British forces underfunded and over-stretched

[SWHunter]

Here is the link http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...08/narmy108.xml

 

Can some give me reasons why we can't bring the troops home and leave the conflicts we are currently looking after take care of themselves, I understand this may cause bloodshed, then so be it, but it would not be the blood shed of our troops.

 

Why do we get involved in situations that don't really involve us a nation, we can't fight everybodies wars and conflicts for them, we have to draw a line

 

Bring our troops home and let them look after the UK

[J@mes]

we cannot leave these places as they are. Iraq for example, would fall apart and quite probably end up in exactly the same position is was before we invaded. If we leave it now, people have died in vain. IMO we stay until we have finished the job, NO MATTER how long it takes.

 

Before the invasion, I was all for it. The UK would free the people from the tyranny that they lived under. Looking back, it was probably one of the biggest mistakes we ever made. And judging by the state of the country now, is it surprising that Saddam and his regime were as brutal as they were? It would appear that the brutality was quite possibly required to stop the country ending up in the state it is now.

 

I have friends in the forces, especially the couple who live next door to me who seem to spend most of their lives being posted to the Gan or Iraq. But I still think we need to stay and tidy up the **** storm that we created.

 

And as for bringing our troops home to protect our country....the war on this country is not one that can be fought by law-abiding troops. It needs to be fought be vigilantes and the politicians, removing ************* immigrants, british born dole scroungers, yobs, gang-bangers and terrorists that plague the country today.

Edited November 8, 2007 by Cranfield

[SWHunter]

James I respect your opinion friend.

 

I appreciate that you feel that we cannot leave the regions we are in because of soldiers who have given their lives in order to help other people from that region, but how do the troops feel about being left there.

 

I agree it is a dog's breakfast, I too was all in favour for it at the time but I honestly don't know how long our boys and girls will have to remain there.

 

It is admirable to say lets stay and finished what we started but if we are going to lose more troops is it worth it, I do feel for everyone who has lost a loved one out there, I would say let them get on without UK troops.

 

Regarding me saying bring the troops home, sorry I worded that wrongly, I didn't mean bring them home now to protect us from terrorism what I meant was bring them in case we as a nation came under threat.

 

Without saying too much what opinions do your next door neighbours have on this matter, as they are the important ones who are there.

 

God bless all our troops and that goes for our allies troops aswell

[the last engineer]

James I respect your opinion friend.

 

I appreciate that you feel that we cannot leave the regions we are in because of soldiers who have given their lives in order to help other people from that region, but how do the troops feel about being left there.

 

I agree it is a dog's breakfast, I too was all in favour for it at the time but I honestly don't know how long our boys and girls will have to remain there.

 

It is admirable to say lets stay and finished what we started but if we are going to lose more troops is it worth it, I do feel for everyone who has lost a loved one out there, I would say let them get on without UK troops.

 

Regarding me saying bring the troops home, sorry I worded that wrongly, I didn't mean bring them home now to protect us from terrorism what I meant was bring them in case we as a nation came under threat.

 

Without saying too much what opinions do your next door neighbours have on this matter, as they are the important ones who are there.

 

God bless all our troops and that goes for our allies troops aswell

 

well posted that man

[J@mes]

To be honest, I dont think my neighbours mind it! She's a nurse and he's a driver, they spend their time on the bases, fully protected and mostly out of harms way. They save money while they are out there, get tans and lose weight!

 

I am concerned about how many more of our own will die before the situation is resolved, but those who join the forces are fully aware that since the Falklands, there hasn't been a direct attack on our territory and that their time and possibly their lives will be spent protecting others around the world. I wonder how many actually want to be serving our country and trying to protect the innocent of other countries compared to those who would rather be marching around the barracks, polishing their boots or firing on the range?

[Dr_Scholl]

The British military has cut back a lot since the end of the Cold War. In 1990, it had 305,000 troops on active duty. Now, it has 195,000 on active duty. The same thing has happened to the U.S Army as well. At the start of the Gulf War, the Army had 780,000 troops on active duty. At the start of the Iraq War, it was only 480,000( thanks to Clinton). In total, we have 1.4 million service men and women on active duty, down from 2.2 million during the Reagan years.

[dustyfox]

Its all about oil.