Home | Community | Message Board

MRCA Tyroler Gluckspilze
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   OlympusMyco.com Olympus Myco Bulk Substrate   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Brits fighting Bush's war for him
    #6120841 - 10/01/06 08:50 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Think Bush will ever get round to fighting his own wars for a change? Instead of leaving the Brits in the shit?

A quad bike bounces across battle-ravaged desert, the remains of three dead British soldiers lashed to its back, while a Chinook buzzes overhead.

Exhausted squaddies exchange desultory small-arms fire with an invisible enemy. An infantry unit nervously patrols a burning village.

These are the images that reveal the gritty, deadly reality of the British engagement in Afghanistan. And they have been released to the world by the angry and beleaguered troops themselves.

The pictures were captured on digital cameras over recent months by infantrymen belonging to the Battlegroup of the 3rd Battalion The Parachute Regiment. For the most part, they have been sent back to Britain by e-mail, sidestepping the Government's attempts to keep the true nature of the conflict away from the public gaze.

This is a deployment that Ministers, safe in their plush Whitehall offices, have characterised as a peacekeeping mission. John Reid, now Home Secretary, notoriously predicted that the British would serve their tour of duty without a shot being fired. Visits to troops by news teams have been discouraged or stage-managed.

But these unique pictures, backed up by commentary in the e-mails, tell the truth - of savage and bloodthirsty firefights, of unremitting skirmishes with the Taliban and of shortages of ammunition and even rations.

Water has run out, so soldiers drink from disease-carrying rivers. They eat bread scrounged from Afghan troops.

Squaddies are tormented by sand flies and scorpions and are driven mad by stress. They are attacked by Taliban militiamen on motorbikes who open fire while clutching children in front of themselves.

Battles take place against a backdrop of burning villages reduced to rubble by aerial bombardment. On occasion, panic-stricken combatants have used satellite phones to call England with the harrowing message that they are about to die.

The evidence has been delivered to The Mail on Sunday by soldiers who say that their enemy is more numerous, more determined and better equipped than politicians have acknowledged. This, they say, is no peacekeeping mission. This is a new Vietnam.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/ar...e&icc=NEWS&ct=5

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleFlop Johnson
Praise Skatballah
Male

Registered: 09/22/05
Posts: 13,789
Loc: TX
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: Alex213]
    #6121041 - 10/01/06 11:16 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

there are only 5,000 british troops in afghanistan, as opposed to the 200,000 american soldiers.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe_Red_Crayon
Exposer of Truth
Male User Gallery

Registered: 08/13/03
Posts: 13,673
Loc: Smokey Mtns. TN Flag
Last seen: 7 years, 12 days
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: Flop Johnson]
    #6121054 - 10/01/06 11:28 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

actually their isnt 200,000 US soldiers in Afghanistan, probably only about 9,000 to 12,000.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: The_Red_Crayon]
    #6121213 - 10/01/06 12:49 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

There are 20,000 US Troops in Afghanistan according to the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5339530.stm

Also, under the new negotiated agreement, 12,000 of those US soldiers will now fall under NATO's command in order to help meet security needs in troubled areas: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5392988.stm

So, yeah, the US clearly isn't "leaving the Brits" to fight anything.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: Alex213]
    #6122668 - 10/01/06 09:27 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

"Bush's" war? How soon we forget.

The Afghanistan incursion is a UN deal. The UN approved it, a UN-backed coalition (admittedly made up pretty much exclusively of NATO members) of UN member nations is prosecuting it, the UN arranged and supervised the elections. Hell, even Canada is involved, fa cryin' out loud.

Since when does "Bush" equal "UN"?




Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: Economist]
    #6123294 - 10/02/06 02:22 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Economist said:
There are 20,000 US Troops in Afghanistan according to the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5339530.stm

Also, under the new negotiated agreement, 12,000 of those US soldiers will now fall under NATO's command in order to help meet security needs in troubled areas: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5392988.stm

So, yeah, the US clearly isn't "leaving the Brits" to fight anything.




Afghanistan is a big place. There's no point having 20,000 troops in Afghanistan if they arn't stationed where the fighting is.

Edit: And I hate to say it but what good do you think 12,000 troops can do in an area the size of Afghanistan?

Edited by Alex213 (10/02/06 02:29 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: Phred]
    #6123299 - 10/02/06 02:25 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
"Bush's" war? How soon we forget.

The Afghanistan incursion is a UN deal.

Phred




Not really. It's an american deal. They were able to take the UN along with them in this case.

Do you seriously believe the UN would have invaded Afghanistan without America?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRosettaStoned
Stranger

Registered: 05/29/06
Posts: 540
Loc: North America
Last seen: 16 years, 2 months
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: Phred]
    #6124315 - 10/02/06 12:44 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

It always amuses me when right wingers invoke the UN in their discussion. When 99% of the time those same people can barely let the "UN" escape their lips without being ever-so closely followed by a slanderous remark.

