of the enemy, this doesn’t help public or army moral.

    The fact is we shouldn't be there, and i agree with the last part, but let the USA fight why should we? We are basically puppets for the USA.
    Its too late to argue the merits of the war, the fact is where there now and if we pulled out we would be in an even greater mess than we are. The Americans are our allies and what’s the point in having allies if were not going to support one another, and let me point out Afghanistan is a UN operation not an American one.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stevie0444)
    Maybe you should watch this if we want to get biased.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbKkbEb0CQU
    Cba with more religious whackjobs...I live in Bradford.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moe Lester)
    Cba with more religious whackjobs...I live in Bradford.

    It has nothing to do with religion you moron
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stevie0444)
    It has nothing to do with religion you moron
    That's nice.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moe Lester)
    That's nice.
    No problem moe no problem

    GoodNight.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stevie0444)
    No problem moe no problem

    GoodNight.
    Night night.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by londonboym)
    That maybe so, but i wouldn't mind paying an extra 3.5p per day to see the army getting what they need.

    Even if the Government are a bunch of money grabbing *******.
    I admire the sentiment, but a tax hike is not what’s needed. The government simply needs to get its priorities right, for example the majority of income tax goes on benefits and other social securities while our troops are dying unnecessarily. It’s like the cost of school meals compared to prison meals all over again
    Offline

    10
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    No way! We shouldn't be taxed extra just because the Government wont fund the Armed Forces properly.

    The money is there, Labour just aren't handing it out where it is needed. Instead we are spending billions bailing out and nationalising banks!

    There are British soldiers dying in an unjust, undeclared war, and our sorry excuse of a Government won't even raise spending on the Armed Forces. It is beyond a joke.
    Nationalizing the banks and preventing a recurrence of the Great Depression is a damnable frivolty indeed :yep: .
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    Nationalizing the banks and preventing a recurrence of the Great Depression is a damnable frivolty indeed :yep: .


    :eyebrow: Hmmmm.. I disagree, but we would go off topic.
    Offline

    10
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    :eyebrow: Hmmmm.. I disagree, but we would go off topic.
    Indeed :teeth:

    Our troops need moar munneh.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    If we talked oil pipeline politics with them.

    The recent French publication of bin Laden, The Forbidden Truth revealed our most recent effort to secure control over Caspian Sea oil in collaboration with the Taliban. According to the two authors, the economic conditions demanded by the U.S. were turned down and led to U.S. military threats against the Taliban. It has been known for years that Unocal, a U.S. company, has been anxious to build a pipeline through northern Afghanistan, but it has not been possible due to the weak Afghan central government. We should not be surprised now that many contend that the plan for the UN to "nation build" in Afghanistan is a logical and important consequence of this desire. The crisis has merely given those interested in this project an excuse to replace the government of Afghanistan. Since we don't even know if bin Laden is in Afghanistan, and since other countries are equally supportive of him, our concentration on this Taliban "target" remains suspect by many.
    Anyone who believes wither the Iraq or afghanistan warwas over Oil is an IDIOT.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by usainlightning)
    Anyone who believes wither the Iraq or afghanistan warwas over Oil is an IDIOT.

    Wow! What a well thought out, intelligent argument. Thanks for totally ignoring all my points and sources. Your a greeaattt debater :yy:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    1) Haha. I remember reading the story of a man who fought the various factions until his house was destroyed by a missed american missile. They might not be the same (mostly due to the age gap), but the leaders and the experienced old guys are very much veterans, some around from that era.
    2) Fox news! :rofl: No, please, don't insult me . I don't see how demanding greater action against terrorists (instead of arresting and releasing them) is the same as being "hell bent on starting another war by means of scaremongering the western public". The western public has been misled for decades about how the Pakistani government has been at the core of world terrorism.
    3) Pakistan keeps most of its forces on the Indian border. I don't see how this can be reworded? :confused:
    I'm quite liking this numbering system. Makes this far easier.

    1. I'll take your way for it. It is a moot point regardless. As i mentioned, their successes against the soviets were largely due to American and Pakistani help. Besides, the nature of the mission against the soviets was completely defensive. To postulate that experience gained in defending ones homeland (with a great deal of monetary and military assistance from the US) is somehow good prepration for taking control of missiles (and learning the practicalities involved in deploying them) seems to be a disingenuous interpretation of the situation.

    2. "Demanding greater action against the terrorists" wasn't the point of contention. You were making, I believe, errenous statements regarding the plausability of a guerrilla outfit getting their hands on nuclear war heads. This statement struck me as ridiculous, and you still haven't convinced me otherwise.

    3. India and Pakistan are in a state of perpetual cold-warfare. I'm sure much of India's army is stationed near the Pakistani border/Kashmir.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DC Doberman)
    Huh? Am I missing something? Way more americans have died than brits.

    http://icasualties.org/OEF/ByNationality.aspx
    Really? :eek:

    That's not what I heard on LBC today! :eek3:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Wow! What a well thought out, intelligent argument. Thanks for totally ignoring all my points and sources. Your a greeaattt debater :yy:
    Your probably one of these people that think 9/11 was a conspiracy. W
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by londonboym)
    That maybe so, but i wouldn't mind paying an extra 3.5p per day to see the army getting what they need.

    Even if the Government are a bunch of money grabbing *******.
    We could apply that to everything, better military, better healthcare, more jobs, no more potholes etc.

    People are normally against higher taxes though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cookie Fruit Freak)
    Really? :eek:

    That's not what I heard on LBC today! :eek3:
    What's the LBC? Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation (just googled)?

    Anyway, the source I posted has all the killed troops' names, so I'm pretty positive your source was mistaken.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nashy19)
    We could apply that to everything, better military, better healthcare, more jobs, no more potholes etc.

    People are normally against higher taxes though.
    I think most people wouldnt mind paying an increased tax rate if they knew the extra income the government would get from it would be spent properly..
    Offline

    10
    (Original post by Haksa)
    I'm quite liking this numbering system. Makes this far easier.

    1. I'll take your way for it. It is a moot point regardless. As i mentioned, their successes against the soviets were largely due to American and Pakistani help. Besides, the nature of the mission against the soviets was completely defensive. To postulate that experience gained in defending ones homeland (with a great deal of monetary and military assistance from the US) is somehow good prepration for taking control of missiles (and learning the practicalities involved in deploying them) seems to be a disingenuous interpretation of the situation.

    2. "Demanding greater action against the terrorists" wasn't the point of contention. You were making, I believe, errenous statements regarding the plausability of a guerrilla outfit getting their hands on nuclear war heads. This statement struck me as ridiculous, and you still haven't convinced me otherwise.

    3. India and Pakistan are in a state of perpetual cold-warfare. I'm sure much of India's army is stationed near the Pakistani border/Kashmir.
    1) To be fair i think the threat created by nukes falling into the hands of terrorists is big enough, deployment not considered.
    2) Hmm, well, this is based on opinion. As an Indian with a decidedly anti Pakistan viewpoint i am likely to believe sources suggesting Pakistan's grip on the country is weak and collapse plausible. You as an (seemingly) unbiased westerner will likely believe more positive sources.
    3) No, Pakistan is in a state of perpetually antagonizing India. India is not the sort of country that invades other nations for territorial gain, and shifting troops from the Indian border is likely only to elicit an equivalent response from the Indians accompanied by a thawing of diplomatic relations.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.