'My daddy is a hero': Girl, 6, attends funeral of her father

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1337534/My-daddy-hero-Girl-6-attends-funeral-father--100th-soldier-die-Afghanistan-year.html

'My daddy is a hero': Girl, 6, attends funeral of her father - the 100th soldier to die in Afghanistan this year


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/12/10/article-1337534-0C6E6CB8000005DC-206_634x885.jpg





The last time Lucy Davies waved her father goodbye, it was to wish him well during his tour of duty. Yesterday, the six-year-old waved a final, heartbreaking farewell at his funeral. Guardsman Christopher ­Davies, of the 1st Battalion Irish Guards, became the 100th member of Britain’s armed forces to die in Afghanistan this year after being shot during an ambush in Helmand province on November 17.


The 22-year-old was described as a ‘legend, a perfect dad and a soldier’s soldier’ who wanted to make a difference, in emotional tributes from his mother ­Catherine, and his brothers Matt and John, the latter of whom had served alongside him. Hundreds of mourners lined the streets in his hometown of St Helens, Merseyside, to pay their respects.



http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/12/10/article-1337534-0C6E4656000005DC-741_634x414.jpg



Our soldiers are dying out there all the time and for what? this story had me near tears, and thats the sad thing - what are they dying for? why can't one mainstream politician stand up and say enough is enough and bring these innocent people home to stop them dying for a hopeless cause. A girl without a Dad to prop up a corrupt puppet government in Kabul, was it really worth it Mr Blair? Mr Brown? Mr Cameron? what always astounds me is the fact that the warmongers who support these wars are never there to volunteer themselves or their own children for the cause, and afterall who would sacrifice themselves or their children for these wars? would Blair? would Brown? Cameron?

Bring them home now.

Thoughts if any needed.

[Chippiewill]

I thought you were above using propaganda?

I thought you were about using reason rather than just a sad face...

[-:Undertaker:-]

I thought you were above using propaganda?

I thought you were about using reason rather than just a sad face...

Propaganda? this girl hasn't got a Dad now thanks to our political class - and if it takes sad but real pictures to reinforce the facts then i'll use them, it's easy to forget on the news when you simply hear 'another British soldier killed in action' - but maybe this will drum it home for some people.

I know i'm guilty of that and this really brought it home for me.

The best way to know if you are in support of a war (as in really supporting it) is if you ask yourself 'would I be prepared to die for that cause?' in which case you should go to your local military regiment and go and sign up, something which most warhawks don't seem to do much anymore despite the fact they are perfectly content with sending people half the way around the world to die in order to keep corrupt puppet governments standing.

The Afghanistan issue is never discussed and is never talked about, time to talk about it until more people die for nothing.

[Chippiewill]

Propaganda? this girl hasn't got a Dad now thanks to our political class - and if it takes sad but real pictures to reinforce the facts then i'll use them, it's easy to forget on the news when you simply hear 'another British soldier killed in action' - but maybe this will drum it home for some people.

I know i'm guilty of that and this really brought it home for me.

This afghan girl has lost her afghan father to the taliban:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Afghan_girl_begging.jpg

If our soldiers don't keep fighting there will be more children without parents

/end random nonsense arguing about nothing because it's the same for everyone so pointless propoganda like this thread =

NOTHING.

[-:Undertaker:-]

This afghan girl has lost her afghan father to the taliban:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Afghan_girl_begging.jpg

If our soldiers don't keep fighting there will be more children without parents

/end random nonsense arguing about nothing because it's the same for everyone so pointless propoganda like this thread =

NOTHING.

But we know we can't defeat the Taliban and that we are being defeated in a scenario mirroring the British imperial occupation, the Soviet occupation, the Vietnam war; but why don't you go and volunteer to fight in Afghanistan if you believe that we can? or are you all words but no action just like most of the supporters of this war.

..and if your not old enough I do hope your planning to go over there when you do come of age.

[Chippiewill]

But we know we can't defeat the Taliban and that we are being defeated in a scenario mirroring the British imperial occupation, the Soviet occupation, the Vietnam war; but why don't you go and volunteer to fight in Afghanistan if you believe that we can? or are you all words but no action just like most of the supporters of this war.

..and if your not old enough I do hope your planning to go over there when you do come of age.
British Soldiers aren't obliged to go to Afghanistan, if they didn't want to go and instead wanted to live off of our taxes doing nothing then their in the wrong job. Every single soldier who was signed up to the armed forces either supports or does not care about the war in Afghanistan otherwise they would not have made that choice.

Your argument is flawed.

[-:Undertaker:-]

British Soldiers aren't obliged to go to Afghanistan, if they didn't want to go and instead wanted to live off of our taxes doing nothing then their in the wrong job. Every single soldier who was signed up to the armed forces either supports or does not care about the war in Afghanistan otherwise they would not have made that choice.

Your argument is flawed.

Or maybe they are in a job in order to pay for their houses back in the UK for their families to live in, or maybe they do support it - yet that doesn't make it right does it? so I ask again; why don't you sign up and go and serve over there? if you believe in it then you'll be prepared to go and do it.

What are we doing over there? why are people dying and why are billions being spent on a cause that is long since dead (if it was ever alive)?

[Chippiewill]

Or maybe they are in a job in order to pay for their houses back in the UK for their families to live in, or maybe they do support it - yet that doesn't make it right does it? so I ask again; why don't you sign up and go and serve over there? if you believe in it then you'll be prepared to go and do it.

What are we doing over there? why are people dying and why are billions being spent on a cause that is long since dead (if it was ever alive)?

Well they obviously believe in it so it's fine, they believe they should be out there, THAT is what matters. Then can also seek other job professions if they don't, they're not tied into the army for the whole of their lives. Not everyone who believes in a war is cut out for war.


Because if it is still achieving more good than harm then it's fine, which it is.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well they obviously believe in it so it's fine, they believe they should be out there, THAT is what matters. Then can also seek other job professions if they don't, they're not tied into the army for the whole of their lives. Not everyone who believes in a war is cut out for war.

Because if it is still achieving more good than harm then it's fine, which it is.

Oh yes it's fine they are dying for a cause that is dead, perfectly fine isn't it? its fine to prop up a corrupt regime, its fine to pretend that we are winning against the Taliban (which is now being joined by pro-independence Afghanistanis who are fed up of foreign occupation who also usually are the people who have just had their crops firebombed by the U.S. airforce).

You say its achieving more good, what exactly is this war achieving?

[Chippiewill]

You say its achieving more good, what exactly is this war achieving?

It's hard to make a comparison when you cannot see both states, there is no telling what havoc would incur if we were to pull out of Afganistan. It is NOT as simple as just pulling out as you make it seem.

