Should we sent more troops?

[rov1200]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8155101.stm

[sqad617]

If you support the object of the war, then yes at least 2,000 more troops are needed on the ground.

If you don't support the war, then....no.

[erekose]

definitely not why should ill equipped soldiers be sent to die for an american driven war

[erekose]

just to clarify I am not a pacifiist I spent 24 years in the army

[andy-hughes]

No.

This is the military equivalent of digging a deep hole in shifting sand, the sides collapse regularly, nothing is ever achieved.

Have they learned nothing from Viet Nam?

[jake-the-peg]

How do you arrive at 2,000 squad?

[sqad617]

Cus that is what the Chief of Staff has asked the Government for.

[sqad617]

Jake:

"On Thursday, the prime minister avoided giving a direct answer to a committee of MPs as to whether he had received or rejected a request for an extra 2000 personnel in Helmand."

BBC.NEWS.

[jake-the-peg]

Where does he get 2,000 from.

I'm neither doubting nor agreeing with this I am just interested at where these numbers come from

They seem to just appear and everyone takes them at face value

[Gromit]

iSenior Labour figures accused the head of the army last night of playing politics as he said that there were too few troops and helicopters in the Afghan war zone.

One minister expressed fury that General Sir Richard Dannatt, the chief of the general staff, had attended a private dinner with Tory MPs and suggested an extra 2,000 troops were needed in Helmand province.

The general�s remarks put him at odds with the official government line, that the 9,000 British troops already in Afghanistan are sufficient to cope with the offensive.

A Labour minister said: �General Dannatt has crossed an important line. He is playing a high-risk game.�

David Crausby, a Labour member of the Commons defence committee, added: �It is not appropriate to play party politics at this time. Dannatt should just get on with the job. After the conflict, if there are lessons to be learnt, we should do so in a considered manner.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/as ia/article6689952.ece

[anotheoldgit]

A joint meeting of NATO should be called, and regardless of what America wants, Brown should have the bottle to inform the other members, that unless they match British troop numbers and are prepared to send their troops into the danger zones, Britain will withdraw their troops.

This is a NATO conflict, why should just a few member nations take on the whole burden?

[rov1200]

As AOG says the burden is unfairly placed on Britain amongst the NATO countries. Brown has blustered about this to other states but they take no action and remain silent. The clowns at the MOD still believe we are supreme fighting force but this disappeared soon after the Falklands war. Obama taunts us by saying the problem is a British one.

The deeper we get into the quagmire the more difficult it is to extract ourselves. The creep of soldier numbers have been rising and its getting harder to withdraw.

Therefore we should withdraw the 700 sent for the elections as agreed upon and set an end date for withdrawel (ie by Xmas). Then maybe the Afghans can get their finger out.

[Gromit]

The rest of NATO inherited this mess after the US and British invaded Afghanistan.

We are rightly very concerned about the loss of life of the British personnel there, but the opinion seems to be that we have to finish what we have started.

Why should the Spanish and Norweigians and Italians sacrifice their young soldiers lives in Afganistan?

We take a bigger burden because we were part of the initial invasion and caused the problem.

Maybe it is time to admit defeat and stop more young boys being slaughtered.

[anotheoldgit]

Why should the Spanish and Norweigians and Italians sacrifice their young soldiers lives in Afganistan?

Because this is now a NATO lead operation, and they are part of NATO.

If one is a member of a club one cannot just make up the rules to suit one's self.

One has a choice, get round the table with the other members, to maybe get the rules altered or relinquish one's membership.

[rov1200]

"We take a bigger burden because we were part of the initial invasion and caused the problem".

Gromit
It was because of Blair in his rush to support his US buddy that got us into this mess. "Want a few thousand troops to help you out George. No Problem. The Iraq war will be over soon and you can have a few of those"

The Commander-in-Chief also controls our armed forces as well, or so it seems. Jump and we jump. Its the reason why our politicians are so vague, they are still waiting for the next command.