so very sad , R.I.P brave souls , we wil not forget you .

simon weston is indeed an inspiring man and i saw an interview with him recently talking about our current wars, he wasnt impressed

but really are you still suckered in by the pr twaddle of wartime governments, or the soppy eyed nostalia of postwar hero worship

in this 24/7 multimedia age we are all a lot more cynical about war, ever since images came out of vietnam of napalmed children its hard to look up to people who blow up other people

im not trying to detract from their bravery or sacrifice but the realities of war as we see them today make it hard to spin convincing propoganda

You know its a bit rich when people harp on about wanting murderers like Adams and McGuinness to be allowed to speak

Yeah cause Thatcher's solution to "starve the terrorist and the hijacker of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend" was really working, wasn't it ? …….. the IRA were about to surrender and everybody was going to live in peace once more.

The reality is that whilst Thatcher was Prime Minister, the peace process had to wait. Once the Tories had sacked her, then the first vital steps towards securing a negotiated settlement could being.

backhander – both Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher financed and armed Osama Bin laden. It's all historical facts which you won't have any problem finding references for.

Poor poor guys, RIP. I can see my brother in the bbc video there. Bit of a shock :\

ernie, ernie, *shakes head. Can labour really do no wrong in your eyes?

Things are not resolved in Ulster, there's no magic wand. I worked on the border throughout the troubles and took no part in what was a very disturbed reality. Friends were murdered, blown up and butchered. I lost two good friends in a six month period. For those of us who had to live with the reality of the situation on a day to day basis it was and remains hard at times to deal with. Peace at any price? I'm not sure, like you I do not have the answers.

In Afghanistan this was always going to be the pitiable result. The legacy of this one will live with us all for a very long time by raising an entire anti-western generation within that region.

With no exit policy in sight, and an even more strident PM in the Commons today words fail.

This is a pointless war and an even more pointless waste of life. I wonder how would Blair have felt about his children serving in the front line?

ernie, ernie, *shakes head. Can labour really do no wrong in your eyes?

I criticise the Labour Party/government on almost a daily basis – you obviously don't read much of what I post, if you didn't realise that.

As far as Northern Ireland is concerned, I reserve my greatest praise for John Major – as I have on previous occasions. It was him who lifted Thatcher's ban on Gerry Adams voice, and it was him who very courageously instigated those first steps towards peace – by talking to the Provos.

Sadly John Major has never received the credit which in my opinion, he deserves. All the credit went to Tony Blair and New Labour, although I doubt whether Blair would have had the guts to take those first brave steps. Indeed Labour governments have had a long history of taking regressive steps in NI.

I know that peace in NI is far from perfect, sectarianism is still very much alive, as too, are the criminal activities of terrorist organisations. But there is no doubt that it is a vast improvement on the previous situation. And at least NI is now walking in vaguely the correct direction.

In Sandhurst as part of the studies into military tactics and doctrine they teach how the Romans did it 'look we will bring you security, health, welfare, education and trade with you BUT don't tow the line will flatten your country – done' it worked for a coulpe of thousand years, the ancient Egyptians did is as did the Carthagininans and Greeks. Such practices bought balance to a fair load of warring tribal masses.
Why can't the NATO Empire builders do it?

Sorry to go further off-topic but some Ernie_Lynch nonsense wants correcting…

"Furthermore, it is an accepted protocol that if the governing party changes it's leader and there are still several years to go before a general election, then an early general election is called"

It really isn't, and never has been. The last PM before Blair- nice Tory chap, you might remember him- took over in 1990 and completed the full term to 1992. In that time, he led the country in a war in iraq and into a recession, without having been "elected by the people". Sound at all familiar?

For that matter, Callaghan- Thatcher's predecessor- also took over mid-term, in '76, and 3 years ran before the next election. And Douglas-Home took over midterm from MacMillan, who in turn took over midterm from Eden- not one of these called an early election, except for Callaghan who was forced out by a vote of no confidence.

The man recognised as the first PM, Walpole, was voted in but the second ever PM (Compton) wasn't. And when he died, the third ever PM (Pelham) also took over mid term and led the country for nearly 5 years before going to the people. Then HE was also succeeded midterm by Pelham-Holmes after his death, and then subsequently also replaced midterm by Cavendish.