[-:Undertaker:-]

It's hard to make a comparison when you cannot see both states, there is no telling what havoc would incur if we were to pull out of Afganistan. It is NOT as simple as just pulling out as you make it seem.

And Afghanistan isn't a cesspit of total havoc now?

As for withdrawal, yes it is - the Canadians have pulled the plug and our parliament is sovereign under which no parliament can bind its successor. We could leave tommorow if any of our politicians had the guts to stand up and admit that this disgraceful war is a total waste of life.

[Chippiewill]

We could leave tommorow if any of our politicians had the guts to stand up and admit that this disgraceful war is a total waste of life.

It is our moral obligation to stay, I guess however, that you do not have morals but merely self interest in gaining more money.

[-:Undertaker:-]

It is our moral obligation to stay, I guess however, that you do not have morals but merely self interest in gaining more money.

So would you support (and sign up for) an invasion of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Cuba, China and so forth?

[HotelUser]

I disagree with you Dan.

Firstly before anything I'm going to say nobody deserves my, or your respect more than the soldiers who risk their lives on a daily basis, and those who pay the ultimate sacrifice to help the world fine peace.

HOWEVER, this isn't conscription. What never fails to confuse me is how people can complain about our soldiers going to war when they choose to go themselves. They knew the risks of their profession prior to pursuing it. You can't join the military without thinking about going to war.

And to define that war. What makes me so damn proud of the Canadian soldiers going off to peace keep is that those brave people are going over knowingly, to make life better for other people - people they've never met and likely wont ever meet.

So to say we shouldn't be over in the Middle East fighting is, in my opinion, one of the most selfish things anyone can say. First off their being involved or not involved in the Middle East has ABSOLUTELY NO impact towards your life at all. So when there are people voluntarily venturing over to serve their country who in the right mind do you think you are to disagree? It's one thing to say you feel sorrow for them losing their lives, but to then turn their death around as a reason to get out and void everything they fought and died to achieve is cowardly, and in my opinion utterly ridiculous.



So would you support (and sign up for) an invasion of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Cuba, China and so forth?

I could care less about anything else other than A) making sure the highest amount of people survive and B) Making sure EVERYONE in the world has basic human rights and a minimal amount of opportunities. If it were actually even remotely possible to be victorious in China would I support imposing both political and possibly militarily strategy as to turn them into a democracy who looks out in the best interest of her people? Yes.

[Chippiewill]

So would you support (and sign up for) an invasion of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Cuba, China and so forth?

Sure I would support if it is to some benefit and would not just cause us to be nuked by the other countries. I generally don't want to be in the army as I feel that I could not kill a person, unlike some of the people on this forum who think that people who are mentally ill and are not responsible for their actions should be sentenced to death.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I disagree with you Dan.

Firstly before anything I'm going to say nobody deserves my, or your respect more than the soldiers who risk their lives on a daily basis, and those who pay the ultimate sacrifice to help the world fine peace.

Indeed, people who are actually prepared to go and fight over there (many of them even if they don't believe in the cause fully) which is more than can be said for the pair of you.


HOWEVER, this isn't conscription. What never fails to confuse me is how people can complain about our soldiers going to war when they choose to go themselves. They knew the risks of their profession prior to pursuing it. You can't join the military without thinking about going to war.

The difference being that I expect my government to send the armed forces into battle only when it is absolutely essential in terms of my country being attacked, I do not expect my government to invade a country on behalf of another country and to stay there while losing the war propping up a government which is utterly corrupt.


And to define that war. What makes me so damn proud of the Canadian soldiers going off to peace keep is that those brave people are going over knowingly, to make life better for other people - people they've never met and likely wont ever meet.

Yes yes, all very flattering when you put it like that - except its a different story when its your own family dying to 'keep the peace' in a country which is far from peaceful and I doubt will be peaceful for the next 100 years+


So to say we shouldn't be over in the Middle East fighting is, in my opinion, one of the most selfish things anyone can say. First off their being involved or not involved in the Middle East has ABSOLUTELY NO impact towards your life at all. So when there are people voluntarily venturing over to serve their country who in the right mind do you think you are to disagree? It's one thing to say you feel sorrow for them losing their lives, but to then turn their death around as a reason to get out and void everything they fought and died to achieve is cowardly, and in my opinion utterly ridiculous.

I disagree because we are sending people over to another country to die for a cause which does not exist anymore and for a campaign which is a fruitless venture that will end in failure just as history has proven time and time again. I do like the use of the word cowardly though, from somebody who is so eager to prance around the world enforcing 'governments in a box' on other nations who is sitting behind a computer desk and has no intentions of going to fight for his cause at all - or are you going to stand up to the plate and your beliefs and go and fight there yourself? or is it the job of other people to die for your cause?

What they fought and died for is void, because what has been achieved and what will be achieved? nothing. I'm not going to sit here pretending that something has been achieved there when it clearly hasn't and never will aslong as we are there.


I could care less about anything else other than A) making sure the highest amount of people survive and B) Making sure EVERYONE in the world has basic human rights and a minimal amount of opportunities. If it were actually even remotely possible to be victorious in China would I support imposing both political and possibly militarily strategy as to turn them into a democracy who looks out in the best interest of her people? Yes.

Well we could be victorious in China but it would mean many many deaths, but that doesn't matter really does it because the results of Iraq and Afghanistan have been worth all those deaths haven't they? two countries in even more ruins than they were previously with corrupt governments that will fall the moment we leave (which we will eventually). But I take it you are all for invading Saudi Arabia and Cuba then yeah?

Again, you are all for these wars but won't go and serve yourself.


Sure I would support if it is to some benefit and would not just cause us to be nuked by the other countries. I generally don't want to be in the army as I feel that I could not kill a person, unlike some of the people on this forum who think that people who are mentally ill and are not responsible for their actions should be sentenced to death.

Ahh so the cowards game, only pick off the little countries which you believe you have a chance of beating (oh and they must have good mineral deposits aswell, Lithium in Afghanistan and Oil in Iraq - leave Zimbabwe because its just sand and grass). As for the reference to the death penalty, I don't believe you replied to that thread and I would ask you to do so because nobody suggested that.

[Chippiewill]

Ahh so the cowards game, only pick off the little countries which you believe you have a chance of beating (oh and they must have good mineral deposits aswell, Lithium in Afghanistan and Oil in Iraq - leave Zimbabwe because its just sand and grass).
There's no point killing everyone in the armed forces for no reason, I wouldn't go against China because that's dumb, but if there is a country which is being oppressed by a dictator then I believe that they should be liberated.


