Liverpool FC Forum

by **GYBS** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 5:06 pm

woof woof ! wrote:Don't think anybody that's paying attention will contest that GYBS but in the long term I doubt that our involvement will be remembered for the attempts we've made to rebuild the infrastructure, after all foreign forces are responsible for blowing much of it up in the first place.

most of the bombs have been dropped in the mountain areas to try and force the taliban out of hiding - most of the destruction in the built up areas and villages were already there before the forces arrived .

by **Reg** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 5:34 pm

Big Niall wrote:The best they can hope for is to keep the Taliban on the move so they are never again in the comfort zone where they can train terrorists or openly provide safe houses to Bin Laden and that type.

I suspect a good end-game scenario would be for limited taliban involvement in government (without the whacko extremism) in return for a complete withdrawal of support for al qaeda.

by **Reg** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 5:37 pm

GYBS wrote:
woof woof ! wrote:Don't think anybody that's paying attention will contest that GYBS but in the long term I doubt that our involvement will be remembered for the attempts we've made to rebuild the infrastructure, after all foreign forces are responsible for blowing much of it up in the first place.

most of the bombs have been dropped in the mountain areas to try and force the taliban out of hiding - most of the destruction in the built up areas and villages were already there before the forces arrived .

The post soviet withdrawal civil war virtually destroyed Kabul, the taliban assault a few years later leveled what had survived and been rebuilt.

The afghans have always done a good job in maintaining a society close at a level on par to the iron age.

by **Number 9** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 5:43 pm

Big Niall wrote:Afghanastan has always been bandit country, impossible to control and Britain and America cannot conquer it.

The best they can hope for is to keep the Taliban on the move so they are never again in the comfort zone where they can train terrorists or openly provide safe houses to Bin Laden and that type.

Even the leader of the British Military (think his name is, unfortunately, Michael Jackson) has said "victory" isn't possible.

Best case scenario is that the British have a reduced force there for a long time (like Northern Ireland - there about 40 years) and that the amount of soldiers killed every year isn't too high.

I agree,while they are present they can keep them under some sort of control!The eventual plan is to put in place an army/police force of their own people that can control its own country and then they can pull out.There is no way the taliban will ever be totally defeated or will just dissappear.
The only way they will ever get proper peace is to compromise,something the taliban dont do very well!

by **woof woof !** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 5:45 pm

GYBS, I was in Afghanistan ,Kabul ,Khandahar, Bamian and Herat before any foreign forces arrived, and have a fair picture of what state the infrastructure was in. Don't try and tell me that the damage and destruction inflicted on Afghan towns and villages (Kabul aside) is essentialy the work of the Russians and the Taliban and that all the Western forces have done is to bomb some otherwise empty mountains .

by **account deleted by request** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 6:22 pm

Judge wrote:
tonyeh wrote:
Reg wrote:
Emerald Red wrote:
Judge wrote:the germans targeted civilians in WW2, we targeted their civilians in WW2. the japs were warned by the americans in WW2 if they didnt fully surrender .

acts of war, not terrorism

imo

But the war was effectively over and the Yanks knew it. Dropping those bombs was merely a forewarning and a declaration of power. It was like a "don't f*ck with us because we've got these to fire at you" warning.

The war was NOT effectively over, the US was actively planning the invasion of Japan that would have cost additional 10's of thousands of allied deaths and millions of USD. THAT was not an option, hence the bomb was dropped. I have NO sympathy for the Japs as the atrocities in Nanjing, Pearl Harbour and later in the jungles of asia would bear out.

Operation Coronet and Olympic were non-starters. There simply was no need for them to be launched once Japan was fully contained.

It was well known that the Japanese were close to "sealing the deal" as it were. They were finished.

The US had been reading Suzuki's government comuniques and had been aware that the Japanese were looking for a way to sue for peace.

sue for peace? wtf

the japs refused surrender, as that was there way.

so the americans delivered on there promise. they had a choice the japs choice the wrong option

The Japanese were looking to surrender. The problem was that they wouldn't agree to the unconditional surrender that the allies (US) insisted upon. This was because they thought that it would mean an end to their Emperor with him standing trial for War Crimes.

Japan had used the Russians to convey their willingness to surrender under very limited terms (retention of the Emperor). Stalin did not pass the terms to the US, but only the fact that Japan would only surrender under certain conditions.

by **woof woof !** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 8:19 pm

I know i've been party to it as much as anyone else but it does seem as though we've got two seperate debates running in one thread.

If anybody wants to continue the Nuclear strike on Japan debate please feel free to start a new thread.

