Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Real heroes: soldier refuses to return to Afghanistan Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    he should be court marshalled

    also, he in the royal logistics...seriously, he just sits in a chair a hundred miles from the fighting and watchs it take place. (i know thats an exageration, just trying to make a point) experiance my arse
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheJudge)
    For once a British soldier who is actually a hero.
    That is so disrespectful to soldiers who have died out there that I am quite shocked you even said it!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This is totally ridiculous. It isn't his job to veto wars. If that was possible I would sign up for the army for the higher pay it offers then opt out when a war comes... I mean i'm sick of all this 'our soldiers are dieing!!!11one' crap, what exactly do you think a chav is being paid 20k+tons of experiences and opportunities for?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It is not the job of the soldier to decide when he fights and when he doesn't. He freely signed up to the army, knowing that he would be asked to go to war having forfeited the right to refuse. The army then spent thousands training and paying him in return for a minimum of five years (I think) service. He's now breaking his contract, if he had refused to go due to lack of equipment meaning the MoD are breaking their pledges of a duty of care then maybe he'd have a case, but picking and choosing where and when to serve is not the right of the soldier, it is the right of the electorate and the government they elect.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Ha! Thats a ridiculous comparison, the Isreali's are a at a massive advantage in regards to weapons,technology and tactics. The Taleban are not at any kind of advantage at all compared to other Afghan tribes and the convential Afghan forces actually have a pretty big advantage in terms of new weaponry and equipment thanks to us.
    The Israeli are at a massive advantage, as are the coalition. The Afghans by themselves do not have that much of an edge. I am not saying that the Afghans are going to be walked all over. But they will struggle and there is a high risk of them taking areas of the south.

    The only reason an ordinary Afghan would fight for the Taliban at the moment is because they want to kill Americans and British and drive us out of their country. There is no ideaological incentive as there are over four other legitimate hardline Islamic parties who are democratically represented in Afghan government, the Taleban are also incredibly unpopular, mostly due to the fact that the majority of them are foreign now.
    So, by your admission, the minority of a people want to fight against the British and the Americans and so we should succumb? Without thinking about the risks that it would produce?

    Could you please explain how they would suffer more if we left, and how it is better in the long term.
    Look at the history of the Taliban when they were in power. If they take over the parts of the South (which they will if the Forces leave), that will be implemented again. Against the will of those places. Even if everyone has a gun. There power will eventually grow. And I;d rather not let an inch of Afghanistan under their control.

    The Soviets tried to play the overwhelming card.... It failed with thousands of young Russian lads dead in the dust.
    You, just said that the Afghans were united against the Taliban. The Soviets never had the support that makes a huge difference. Also, see Swi1ch's response to your post.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Folderol)
    The regime at the time did not have the backing of Afghan people. This regime does and they are united. You don't think that makes a bit of difference when it comes to tackling the Taliban (and some much lesser factions)?

    Of course it does,and you can see that when comparing the casualties, but the fact remains, that we are still not winning over there, we could put another hundred thousand troops on the ground and it still wouldnt be enough Afghanistan is just too massive. We are making headway at the moment in areas where we can set up FOB's and concentrate our power. But out in the territories, in the wilderness we have no influence, every now and then we will venture in, but soon enough we have to return back to where our power is concentrated,and yet those areas arent Taleban fortresses with thousands of Afghans eager to join up and fight with them, on the contrary, the villagers and tribes often provide information to us telling them where the Taleban are located, so what makes you think that all of a sudden once we are gone the people will want the Taleban back in power?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    To be honest, most people in this thread can just shut their mouth. When my friend came back from tour, some of the **** he had seen was horrible, he was also a different person. As for my family friend that didn't come back...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    But out in the territories, in the wilderness we have no influence, every now and then we will venture in, but soon enough we have to return back to where our power is concentrated,and yet those areas arent Taleban fortresses with thousands of Afghans eager to join up and fight with them, on the contrary, the villagers and tribes often provide information to us telling them where the Taleban are located, so what makes you think that all of a sudden once we are gone the people will want the Taleban back in power?
    I haven't said that they will want the Taliban in power. I honestly have no idea where you're getting some of the stuff you are saying about my position. You are debating the tactics of the coalition: they can change. The recent tactics are proving successful. All I am saying is that: your analogy is a failed one because the now the 'resistance' don't have the support but then they didn't. And that makes a huge difference to how successful you are going to be.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Folderol)
    The Israeli are at a massive advantage, as are the coalition. The Afghans by themselves do not have that much of an edge. I am not saying that the Afghans are going to be walked all over. But they will struggle and there is a high risk of them taking areas of the south.
    The Afghans outnumber and outarm the Taleban many times over. They also fight with the same tactics and know the terrain better than any coalition force. What magic power do you suggest would give the Taleban an advantage over the Afghans?