As for the reference to the death penalty, I don't believe you replied to that thread and I would ask you to do so because nobody suggested that.
Actually I refer to it every time it is mentioned, people just ignore me because they are too 'sick and 'disgusted' about how someone with bipolar disorder could not control their emotions and killed someone.

Also at the moment I am far more beneficial to this country by contributing to the economy than being one of those people who waste millions of pounds per day with 'cover fire'

[HotelUser]

Indeed, people who are actually prepared to go and fight over there (many of them even if they don't believe in the cause fully) which is more than can be said for the pair of you.



To praise a hero doesn't require being one. To insult a hero's efforts? Walk a day in their shoes.

They don't support it? Why did they join the Army? Not what I would call a smart life choice :P




The difference being that I expect my government to send the armed forces into battle only when it is absolutely essential in terms of my country being attacked, I do not expect my government to invade a country on behalf of another country and to stay there while losing the war propping up a government which is utterly corrupt.



Your country's wishes are unimportant to me when it means the saving and bettering of innocent people's lives can take place at little to no consequence for you.




Yes yes, all very flattering when you put it like that - except its a different story when its your own family dying to 'keep the peace' in a country which is far from peaceful and I doubt will be peaceful for the next 100 years+



Again, they decided to pursue a career in military. Also again, it might not be peaceful for the next 100 years, but atleast it's gotten a heck of a lot better than it was.




I disagree because we are sending people over to another country to die for a cause which does not exist anymore and for a campaign which is a fruitless venture that will end in failure just as history has proven time and time again. I do like the use of the word cowardly though, from somebody who is so eager to prance around the world enforcing 'governments in a box' on other nations who is sitting behind a computer desk and has no intentions of going to fight for his cause at all - or are you going to stand up to the plate and your beliefs and go and fight there yourself? or is it the job of other people to die for your cause?



If there's an opposition to peace there's a cause to fight for. How do you know when I'm not older that I don't have intentions of being involved in foreign peace keeping?




What they fought and died for is void, because what has been achieved and what will be achieved? nothing. I'm not going to sit here pretending that something has been achieved there when it clearly hasn't and never will aslong as we are there.



This is uberlame. Obviously what they fought and died for isn't void. Last time I checked the commies, or the taliban aren't the victorious power in the East anymore. Oh, and by saying it's all void I guess you're completely neglecting all the local lives which have been saved in OUR hospitals in places like Kandahar. Tell you what, once you've lived in Kandahar for a year if you still think the cause is completely void I'm all ears.




Well we could be victorious in China but it would mean many many deaths, but that doesn't matter really does it because the results of Iraq and Afghanistan have been worth all those deaths haven't they? two countries in even more ruins than they were previously with corrupt governments that will fall the moment we leave (which we will eventually). But I take it you are all for invading Saudi Arabia and Cuba then yeah?



We couldn't be victorious in China. Or if we could there wouldn't be anyone left on the face of the Earth to acknowledge the feat.

The Cuba situation is extremely weird because it's the Americans who have completely screwed Cuba over initially in the first place. If we could remove of their communist dictatorship whilst avoiding international ramifications leading to armageddon then yeah, I am all for heading in. I certainly think we have a better chance of success at correcting Cuba than I do China - and the ace in the deck with taking Cuba is China would likely do nothing to prevent us from going in. They're too busy loving trade with the free world whilst the Chinese LDC lifestyle lives on.

Having said all that too though again I think what would save the most lives and what would improve the lives of the most people is the best course of action to take. I also believe isolationism is stupid and any country, especially when their corporations are exploiting works in various parts of the world, is entirely in the wrong.




Again, you are all for these wars but won't go and serve yourself.



I'm all for war if it's going to better the lives of innocent people. Heck, I'm for a lot of things if it means making the lives of those better where history has taken its toll. I don't see countries independently Dan. You and I weren't born into richer and more stable places because we're more worthy. We just got more lucky than 70% of the rest of the world. And I will happily walk through the gates of hell the day I die if I live my life in luxury knowing the guys next door are being raped or starving to death.





Ahh so the cowards game, only pick off the little countries which you believe you have a chance of beating (oh and they must have good mineral deposits aswell, Lithium in Afghanistan and Oil in Iraq - leave Zimbabwe because its just sand and grass). As for the reference to the death penalty, I don't believe you replied to that thread and I would ask you to do so because nobody suggested that.

Of course we should start with the little countries. If you see two bullies at school, one has a knife and the other's a litte kid beating up on a little girl are you going to ignore the little girl's pleas for help just because you can't help whoever's being victimized by the knife - the bigger bully? Of course not. The attitude you're presenting here is, well.. if we can't help everyone we should help nobody. What? How silly :P

[Gibs960]

Waste of time fighting in Afghanistan all it's doing it causing more deaths and he's hardly a hero, if he's dead.

[xxMATTGxx]

Waste of time fighting in Afghanistan all it's doing it causing more deaths and he's hardly a hero, if he's dead.

Are you serious? Are you heartless or something? Leave the poor girl alone.

[Gibs960]

I'm just sayin, he's hardly a hero if he's dead and who's hero was he exactly? Has he affected this country apart from in a negative way by being in the army fighting a bloody pointless war.

[xxMATTGxx]

I'm just sayin, he's hardly a hero if he's dead and who's hero was he exactly? Has he affected this country apart from in a negative way by being in the army fighting a bloody pointless war.

Excuse me? Just because he's dead and no longer alive doesn't mean he shouldn't be classed as a hero to his daughter who is only six years old. It may be a bloody pointless war to yourself but the soldiers are not in control of what war they fight in or not, they are given orders and they follow them orders. They did sign up to be in the armed forces for these reasons and will be sent around the world to fight in whatever war they may need to fight in.

I hardly doubt you will go up to a six year old and be like "Sorry your dad is no hero", that is disgusting. Oh and everyone should respect the armed services, they do a bloody great job and they are fantastic credit to this country. You may not agree with the war that is going on in Afghanistan but that does give you right to start disrespecting them.

[Gibs960]

But he isn't a hero is he, whos life has he saved? No ones.

[xxMATTGxx]

But he isn't a hero is he, whos life has he saved? No ones.

How would you know if he hasn't or not? He may of saved other soldiers while fighting the taliban over in Afghanistan or saved innocent civilian people while over there. Don't say such silly things when you have no idea. He is a hero to his family and to his own daughter, you should not take that away from them. If they want to class them as a hero, they shall.

Would you say the same thing to the millions of British people who died during the world wars? I bet you wouldn't one bit.

