Sponsored by
Monday's Letters: Why are teenagers being sent to die in this futile campaign?
From: Trev Bromby, Sculcoates Lane, Hull. GORDON Brown and Barack Obama give different reasons for US and UK troops being in Afghanistan. The actual reason could be the legacy of their predecessors' penchant for illegal wars. Once bin Laden was found not to be there, US and UK troops should have left – mission accomplished.
The Taliban, like communists, are a domestic, internal problem.
This was aptly demonstrated recently, in Pakistan's Swat Valley.
Gordon, please tell us, and the ever-rising number of bereaved relatives, why you are sending soldiers to die in a conflict that should be addressed by tribal / religious factions within Afghanistan?
This is the fourth unsuccessful foray by the British to subdue these resilient peoples. The first three were also unjustified.
May I just point out that they have not been beaten by an invading force for 2.5 millennia.
The full might of a fully equipped Russian army threw in the towel after 10 years of failure.
So what can our brave under-equipped soldiers be expected to achieve? What is their goal?
Admit George Bush and Tony Blair were wrong, admit you are wrong to carry on their folly. Get the troops home now, show some guts – admit you are wrong.
Your actions are increasing foreign, and domestic, hostility toward the British public. It is your responsibility to defuse the situation. Do it.
From: James Anthony Bulmer, Peel Street, Horbury, Wakefield.
MOST letter writers, correspondents and, even the Government, appear to have forgotten the reason for the UK's involvement in the assault of Afghanistan – now deemed to be a war?
Originally, and under pressure from America, our Government was convinced that Osama bin Laden, head of al-Qaida, was based in Afghanistan and was in the process of manufacturing weapons of mass destruction.
America then proceeded to place a huge reward – some $5m – on the head of bin Laden. When this did not work they proceeded – without provocation – and by air, to blast every conceivable hiding place, in the process killing innocent Afghan men, women and children. Numbers probably in thousands but not, as yet, defined.
The efforts to quell spasmodic unrest in Afghanistan – according to history – have never been successful. As it looks at the present moment, and this appears to be the thoughts of many, history will continue to repeat itself, as usual.
From: JD Anderton, Oriel Grove, York.
WE seem to have plummeted to some depths with our discovery that 18-year-olds are dying on our behalf in the futile conflict in Afghanistan. Like many of your readers, no doubt, when visiting British military cemeteries in Tunisia, Germany, Holland, Malaysia and other places we have always been aghast to find the graves of 18-year-olds. And now 60 years on, we are just as guilty of enlisting youngsters barely out of school.
At least in the Korean War young soldiers – many of them conscripts – on board troopships at the age of 18 were taken off in Hong Kong and placed in camps until reaching their 19th anniversary.
Can't we have a similar attitude today? Better still make the age of 20 the cut off point; a gesture that might ease the conscience of both politicians and senior military officers.
From: Raymond W Geldard, Skipton Road, Steeton, Keighley.
THE ever-changing reasons given for our involvement in Afghanistan are less than convincing.
In the Second World War, this country was under direct, daily attack, and the enemy was literally at the door. There is no enemy at the door today. Then, the phrase "he laid down his life for his country"
resonated with everyone, because everyone was involved, one way or another.
Today, that noble phrase is still being used, as brave young men are being sacrificed in a going-nowhere war in Afghanistan – not in defence of this country, but in defence of misguided woolly headed decisions made in the wake of the 9/11 attack.
It is high time some brave politician laid down his career for his country in an attempt to bring this misbegotten affair to a speedy end.
From: David McKenna, Hall Gardens, Rawcliffe, Goole.
DAVID Wright and Peter Yearsley are right to be angry at our politicians' claptrap about Afghanistan (Yorkshire Post, July 15). The criticism I have is not aimed at the fighting forces, even though I consider them to have been misled. It is aimed fairly and squarely at politicians who have not only been "economical with the truth" (shorthand for lying), but who have also suffered from a type of historical dementia that is rife in Westminster.
Money spent on fighting lost causes would be better spent on a decent border control agency, schools, hospitals and the crumbling infrastructure of the country, rather than meddling in the internal affairs of other countries.
Lord Palmerston would cry "Send out a gunboat!" when trouble erupted in the Empire. Politicians should recognise that we can no longer afford to do that even if it were right to do so.
From: Terry Duncan, Greame Road, Bridlington, East Yorkshire
WATCHING Gordon Brown being quizzed by our top MPs, when he appeared before a committee of chairmen last Thursday, convinced me he does not tell lies.
He just does not tell the truth.
For two and a half hours he was questioned on many issues but never once gave a straight answer.
The most telling about his performance was when asked about back-up for our troops in Afghanistan, he, like a slippery snake and Mandelson-like, deviated, smiled, and refused to speak numbers.