    So, by your admission, the minority of a people want to fight against the British and the Americans and so we should succumb? Without thinking about the risks that it would produce?
    :facepalm: No... I am saying that the Afghan people do not want the Taleban in Afghanistan. The only logical reason why some Afghans would support the Taleban is because of our presence. Maybe we killed their family or destroyed their home. Or maybe they are proud and just want us to leave. The fact is that our staying there creates more support for the Taleban. If we were gone what have this minority got to be angry about. If they are hardline Islamists, they don't have to vote for the unpopular foreign taleban, there are similar parties already legitimately represented in Government.




    Look at the history of the Taliban when they were in power.
    :facepalm2:... But you are making the assumption they will take back power, which is illogical if you take into account the present situation. I will ask you again, if we were to leave, or at the very least reduce our presence drastically. How would the situation of the Afghan people get worse??



    You, just said that the Afghans were united against the Taliban. The Soviets never had the support that makes a huge difference. Also, see Swi1ch's response to your post.
    But the logic still stands. By putting more troops on the ground we provide more and more chances for the Taleban to kill us, wether it is by IED or ambush, it will not work. All these men want is the chance to kill infidels, and we will be playing into their hands. a consequence being more coffins being driven through Wooton Basset, billions more being wasted and even lower Afghan confidence.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Folderol)
    I haven't said that they will want the Taliban in power. I honestly have no idea where you're getting some of the stuff you are saying about my position. You are debating the tactics of the coalition: they can change. The recent tactics are proving successful. All I am saying is that: your analogy is a failed one because the now the 'resistance' don't have the support but then they didn't. And that makes a huge difference to how successful you are going to be.

    Again you miss my point completely.


    You are justifying our presence there by saying the Taleban will take control if we arent around. But the provinces where we barely have a presence prove you wrong. We arent there to deter the Taliban...But surprisingly there aren't any Taleban around, which is down to the local Afghans, which i believe will be the case if we were to leave.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lee90)
    he should be court marshalled

    also, he in the royal logistics...seriously, he just sits in a chair a hundred miles from the fighting and watchs it take place. (i know thats an exageration, just trying to make a point) experiance my arse
    Tell that to 11 Explosive Ordanace Disposal
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    The Afghans outnumber and outarm the Taleban many times over. They also fight with the same tactics and know the terrain better than any coalition force. What magic power do you suggest would give the Taleban an advantage over the Afghans?
    Fear.

    They do not fight with the same tactics; they cannot. The Taliban do not support and protect civilians. An army must have the support of it's people. If the Taliban were to put enough fear into the Afghan population, they would cease to function as an effective combat force.

    They're terrorists. Terrorists use terror, fear and intimidation. They're extremists. Extremists have no fear.

    Afghan forces fear for their lives, the lives of their families, the lives of their comrades. They fear infiltrators in their ranks; who knows who might be a Taliban sympathiser. They fear false intelligence and being led into traps. How many Afghan troops would know where to find Taliban hideouts, particularly given the history of Afghan troops being stoic as all hell, living off bugger all and knowing when to double back to abandoned posts.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lee90)
    he should be court marshalled

    also, he in the royal logistics...seriously, he just sits in a chair a hundred miles from the fighting and watchs it take place. (i know thats an exageration, just trying to make a point) experiance my arse
    Firstly it's 'courts martialled' not 'court marshalled' and 'Logistic' not 'Logistics'. Secondly, he may not be teeth arm, but he's still done time in Afghan, which is more than I'd wager you've done.

    In short, disagree with what he's doing by all means, I certainly do, but don't belittle his military experience Unless that is you're a secret underwater knife-fighting trained ninja SAS bloke, rather than a gobby civvy. Wind your neck in.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    The Afghans outnumber and outarm the Taleban many times over. They also fight with the same tactics and know the terrain better than any coalition force. What magic power do you suggest would give the Taleban an advantage over the Afghans?
    You still haven't countered my main argument: the coalition, currently, with more weapons, better weapons etc. cannot fully defeat the Taliban, so by what magic do you propose that the Afghans will? And you are clearly strawmanning: if you think the Afghans will be able to hold on to all areas (I specifically said 'areas of the south'), then you are deluding yourself.