[Jessicrawrr]

I respect soldiers and people who risk their own lifes for others, but something about the topic of wars like these, it annoys me slightly.
With no disrespect, these soldiers choose to fight in these wars, they know the consiquences of going to these places, they know they could be killed.
You get charities like Help for Heros, they must get lots of money to help the soldiers and whatever.
But imo other charities like Make a Wish and G.O.S.H should be main charities that most support, they help people, children and adults who can't help help the condition they're in, they try to help and give them the best quality of life they can, whereas soldiers choose to go and possibley be killed, or be seriously injured.
Again, I do not think what the soldiers do is nothing, I think they are heros, what they do is good, but they are taking other peoples lifes away, they are taking childrens parents away from them, which in this case has happend to that little girl, she doesn't have a dad anymore, nor does that little afgan girl.

That man is a hero, he died fighting for his country, he is going to be rememberd as a hero.

[Gibs960]

Not I wouldn't cos we were getting bombed almost weekly not every 5 years.

[xxMATTGxx]

Not I wouldn't cos we were getting bombed almost weekly not every 5 years.

Yeah I thought so but all of my other points still stand. Oh and we don't get bombed every 5 years either.

[Gibs960]

When was the last Taliban related bomb aimed at England?

[xxMATTGxx]

When was the last Taliban related bomb aimed at England?

We do not get bombed every 5 years in this country, you think terrorists wait 5 years to bomb us? Don't be so silly.

7 July 2005 London bombings
29 June 2007 - London
30 June 2007 - Glasgow Internal Airport

(Not all bombs though)

[Gibs960]

Answer the question, when was the last time, it was '07 I think. Almost 4 years.

[xxMATTGxx]

Answer the question, when was the last time, it was '07 I think. Almost 4 years.

I edited my post and stated the following information:

7 July 2005 - London bombings
29 June 2007 - London
30 June 2007 - Glasgow Internal Airport

(Not all bombs though)

If you know information that terrorists wait every 5 years for another bomb to go off in the United Kingdom. Surely you know too much information and you should give this information to the Anti-Terrorism units maybe? Of course you don't. Unless you actually have inside knowledge of this at all, no one has said they wait every five years to do something.

[Gibs960]

So I was right, over 4 years ago, so we're fighting a war that hasn't affected us for about 4 years.

[xxMATTGxx]

So I was right, over 4 years ago, so we're fighting a war that hasn't affected us for about 4 years.

How are you correct? You said:


Not I wouldn't cos we were getting bombed almost weekly not every 5 years.

Where the heck do you get every 5 years from? Just because London was back in 2005. <_<

[Gibs960]

I was reffering to the bombings in 2005 and anyway, it's almost 4 years since we were bombed in '07

[Tom]

I was reffering to the bombings in 2005 and anyway, it's almost 4 years since we were bombed in '07

You said 5 years, all the other ones don't count now do they not? Just the London one? I don't even see the point in this argument over something so little as a little girls Daddy being a hero, it's just sick. If your dad died and you where 6 would you not say he was a hero? For going out in a war? It's just so ridiculous. Grow up and see the things that's happening around you.

Also, we was bombed twice in '07. So, that was 4 years ago too! wow. You've had no recent ones either?

[Gibs960]

Now I wouldn't say he was a hero, my granddad died in WW2 but he wasn't a hero.

[xxMATTGxx]

I was reffering to the bombings in 2005 and anyway, it's almost 4 years since we were bombed in '07

I'll explain the three dates to you even more.

7 July 2005 London bombings:
56+ people died and over 700 was injured. (Yes that was caused by terrorists with bombs)

That is 5 years, 5 months and 4 days ago.

London 2007
On 29 June 2007, two unexploded car bombs were discovered in London.


I thought they did this every five years? Oh wait that is only: 1 year, 11 months and 22 days

Glasgow Airport 2007

On 30 June 2007 a Jeep Cherokee drives into the glass doors of the main terminal. A suspected car bomb failed to detonate.

These are not even five years apart. So are you saying the next one is within the next few years or so when it is actually 5 years from 2007? Shall we also include the plots that have took place? Such as the liquid bombs or even the bombs that were found in the printer inks.


Now I wouldn't say he was a hero, my granddad died in WW2 but he wasn't a hero.

Did he take part in the world war? Was in the armed services? Did he help out? If so, then he is a hero.

[Gibs960]

I'll explain the three dates to you even more.

7 July 2005 London bombings:
56+ people died and over 700 was injured. (Yes that was caused by terrorists with bombs)

That is 5 years, 5 months and 4 days ago.

London 2007
On 29 June 2007, two unexploded car bombs were discovered in London.


I thought they did this every five years? Oh wait that is only: 1 year, 11 months and 22 days

Glasgow Airport 2007

On 30 June 2007 a Jeep Cherokee drives into the glass doors of the main terminal. A suspected car bomb failed to detonate.

These are not even five years apart. So are you saying the next one is within the next few years or so when it is actually 5 years from 2007? Shall we also include the plots that have took place? Such as the liquid bombs or even the bombs that were found in the printer inks.



Did he take part in the world war? Was in the armed services? Did he help out? If so, then he is a hero.

That girl/boy didn't ask me if you thought he was a hero, she asked me whether I'd call my family hero's if they took part in wars and thinking about it now, possibly I would, but fighting in a war that we brought on ourselves doesn't make you a hero.

[xxMATTGxx]

That girl/boy didn't ask me if you thought he was a hero, she asked me whether I'd call my family hero's if they took part in wars and thinking about it now, possibly I would, but fighting in a war that we brought on ourselves doesn't make you a hero.

These people sign up to the armed services because they want to fight for their country and they want to feel proud to be British and so on. They do not control what wars they are sent to, they are given orders and they follow them. They do their best to complete the missions and objectives and so on to ensure peace and safety is carried out. I may not agree with the full Afghan war but every single person who is over there fighting from this country or any other country such as the USA are heros and their family and friends should be proud of them.

[Gibs960]

So everyone that is in the army is a hero, Hitler took part in many wars, is he a hero? He was proud to be Austrian and he tried to complete objectives too.

[xxMATTGxx]

So everyone that is in the army is a hero, Hitler took part in many wars, is he a hero? He was proud to be Austrian and he tried to complete objectives too.

To the people who believed in him and so on, then maybe he is to them. But last time I remember a lot of innocent people died because of that man.

But you should be blaming the government on this one, not the men and women who are in the British armed services fighting over in Afghan. They are there doing their job and they are trying to do it at their best. So actually show them some respect.

[Hecktix]

Just read through and Gibs - you need to show some respect, that guy was out there fighting for his country and the protection of innocent people - I'd say that's enough for his daughter to call him a hero.

Also, you need to brush up on your knowledge, the Taliban have never bombed Britain because the Taliban aren't a terrorist organisation, they are a fundamentalist religious group who reside in some areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan and their aims are to be in control of said countries.

