Skip to main content
Skip to main navigation
Skip to talk navigation

Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Saved Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Flip

1 2 3 4

News

Why is the news reader saying the soldiers in Afghanistan are risking their lives for us?

93 replies

FabBakerGirlIsBack · 08/07/2009 13:36

Are the Afghan's a threat to us?

I don't understand at all what is going on or what they mean by the soldiers are risking their lives for us.

OP posts:

Report

Jux · 08/07/2009 13:53

I don't think the Afghans themselves are a threat to us, but they are apparently harbouring Osama bin Laden who is a threat to us. That is what we were told by Tony Blair and George W Bush, anyway.

But then they also told us that there were weapons of mass destruction trained on us and we would have 45 minutes to live if Saddam Hussein decided to press the button....

The Blair regime also told us that Dr Kelly (weapons inspector who couldn't find any weapons) killed himself....

The Blair regime also told us that we wanted ID cards because of the huge difference they would make in our safety....

I could go on.

FabBakerGirlIsBack · 08/07/2009 13:54

I just don't get why they are risking their lives for us.

All our soldiers need to come home imo.

OP posts:

Saltire · 08/07/2009 13:57

Well the newsreader has got it worng, becasue its not just Soldiers, it the RAF, Navy and Royal marines as well!

policywonk · 08/07/2009 13:58

Weeeellll, the AfPak area is pretty fucking scary, on a geopolitical level. You could argue that the NATO (is it?) troops there are trying to bring peace and sercurity to an immensely unstable area (one with access to nuclear weapons).

Whether the NATO troops are actually achieving this is more murky, admittedly. But Afghanistan does have a democratically-elected government again - not to be sniffed at, even though it's not perfect.

FabBakerGirlIsBack · 08/07/2009 13:59

But they doesn't answer why it is for us.

OP posts:

Drusilla · 08/07/2009 14:02

Because our government sent them. Was thing on Jeremy Vine yesterday about all this.

FabBakerGirlIsBack · 08/07/2009 14:03

I didn't see the JV thing.

I wish they would just come home.

Any party saying they would bring them home would win a General election imo.

And they are saying the taliban will take control if we leave. What has it got to do with us? And they know that more people will die but they are still carrying on.

OP posts:

daftpunk · 08/07/2009 14:05

because the taliban have alot of support in this country..

policywonk · 08/07/2009 14:06

Fab - maintaining stability in a dangerous region is of universal benefit. If the AfPak area collapsed into full-throated conflict, it could have very frightening consequences - again, particularly given Pakistan's nuclear capability.

LadyGlencoraPalliser · 08/07/2009 14:08

Maybe the more correct phrasing is that they are risking their lives on our behalf.
As our Government, in our name, has committed them to the operation in question, they are indeed risking their lives for us in that sense. Whether they are risking their lives to save ours, is perhaps not the question.

FabBakerGirlIsBack · 08/07/2009 14:09

I just find it all so sad

Another death today

OP posts:

policywonk · 08/07/2009 14:11

I didn't have a lot of time for Bush or Blair, but I was so pleased that they overthrew the Taliban. They (the Taliban) are truly terrifying evil fuckers IMO, and it's unbearable what they do to women and girls. Overthrowing a murderously sadistic misogynistic regime is a very good use of Western troops, IMO.

I do realise that it's easy to say this when I'm not the one putting loved ones in the line of fire, though.

daftpunk · 08/07/2009 14:12

agree PW.

weegiemum · 08/07/2009 14:16

Its the places they choose that get to me ....

Don't see them doing anything about Zimbabwe. Or Somalia. No help available during the massacres in Rwanda. All pretty quiet about Honduras. Not interfering in China (Xinjiang) right now.

Its not out of ideology, its out of expediency. Someone feels we have something to gain, not just wanting to overthrow a corrupt regime.

My brother is in Afghanistan right now - I wish he wasn't.

They're not doing it for me. "Not In My Name"

Jux · 08/07/2009 14:16

I have several loved ones over there right now

I agree with you about the Taliban and do agree with PW really. I just hate that two of my cousins and 3 other relatives are out there.

LadyGlencoraPalliser · 08/07/2009 14:16

True, PW, but the situation for women in Afghanistan is not very much better for women under the current government than it was under the Taliban.

policywonk · 08/07/2009 14:19

weegie, I agree that they did it out of expedience, and not ideology. It still had a good outcome, though.

LGP - I don't think that's strictly true. Women make up approaching 50 per cent of the Afghan parliament, for example. I think a lot depends on the region of the country - the tribal areas are pretty much under Taliban control still, but the more populated areas are more civilised (broadly speaking). It's a long way from perfect though.

scaryteacher · 08/07/2009 15:17

I won't be telling my brother 'not in my name' when he goes out in November Weegiemum - he will have my full support and backing. You may not like the fact the troops are there, but fgs, support them. Statements like 'you're not doing it for me' demoralises them, and that is the last thing they need.

bloss · 08/07/2009 15:46

Message withdrawn

FabBakerGirlIsBack · 08/07/2009 16:08

I would like to do something to support them. I don't have a lot of money but could send choc, for example a treat from home?

OP posts:

Maninadirndl · 08/07/2009 16:26

I think those lads out there from the three services are doing the best they can. But when I saw "The Fallen" last November I wondered why they are there. Are they serving the likes of me - the ordinary individual - or are they trying to protect huge corporate interests like Murdoch's empire, Tesco, or McDonalds?

The Twin Towers in New York were chosen deliberately. They are the heart of the military industrial complex. Al Qaeda did not attack Starbucks for example.

The guys out there are doing awesome stuff in spite of our idiot politicians who sent them there. They are doing a job in hard conditions as I've heard with poor equipment. I wonder if any of our idiot politicos have done any military service?

bloss · 08/07/2009 17:02

Message withdrawn

scaryteacher · 08/07/2009 17:34

Don't send choc - it melts!

If you want to support them, then support Help for Heroes, which is a charity dedicated to improving the lives of the wounded who come back from Afghanistan and Iraq. They supply the money for the support and physical and mental rehabilitation of the wounded; things that the government should be doing, but don't. I know that the troops value this as several of them including my db do marathons, and other sponsored events to raise money for them.

edam · 08/07/2009 17:41

Policy - terrible thing is, for many women in Afghanistan, seems life is still terrible. And the position of women in Iraq has actually gone backwards, it would appear.

I think one can distinguish quite clearly between lack of support for the donkey class of politician and admiration for the individual service people who are - literally - in the firing line.

edam · 08/07/2009 17:42

(And if Bush and Blair hadn't wasted hundreds of thousands of lives, billions of pounds and several years on Iraq, maybe Afghanistan would have been sorted by now..)

Flip

1 2 3 4

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.