So, of the first 5 PMs of this country, 4 took over mid-term and not one called an early election. And of the last 5, 3 took over mid term.

Seriously, do your homework, stop regurgitating such utter balls.

I think that the public should support the service men and women no matter how misguided their mission

Taht's what German people thought in the 1930s

Long before 9/11 there was calls to sort out these muslim fanatics called the "the taliban" who were destroying archealogical sites and terrorising the people of afganistan.
Sending troops was the right thing to do then but the justification and support have been lost because blair and his rent boys sent troops to iraq to further their own careers.
Im afraid pakistan/afganistan has done a better job of invading britain than britain has done of invading afganistan.
Bring em home whilst theres still space, the taliban can be stopped by cutting of their money and support, that requires politicians with balls not troops.

some Ernie_Lynch nonsense wants correcting……….Seriously, do your homework, stop regurgitating such utter balls

Why don't you read what I posted, if you want to comment ? …..and after all, you even went through the trouble of coping and pasting it.

Let me help you. I said, quote : "it is an accepted protocol that if the governing party changes it's leader and there are still several years to go before a general election, then an early general election is called"

Note the use of the words "accepted protocol" and "and there are still several years to go before a general election" eh ?

Between Thatcher resigning and Major calling a general election, was not "several years" – it was 16 months. It is generally accepted that if there are just months rather than years, before a general election, then a new leader need not feel obliged to call an early election.

In the case if Douglas-Home, he lasted barely 12 months as Prime Minister. And I am fully aware that Callaghan used his prerogative as PM not to call a general election. I am also fully aware that that decision in part, led to his downfall.

As far as Walpole is concerned, I don't think the protocols which existed nearly 300 hundred years ago, long before universal suffrage had even been established, are applicable today. Indeed as far as I am aware, the office of "Prime Minister" did not even exist then.

At no time did I suggest that calling a general election was a legally binding requirement if the governing party changed it's leader, but merely that it was an accepted protocol if there was a substantial amount of time left until the next required general election. I am fully aware of a Prime Minister's prerogative.

Following this accepted protocol, it is very clear that Gordon Brown fully recognised the desirability of calling a general election when the Labour government changed it's leader – that is precisely why he initially allowed rumours to flourish suggesting that there would an early general election. He only changed his mind when he was no longer certain that he would win.

Furthermore, it is recognised that one of the major reasons why Gordon Brown has not been seriously challenged as leader of the party, is that the Labour Party is fully aware that having yet another leadership change without calling a general election, is unthinkable. Despite it not being illegal.

Binners point imo, was perfectly valid.

Show me this "accepted protocol" in action then. Whenever you're ready. After you're done handwaving of course, wouldn't want to rush you into actually trying to make your point.

Why on earth do think Gordon Brown even considered calling an early general election, if protocol didn't require
it ?…. he had a huge working majority and there were no legal obligations.

Why on earth do think that everybody agrees that it is unthinkable that Labour could have yet another leadership change, without calling an early general election ? …. if protocol doesn't require it, and there are no legal obligations.

Personally, I think it's very likely that Brown will resign a few months before the next general election, in the hope that Labour will scrape in under the bounce of a new leader. But that's another issue….

Genesis – Pax Romana didn't last two millennia, more like two centuries. Also it wasn't really a period of peace. Likewise Pax Britannica, and so far Pax Americana is no different.

Though you are right that "constant war (abroad) for constant peace (at home)" does indeed seem to be the thinking.

Ernie recently you were humiliated on here after clearly spending a huge amount of time "flogging a dead horse" I recall it was the name calling fiasco regarding Ton.
This was the thread where you stated (and I paraphrase, whereas you will copy and paste the quote for me!) something along the lines of "just because there is a lack of evidence we shouldn't conclude (it) didnt happen"
Your posts always end in voluminous obfuscation as a way of simply wearing people down. If you think this is victory then good luck, as hollow as it is.

With regard to the comment made earlier by Binners it clearly showed either a lack of understanding of the democratic process in the UK or an attempt to mislead to reinforce his stance, probably the latter however I chose to challenge him assuming the former. My point stands however that we do not vote for a PM.