It is Al Qaeda who have attacked Britain/USA in the past, a completely different group with very few links. What you don't realise is that there are many, many plots to attack this country every single month however you don't hear about many because security services stop them before they get anywhere.

You seem to forget that a bomb was found on a British plane, on British soil only a month or two ago also. Just because it didn't go off doesn't mean it wasn't an attack.

[Gibs960]

And if the bombs are still being found & stopped then the army aren't doing a very good job are they and anyone can become a hero if they join the army right? And also a lot of people have died because of the decision to go to Afghanistan

[xxMATTGxx]

And if the bombs are still being found & stopped then the army aren't doing a very good job are they and anyone can become a hero if they join the army right? And also a lot of people have died because of the decision to go to Afghanistan

If the bombs are found and stopped that means the Armed Services, the Police and so on are doing a good job. It isn't easy preventing terrorism when it will always be a threat to this country, luckily plots are found before anything big happens (It isn't perfect but it will get better over the years) At least they haven't gone off and killed more innocent people like London 2005.

Yes, a lot of people may of died in Afghanistan but the British Armed Services are not over there to kill innocent people. They are there to keep them safe, yes accidents do happen and sadly they do get caught up in the fire fight.

[Hecktix]

And if the bombs are still being found & stopped then the army aren't doing a very good job are they and anyone can become a hero if they join the army right? And also a lot of people have died because of the decision to go to Afghanistan

You seem to be somewhat confused, the war in Afghanistan is scarcely (if at all) linked to terrorism. The Taliban are a militant religious group who used to control Afghanistan in a god damn awful way and that's what we're stopping them doing, the only link to terrorism is that the Taliban recieve financial support from some members of Al Qaeda and some rich Saudis.

The army are nothing to do with stopping terrorist attacks on home soil.

[Gibs960]

But if they're still being found then Al Qaeda are still a massive terrorist organisation that are going to continue to kill British soldiers, anyway I'm not even wasting my time anymore, the man is not ahero.

[xxMATTGxx]

But if they're still being found then Al Qaeda are still a massive terrorist organisation that are going to continue to kill British soldiers, anyway I'm not even wasting my time anymore, the man is not ahero.

You seriously have no clue do you? That man is a hero for fighting in the Armed Services no matter what war he did it in. That is face and that will stay with his family for the rest of their lives. You may not like that fact but you will have to deal with it.

[dbgtz]

In the end, he chose to go out, he knew the risks. Being in the army is just a job with more risks, that's how I see it. It's not being a hero or anything like that, it's just getting on. They are only a hero if they specifically save certain peoples lives because you know they did, us fighting them might not have saved anyone at all really and we probably don't know the half of what goes on out there. It's not our governments fault he died, he signed up and he knew of what could happen and if anything he is the selfish one. If he really cared about his family he wouldn't have left them when his daughter was so young.

But in having soldiers in Afghanistan, I don't see why we help them? The chances our even when (if) they get back to a normal status, they would probably never help us at all.

[Conservative,]

In the end he knew the risks and chose to take them.

The war may seem pointless but it's more about keeping Afghanistan & Iraq stable rather than trying to take them over or finding anything anymore.

The war was/is illegal, but we can't go back and stop Blair making the decision, so really we can't do anything. We can't just pull out because the Taliban will take over Afghanistan and Iraq. We need to leave the country a better place than we entered it. No matter if the war is illegal or not, we need to at least show that we're doing it for the better. Pulling out won't don't that, it will just show we went in there to find imaginary weapons and left when it suited us. Now we have to focus on making them safe countries to live in rather than fighting off the opposition.

Obviously this is a sad story, but as I said, all soldiers know what they're getting themselves in for, they know the risks, they choose to take them. He wasn't forced into the army, he wasn't forced to go to Afghanistan, it was his choice and he opted to take it. It's sad we've lost another soldier, but it's not the fault of the Government. Don't turn loss of life into a debate about politics.

[Catzsy]

Answer the question, when was the last time, it was '07 I think. Almost 4 years.
How does this fit the bill?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1324948/Al-Qaeda-ink-cartridge-bomb-jet-linked-mobile-phone-SIM-card.html

If they hadn't been found then who knows what would have happened. It's not what you know about it's what you don't. Members of our security services work against terrorism daily and those who don't think that the constant battle/ war against terrorism globally isn't necessary
are pretty naïve in my opinion.

[ifuseekamy]

http://www.collateralmurder.com/
Oh yes, a most noble war.

[-:Undertaker:-]

There's no point killing everyone in the armed forces for no reason, I wouldn't go against China because that's dumb, but if there is a country which is being oppressed by a dictator then I believe that they should be liberated.

We'd all like freedom and we'd all like a world utopia, but it is not going to happen and cannot happen no matter how many corrupt governments you attempt to prop up around the world.


Actually I refer to it every time it is mentioned, people just ignore me because they are too 'sick and 'disgusted' about how someone with bipolar disorder could not control their emotions and killed someone.

Also at the moment I am far more beneficial to this country by contributing to the economy than being one of those people who waste millions of pounds per day with 'cover fire'

Well this is another topic, and I made the point about how genuinely mentally impaired people are in prison for committing crimes when they should be in asylums being cared for as they used to be, until we closed the large majority of them down. A great deal of prisoners/killers though are not mentally impaired, and even if they were - being disadvantaged (depends on what extent) does not give you a free pass.


To praise a hero doesn't require being one. To insult a hero's efforts? Walk a day in their shoes.

They don't support it? Why did they join the Army? Not what I would call a smart life choice :P

Well you see i'll give an example, soldiers in the U.S. army in 2000 would expect to be called up to defend their country when it is needed and would expect their government not to send them into battle unless it was critically needed to secure U.S. security - in 2003 we invaded Iraq. That says it all, nobody should expect their government to send them to battle unless it is absolutely nessacery (and I would recommended you watching the conclusion of Farenheit 9/11 by Michael Moore).


Your country's wishes are unimportant to me when it means the saving and bettering of innocent people's lives can take place at little to no consequence for you.

What absolute nonsense, they are now joining the Taliban/independence fighters en mass because they don't want to be occupied, their family members are dead and their crops (which keeps them and their family fed) have been firebombed by the U.S. air force.


Again, they decided to pursue a career in military. Also again, it might not be peaceful for the next 100 years, but atleast it's gotten a heck of a lot better than it was.

Better than it was? I can't believe you actually think that - it was terrible to begin with, its worse now and the longer we stay there its going to get worse and worse and worse. It has a corrupt government that rigged elections (and also Mr Kazai has oil links, perhaps why he signed a deal to have a pipeline built upon becoming Premier) - he and his government are hated as are the troops there.