In the meantime lets try and stick to Afghanistan in this one.

by **tonyeh** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:19 pm

woof woof ! wrote:Well obviously we're reading different history books, I guess it comes down to which one you believe.

You should check out "The Emperor's Codes" by Michael Smith. Very good work. Maybe a bit on the dry side though.

by **tonyeh** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:19 pm

Judge wrote:
tonyeh wrote:
woof woof ! wrote:
come on tonyeh, the japs would have to be pretty thick not to understand ''unconditional''. Unconditional means there are NO conditions (no negotiation). Straight forward as far as i can see.

If someone said surrender now, thats it (cause thats what the yanks said), then i'd say ok, we are beaten, we will surrender unconditionally.
I mean the germans surrendered unconditionally, and they didnt need clarification!!

Just to add even after the first bomb was dropped the Japanese were still debating whether to surrender. They were aware or nuclear weaponary and had been working on their own device. They questioned whether the americans would have sufficient quantities of uranium to continue with more nuclear attacks, the americans in fact at that time had enough for the creation of seven devices.

It was only after a second bomb was dropped and the subsequent personal intervention of Emperor Hirihito that the demand for unconditional surrender was finally accepted.

That's not quite the case.

When the first bomb hit Hiroshima, the Japanese government were stunned. Some even dismissed it as hysteria.

A dispatch was sent to Hiroshima to determine the vailidity of the attack on August 7th and once it was confirmed (on August 8th) that a single bomb had destroyed the entire city and claimed so many lives, it was obvious what was to be done.

The simple fact is, that Nagasaki was destroyed a mere 3 days after Hiroshima.

That's not a big timeframe.

And yes, the Japanese were aware of atomic theory, but they had no physical device and were decades behind Germany in their pursuit of a usable weapon, who were themselves at least 10 years behind the US.

japan surrenders link

some japs fought on

further surrender info

japan knew it was an A bomb - link

read these articles tonyeh, you may find useful and correct

I doubt it Judge :;):

by **tonyeh** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:38 pm

s@int wrote:
Judge wrote:
tonyeh wrote:
Reg wrote:
Emerald Red wrote:
Judge wrote:the germans targeted civilians in WW2, we targeted their civilians in WW2. the japs were warned by the americans in WW2 if they didnt fully surrender .

acts of war, not terrorism

imo

But the war was effectively over and the Yanks knew it. Dropping those bombs was merely a forewarning and a declaration of power. It was like a "don't f*ck with us because we've got these to fire at you" warning.

The war was NOT effectively over, the US was actively planning the invasion of Japan that would have cost additional 10's of thousands of allied deaths and millions of USD. THAT was not an option, hence the bomb was dropped. I have NO sympathy for the Japs as the atrocities in Nanjing, Pearl Harbour and later in the jungles of asia would bear out.

Operation Coronet and Olympic were non-starters. There simply was no need for them to be launched once Japan was fully contained.

It was well known that the Japanese were close to "sealing the deal" as it were. They were finished.

The US had been reading Suzuki's government comuniques and had been aware that the Japanese were looking for a way to sue for peace.

sue for peace? wtf

the japs refused surrender, as that was there way.

so the americans delivered on there promise. they had a choice the japs choice the wrong option

The Japanese were looking to surrender. The problem was that they wouldn't agree to the unconditional surrender that the allies (US) insisted upon. This was because they thought that it would mean an end to their Emperor with him standing trial for War Crimes.

Japan had used the Russians to convey their willingness to surrender under very limited terms (retention of the Emperor). Stalin did not pass the terms to the US, but only the fact that Japan would only surrender under certain conditions.

Very true. However, it didn't matter a jot whether Stalin passed on the message or not. The Americans had been reading the Japanese coded traffic since Midway. They knew very well that Suzuki's cabinet were looking for a way out AND that the Emperor had dispatched an envoy to Russia and was "...desirous of peace".

As said, the only sticking points regrading a Japanese surrender was a. what was going to happen to the Emperior and b. what would happen to the home Islands. Neither of which was on the allied list of "conditions" for their "uncondtional" surrender demand.

Had they wished, the Americans could have made this clear in their Potsdam declaration. Churchill even proposed that the "unconditional surrender" demand be done away with, as it only served to prolong a conflict (as seen with Germany).

The problem however for the Americans, was that approaching the Japanese with these issues and ending the war peacefully meant that the atomic bomb would remain untested and that was something that Truman's administration was unwilling to do.

by **tonyeh** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:39 pm

woof woof ! wrote:

I know i've been party to it as much as anyone else but it does seem as though we've got two seperate debates running in one thread.