I am not sure what your profession is but no doubt you will find the time to dissect the words within this post, whilst ignoring the message as this form of pedantry appears to be the only way you score even minor victories on here. You really have become quie tedious.

Why can't the NATO Empire builders do it?

Hitler stopped alot of practices and theories from being used or accepted again.

Ernie recently you were humiliated on here ……regarding Ton.

I don't recall that 😀 What I do recall, is you and about 3 or 4 other people (out of hundreds, if not thousands of forum users) being under the mistaken belief that I needed to justify myself to you. The issue was whether bombadillo has posted offensive stuff. I claimed that he had, you claimed that he hadn't. I made it very clear that I wasn't prepared to argue the toss. Subsequently, bombadillo was banned from the forum after ton fully admitted that he had created him to get round a ban that he was serving for making an alleged racist comment.

My reluctance to get involved in pointless bickering with you about what had, and what hadn't been said, was based on my belief that it would be an utterly futile exercise, and I was perfectly happy you thinking whatever you wanted to think. In the same vein, I had absolutely no desire to demand that ton provide evidence for his completely ludicrous claims that, quote : "you and barnes and others rip the **** out of me constantly on here about being fat or thick" Futile and childish bickering is not my style – pardon me for acting "grown-up".

Of course none of this has anything at all to do with this thread, and the thread which you are referring to was still active only a few hours ago, so obviously your comments would have been far more appropriate over there – you just couldn't resist having a little dig at me and dragging your childish playground politics all over the forum – could you ?

Getting back on topic, Binners said, quote : "Brown was elected as PM by who exactly? The members of his own party didn't even vote for him" a perfectly valid point imo, as he was clearly pointing out the imperfections of British democracy – the fact that "we do not vote for a PM" as you claim, is completely irrelevant imo.

Furthermore as I have already pointed out, Gordon Brown seriously considered calling an early general election so that he could have a personal mandate from the British people. He only changed his mind when it became clear that there was no certainty that he would win an election. All of which calls into question his level of commitment to democracy – it would appear that it is restricted to "what he can get away with".

Which hardly gives him much creditability when he goes around demanding that other countries apply "our own particular brand of democracy" as Binners put it. Because presumably, Gordon Brown should be perfectly happy if the Afghan leader doesn't have a personal mandate from the Afghan people ?

The issue was whether bombadillo has posted offensive stuff. I claimed that he had, you claimed that he hadn't

You made an allegation you couldnt substantiate. You claimed he posted racist comments but couldnt provide them, despite the fact that all of his posts would be recorded on the site and traceable. You were wrong and chose not to simply say so.

My reluctance to get involved in pointless bickering with you about what had, and what hadn't been said

I find that a bit rich coming from someone who lives his life through this website. When you post you are "arguing" and "challenging" when others do they are "bickering" interesting spin.

you just couldn't resist having a little dig at me and dragging your childish playground politics all over the forum – could you ?

It was actually you who brought me into it by responding on Binners behalf. My post was aimed at him so I could say that you couldnt resist bringing me into it. "playground politics"? I refer you to my above comment about spin. Yours are "politics proper" mine are of the "playground" variety?

You are adding "character assassination" to your normal armory of obfuscation.

I might buy a Falklands book at lunchtime. Max Hastings wrote one- he was an inbed?

………yeah, you need to post that sort of stuff on this thread surfer – it's got nothing to do with why we are fighting in Afghanistan

http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/a-serious-question-for-ernie-lynch/page/6

I am not sure what your profession is but no doubt you will find the time to dissect the words within this post, whilst ignoring the message as this form of pedantry appears to be the only way you score even minor victories on here. You really have become quie tedious.

ernie I must agree with surfer on this one.

Five blokes lost their lives doing what they believed to be right. I have a deep respect for the British Army but not necessarily their leaders (heroes led by donkeys was never so true!)

We can argue about politicians until the cows come home but the bald facts are there is a government ruling this country who said they would be so much better than the last one and are worse for it because they have failed not only in their promises to the people of this country but also to the international community. What do I believe in? Frankly I'm not sure any more – all the bad people are in charge of Northern Ireland now, we have a rising death toll in an un-winnable war, Labour wants Nuclear! The list goes on. Perhaps its time for a new type of politics?