People have lost their homes, lost family members, ha crops destroyed, are still under the thumb of militant groups anyway - and they look at the puppet government in Kabul and quite rightly they pick up arms and go and fight with the militants, Afghanistan has a history of rejecting occupiers; the British, the Soviets and soon it will be the U.S. coalition.


If there's an opposition to peace there's a cause to fight for. How do you know when I'm not older that I don't have intentions of being involved in foreign peace keeping?

What utopian nonsense, there will never be peace in Afghanistan - especially for as long as we are there.

As for yourself, oh I do hope you sign up and go and serve yourself rather than expecting others to do it in place of yourself.


This is uberlame. Obviously what they fought and died for isn't void. Last time I checked the commies, or the taliban aren't the victorious power in the East anymore. Oh, and by saying it's all void I guess you're completely neglecting all the local lives which have been saved in OUR hospitals in places like Kandahar. Tell you what, once you've lived in Kandahar for a year if you still think the cause is completely void I'm all ears.

What is lame is the use of ridiculous dreamy terms you've been using, I can come up with some now "we need to spread peace and stability through the Middle East" or "we need to have a stable and peaceful Afghan government which is democratic and not corrupt" - both are as far from reality as they will ever be and we certainly cannot introduce them with a government in a box.

As for its all void, yes it is all void - stop bringing in absolute nonsense like U.S. hospitals who are most likely in hospital in the first place because they've been caught in crossfire between coalition troops and the Taliban forces.


We couldn't be victorious in China. Or if we could there wouldn't be anyone left on the face of the Earth to acknowledge the feat.

We could be, but thats not all we can do is it - so you'd be all for cutting off trae links with China would you? do you not realise that every world superpower has fallen because of debt, and if a major/semi-major conflict were to kick off (for example China-Taiwan) and the U.S. got involved it would mean the end of the U.S. as the world superpower and the beginning of China as the world superpower? the U.S. does not have the money for these wars and neither does the western world in general - stop pretending and look at Great Britain after the second world war.


The Cuba situation is extremely weird because it's the Americans who have completely screwed Cuba over initially in the first place. If we could remove of their communist dictatorship whilst avoiding international ramifications leading to armageddon then yeah, I am all for heading in. I certainly think we have a better chance of success at correcting Cuba than I do China - and the ace in the deck with taking Cuba is China would likely do nothing to prevent us from going in. They're too busy loving trade with the free world whilst the Chinese LDC lifestyle lives on.

Here's a thought, what if the Cubans for example don't like the way you run your country (with China, India and Russia in agreement) - what does that lead to? it leads to war, war on a major scale.


Having said all that too though again I think what would save the most lives and what would improve the lives of the most people is the best course of action to take. I also believe isolationism is stupid and any country, especially when their corporations are exploiting works in various parts of the world, is entirely in the wrong.Don't you realise that wherever we go (Iraq, Afghanistan) the only people who benefit are the corportations?


I'm all for war if it's going to better the lives of innocent people. Heck, I'm for a lot of things if it means making the lives of those better where history has taken its toll. I don't see countries independently Dan. You and I weren't born into richer and more stable places because we're more worthy. We just got more lucky than 70% of the rest of the world. And I will happily walk through the gates of hell the day I die if I live my life in luxury knowing the guys next door are being raped or starving to death.

Of course you don't, why not just establish world government? (which creates an even more dangerous situation than before) - it is not upto you or the western world anymore to decide who runs Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan - although mentioning Iran I must ask; considering Israel have 200 nuclear weapons (supplied by the west which breach nuclear treaties and are 'illegal' under international law although I don't accept such a thing exists) would you support an invasion of Israel seeing as they are not doing what we are telling other countries to do? that's why countries like Iran are fed up, they are sick of being told what to do by a gang of complete hypocrites.

More to the point its actually not possible, we do not have the money to do it.


Of course we should start with the little countries. If you see two bullies at school, one has a knife and the other's a litte kid beating up on a little girl are you going to ignore the little girl's pleas for help just because you can't help whoever's being victimized by the knife - the bigger bully? Of course not. The attitude you're presenting here is, well.. if we can't help everyone we should help nobody. What? How silly :P

That isn't remotely similar, the only silly thing is your attitude where you think you have the right to tell the world how to run its government/its own policies. Although I am interested in your moral standpoint, what about this?;

The European Arrest Warrant and the fact that most of my countries laws are made by unelected politics in Brussels.
Going to liberate us are you?

The arrest of Julian Assange for using the free right of speech and expression.
Going to lecture China are we on human rights concerning political prisoners?

The fact that Britain can now hold people without charge in prison for a period of weeks.
Going to lecture the world on fairness are we?

Guantanamo Bay.
Going to lecture the world on the virtues of freedom, democracy and justice are we?

Israel and its *secret* nuclear weapons programme.
Going to lecture Iran on nuclear weapons they haven't even built yet?

Britain and its CCTV state; ID cards, state surveillance, government databases.
Going to lecture China on freedom are we?


I could go on, but we'd be here for some time - so maybe when the western world has sorted itself out both financially, morally and socially i'll listen to the utopian dream of policing the world - until then, well it's all complete warmongering garbage. Quite frankly with views like the ones you have given, I would advise Iran and every other country the west doesn't like to acquire nuclear weapons ASAP.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_X9Y4HViVc

[HotelUser]

We'd all like freedom and we'd all like a world utopia, but it is not going to happen and cannot happen no matter how many corrupt governments you attempt to prop up around the world.



It's eventually going to happen, and it's a long way off. Until then we can certainly improve conditions - surly you've taken note of the collapse of the Soviet Union, loss of Taliban control? You're looking at resolving ongoing international conflicts with the wave of a wand and since that's impossible again you're completely signing it all off. Why? We can and have proven that a difference can be achieved.




Well you see i'll give an example, soldiers in the U.S. army in 2000 would expect to be called up to defend their country when it is needed and would expect their government not to send them into battle unless it was critically needed to secure U.S. security - in 2003 we invaded Iraq. That says it all, nobody should expect their government to send them to battle unless it is absolutely nessacery (and I would recommended you watching the conclusion of Farenheit 9/11 by Michael Moore).



No that proves nothing at all though - because many employees of many industries expect things within the role of their career but they're certainly never going to go the way they want. The military is no different. Infact it's even more sporadic and especially in America where they're always under the spotlight and have a long and twisting path of being involved in international affairs which don't become involved with America first. Moreover that's only relative to a several year era because those soldiers who disagreed with the invasion would have had more than ample time to leave the military in the handful of years to follow.




What absolute nonsense, they are now joining the Taliban/independence fighters en mass because they don't want to be occupied, their family members are dead and their crops (which keeps them and their family fed) have been firebombed by the U.S. air force.



