Article

2008-02-16 Afghanistan

Lack of kit blamed for UK soldier's death

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2008-02-16 00:00|| || Front Page|| [9 views ] Top
File under: Taliban

#1 Assistant coroner for Oxfordshire Andrew Walker said he died after an unforgivable "breach of trust between the soldiers and those who govern them".

A rather bold and political statement for an assistant coroner to be making. Someone is running for public office.

Posted by SteveS 2008-02-16 01:04|| 2008-02-16 01:04|| Front Page Top

#2 I don't care about the details. In the end, they were defeated by the terrorists. This is why Western forces depend on technology. Forget this basic premise and the rest is out the window. Get to work.

Posted by gorb 2008-02-16 02:17|| 2008-02-16 02:17|| Front Page Top

#3 What is it with coroners with political power in England? They seem to use their position as a bully pulpit to criticize whomever they feel like.

Posted by gromky 2008-02-16 04:43|| 2008-02-16 04:43|| Front Page Top

#4 England has long sabotaged its own efforts on the battlefield, usually by being chintzy.

Its rule of Afghanistan started in the mid-19th Century with an effective and realistic use of gold bribery to warlords to keep the peace. But by the late part of that century, with the empire in decline, the government foolishly began to shortchange the warlords, and soon they were kicked out of the country, brutally.

Even in World War I, Americans were surprised to see the British army "cleaning" the battlefield after a fight, to recover any scrap or useful equipment that could be recycled, to save money. Even though out of tons of waste, only a few pounds could be preserved. Penny wise, pound foolish.

Spies, collaborators, traitors and the like who helped Britain in exchange for money were more often then not "lost at sea" to save the expense of paying them for their services. Unlike America, which has an extraordinarily good reputation of paying its small debts to such people to the penny. If the wanted poster says the US will pay $25M for Osama, whoever rats him out will someday fart through silk. America will actually seek him out to pay him.

Right now, Brussels hopes that England will turn its navy, what's left of it, over to them. So England, true to form, has no reason to have a navy, if it has to pay for it. The same with its army.

Until the English army quits, just refuses to perform at all, it will be cut back. It won't be a mutiny, in the traditional sense, just incapability.

Posted by Anonymoose 2008-02-16 09:22|| 2008-02-16 09:22|| Front Page Top

#5 Maybe the English Army should unionise. If they haven't already, I mean.

Posted by SteveS 2008-02-16 11:34|| 2008-02-16 11:34|| Front Page Top

#6 The army is British, not English.

Posted by Bright Pebbles 2008-02-16 20:19|| 2008-02-16 20:19|| Front Page Top

#7 Bright Pebbles: Let's see, the "British" army has English in it, and Ghurkas. Well, since Nepal isn't part of the "British Empire", I guess that would leave the English.

Calling it British anymore is just silly. Britain is no more.

Posted by Anonymoose 2008-02-16 22:57|| 2008-02-16 22:57|| Front Page Top

#8 Aren't there Scots and Welsh regiments, too?

Posted by trailing wife ">trailing wife 2008-02-16 23:46|| 2008-02-16 23:46|| Front Page Top

23:51 Sherry
23:46 trailing wife
23:45 trailing wife
23:12 GK
23:06 smn
22:57 Anonymoose
22:52 Jan
22:51 smn
22:45 www
22:42 smn
22:40 Old Patriot
22:07 RD
21:46 Dutch Elms Disease
21:42 Jan
21:26 RD
21:22 Frank G
21:07 JohnQC
21:04 Rob Crawford
21:03 Rob Crawford
21:01 JohnQC
21:01 Deacon Blues
20:49 JohnQC
20:47 JohnQC
20:43 JohnQC