Afghanistan Fighting

rypt · 11 Jul 2009 at 02:16

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8145603.stm
8 killed in 24 hours ....

WHY are the Brits the only ones doing any fighting in Afghanistan? Where are the Yanks, the Canadians, the Germans, the Italians, the Spanish, etc?
It is a NATO war afterall.

And why do we still not have enough helicopters for your troops to use - can we not borrow some helicopters and pilots from some of the other NATO countries? Or the Aussies?

Burnsy2023 · 11 Jul 2009 at 02:20

rypt said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8145603.stm
8 killed in 24 hours ....

WHY are the Brits the only ones doing any fighting in Afghanistan? Where are the Yanks, the Canadians, the Germans, the Italians, the Spanish, etc?
It is a NATO war afterall.

The Yanks have Thousands of troops in Helmand

rypt said:
And why do we still not have enough helicopters for your troops to use - can we not borrow some helicopters and pilots from some of the other NATO countries? Or the Aussies?

We use the US' helicopters on a regular basis. Same as fast jet support.

Zip · 11 Jul 2009 at 02:21

Australias been fighting non stop since the war started :confused:

Just because the Its in the news the Brits are fighting it doesnt mean the others arnt. Its just not all reports of battles are released to the press

rypt · 11 Jul 2009 at 02:24

There is a difference between having thousands of troops in an area and having those troops on the front lines.
We had thousands of troops in Iraq too .. they just weren't on the front line.

Right now we are doing all the heavy fighting in Afghanistan as we are on the front line - clearly it seems that we are struggling though. I know we use equipment from other countries but one of the calls being made is that we need more helicopters to prevent the IEDs - hence why I said that we borrow some from other NATO countries.

It's shocking though how we've gone from the best man for man army during the Falklands to struggling to kill some Arab ragheads :/

Strife212 · 11 Jul 2009 at 02:24

They don't report any other countries losses in the UK press, theres loads of others fighting out there.

Superficial · 11 Jul 2009 at 02:24

Troops taking part as of April 2009...

United States - 26,215
United Kingdom - 8,300
Germany - 3,465
France - 3,200
Italy - 2,850
Canada - 2,830
Poland - 1,990
Netherlands - 1,770
Australia - 1,490
Romania - 860
Bulgaria - 820
Spain - 780
Denmark - 700
Turkey - 660
Belgium - 650
Norway - 588
Czech Republic - 580

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)

edit: i will say that the figures are somewhat misleading as many countries incl. Germany and France are not moving troops into the more violent south where the real fighting is.

Burnsy2023 · 11 Jul 2009 at 02:25

rypt said:
There is a difference between having thousands of troops in an area and having those troops on the front lines.
We had thousands of troops in Iraq too .. they just weren't on the front line.

The Yanks aren't in barracks. They're also on the front line, taking losses just like us. Don't be silly.

rypt · 11 Jul 2009 at 02:26

Superficial said:
Troops taking part as of April 2009...

United States - 26,215
United Kingdom - 8,300
Germany - 3,465
France - 3,200
Italy - 2,850
Canada - 2,830
Poland - 1,990
Netherlands - 1,770
Australia - 1,490
Romania - 860
Bulgaria - 820
Spain - 780
Denmark - 700
Turkey - 660
Belgium - 650
Norway - 588
Czech Republic - 580

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)

Again, having troops in a country is different from having them on the front lines.
I'm not saying we should let other people do all the work - but I think that we need to have some more support.

rypt · 11 Jul 2009 at 02:27

Burnsy2023 said:
The Yanks aren't in barracks. They're also on the front line, taking losses just like us. Don't be silly.

Majority of other NATO losses at the moment are from attacks elsewhere within the country - on things such as routine patrols in towns/villages.

EDIT: The peacekeeping side of things should be carried out by the Afghan army (who are actually better equipped than the Brits thanks to the Americans) while the better trained NATO forces should be almost complete in Helmand / on Pakistan border

Superficial · 11 Jul 2009 at 02:28

rypt said:
Again, having troops in a country is different from having them on the front lines.
I'm not saying we should let other people do all the work - but I think that we need to have some more support.

yeah i agree - just edited my post

Burnsy2023 · 11 Jul 2009 at 02:29

rypt said:
Majority of other NATO losses at the moment are from attacks elsewhere within the country - on things such as routine patrols in towns/villages.

