UK Military news
 

I have recently returned to live in the Uk for family reasons. Tonight as usual I watched a number of news stations. At no point was anything broadcast that covered the fact that the UK was involved in two maybe three wars.

The good news was that a British serviceman hadn't been killed. The weird thing was that there was no coverage of what is going on. Orwellian is something that comes to mind.

Would be interested to hear the views of ppruners.

Just in case of queries, I am ex military.

As a follower of the news I have certainly noticed a slant towards reporting casualties rather than progress or the achievement of stated objectives.

The joint Anglo/French action in Libya has fallen off the news bulletins, probably because there is a sense of failure. It has been going on since March with no tangible result, despite the expenditure of an amount that would probably have built a few hospitals or prisons.

That's because neither theatre is creating news at the moment, both are in a routine phase. However, there is plenty on the diplomatic/government front from both countries. Hague talking about Libya, Def sec on his recent visit to Afgh.

The news is about Syria, which is making the news at the moment!

Well apart from averting a purging/massacre/word of your choice. Yep, completely pointless.

I think the UK populace are weary of the afghan, iraq and libya conflicts as they are all based on political lies. Only a few numpties actually believe what the political 'leaders' have told them. I think even the military don't actually know why they're involved too.

Most people are only interested in real problems, not those created by the bellers in 'govern'ment.

I seem to remember thinking at the start of the Afghan campaign that the Russians couldn't sort it with both their arms free, how can we sort it with one arm being tied behind our backs by the rules of engagement and the huggies watching every move.

It's a bit like buying an expensive car that you cannot afford and not telling your wife. :ouch:

If that was the issue, shouldn't we be bombing the sh!t out of Assad?
erm......

sw

Reducing the news content could be so as to sweeten the path to announcing the redundancies, it does not look good saying you are chopping peeps when the news is full of them on active service fighting does it..

:sad:

Quote from the Guardian

"Libya is not a dependency of the United Kingdom. It was and is no threat to Britain or its people, and the consequent rise in the price of oil is not in Britain's interest. Libya is in the grip of a wretched civil war that Britain might have relieved with aid, but not bombers. It is a mistake. But who will say so?

Parliament, silent and feeble over interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, has spent three weeks beating its chest over the Murdoch press, even summoning the prime minister back from abroad to answer for his actions. It never summoned him over Libya, where every night people die. Parliament fiddles while Libya burns."

So - what have we achieved? Where will our next ill-judged, under equipped, under funded intervention be?

A2QFI

Perhaps we should ask the Population of Lockerbie for their opinion?

caz,

The population of Lockerbie live in the country that allowed the individual found guilty of the bombing of PanAm 103 to return home. If they wanted to speak, perhaps they should have raised their voices earlier.

Duncs:ok:

Duncs

I always viewed the decision to return the perpetrator of the atrocity to his homeland as a purely political move by the Leader of the SNP to demonstrate the power he had obtained.

In 1988 there was no insurrection in Libya which UK could have supported, legally or morally, SFAIK.

In January 2006, when 3,300 British troops were committed to Afghanistan, the then Secretary of State for Defence, John Reid, claimed that British troops would accomplish their mission & leave "without a single shot being fired".

By 2008, 4,000,000 rounds of ammunition had been expended by British armed forces in Afghanistan.

The West will leave Afghanistan in exactly the same way that the Soviet empire did; having achieved nothing, except the squandering of young lives & much treasure. Afghanistan will revert to its' centuries-old tribal fiefdoms, ungovernable in nature; I am reminded of George Carew, the captain of the Tudor warship, Mary Rose, sallying forth to engage the French in the Solent. His uncle, Gawen Carew, sailed close by & hailed him, enquiring after his situation; George replied "I have the sort of knaves I cannot rule"...............

We are now treated to the demeaning spectacle of a politically-emasculated NATO dithering over Libya, due to a lack of fortitude in Western capitals. Perhaps we need to discuss a few things before our Syrian adventure?

Thank heavens we out-spent the Soviets before they came boiling over the Inner German Border............

HB

I heard John Reid's words and he actually said he hoped that British troops would be able to leave Afghanistan without a single shot being fired. At the time, so did I.

Naive perhaps but whatever you think about the man and his government, don't follow the sheep in attempting to re-write history.

I find a multitude of quotations in respect of what John (now Baron) Reid said in this context; however, the inferrance remains the same - a soothing yet condescending balm for a (rightly) concerned British public, no doubt clung to eagerly by the mothers of young squaddies, embarking on yet another US-led adventure, to the greater glory of the Bush/Blair partnership.

Mr Reid susequently takes a 50kGBP/yr 'consultancy' position with security firm G4S, which is then awarded a multi-million pound MOD contract in Afghanistan. This is a complete co-incidence.

Tony Blair: "This is no time for soundbites, but I feel the hand of history on my shoulder".

Really.

HB

They did speak. At the last general election and in 2005 the SNP trailed in 4th with 10.8% and 9.1% of the vote respectively. In the last Scottish elections when the SNP trashed the other parties they came third in the constituency that Lockerbie sits in.

Except that the 2001 invasion of Afg was the first UK/US joint op of 'that' ilk, that it came some 2 years before the Iraq campaign and just about a year after Bush had actually come to power after his inauguration in Jan 2001.

Mup

I was not seeking to establish a chronological time-line by the use of the words "yet another"; I was alluding to what I consider to be the on-going puppy-dog politics of the Bush/Blair era.

HB