Singletrack Mountain Bike Magazine

• Overview
• Bike Forum
• Chat Forum
• For Sale
• Wanted
• Forum Help
• Classified Rules

Chat Forum

1. ernie_lynch - Member

   tankslapper - Member

   The best thing to happen would be to give the peace a real long term chance.

   Basically you have a lot of people with some very long memories.

   Yep Slapper, it's just a shame that peace took so long in the making. It's a shame that people like Thatcher (and Labour governments) thought a "military solution" was achievable and all that was needed to deny the nationalists an opportunity to secure change by "political means". It's a shame that Thatcher thought the solution was to deny nationalist politicians the "oxygen of publicity" by banning the voice of Gerry Adams being broadcast .... a voice-over by an actor was the solution to Northern Ireland's problems ffs.

   Luckily the Tories were able to sack Thatcher and real moves to achieving peace were able to begin. It's a shame that John Major has never received the credit which he deserves for abandoning the "military solution" and having the courage to start talking to the IRA. It's a shame that all the credit went to Tony Blair and New Labour despite the fact that it was never them who ditched 30 years of failed policies and initiated the first vital and critical moves to peace.

   And yes, I have a very long memory too.

   Posted 2 years ago #
2. TheLittlestHobo - Member

   I get a little confused with the equipment argument.

   On the one hand we are fighting a war. That means that we have an opposition who will use whatever techniques in their armoury to fight back. This goes hand in hand with the presumption that it will never be straightforward to win.

   On the other hand we are in the middle of a recession. We have mounting debts and everyone is looking for someone else to blame.

   On what grounds do people think that this country has an endless pit of money to spend on military equipment? Do we have a devine right to just buy bigger and better equipment than everyone else so we should win the war? Is none of it down to tactics and strategies? When someone gets killed it seems to be very easy to blame the lack of equipment etc. Imagine if you were a taliban extremist. Them turbans dont offer much protection but i dont hear them complaining.

   Truth be told, compared to others i would be surprised if our armed forces arent deemed to be very well equipped. Yes i suspect the french & germans may be better equipped, but we arent fighting them are we. Maybe we need to look at the leaders of our armies who are blaming casualties on lack of equipment as a way of deflecting blame from their deficient orders. Sounds very much like a politican, which is what i think some of the commanders now see themselves as.

   This was never ever going to be a war that had a winner and a loser. How can that happen when you are trying to make friends with the very same people at the same time as you fight them. If you wanted a cheap war with a winner/loser and without our own forces being hurt then you should have dropped a nuke. Its the only way to be sure

   Posted 2 years ago #
3. tankslapper - Member

   Ah! So ernie you're really a closet Ulster man after all?

   The point I was making is that I'm not completely convinced that the either the military or the political solution will/have worked - and damned if I know what would!

   Posted 2 years ago #
4. ernie_lynch - Member

   Ah! So ernie you're really a closet Ulster man after all?

   LOL ! I ain't got a clue what you're **** talking about mate

   But in the words of that great Irish democrat James Connolly who died a martyr's death in the cause of a Free Ireland :

   "I take my religion from Rome, but I take my politics from home."

   Like him, I believe in free, democratic, and secular Ireland.
   And also like him, I believe that :

   "The great and mighty only appear so because we are on our knees. Let us rise and be of equal stature"
   James Connolly 1868 - 1916

   btw, did you know that James Connolly was ex-British army and married to a Protestant ?

   Posted 2 years ago #
5. tankslapper - Member

   Hi ernie

   Yes I did know about Connolly - that's always been the strange thing about Ireland is that it throws up all sorts of weird and wonderful, almost incongruous situations like that.

   Ronnie Bunting's (who was a founding member of the INLA) father was a British Army Major who worked for Paisley - bazaar!

   I'll not even start about my own families weird past/present except to say that I agree with you to the point that any settlement must be fair to all sides in Ireland not to the victors, whoever they may be.

   Still - the cuts in the TA are frankly appalling.

   Posted 2 years ago #
6. ernie_lynch - Member

   Yeah I'm not surprised you knew about Connolly's background Slapper, I only asked the question as an excuse to throw in the information.

   I didn't know about Ronnie Bunting's background though. I guess that such extreme differences of opinion often results from complex and fraught child-parent relationships - not a rare occurrence. Plus of course "converts" tend often to take very extreme positions. I don't think that applies to Connolly though, as it was he himself, who was in the British army, and he freely chose to marry a Protestant - reaction and rebellion against oneself is not a common occurrence ! Probably much more of a learning process I suspect in Connolly's case.

   What concerns me most about the TA cuts (the temporary halt of training) is the piddling savings involved ......£20 million ffs. Now if it was a substantial sum I might see some more justification for it. But surely £20 million only represents a few days operational costs in Afghanistan ?,

   Posted 2 years ago #
7. BigEaredBiker - Member

   @LittlestHobo,

   Strategy & tactics have a hell of a lot to do in a counter insurgency such as Afghanistan. We could win it (or surpress the insurgency at least) with WW2 kit but the right strategy and number of soldiers.(elevated casualty rates expected of course)

   Both the strategy and the number of troops to ensure victory (I'm not really sure what that is here) are being hottly debated right now by McChrystal etc.

   I suppose the White House/Downing Street and NATO need to clearly define what will consitiute a victory and then implement a plan accordingly - if only someone would supply and pay 500,000 profesional soldiers...

   The 'shifting' victory aims are what will probably define this war. Was it just to remove Taliban from power? Install a democracy? Remove the Opium trade? Open Afghan up for western enterprise/companies? Stop AQ from ever hiding in Afghan again? Bring about western style womans rights, freedom of speech? etc etc etc.

   With regards to the TA it is nuts pure and simple if all training is stopped for 6 months then I doubt many will return. I'm sure £20 million is a drop in the ocean to our Afghan operation and destroying your reserves that are supporting it makes no sense.

   Posted 2 years ago #
8. tankslapper - Member

   the £20million saved is a red herring, the Government simply wants to be seen to be doing 'something' the figure is frankly meaningless as you say ernie. That's meaningless within the direct costs associated with the operations theatre(s) and the cost to the country when troops return, rehabilitation, resettlement etc.

   Another Labour smoke and mirrors exercise, I blame Clement Atlee...

   Posted 2 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Topic Closed

This topic has been closed to new replies.