blonde poker forum

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8529605.stm

It seems the oil exploration starting around the Falklands has increased tensions again over sovereignty of the islands. Surely no way any British government could consider handing sovereignty of the islands to Argentina.

i doubt whether argentina could afford another war. doubt if britain could either come to think of it....

Maybe it will be an old school war, one big field, thousands of soldiers, charge.

I wouldn't worry there is pretty much zero chance of any war...........

hopefully just a joke....

And people wonder why our troops don't get a lot of public support.

I hope not, there is already one war being run dreadfully, lets hope we dont get another.

Some years ago, I wangled an invite to a ships party, when the great and good of St.Lucia were welcomed on board. All very civilised cocktail and canapes on deck until the VIP's left.......then my god, the mother of all parties broke out below deck!!.... ;D

The 'sandy places' bit made me laugh out loud, for longer than I wanted and I folded trips with someone betting into me :(

Cos they don't get the military humour??

Geo

It's all sabre rattling, as pointed out the Argies couldn't afford the war.

They're basically hoping that the UK offer some sweetener from the profits.

Geo

Firtsy JJ, I didnt know you were servig so wouldnt have been as blunt as that if I had known. I am just a civilian so my take cannot be as incisive as yours but this is what concerns me.

On Decmber 30th Nato commented on an overnight raid that had taken place the day before, its statement said

' As the joint assault force entered the village they came under fire from several buildings and in returning fire killed nine individuals. Several assault rifles, ammunition and ammonium nitrate used in bomb making were discovered'

Then the day after when the above statement was questioned

' the victims were an IED  bomb cell that Afghan an US officials had been developing information against for some time'

This was again questioned and an inquiry into the raid concluded that this is what happened

'A unit of International forces descended from a plane and took ten people from their homes, eight of them were school students, one of them a guest, the rest from the same family, and shot them all dead.

They were aged 12-18, so that raid killed schoolchildren that were sleeping in their beds and Nato simply made up 2 statements in an attempt to cover this up.

After being given the evidence from the report they then said

'Knowing what we know now, it would probably not have been a justifiable attack.We dont now believe that we busted a major ring'

I think this figure is correct, there have been around 60 civilian casualties in Afghanistan in the last month, 27 of those people were in a bus , returning from work, or nights out, just going about their business when the bus was targetted with an airstrike that killed them all.

Another enquiry is taking place into this incident.

Now as I said, I am just a regular bloke and have no axe to grind but that seems to me to be totaly unacceptable.

Let me ask you this JJ, if a set of Afghans shot 10 schoolchildren in a any city in Britain, it would be called a terrorist attack and we would be appaled by this. Again, if a bus in any city in Britain was blown up by Afghan's it would also be called a terrorost attack. Yet when we do that what followed is a cover up and NATO statements that are past misleading and verging on blatant lies.

The families of those schoolchildren have been offered $2000 in compensation for every child their family lost.

This is why the war doesnt sit easy with a lot of people, tho please understand the general consensus is that out troops are doing a great job and I am sure they are.


Couple this type of story that seems to be  getting uncovered quite often now and couple in the MI5 debacle that has surfaced in the last 2 days and it is starting to sound like we(allies) have been getting  away with quite a lot.

This inquiry was conducted by Afghan politician Asadullah Wafa

I see no reason to accept Mr. Wafa's version of events over NATO's tbh. Perfectly feasible that his motives for putting that spin on events were political.

I don't think you'll find the results of the joint inquiry in the newspapers. Especially if it's along the lines of, here's some photos of the dead blokes, he's got an awfully bushy beard for a 12 year old innit.

NATO agreed with the staement tho Tank. They concluded this.

' A United Nations investigstion confirmed 8 of the ten victims were students, one was a farmer Abdul Khaliq (18) who was shot when he ran out of a nearby house'

What was even more disconcerting is in NATO's first statment they called it a ''a joint assault force' now it has been proven to be bordering on neglect they say they won't disclose which nations were involved.

Not a good sign for the watching public.

If NATO agreed with the results why do they want a joint inquiry?

OMG are you saying innocent people might die in a war!! Who'd have thought.

There are reasons why the Afghan war could be seen as unnecessary, but because the military might make mistakes isn't one of them.

Of course it would be good if any war where any mistakes might be made instantly stopped - but it's just as feasible as achieving world peace by any other means


And the difference with terrorism is that in war civilians aren't deliberately targeted - when they die in a war it's a mistake, rather than the aim.

Not good enough tho John, those figures are far too high to ignore and the point is these are being covered up to make sure the 'just' war is seen to be that.

Tank, I dont understand what you mean, there was a joint inquiry, both side agreed a finding.

I haven't seen any reporting of this joint inquiry. Do you have a link?

All I've seen are sites that reek of bias who quote any NATO source making some sort of concession and taking that as an admission that they've been popping caps in the heads of 12 year old boys. It doesn't add up to me.

I haven't seen any admission from NATO that the people bumped off were all innocent civilans and definately not involved in the insurgency. The quote you've given from NATO said that it wasn't major players they bumped off and so their attack might not have been justified.

The story was in The Times yesterday by someone called Jerome Satrkey with details off the  findings inside

Bit harsh imo Jon, of course we know that innocents will be killed in any conflict.

Phil is merely pointing out the manner and frequency it seems to be happening and personally I agree. As Tank says, one of the events highlighted may not be quite as cut and dried as some potray but there have been too many instances that have been very poor examples of decision making/Gun Ho-ness

Geo

Fair enough bobby, I hadn't read that one.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7040166.ece

Nato’s statement, issued four days after the event, said that troops were attacked “from several buildings” as they entered the village. Yesterday it said that “ultimately, we did determine this to be a civilian casualty incident”.

Thats what sits so badly Tank. John mentioned of course civilians will be killed in a war and thats true but these deaths are fundamentaly wrong  in every way.

The intelligence is wrong leading to children being shot dead. Then the lies from high office to cover up these deaths are wrong and even the pathetic compensation amounts are wrong.

How must it look to the Afghan people, we say we ar there to protect them and help build the country into a safe place, yet we have killed 60 civilians in a month and tried to cover the incidents up. To the Afghans we mist look like criminals, how else can it look when buses are being bombed and kids are being gunned down?

all the best mate

+1

darn good post there from jjandellis