And under Taliban rule sports, television and flying kites were illegal and female depression rates were horrendous. There's always two sides of a spectrum so naturally there will be a group of locals who condem NATO for involvement in the East - there's also a vast amount of locals who are glad for the international community taking interest in their well being. We have a fair standard for how we feel citizens of a nation should be treated and if someone's going against that to the extent that they're fighting against us I have no sympathy for them.




Better than it was? I can't believe you actually think that - it was terrible to begin with, its worse now and the longer we stay there its going to get worse and worse and worse. It has a corrupt government that rigged elections (and also Mr Kazai has oil links, perhaps why he signed a deal to have a pipeline built upon becoming Premier) - he and his government are hated as are the troops there.

People have lost their homes, lost family members, ha crops destroyed, are still under the thumb of militant groups anyway - and they look at the puppet government in Kabul and quite rightly they pick up arms and go and fight with the militants, Afghanistan has a history of rejecting occupiers; the British, the Soviets and soon it will be the U.S. coalition.



This is simply presented poorly, Dan. The British and Soviets took the nation for no reason other than greedy imperialism. A group of NATO nations being involved modern day to establish order in kayos and to make better the lives of the locals is hardly in pursuit of self interest. Oh, and what's more - we might not even of had to be involved in Afghanistan if England or the USSR hadn't initially screwed them over so many years ago, anyway!

Compared to what it was life quality is and will continue to get better with time.





What utopian nonsense, there will never be peace in Afghanistan - especially for as long as we are there.

As for yourself, oh I do hope you sign up and go and serve yourself rather than expecting others to do it in place of yourself.



This is entirely pessimistic and based off nothing especially considering you have no idea what the future can hold. Worse beasts have been sleighed than the conflict and its roots in the East.




What is lame is the use of ridiculous dreamy terms you've been using, I can come up with some now "we need to spread peace and stability through the Middle East" or "we need to have a stable and peaceful Afghan government which is democratic and not corrupt" - both are as far from reality as they will ever be and we certainly cannot introduce them with a government in a box.

As for its all void, yes it is all void - stop bringing in absolute nonsense like U.S. hospitals who are most likely in hospital in the first place because they've been caught in crossfire between coalition troops and the Taliban forces.



Obama has said himself in interview that America's overall goals in Afghanistan are to not only be there militarily but during the aftermath be available to provide electricity, construct roads and provide other infrastructure necessary to sustain a nation. It's not all void, do you seriously think America, as well as England, Canada and -- oh wait:

http://davzy.com/screenshots/Screen_shot_2010-12-11_at_11.24.12_AM-20101211-112424.png

Alright Dan are you suggesting all the above countries just in layman's words suck? You must be if you're actually suggesting that not a single one of the above hadn't acknowledged their obvious failure to come from the get go, right?




We could be, but thats not all we can do is it - so you'd be all for cutting off trae links with China would you? do you not realise that every world superpower has fallen because of debt, and if a major/semi-major conflict were to kick off (for example China-Taiwan) and the U.S. got involved it would mean the end of the U.S. as the world superpower and the beginning of China as the world superpower? the U.S. does not have the money for these wars and neither does the western world in general - stop pretending and look at Great Britain after the second world war.



I think it foolish to consider any military action in China because it just wouldn't play out well. I think this to be unfortunate, but I also think China's downfall will be future internal politics, in conjunction with advances in technology - because as technology advances even in the scope of several richer countries it will affect both how things are produced as well as the ease at which a higher standard of quality of live is achieved.




Here's a thought, what if the Cubans for example don't like the way you run your country (with China, India and Russia in agreement) - what does that lead to? it leads to war, war on a major scale.

Don't you realise that wherever we go (Iraq, Afghanistan) the only people who benefit are the corportations?



China, India, and Russia wouldn't agree? And Cuba probably does think that, but comparing life quality there to here it's easy to see that such a belief is misplaced.




Of course you don't, why not just establish world government? (which creates an even more dangerous situation than before) - it is not upto you or the western world anymore to decide who runs Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan - although mentioning Iran I must ask; considering Israel have 200 nuclear weapons (supplied by the west which breach nuclear treaties and are 'illegal' under international law although I don't accept such a thing exists) would you support an invasion of Israel seeing as they are not doing what we are telling other countries to do? that's why countries like Iran are fed up, they are sick of being told what to do by a gang of complete hypocrites.

More to the point its actually not possible, we do not have the money to do it.



It is upto us when we see abuses of human rights. Saying otherwise is selfish.




That isn't remotely similar, the only silly thing is your attitude where you think you have the right to tell the world how to run its government/its own policies. Although I am interested in your moral standpoint, what about this?;

The European Arrest Warrant and the fact that most of my countries laws are made by unelected politics in Brussels.
Going to liberate us are you?

The arrest of Julian Assange for using the free right of speech and expression.
Going to lecture China are we on human rights concerning political prisoners?

The fact that Britain can now hold people without charge in prison for a period of weeks.
Going to lecture the world on fairness are we?

Guantanamo Bay.
Going to lecture the world on the virtues of freedom, democracy and justice are we?

Israel and its *secret* nuclear weapons programme.
Going to lecture Iran on nuclear weapons they haven't even built yet?

Britain and its CCTV state; ID cards, state surveillance, government databases.
Going to lecture China on freedom are we?


I could go on, but we'd be here for some time - so maybe when the western world has sorted itself out both financially, morally and socially i'll listen to the utopian dream of policing the world - until then, well it's all complete warmongering garbage. Quite frankly with views like the ones you have given, I would advise Iran and every other country the west doesn't like to acquire nuclear weapons ASAP.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_X9Y4HViVc


I think the Western World should never stop sharing and trying to internationally uphold its moral standards. Again Dan you're sort of dancing around this now, in that you're suggesting if we can't help everyone we should help no one.

[karter]

But we know we can't defeat the Taliban and that we are being defeated in a scenario mirroring the British imperial occupation, the Soviet occupation, the Vietnam war; but why don't you go and volunteer to fight in Afghanistan if you believe that we can? or are you all words but no action just like most of the supporters of this war.

..and if your not old enough I do hope your planning to go over there when you do come of age.

What? If we quit already..Imagine what can happen?.. All the countries have to contribute in order to defeat the Taliban. It's just not USA or Canada or whatsoever.

[Jayke]

Only dead have seen the end of war - Plato

[-:Undertaker:-]

It's eventually going to happen, and it's a long way off. Until then we can certainly improve conditions - surly you've taken note of the collapse of the Soviet Union, loss of Taliban control? You're looking at resolving ongoing international conflicts with the wave of a wand and since that's impossible again you're completely signing it all off. Why? We can and have proven that a difference can be achieved.

