The U.S. lost in Vietnam because they backed the losing side in a civil war in impossible terrain against a highly motivated enemy.
Ring any bells?
I don’t see it as being stupid Roadrunner, this is an issue that you are passionate about and the Daily Mail pulls on all the right strings, hell they aren’t selling millions of copies a day because they are rubbish at what they do.
Very interesting thread. Contrary to popular belief, America didn’t lose the Vietnam War, it simply left the war in 1973 whilst it was winning, but as a result of adverse public opinion at home which crystallised in the form of the Case-Church Amendment. When it left (after having signed a peace agreement with Communist N Vietnamese, which the N Vietnameseinitially refused and walked away from but Kissinger “persuaded” them to return to the negotiating table with the help of about a thousand bombing sorties using B52s - the “Linebacker Raids” I and II), its allies South Vietnam had the upper handand were coming close to defeating the NorthVietnamese, with the help of lots of US financial aid. Then the Oil Crisis of October 1973 severely increased the S Vietnamese costs but the US didn’t increase their aid to compensate, then US aid finally ended a year later whilst - and because - Nixon was embroiled in the Watergate scandal. The Soviets seized the opportunity, poured in massive aid to the N Vietnamese, leading to the defeat of the S Vietnamese at Phuoc Long in Jan 75 and ultimate fall of Saigon three months later.
So the US left the Vietnam War when it waswinning it, theonly thing it lost was the propaganda war at home.
Talking of propaganda, I’m afraid I can’t bring myself to read the Daily Mail article but the Gurkha has nothing to fear - the question of whether to put his troop at unnecessary risk or remove the dead guy’s head is a no-brainer, but as Ninjajunkie says, his removal from that country was purely a “hearts and minds” operation, and probably a fairly crucial one at that giventhe sensitivities in the area (antagonise them and we’ll be there forever, and I don’t think anyone wants that).
The daily mail is **** and lets face it a little bit racist not to mention written by and for idiots.
Sorry to anyone who reads it…( but its true)
The point surely is not about the Daily Mail, but about what happened???
It is about the Daily Mail - and the way they angled the article to wind people up and promote the Mails brand of reactionary politics (in a nutshell: 'political correctness and ‘the muslims’ are to blame for everything) - a bit like when the Mail blamed the Jews for everything back in the 30’s.
If the Mail had produced a more rounded assesment of the Ghurka issue within the context of the campaigns overall strategy (In which the strategists - Petraeus etc have put a heavy stress on the importance of conduct to the success of the war - even in heavy combat situations) this would have presented Mail readers with an article that would have forced them to engage their brains rather than their prejudices and emotions.
But where’s the fun in using your brain when you can get your regular hit of self righteous anger and emotion from the Mail. . .
This is the thing about the Daily Mail…nothing actually happened. The Army launched an investigation into a possible breach.
That is what happened, yet in the article it talks about disciplinary action and a court martial, neither of which will happen unless the soldier is found guilty. It also talks about appeasing the Taliban and Muslims, which has nothing to do with the Geneva Convention.
The article is a fabrication of rubbish created by the Daily Mail, like 99.9% of all the reports in the Daily Mail.
As I said in my very first post.
Do yourself a favour and don’t read reports from the Daily Mail.
+1
One sided article with probably very little factual information to go on, so they have to pretty much guess the rest to fill in the gaps, as usual.
None of us know whats happened behind the scenes. This guy could be found to be completely innocent of any wrong doing, or he may have done something pretty bad but the army will only give the beheading story to cover up whats really happened. Without the facts we’re all just speculating, as the DM has done.
I’ve said it before but saying it again, the only way to deal with Mail readers is to tell them that the paedophile’s only natural predator is the asylum seeker. Stand back and watch head explode.
For a more positive report . . . http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/7778770/How-the-Gurkhas-are-fighting-the-Taliban-with-a-smile.html
It was a very successful business plan. The military-industrial complex warned of by Eisenhower got exactly what they wanted, a long, drawn-out unwinnable war lasting years that would make a few people back home a mint - favourite. They even managed to supply both sides. Human suffering is just collateral damage, doesn’t impact the balance sheet. The business scheme of the last decade is ticking over ok but needs a boost:
1/ Blow up World Trade Center
2/ Declare “War on Terrr”
3/ Profit!
Yes, I am a cynical old git.
Ghurka dude is a ledge…
I went down to Keogh Barracks where my brother was for abit, there was a ghurka in his digs.
He was abit odd. He had a video of him cutting a horses head off, but the funny thing was, he never spoke…
silent but violent.