And yes, the will of the most powerful nation on earth does equal the will of the UN. And the very few times they try to act against the US the right will bleat on and on about how worthless they are. Which is it? Are they are buddies or are they worthless no buddies?


--------------------
"Government big enough to provide you with all you need is also big enough to take everything you have." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"Without stupid, faggy potheads we wouldn't have wars." - Zappa

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: Alex213]
    #6124401 - 10/02/06 01:01 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Alex213 said:
Afghanistan is a big place. There's no point having 20,000 troops in Afghanistan if they arn't stationed where the fighting is.

Edit: And I hate to say it but what good do you think 12,000 troops can do in an area the size of Afghanistan?




But then the headline shouldn't be "Brits fighting Bush's war for him..." but rather "Brits send too few troops to Afghanistan, do shoddy job..."

At the end of the day the US is fighting the war in Afghanistan every bit as much as Britain is. The difference is that the US has done a lot of this sort of thing before, they've worked out logistics, and signed agreements with central Asian governments for use of military bases/logistical support.

The Brits haven't done nearly as much of this, and they're having a hard time as a result. The transfer of 12,000 US troops to NATO command will probably make a bigger difference in terms of support and logistics than the total number of boots available to NATO planners, and support/logistics is where the British are hurting now.

On the UN:
When has the UN done anything with US support? Do you think any of the initial operations in Haiti, Somalia, or even Rwanda would have ever happened without the US?

And what happens when the US isn't interested? Rwandan genocide goes unchecked, no one does anything about Darfur, etc.

As much as they claim otherwise, when it comes to peacekeeping, the US = the UN.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 6 months, 28 days
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: Economist]
    #6124485 - 10/02/06 01:17 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

:thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: Economist]
    #6127171 - 10/03/06 12:29 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

But then the headline shouldn't be "Brits fighting Bush's war for him..." but rather "Brits send too few troops to Afghanistan, do shoddy job..."



How many troops do you think Britain has? We havn't got enough money to properly equip the troops already there never mind sending more. If you want us to fight your war for you then send us more money and equipment.

At the end of the day the US is fighting the war in Afghanistan every bit as much as Britain is.

Then where are the american troops? I'm afraid 12,000 isn't going to even remotely do the job. Put 200-300,000 on the ground and there may be a tiny chance of making progress.

And what happens when the US isn't interested?

What happens? Blair goes to fight the war for them. That's why we're dying in Afghanistan while Bush has forgotten about it to invade Iraq.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXenophobic
Stranger

Registered: 05/24/03
Posts: 573
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: Alex213]
    #6129579 - 10/03/06 05:50 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Ahh bollocks to it, bring em all home and have a UK v US war. Now that'd be some serious fun.

(Alex213) - "How many troops do you think Britain has? We havn't got enough money to properly equip the troops already there never mind sending more. If you want us to fight your war for you then send us more money and equipment" - Lol, USA is borrowing money from Mexico to relieve it's debt..... Kinda says it all.


--------------------
Only will man realise, when he cuts down the last tree, that he cannot eat money

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male

Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: Xenophobic]
    #6129616 - 10/03/06 06:02 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Xenophobic said:
Ahh bollocks to it, bring em all home and have a UK v US war.  Now that'd be some serious fun.




Nah, we've nuked islands before, you sort of lose the passion for it over time... :smirk:

:earth: :sun: :headbang: :levitate:
Peace. :mushroom2:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSchwammel
Auk

Registered: 12/10/05
Posts: 845
Last seen: 17 years, 7 months
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: fireworks_god]
    #6129650 - 10/03/06 06:10 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

haha

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXenophobic
Stranger

Registered: 05/24/03
Posts: 573
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: fireworks_god]
    #6129666 - 10/03/06 06:18 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

The Japs had no nukes, and that was bang out of order, those poor kids.... but anyways we're the only country who has ever destroyed your so called "White House", burned it to the ground. Remember? And we got as many nukes as you, oh and I think the old bag (Queen) commands over 41 million troops worldwide is it (might be 61 million, one of the two)? Gees even Canada would kick your arse. lol. Let's be nice now....

Anyways this aint some "we're better than you" discussion, all yanks are europeans unless you're a red indian or grew out the ground like a mushroom (lol) with white skin.

P.S - Fireworks_God.... that's why Hawaii refuses to remove the UK flag, at the request of any US president. They know what side their bread's buttered.



--------------------
Only will man realise, when he cuts down the last tree, that he cannot eat money

Edited by Xenophobic (10/03/06 06:38 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: Alex213]
    #6129776 - 10/03/06 06:57 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Alex213 said:
How many troops do you think Britain has? We havn't got enough money to properly equip the troops already there never mind sending more. If you want us to fight your war for you then send us more money and equipment.



What about all those British troops in Iraq?

As for money/equipment, that's not the fault of the US. If Britain wanted to deploy overseas, the US wasn't going to ask them "Are you sure you're ready for it?"

The real question you need to be asking is why British Military commanders told the British government that they were capable of deploying overseas, when this clearly wasn't the case.

