Al, unlike LJR I am not stumped for words (although I am stumped for sensible words and understanding of this lack of equipment).
I think my response to your post would be an open letter to Gordon Brown along the lines of:
Dear Prime Minister.
I am having trouble understanding something, and as a UK tax payer I wonder if you could enlighten me.
I have heard your government say that British troops serving in Afghanistan will have all the equipment they need to perform the tasks YOU are asking them to do.
So please can you explain why police officers in the centre of London, who need to perform a forced entry to a flat possibly containing one drug dealer, who may be asleep, and may 'come along' quietly, have more specialised equipment, more reliable transport, more backup, quicker medical aid (if needed) along with full intelligence briefing, than British soldiers who need to enter a hostile enemy compound possibly full of despotic evil murderers hell bent on over throwing not only our country but our whole way of life?
This not only seems tactically stupid, but also raises the chance of casualties/fatalies to British troops.
Does this mean you have broken your promise, don't care about my countries troops, or possibly are not the correct man to be leading my country in these times, during the war on terror?
Barnstormer1968
Al. I am not saying that is the best solution, but it made me feel better to say it