Im with RoadRunner on this one… Its a fugging outrage…
I’ll get back onto the subject but this goes towards my point… The Roal Moat dude that was on a rampage then got caught and shot himself, well the coppers shot him with a shotgun TAZZER and where investigated because they werent oficialy in use or sumat… Umm WTF, the guy has a gun, had killed people and even shot a cop before… Id of put a bullet between his eyes before he did it himself, they only friggin tazzer him and risked the posibility of gettin into trouble although i never saw the outcome of the inquest. This country is soft thats why we have so many scroats today and the police dont seem to do their job, thats cause they get in trouble for doing it…
Anyway back onto the matter in hand which if you think about it runs along the same line of thing…
The guy is in a war zone with a job to do, one which you average Jo blogs wouldnt comprehend on what its realy like and no films realy dont give you the feel of it. Do you think that if the boot was on the other foot that the talibam for 1 second would of hesitated to cut the Gurkhas head off? They’d even do it on TV… What would the UK publics reaction be? Oh look the taliban have just killed another squaddie then he would be forgot about… If a squaddie or anyone in the other forces did sumat joe blogs didnt like they’d be outrage… Umm its war people. Yeah we cant go round all gun ho like the yanks a shoot everything up because thats not rite and INNOCENT lives would be even more at risk but we are too far at the other end of the scale because of the average joe blogs who kicks up a fuss and says you cant do that… Alot of people risk theirs and their fellow commrades lives because they are more hesitant to react to something they think is out of place because they worry what the consequences will be.
Here is an example where it is lucky the guys had the Iraqis with them… On patrol a pregnant woman was nearing the troops… An Iraqi soldier shot her dead… The brits where shocked and basicaly said you cant do that… The Iraqi said it wasnt a woman… Turns out it was a suicide bomber, the Iraqi realised because she who was actualy a he was wearing socks which women dont… Now i know thats about observation but if and by the time 1 of ours was to notice theres no way they would of shot them just incase they was wrong, they would try stop the person and if they didnt stop will most likely of shot them but by which time they would most likely of been to late… If i the Iraqi who shot the bomber was wrong it would of made the news but there wouldnt of been all that much fuss if it was one of our guys though they’d be screwed even though they thought they where saving peoples lives…
My point is they, we should think about the situation out in Afghan more. If the guy had chopped someones head off for no reason apart from the fact he was some taliban dude then yeah he should get punished but its a war zone, the guy was a taliban leader and the big wigs wanted proof he was dead so the Gurkha took them that proof… Job done let the dude crack on.
I can go on all day about things like this and how our country needs to buck its ideas up…
How can you ask the guys and girls to do the job thats is asked of them and then punish them when someone thinks its wrong… Same goes for the Police back here not just our guys and girls out on the ground in Afghan.
And before someone gets on there high horse about that statement im not saying they should be able to go round doing as they wish but sheesh, an inquiry for using tazzers when the dude has a gun or the example of this Gurhka who is in a WAR zone doing the job he is asked… give them a break for **** sake
Well said. 
Let`s leave this for St Joanna Lumley to sort out.
PS everyone knows war is about winning heads and mines.
When I was fourteen I used to fantasise that Joanna Lumley would sort me out. . .
Everyone needs to drink their ale, watch their footy and just ignore everything that is going on around you. Let the elites handle the important stuff. That’s what created this mess in the first place
Thing is I agree with you to a certain extent ASBO, especially about the any means necessary to deal with Moat, I heard a story shortly after Hungerford where a man actually offered to shot Ryan after he had killed like 6 people, but the police declined and he went on and shot another 10 people. I agree that in such a situation, whatever means are at hand to stop the person should be employed.
I would agree with Roadrunner in this current case…had anything actually happened. Had the person in the report been found guilty of something, had he been reprimanded, had he been disciplined, had he faced a court martial…I would be as outraged as anyone else.
None of that has happened. There is nothing to be outraged at. There has been a situation where regulations pertaining to an international treaty MAY have been breached and the Army is investigating.
Well good, that is what I expect from the Army. That is an Army I can be proud of and trust.
Thats exactly the point, they MAY have been breached. There is no evidence except the ramblings of the Mail, so the knee jerk reactions to this story (although somewhat expected) are unnecessary.
Without sound facts and evidence these reactions are no better than the DM’s initial reporting of this story and exactly what a paper such as that feeds off.
Anyone remember the reporting of the Islamic march through Wooton Bassett - it was never going to happen, but was mentioned to one reporter by the ‘organiser’ to see if he could provoke a small reaction. He actually succeeded in a massive national debate including many pages on forums such as this with people kicking off about it. The whole thing fueled itself without them having to do anything and gave their ‘cause’ the national airtime way in excess they ever thought possible.