If anybody wants to continue the Nuclear strike on Japan debate please feel free to start a new thread.

In the meantime lets try and stick to Afghanistan in this one.

Oops, sorry Woof.

I didn't see your post until I replied to the other lads.

by **tubby** » Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:52 pm

Anyone hear that thing some of the brit soldiers were doing, lining the prisoners up and trying to organise their moans into an orchestra or something. Has anyone got a link to that vid?

by **redhayesy** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 1:26 am

Reg wrote:
Number 9 wrote:3 of the last 8 that died were 18 years old....Fu*king kids!

Really sad..sometimes I think best pull out and let the kunts do what they want!
Other times Im proud of our troops...best in the world,fighting a chicken sh,it army that plants bombs in donkeys and blows kids up for a result..rather than actually fight!

It wont stop though..the government need to understand the basic Taliban mindset and likewise them us..until then,I reckon every life lost is in vain!

It speaks for itself they shouldnt send kids, fighting afghans is a wiley old dogs' fight. Leave the lads at home, they'll get their chance another day.

this subject is of great signifgence to me as my dad was in the army for 28 years (3 years boy service) joined at 15 years old then served the full 25 years there after. he was a warrent officer in the ACC (army catering corps) he had to do the full training that regimental solider had to do, then also had to ensure that the regiment was fullly fed. you know the saying- an army marches on their stomach! well my dad ensured thet happened day in day out.

my dad was stationed in many places, borneo, trippillie, germany etc etc.. during hostile existancys, he was proud to be not just a soldier but a leader of many brave men. his storys will live with me forever. he fought with real brave men to help & protect not only himself,his country but what he also called his family.

the army was his life,even when he left the army after his full service he always regarded the ACC as special. he would never have a bad word said about the army, no matter what regiment they belogned to, he particular had alot of time & praise for the gurkha regiment. my dad passed away in 2002 & would have been totally disgusted in the way they as a regiment & their families have been treated recently. i only hope they are allowed to stay or gain residence to this country for everything they did & have given this country in past wars ie the falklands etc.

as for my view on todays wars is this, my dad joined the army as a boy & did say to me he knew what he was joining & why he was joining, he knew the dangers that came with joining the army, that is what every soldier knows when they join-at anytime you could & can, will be called up for national duty. as harsh as it may sound, my mum had to live with that fact also when she met & married my dad. it is part an parcel of the life style. my mum has many storys also about how hard it was for army wifes whilst husbands, etc where on duty,excercise, training etc being away from the barracks for a period of time an so on. the army has & will always have no age or time restrant, if you are old enough to join, an pass their test etc you are old enough to fight against the enemy.

as harsh as it may seem i don't mean to be,i am just going on personal experience, that anyone who joins the army-do it as they love what the army stands for, also the army can give them a carear they might not get the chance to achieve in civvy street. it is a change of lifestyle from the word go, that makes them a different person etc.

so for me i have mixed feelings, cause i know my dad would be very proud of today's british army. as he always said the british army is the best in the world. & if any one,organisation challenges that, then they must live up to the challenge.

but some part of me thinks that in years gone by some nations,countrys organisations have equipped them selves with more nuclear weapons,etc that very very sadly the british army has suffered in financial restraints & not provided our troops with the armour etc they need to completey over power the opposition like in years gone by.

i don't blame the labour govt either as i know from what my dad said that during his years the tory govt also cut back military spending etc so that doesn't wash with me.

i will say though that i feel deeply sadned about all the loss of lives that has occured, but really feel pasionate that when any regiment, soliders return to this country we should make the effort to give them a real heroes welcome, cause that's what they are, as well as the oneswho gave their lives, this country should make a national day to recognise everyone & all who have given their lives for the army, their regiment & what it meant to them to serve their country!

it sickenes me when i read or hear about demonstrations from what ever group they represent,belief etc they snub or insult the families an friends membes of the public who want to pay their respects,it's disgracefull & for me while their is always a threat to this country-we wil always need an army, the british army to help rid us of any evil that threatens our day to day existance. people need to look at the bigge picture aswell, the british army are also helping the ordinary people of the countrys we are at war with to re-build their lives in so many ways with protection,schools, hospitals etc etc.. wich is more than their own so called govt etc do in the first place.

by **taff** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 1:42 am

woof woof ! wrote:GYBS, I was in Afghanistan ,Kabul ,Khandahar, Bamian and Herat before any foreign forces arrived,

Woof

The Man who would be King

by **Judge** » Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:34 am

does he look like sean connery though

Liverpool FC Forum

War in afganistan - What you think!

Who is online