Yes, but they aren't in Helmand, The Yanks are and are taking a beating like us.

setter · 11 Jul 2009 at 02:29

There are plenty of coalition troops fighting in afghanistan, the news we here in the uk concentrates on the efforts of the british army, sadly there are soldiers of various nationalities being killed out there, our own media highlights the british army's perspective of the campaign, im sure maybe in america canada etc they have to report their own casualty figures, and the progress of the fighting.

Eddie182 · 11 Jul 2009 at 02:32

rypt said:
Again, having troops in a country is different from having them on the front lines.
I'm not saying we should let other people do all the work - but I think that we need to have some more support.

We do have more support, everyone is out on the ground. There is no "front line" as you put it, there are many separate ops going on throughout the AO at any one time. Every unit and nation has done and continues to do their fair share and take more than their fair share of casualties. May I suggest you quiet down rather than mouthing off about things you clearly know nothing about.

rypt · 11 Jul 2009 at 02:35

Burnsy2023 said:
Yes, but they aren't in Helmand, The Yanks are and are taking a beating like us.

setter said:
There are plenty of coalition troops fighting in afghanistan, the news we here in the uk concentrates on the efforts of the british army, sadly there are soldiers of various nationalities being killed out there, our own media highlights the british army's perspective of the campaign, im sure maybe in america canada etc they have to report their own casualty figures, and the progress of the fighting.

I don't only look at BBC, I regularly read CNN as well and while the Americans are suffering some casualties they are not as bad as ours at the moment.
UK were designated as the leaders in this push with the US Marines (and the Aussies I think) as backup.

The issue I have is that the other NATO casualties are all away from Helmand and in fact most NATO countries are not participating in Helmand at all - and never have. It has been the Brits, the Americans, the Aussies and the Canadians in Helmand only more or less from day one. All the others just have the peacekeeping and patrol jobs elsewhere.

rypt · 11 Jul 2009 at 02:36

Eddie182 said:
We do have more support, everyone is out on the ground. There is no "front line" as you put it, there are many separate ops going on throughout the AO at any one time. Every unit and nation has done and continues to do their fair share and take more than their fair share of casualties. May I suggest you quiet down rather than mouthing off about things you clearly know nothing about.

So the Germans and French doing peacekeeping else where is doing their fair share?

Eddie182 · 11 Jul 2009 at 02:40

rypt said:
So the Germans and French doing peacekeeping else where is doing their fair share?

Yes it is. Because if they weren't there, we would have to be, which would further stretch our resources and manpower and as a result lead to even more casualties.

Everyone has a job to do, and everyone is doing their job.

rypt · 11 Jul 2009 at 02:41

The Afghan army or the local warlords can do the peacekeeping ...

The French and Germans have not never had any troops in any of the major hotspots

St.Josh · 11 Jul 2009 at 02:43

rypt said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8145603.stm
8 killed in 24 hours ....

WHY are the Brits the only ones doing any fighting in Afghanistan? Where are the Yanks, the Canadians, the Germans, the Italians, the Spanish, etc?
It is a NATO war afterall.

And why do we still not have enough helicopters for your troops to use - can we not borrow some helicopters and pilots from some of the other NATO countries? Or the Aussies?

Haven't the "Yanks" had almost 7x more deaths than we have in afghanistan

Azagoth · 11 Jul 2009 at 02:43

To the OP. Naivety, it's not a good thing! It just goes to highlight your ignorance of the situation on the ground in Afghanistan.

slambo69 · 11 Jul 2009 at 02:43

rypt said:
It's shocking though how we've gone from the best man for man army during the Falklands to struggling to kill some Arab ragheads :/

Helicopters arent always a viable option, also I wouldnt say we are struggling to kill some ragheads. Im pretty sure we outgun them every chance our boys are given, their casualties must be far, far higher than ours.