Whats going to happen? the only thing happening and being 'achieved' (again you keep harping on about achievements, what achievements have we made over ion Afghanistan) is that our soldiers are being placed in a battle zone as easy picking targets for groups which despise the western world mainly due to general hypocrisy in foreign affairs and the fact that many are now picking up arms to free their country of the occupying forces! so what are we achieving - nothing!


No that proves nothing at all though - because many employees of many industries expect things within the role of their career but they're certainly never going to go the way they want. The military is no different. Infact it's even more sporadic and especially in America where they're always under the spotlight and have a long and twisting path of being involved in international affairs which don't become involved with America first. Moreover that's only relative to a several year era because those soldiers who disagreed with the invasion would have had more than ample time to leave the military in the handful of years to follow.

You've just completely blanked it all - I have just made the point that being in Afghanistan does nothing for U.S. security and only serves to make it worse in which the United States is seen as the occupier, I care because our politicians are keeping a war going which they know is pointless, fruitless - yet they still keep our troops there in order to prop up an unpopular and hated corrupt government in Kabul which serves the interests of large U.S. corporations such as United Defence and Haliburton.


And under Taliban rule sports, television and flying kites were illegal and female depression rates were horrendous. There's always two sides of a spectrum so naturally there will be a group of locals who condem NATO for involvement in the East - there's also a vast amount of locals who are glad for the international community taking interest in their well being. We have a fair standard for how we feel citizens of a nation should be treated and if someone's going against that to the extent that they're fighting against us I have no sympathy for them.

Oh what rubbish, female depression rates - well you might be interested to know that the man you toppled in Iraq (Saddam Hussein and his Ba'ath regime) were actually liberators of women against the practise of old islamic law - but of course when Saddam refused to play the dance of the U.S., he all of a sudden turned into a very nasty man who was simply terrible but then we had George W Bush and his family going over to meet the Saudi regime which was one thousand times worse than the Ba'ath regime in Iraq. Absolute hypocrisy, and you wonder why people like the Taliban hate everything about the west!

In terms of Taliban rules, you may be interested to know we have laws like that here - for example we can no longer protest by our war memorial (the cenotaph in London) under the 'serious and organised crime act', so i'm in no position and nor is the west to criticise the Taliban for banning kites, sports and television.


This is simply presented poorly, Dan. The British and Soviets took the nation for no reason other than greedy imperialism. A group of NATO nations being involved modern day to establish order in kayos and to make better the lives of the locals is hardly in pursuit of self interest. Oh, and what's more - we might not even of had to be involved in Afghanistan if England or the USSR hadn't initially screwed them over so many years ago, anyway!

I can't believe i'm hearing this; greedy imperialism? so what does that say about the likes of United Defence who have made billions out of these wars, or the Haliburton group along with various other large U.S. corporations of the military-industrial complex who have made billions upon billions out of these wars of which the taxpayers suffers for in the end. How about the oil pipelines signed by Hamid Karzai (who he himself worked for the oil company Unocal) which will benefit large U.S. corporations and corporations generally around the world? what about the massive lithium deposits that just happned to be found in Afghanistan - I will take no lessons on imperialism from the liberal neo-cons such as yourself, at least the British Empire invested something back into its colonies and had something to show for it.

The locals are poor, the locals are turning against the occupiers and it will end up like Vietnam. A western world with no values will troop back off home, its nations deeper into crippling debt while the large corporations pocket billions.


Compared to what it was life quality is and will continue to get better with time.

If we leave it will, if we don't then the country will continue to be a cesspit of corruption and chaos.


This is entirely pessimistic and based off nothing especially considering you have no idea what the future can hold. Worse beasts have been sleighed than the conflict and its roots in the East.

I think you will find its being realistic, do you honestly think that by introducing a government in a box (which is hated and despised by the people of Afghanistan) is really going to improve anything? if you do then you are greatly naive.


Obama has said himself in interview that America's overall goals in Afghanistan are to not only be there militarily but during the aftermath be available to provide electricity, construct roads and provide other infrastructure necessary to sustain a nation. It's not all void, do you seriously think America, as well as England, Canada and -- oh wait:

And how is the U.S. affording all of this? - it can't.


Alright Dan are you suggesting all the above countries just in layman's words suck? You must be if you're actually suggesting that not a single one of the above hadn't acknowledged their obvious failure to come from the get go, right?

What is the question? the only thing that sucks if this unpopular and fruitless military adventure which has failed, is failing and will continue to fail. Why not just admit failure now and bring the soldiers home before anymore die for a void reason?


I think it foolish to consider any military action in China because it just wouldn't play out well. I think this to be unfortunate, but I also think China's downfall will be future internal politics, in conjunction with advances in technology - because as technology advances even in the scope of several richer countries it will affect both how things are produced as well as the ease at which a higher standard of quality of live is achieved.

Wouldn't play out well? and Afghanistan is playing out well is it? absolute nonsense.

As for China, China is rapidly overtaking the bankrupt west and will continue to do so as the United States meets the same end that the British Empire did as with all Empires/superpowers - if a medium sized conflict kicks off then the United States if history, even if it wins the battle just as Britain apparently 'won' World War II. China has minimal regulation, a much more capitalist economy than we have with less regulation and they are buying up the assets in the western world and moving them east - all thanks to the socialist-corporatist model imposed on the west, and the U.S. will be the one who suffers the most because the U.S. will fall from its plinth just as we did.


China, India, and Russia wouldn't agree? And Cuba probably does think that, but comparing life quality there to here it's easy to see that such a belief is misplaced.

No its hypothetical, if they did come to that conclusion how would you feel? and maybe they feel their life quality is better.


It is upto us when we see abuses of human rights. Saying otherwise is selfish.

It's not selfish its realistic, we haven't got the money - accept this.


I think the Western World should never stop sharing and trying to internationally uphold its moral standards. Again Dan you're sort of dancing around this now, in that you're suggesting if we can't help everyone we should help no one.

I've just given various examples of how we have no moral standards and you've just blanked them all, in the next reply please do address these before you start proposing we go around the world sorting out everybody else and their standards.


What? If we quit already..Imagine what can happen?.. All the countries have to contribute in order to defeat the Taliban. It's just not USA or Canada or whatsoever.

What will happen? you tell me. 9/11 was composed by a group of Saudis, the same can be said for the 7/7 attacks in the United Kingdom which were committed by home-grown islamic fundementalists. So why did we firstly invade Iraq and then Afghanistan? I love this clip so i'll have to put this in, it just shows the stupidity of the whole adventure and how it has nothing to do with terrorism and anybody who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves;



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpP7b2lUxVE