Thread: THE YOUNG BRITISH SOLDIER

Some interesting reading in this thread. I reckon some is history, some is just story, and a lot of very creative spelling!

An observation on Churchill. He was a good wartime leader who managed to rally the Poms at a time when things were pretty desperate. His later stint as a peacetime prime minister was less successful.

General Gordon was a good man who was betrayed by politics and was killed in Khartoum by rebels two days before a relief force arrived - a relief force that was vastly overdue!

The story of the British Empire is not always a pretty one.

Willem

Originally Posted by willem

Some interesting reading in this thread. I reckon some is history, some is just story, and a lot of very creative spelling!

thank you, nIn would you laugh and a man with 1 leg ?

Originally Posted by willem

An observation on Churchill. He was a good wartime leader who managed to rally the Poms at a time when things were pretty desperate. His later stint as a peacetime prime minister was less successful.

we no actually, he was a great writer ( even his speeches were read by some one else on the radio) apart from his writing every thing else many would have called a hindrance.

Originally Posted by willem

Gordon was a good man who was betrayed by politics and was killed in Khartoum by rebels two days before a relief force arrived - a relief force that was vastly overdue!

No he was an arrogant idiot in the best of british tradition, he has only 2 claims to fame. 1 he got killed. 2 he was a cousin ( or some rally) of queen Victoria.

Originally Posted by willem

The story of the British Empire is not always a pretty one.

Willem

well thats true

Originally Posted by clean32

unfortunately movies are not a good source of history. Harry Morant was not as all seem to believe he was. even if you remove the 20 or so Bores who were shot wearing parts of british uniforms, that still leaves the 1/2 doz or so who were not, there is also the 3(?) who were shot under a white flag as well as a noncombatant Missionary who he hunted down 2 days latter and killed because he was a witnesses. hardly the actions of a man who was acting under confidence of standing orders.

Well I didn't know there was a movie that had been made, just remembered from when I was a little nipper learning history. Handcock just did as he was told or so we were to believe.

Didn't know you were a historian expert neither.

Originally Posted by clean32

OH why do the Yanks want Afghanistan??

look at a map it shows all. its just a simple pincer movement.

Having done a good chunk of a degree in Security, Terrorism & Counter-Terrorisom, got HD's, and was well on my way to being an Army flight-officer (until circumstances out of my control happened), I'm probably more informed than most to answer a lot of these queries.

The quote from 'Clean' is actually the most accurate ironically. Look at the surrounding natural resources and items of strategic importance...the only purposes that are to be served are a 'lesson' to the radicals, and reinforce a pincer-movement to block off strategically important materials in the event of a major conflict.

On the surface, Afghanistan has little to offer, but happens to be the worlds biggest supplier of Heroin poppies (civil win for reasoning to intervene). Western logic suggests that by killing the 'scurge', it makes our lives better and is an issue which the public is likely to support. This rhetoric has been quite effective, yet has resulted in a sudden use of cocaine, yet the believers are still clinging on.

Reality is that Afghanistan is an environment which is possibly the harshest n unforgiving terrain to fight in, has owned many of the super-powers n a lot of others who knew better, and is going to be a bloody, drawn out conflict for decades should we (the allies) remain. Iraq is a walk in the park in comparison, and the US are only starting to learn this lesson at great expense.

The Afghan front was seen primarily as the "other allies" problem while the US tackled Iraq. The strategic reports of intense guerilla action, need for change of tactics, a severity beyond Iraq, etc were largely ignored by US policy and the hawks in congress. Only within the past 2 years has this finally been acknowledged.

The British troops are better trained, have more intelligence on-ground, have better suited equipment n vehicles to the circumstances, yet they have endured a phenominal rate of deaths and casualties compared to other allies. In short, these poor bastards n ours are never going to stand a chance in the long-run.

We fight according to nations, they fight as co-operative tribal systems who have co-operated for centuries when faced with a threat of invasion (which is what they perceive our intervention as). No amount of smiles, building or 'snotting the bad-guys' is going to help...you have to erase generations of conditioning and suspicion. In essence, it's an unwinnable war other than the western-world fully committing to absolute domination and instilling fear, which will result in off-shoots of the very fear we have...terrorists.

George W stirred a hornets nest that can never be contained from this point on, as the Russians know all too well, but the US as a target is juicier than anything that Russia could ever produce.

That's all I'm saying on the matter for now, but am interested in others thoughts and feelings on this discussion. As an after-thought, it's worth mentioning that our biggest strategic, natural resource, and political enemy is Indonesia, and their sheer size and military volume has potential to do much damage at their whim. They have the most to gain n we have the most to lose no matter what.,,these buggers are who we should really be focussing on

The army, navy and airforce have training to fight a mythical muslim nation to our north since the 80,s but we are not allowed to say indonesa we say musuria I think thats how we spelled it

Originally Posted by clean32

bollox

which part??