    No... I am saying that the Afghan people do not want the Taleban in Afghanistan. The only logical reason why some Afghans would support the Taleban is because of our presence. Maybe we killed their family or destroyed their home. Or maybe they are proud and just want us to leave. The fact is that our staying there creates more support for the Taleban. If we were gone what have this minority got to be angry about.
    You are essentially saying: 'if we stay, the minority will increase because they don't like our presence' but you are failing to understand that the majority want to keep fighting the Taliban (you said it yourself!).


    :facepalm2:... But you are making the assumption they will take back power, which is illogical if you take into account the present situation. I will ask you again, if we were to leave, or at the very least reduce our presence drastically. How would the situation of the Afghan people get worse??
    Again, I haven't said they will take over. I've said they will struggle a lot more and there will be a high risk of them taking over the south. So, please could you have the decency to understand my point first? The situation of the Afghans would get worse because the laws which were in place would be implemented in those areas which they will take over. They will be oppressed. And if the wrong area is taken, opposition will be crushed and more innocent civilians will die for the sake of just being part of a certain tribe.

    But the logic still stands. By putting more troops on the ground we provide more and more chances for the Taleban to kill us, wether it is by IED or ambush, it will not work.
    The logic does not still stand. If I said to you go into a country where a majority of the people hate you think thats the same as the NATO forces in Afghanistan now?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Well I've never been a soldier and I've never been a soldier in Afghanistan. Therefore I'll reserve judgment on both the solidiers who choose to fight and those who refuse to.

    Walk a mile in their shoes and all that...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    You are justifying our presence there by saying the Taleban will take control if we arent around. But the provinces where we barely have a presence prove you wrong. We arent there to deter the Taliban...But surprisingly there aren't any Taleban around, which is down to the local Afghans, which i believe will be the case if we were to leave.
    No I am talking about the areas where there is battle going on and the surrounding areas. I am not talking about the desert land that the Taliban wouldnt be stupid enough to ever try to hold. I am talking about villages in the south, which without the help of the Forces will be taken over.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Swi1ch)
    Two points. Firstly, the Soviets were using AKs. Not the highest tech available at all, although yes probably the most reliable. With the exception of some breakthrough advances in markmanship technology and the support of armour the Soviets didn't exactly one up the Afghans, especially as we were supplying them with nice weapons. Plus they were more scared of a more simple weapon the Afghans held; knives.
    My point was that the force was many times more high tech,back than than anything the muj posessed.They had fast air, heavy air,close and long range artillery, attack helicopters etc. We didn't exactly arm the muj to the teeth, the most high tech weapon we gave them was the stinger, and that was only a very limited supply around muj strongholds. Otherwise they were fighting as the Taliban are now. Thhe Afghan wive stories in reality happened very rarely, but obviously received huge coverage on account of being terrifying. You cannot use that asa justification of why we will not lose.

    The thing is boots on the ground Soviet style is a hell of a lot different to anyone else's idea. The Soviets were deeply entrenched in doctrine. Always pushing forward regardless of the costs.Insufficient clothing for the bitter Afghan nights. Generals and Political Commissars at each others throats. Doctrine and successful warfare do not go hand in hand, and the Commissars overruling real tactical decisions by Generals caused a lot of problems. Soviet tactics was the equivalent of throwing men at walls until the walls crumble.

    It's funny how familiar some of those things sound. Insufficient equipment, Generals and politicians at each others throats...


    As for our forces today, the main point is they're not ordered by political doctrine. We have fast air, heavy air, close and long range artillery. Our troops can keep up a constant rate of fire and carry twice as much ammunition as the Soviets ever could. We have little to fear from torture. Sniper teams are now more adapted to their roles in such an environment and don't need to provide close fire-team support due to the new role of the designated marksman. Combat is taking place at longer ranges, reducing the effectiveness of Taliban forces to provide adequate firepower to outclass our fireteams, who're trained to engage effectively up to 300m.
    And yet with alll this awesome fire power the word from the top is that we are failing. The allies and the afghan government have even bought the Taleban to the negotiating table. Hardly a crushing victory for modern firepower is it :dontknow:

    There's a lot of difference between us and the Soviets.

    I was not denying this, but in essence surely you can see the futility of trying to overwhelm a guerilla force, it only provides more targets. It happened in Vietnam aswell.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by somethingbeautiful)
    Well I've never been a soldier and I've never been a soldier in Afghanistan. Therefore I'll reserve judgment on both the solidiers who choose to fight and those who refuse to.

    Walk a mile in their shoes and all that...
    Most sensible and intelligent thing said so far :top:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Good for him. He is not a slave, and so should be able to quit his job if he wants.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    His unit still has to go and now they will be shorthanded and the idiots here think he's a hero?

    I don't have to walk a mile in anyone's shoes to know that that is bullcrap.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.