The only thing I have faith in is the simplicity of the statement 'bring them home now'!

ernie I must agree with surfer on this one.

Fair enough. Only it's pretty clear Slapper, that I don't have anymore " time to dissect the words within this post" as surfer suggested. Sorry about that ……

Guys guys. Seriously – why is there so much bloody fighting on STW!!

Guys guys. Seriously – why is there so much bloody fighting on STW!!

+1

Just imagine what might happen if we gave people guns to settle arguments! 🙄

hora – Member
Guys guys. Seriously – why is there so much bloody fighting on STW!!

Aggresive postings to prove fairly nebulous points IMHO. Personally I can't really see the point of it but hey.

What really beats me is why the above sort of crap can go on and very often be permeated with abuse and vitriole, and then when a Wee Welsh resident reacts in my view very amusingly

Perhaps your set top box has detected that you are in fact a knob.

to a fairly abusive post in respect of his country men it gets closed.

Anyone read 'A thousand splendid suns'? Pretty dismal reading really.

But we (the Brits) should have learnt from our first foray into Afghanistan over 100 years ago. Still the Soviets didn't and neither have we this time round.

What we should do is stop training the b***ers and giving them guns. Then just nip over just before the poppy harvest and either
a) buy all the heroin for medical use
b) burn all the fields (from a distance)
So then they won't have the money to buy weapons.

We can then leave the various tribal groupings in Afghanistan to go back to killing each other – it doesn't seem like the people in Afghanistan have the will / desire to change things.

………yeah, you need to post that sort of stuff on this thread surfer – it's got nothing to do with why we are fighting in Afghanistan

I originally posted a comment on our democratic system and how our PM rose to power. Appropriate to the topic I assume you agree?
You then started the other stuff. As usual you are now backtracking.

My last post on the thread.

Well lets hope an American doesnt see this thread and get angry as well 8) 🙄

Ernie, are you referring to the mujahideen?
If so; they are not AQ, not by a log shot.

This posting on taliban .com would go something like,

OP: our men have been killed.

Followed by: Lots of Talibanees saying lets get even.

We get some time wasting ponces argueing about politics, sums it up really.

One of the guys from the RMP was from my former unit, 116 Pro Coy. Bad news about all the guys but feeling a bit low tonight. RIP guys.

We can then leave the various tribal groupings in Afghanistan to go back to killing each other – it doesn't seem like the people in Afghanistan have the will / desire to change things.

The Afgan way of "having a war" between themselves used to be wait until after lunch, meet in a flat field and have a bit of a shout and wave the AK47 in the air and shoot at clouds before going home for tea feeling all the better for it. They have since found that this does not work hence the increase in IEDs because they were getting slaughtered. Now they are shooting the guys training them…

Eldridge – Godwins law. I don't think that mindless support for the armed forces was part of Hitlers rise to power. Scapegoating of certain minorities and the establishments belief that this stupid little man should be given his 5mins of fame then he would go away….sound like recent events?

Ernie wrote, "Why on earth do think Gordon Brown even considered calling an early general election, if protocol didn't require it ?…. he had a huge working majority and there were no legal obligations."

That's all you've got to demonstrate your "protocol"? Yeah, that's compelling, you win 😉 Brown's best chance to win an election was to call it earlier, tactically it was a mistake not to do so, and nothing to do with "protocol".

If we, the people of this country had the stomach to let them do it, the forces already in afghanistan could quell the insuregency inside a year. This would result in a LOT of dead bodies though. Until we are prepared to unleash the full fury of our fighting men and deal with all the consequences to "innocents" then we really are better off leaving our troops in barracks. "Rules of engagement" are death warrants for our brave lads.

I don't mean to sound harsh but I've studied history and this country wasn't built on "initiatives" and "partnerships".

Northwind – I can see that you feel quite strongly about this, so I'm happy to concede that you correct and it has "nothing to do with protocol" ………. imo it really isn't that important 🙂

backhander – I'm referring to Osama bin Laden and the arab volunteers.

I'm referring to Osama bin Laden and the arab volunteers.

Doesn't really clarify anything.
The muj are now all different organisations and certainly not just OBL and AQ. Actually, they have (had) far more common ground with what was the northern alliance and various warlords than AQ or the taliban. OBL was just another fighter.