PDA

View Full Version : West to Kandahar


Pontius Navigator
24th Apr 2010, 09:39
The secret is out. According to that font of accurate knowledge, on p16 (24 Apr), they say that "generals and senior diplomats are warming to the idea that they should declare victory in Helmand and move West to Kandahar.

Arse and elbow springs to mind.

getsometimein
24th Apr 2010, 09:41
The plan is to move WEST to Kandahar, and on the way spend 20 years in the UK since its such a long way around.

Pontius Navigator
24th Apr 2010, 10:32
"you stupid boy, how could you miss such a brilliant plan?"

Anyone pick up on the broun one's statement on terrorist intervention and failed States. I think I heard him say Iran and Somalia.

Only good thing about Iran is it would give the tiffy and frisbee crowd something to do.:\

Gnd
24th Apr 2010, 14:10
Maybe he meant West and South West??

Tocsin
24th Apr 2010, 14:36
Unless of course, "west" should be capitalised and refers to our (current) Security Minister :rolleyes:

Pontius Navigator
24th Apr 2010, 17:03
Maybe he meant West and South West??

What?:confused:

Gnd
24th Apr 2010, 18:55
My thought was if we move West and South West we can go to KAF via the other 2??? No - Oh well a thought.

Deleted
25th Apr 2010, 07:33
Pontious,

Watched PPrune for a while but not posted much. Interesting thread and one that I think will play out over the next few months, the key question is who is going to go West, the US is my bet, where does that leave the British Army, defending a small county in which victory has been declared whilst the world looks further West. All this is a period when a defence review is on the offing! Watch and smile, shout, cry and despair.

Pontius Navigator
25th Apr 2010, 07:40
Gnd, ah, you mean the same as what getsometime in said?

Deleted, you make a serious point from my wry observation of the DT's post. While we are well used to allied operations divisional (dream on) or force boundaries were always seen as a potential weak point in any defensive or offensive plan. Trying to ensure a cohesive structure with 10k Brits and 20k USMC would never be easy. There would either be gaps or worse overlaps with the inevitable blue on blue.

So the change of force areas is sensible if the force required is 20k or more.

Deleted
25th Apr 2010, 08:07
Dear Pontious,

Not totally up to speed on current goings on as stuck overseas, thanks BA, hence my free time to write! USMC and Brit Army and then you can add C2 and the US Army into the pot,oh and NATO to add to the issue. The year of success and more of the same or a withdrawal with some political words to make everything seem like a success. Eyes down for an interesting time

Gnd
25th Apr 2010, 11:24
Yes, but have a scrap en-route; do we R&R in Zimb-somethin-or-another???

Pontius Navigator
25th Apr 2010, 12:02
Gnd, brunone actually mentioned Somalia and another lucky country whose name escapes me.

Have you noticed however that EVERY country in whose affairs we have become involved causes an influx of refugees from that country?

I bet there were not many Afgan refugees who sought refuge in mother Russia. So, what can Somali refugees bring to our cultural melting pot?

checkerboard6
25th Apr 2010, 16:14
Go west young man, a wise man once said

I wouldn't count my chickens yet on Helmand.... after harvest season its going to get hot down here!

Gnd
26th Apr 2010, 18:10
I sugest that is not totally true - don't remember the influx of Germans in 45 - poles in 90 but not Germans. It was sort of theoretical and I admit - I haden't really thought it through fully!!!

Pontius Navigator
27th Apr 2010, 06:49
Gnd, oh yee of little memory. A fair number of German POW remained in UK, detained originally but eventually by choice. Similarly remember who runs ice cream parlours.

One reason for not getting inundated with Germans was of course the rules imposed on movement following the surrender. Remember also the Exodus to Israel, not UK I grant you.

Gnd
27th Apr 2010, 15:19
Ok point taken. I suggest we keep the PoWs in their homeland and adopt the same rules for surrender?

Luigi runs our iceceram parlour and I am happy if the refugees run to Israil - saves us using Trident to tame them?

So may options - ahhhhhhhh!

Grabbers
14th May 2010, 08:14
Now we have a new team running tge show, is there any more credence given to these rumours?

barnstormer1968
14th May 2010, 08:44
Pontius.
You make an interesting point about the ice cream parlours (well sort of).

Were the Italians here actually POW's in the strictest sense (yes, thread drift I know)?

While the Germans in my local area were under lock and key, the Italians were free to come and go as they pleased (there were only two italian camps close to me).

The only real restriction on the Italians was that they were not allowed alcohol, but they could quite happy stay with the locals for a Sunday roast!

Pontius Navigator
14th May 2010, 09:34
BS, the Italians were properly POW and in May 1944 were asked if they wished to cooperate with the allies.

Prisoner of War Mail (http://www.kg6gb.org/prisoner_of_war_mail.htm)

However the rules of the Geneva Convention required that ordinary soldiers could be employed in non-war work rather than become an economic drain on the detaining power. For that reason many Italians were employed as farmer workers. I have no doubt some Germans were similarly employed as some Germans too avoided repatriation after the war, although many were shipped to North America.

Some POW camps were still occupied into 1948.

Prisoners of War (http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/dixie/921/PoWs/pows.htm)

POW Camps in UK - 1 to 50 (http://www.kg6gb.org/pow_camps_in_uk.htm)

BTW, it was a requirement, honoured more in the breach, that we read and studied regularly the Geneva Convention. IIRC I believe it was supposed to be a monthly read in the 1960s; probably so that we could argue our case in a Soviet Gulag.

orgASMic
14th May 2010, 09:37
Grabbers, assuming you are valiantly trying to get the thread back on track, the answer in The Times today is 'no'. We appear to be staying in Helmandshire.

US scraps plan to withdraw UK troops from Helmand - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7125881.ece)

Grabbers
14th May 2010, 09:50
Thanks orgASMic,

I read the piece and thought it was full of politico smoke and mirrors. "Armed Forces chiefs in London are said to be divided on the issue...There is no planned (my bold) deployment of British Forces from Helmand to Kandahar.”

Shame as I'm due out there next month. Fancied a change. :)

country calls
14th May 2010, 10:43
Dannat on R4 this morning appeared to be of the opinion that this is the only sensible option.

Grabbers
14th May 2010, 10:46
I've always said that Dannat speaks nothing but sense. :D