I thought that the original reason for going into Afghanistan was to capture or kill Bin Ladin and his associates. They are being protected by the Taliban, who are Pushtan located either side of the Afghan/Pakistan border. Joint Anglo-Pakistan intelligence may be possible and reveal his location (assuming he is still alive).

The most effective counter-terror measures are based on direct reprisal on the terrorists in person. President Reagan stopped Libyan terrorism by making Gadaffi realise that he and his family were personally at risk. Peace in Northern Ireland was not brought about by the diplomacy of Major, Blair and Mitchell, but because Loyalist gangs took out 2 republicans for every unionist that the IRA killed, and were prepared if need be to carry on doing it indefinitely.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6907991.ece

which reveals that the government indeed did not care to protect us from rogues.

I trust that now there is proof positive of this, that rather than try to brush the issue under the carpet there will be a concerted policy from the next government to handle the issues.

Also, as someone else pointed out, there has been no attempt to stop drugs entering the UK or indeed Europe, indeed we are in worse situation now than before, with Kosovo, Macedonia.

Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t we the British flood china with drugs in order to defeat them, and is the same now being done to us.

We wouldn’t have to drop anything on anyone, if we made it legal for people in this country to gow their own, for their own consumption.

I wonder if “DC” has any idea the nightmare that awaits him in Downing st?

Mike

That some may agree with ‘The Establishment’ is unsurprising, after all, some have indicated that they will vote Labour at the next election. What is so disturbing is the fact that ‘The Establishment’ has been unwilling or unable to provide a real and detailed explanation as to the rationale.

It’s no good simply repeating the mantras, what’s needed is a sound philosophical base for this ‘policy’. Of course, we will not see it, or, if we do, it will be based on fictions such as WMD.

Already we are no longer fighting Al Qaeda, we are now fighting the Taleban. Since when were these two separate entities unified? If our enemies can be so cynically ‘morphed’ by this Government there will be no victory, no end to war, no end to the deaths and injuries sustained of the fine young men and women of our armed forces.

In the meantime, other troops are ‘training’ these local forces to eventually take over control but unlike our armed forces they don’t appear to believe in the ideal they are fighting for but simply in it for the buck, if the memoirs I’ve read are to be believed most of the police are high on drugs and whenever they receive military hardware from NATO are happy to sell / give it to the insurgents at the first opportunity – whether they are motivated by money, trying to save their skin from reprisals, are sympathetic to their countrymen rather than the infidel occupiers or simply want an easy life I have no idea.

It really is very difficult to know what to do. The battle for hearts and minds can’t (and won’t) be won, the local population don’t seem to have the inclination to fight their fellow countrymen who take a belligirent attitude to us.

It’s easy to say ‘Train the locals then get out’ and I’m sure Brown & Obama know this and would like nothing better but, unfortunately, Afghanistan is a very long way from that happening.

As far as I can make out we either cut our losses and accept the whole thing is a failure a la Vietnam or we stick it out for years and hope exposure to Western values and freedoms will leave an imprint on the younger generation that they will be willing to stand up for.

Reply: Until recently our troops have been winning new territory. Now the argument is about whether to retain all the bases we have or not.

Secondly, you may have seen Matthew Paris’s article today calling on parliament to exert itself in this matter against the establishment view. I think it is about time that MPs in general tried to re-establish their reasons for being there as our representatives rather than lobby fodder. This would also help to repair the ongoing damage from “expenses”. This should have happened even more so in regard to the Lisbon Treaty as a check on the Government for giving away their powers to Europe without a mandate from the people. These are fundamental principles of having an elected parliaiment.

Blair and Brown have sacrificed our troops for their own hubris and to be seen to be world statesmen. They are without shame.

If the Taliban would have handed over Bin Laden, they would still now be in power, and the training camps would still exist, and the people would still be under their yoke. I reject those reasons because of this and believe Blair and Brown did send our troops there for their own reasons, thinking there would be a quick fight; they were wrong and hundreds of our troops are paying the price.

And I believe it too. These men, and Labour in general, are totally without shame and without any real experience of the world, so will make massive mistake like this time and again. Has Blair or Brown, or indeed the Government in general, been to honour the troops as they are repatriated, either dead or wounded? No they have not, and it is not enough to claim you can’t for one and not others, because the obvious answer is then to do for others too.

Labour are without shame and have not made us one jot safer.

Those who made the decision to wage this war were devout Christians. There is a difference.

Blair answers to no other than God himself. He justifies every of his actions as being for a greater good.

A letter which I read on the Lisbon Treaty recently:

“The Tories are promising ‘referendum’ guarantee’ on all future transfers of power to Brussels. If a future government tries to transfer further competences from Britain to the EU, a national referendum would be required by law before it could be ratified. Have they not read the Treaty of Lisbon ?

Article 47 gives the EU as a whole a legal personality, so the EU itself can ’speak with one voice’ to ratify any future treaties on behalf af all 27 countryies.. This includes the power to go to war.

In the UK, to date, for many things, including the decision to fight wars or to ratify treaties, our Government uses the Royal Prerogative on behalf of the British Crown.

The power of the Crown is held in trust by the executive and passed on to the next government. Article 47 of the Lisbon Treaty means our Government has handed over the Royal Prerogative to foreigners.

Yet the power fo the British Crown is the ultimate authority – or sovereignty – behind parliament, so it is not in the power of the Government to give away the Royal Prerogative to anyone – and certainly not foreigners.

By this action, not only our Government, but also the Crown, has been made subservient to the EU.

EU treaties are designed to be permanent, so given that the EU is planning for the next 50 years, the gift of the Royal Prerogative is one which cannot be taken back.

I believe this gift was not in the power of Ministers and that they could, at a future date, be held guilty of sedition against the state.

Is that clear enough for the Tories ?”

The Tory party is going to lose massively to UKIP because of this.

If ever you look like “Winning” China/Russia would give out the required Surface-to-air hardware to finish it.

Uk/US has bankupted themselves on these ” (word left out)projects”……..How long till the surpport given to stop the £ crashing is withdrawn?

When “Someone” wants to sell me the motorway network i already own !

Mike