Quote:

Alex213 said:
Then where are the american troops? I'm afraid 12,000 isn't going to even remotely do the job. Put 200-300,000 on the ground and there may be a tiny chance of making progress.



America has 20,000 troops in Afghanistan, WAY more than Britain. American troops also aren't complaining about a lack of supplies and air support in Afghanistan, nor are American troops complaining about losing ground.

American troops have also carried out several successful offensives in the past year, so it's bull to claim they're "not fighting".

The real question is, why did Britain say they were capable of deploying when they clearly didn't have the logistical infrastructure to do so?

Quote:

Alex213 said:
What happens? Blair goes to fight the war for them. That's why we're dying in Afghanistan while Bush has forgotten about it to invade Iraq.



Right, because Blair didn't redirect any troops to Iraq...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleXenophobic
Stranger

Registered: 05/24/03
Posts: 573
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: Economist]
    #6129882 - 10/03/06 07:24 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Any war with United Kingdom would raise armies from across the world... to protect the Queen, Head of State of....

Antigua and Barbuda
Australia
Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
British Antartic Territory
British Indian Ocean Territory
British Virgin Islands
Canada
Falkland Islands
Fiji
Grenada
Jamaica
Jersey
Guernsey
New Zealand
Papua New Guinea
Pitcairn Islands
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Solomon Islands
South Sandwich Islands
Tuvalu
United Kingdom
And more that I cant be arsed to list....

Total army combined is in excess of over 230,000,000 military personnel. That was was my point. As compared to United States 54,000,000 military personnel. Hence USA always asking the UK for help in wars.

Anyway, this conversation is going nowhere fast. End of.


--------------------
Only will man realise, when he cuts down the last tree, that he cannot eat money

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesnoopaloop53
No BetterFriend. NoWorse Friend.

Registered: 01/20/05
Posts: 311
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: Xenophobic]
    #6130160 - 10/03/06 08:36 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Xenophobic said:
Any war with United Kingdom would raise armies from across the world... to protect the Queen, Head of State of....

Antigua and Barbuda
Australia
Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
British Antartic Territory
British Indian Ocean Territory
British Virgin Islands
Canada
Falkland Islands
Fiji
Grenada
Jamaica
Jersey
Guernsey
New Zealand
Papua New Guinea
Pitcairn Islands
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Solomon Islands
South Sandwich Islands
Tuvalu
United Kingdom
And more that I cant be arsed to list....

Total army combined is in excess of over 230,000,000 military personnel.  That was was my point.  As compared to United States 54,000,000 military personnel.  Hence USA always asking the UK for help in wars.

Anyway, this conversation is going nowhere fast.  End of.




The UK would beat the USA with that?  You're so funny!  :crazy2:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSchwammel
Auk

Registered: 12/10/05
Posts: 845
Last seen: 17 years, 7 months
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: snoopaloop53]
    #6130180 - 10/03/06 08:41 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

the tony blair brits?

or the hungry chaps selling their souls?


they got no economy, no souls, no empire

and no money...

Waht else are they gonna do!!!!

we'll leave them as broke as we found them...

tony kissass


they'll do anything we say

Edited by Schwammel (10/03/06 08:54 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRosettaStoned
Stranger

Registered: 05/29/06
Posts: 540
Loc: North America
Last seen: 16 years, 2 months
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: Xenophobic]
    #6130791 - 10/03/06 10:55 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

The UK needs the US just as much as the US needs the UK. They both prop each other up and now they're bringing china into the fold. If one falls they all fall, the US would fall much harder though, as we have more to loose.


--------------------
"Government big enough to provide you with all you need is also big enough to take everything you have." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"Without stupid, faggy potheads we wouldn't have wars." - Zappa

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   North Spore Cultivation Supplies   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   OlympusMyco.com Olympus Myco Bulk Substrate   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* 60% of Brits despise Bush and do not want him in UK mjshroomer 1,056 13 12/22/03 10:41 AM
by G a n j a
* Bush - war criminal
( 1 2 all )
Crobih 2,289 21 03/25/04 07:56 PM
by Evolving
* What Can I Do to Fight the War on Drugs? Swami 1,409 14 10/04/02 01:26 AM
by Anonymous
* The Betrayal of Afghanistan Xochitl 1,928 12 09/24/03 02:18 PM
by JonnyOnTheSpot
* The betrayal of Afghanistan Xlea321 695 3 11/03/03 01:21 PM
by Azmodeus
* The Bush 9/11 Scandal for Dummies
( 1 2 3 all )
RonoS 4,995 49 06/12/02 07:15 PM
by Jammer
* Iraq War Quiz
( 1 2 all )
RonoS 2,866 21 03/27/03 12:51 PM
by Murex
* 10 Reasons Bush wants to ban Moore film
( 1 2 3 4 all )
LearyfanS 8,207 60 06/02/04 11:15 AM
by Vvellum

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
1,893 topic views. 2 members, 5 guests and 9 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.023 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 14 queries.