So, the families of the soldiers on the front line, and the rest of country, still don't know if this Labour Government is providing the adequate support the troops deserve. This is the time for a whistleblower to appear so that we can get at the truth that the Prime Minister denies us, before many more men and women die due to the lack of military support from the sky and on the ground.
From: Mark Jepson, Harvesters Way, South Milford, Leeds.
I HAVE found the possibly political skirmishing around the various issues pertaining to the Afghanistan campaign by a number of MPs extremely distasteful; to an outsider it seems that whatever the disagreements politicians and the military may have in private, the upholding of a public unity would better honour the soldiers who are so very prepared to put everything on the line for the perceived greater good.
What do the bereaved relatives make of this disunity in the light of the sacrifices their loved ones have made?
I do wonder, too, how those of the Taliban interpret the apparent disunity between MPs on this issue – it is not very smart to display this to the enemy.
It was shameful and disgraceful in the extreme that the debate drew a pitifully small number of MPs. Unlike the forces, I would suggest many MPs are bereft of a sense of honour and duty and representation.
Park plan won pay-out from Lottery
From: Vanessa White, Big Lottery Fund head of region for Yorkshire and The Humber.
BRADFORD's Park at the Heart did, in fact, receive a Big Lottery Fund development grant of 250,000 in August 2006, despite claims to the contrary in the article "City centre water park wins go-ahead" (Yorkshire Post, July 15). This grant ultimately left the project better placed to be in the position it is in today.
The project applied for funding through the extremely competitive Living Landmarks programme. Out of 313 applicants, only three projects eventually secured the final grants. The potential of Park at the Heart was recognised when it was placed on a final shortlist of 23 projects, making it unreasonable to suggest that plans were "humiliatingly rebuffed by the Big Lottery Fund".
No future for fox hunters
From: Douglas Batchelor, chief executive, League Against Cruel Sports.
STEVE Clark, the Yorkshire spokesman for the Countryside Alliance, is seriously deluded if he thinks readers will swallow his bluster on how repeal of the Hunting Act is in sight (Yorkshire Post, July 16).
The claim that the Hunting Act is "bad law" is patently absurd. No-one suggests that the Theft Act abolished burglary or that the Road Traffic Act abolished speeding, and we don't suggest that the 2004 Hunting Act abolished hunting. But it made criminals of those who engage in the practice and new prosecutions are being brought with increasing regularity. The Hunting Act is a good law; it is only bad people with no respect for the rule of law who are hell bent on breaking it.
The idea that the hunters are supported by the public is nothing but myth. Polling by Ipsos MORI and YouGov on behalf of the League Against Cruel Sports shows that 75 per cent of the public, including 71 per cent in rural communities, don't want to see the clock turned back to the cruelty of hunting.
It is time that they woke up to the reality that in 21st century Britain, there is appetite only for cool sports, not cruel sports.
No help for crash cyclist
From: Sally Cooper, Featherstone Lane, Featherstone.
MY son was cycling into Leeds last week. He is 42. His foot slipped on the pedal and went through the front wheel spokes which stopped the bike dead and he sailed over the handlebars. He laid in a crumpled heap on the side of the road, his bike was in the middle of the road and all the cars, who were queuing, just drove round him.
No one stopped to see if he was all right. He had to ring for an ambulance himself. He had broken his collar bone and was in a fair amount of pain. Can you just credit such callous behaviour? What is the world coming to? I am so ashamed of my fellow human beings.
Case for Trident replacement is unanswerable
From: Michael Breheny, Greenthorpe Mount, Leeds.
IN reply to the opposition of replacing our Trident submarines, with further Trident submarines: those who say this clearly haven't studied the subject very much. The case for the Trident replacement is unanswerable.
The Ministry of Defence (Trident White Paper 2006) have looked at the various other options, such as Cruise missiles launched from submarines and aircraft and found such launch platforms are dangerously vulnerable to attack.
It has a range of over 4,000 miles and can hide in a vast area of ocean and so cannot be found and destroyed by a would-be nuclear aggressor, such as Russia.
In regard to Russia, the view that as the Soviet Union has collapsed we don't need Trident, is dangerously short-sighted.
Even though Russia has agreed to reduce its warheads, it will still have about 10 times more warheads than Britain has, with its much smaller warhead force.
Also both Russia and China are modernising their
nuclear forces, and we don't know who will be running Russia and China in 20
years time.
It is possible that an extreme nationalist party could come to power in Russia, in the future, and become very aggressive to Britain, and an invulnerable Trident missile which can penetrate Russian anti-missile defences might be the
only thing that saves us
from attack.
Equally, the Chinese might become very aggressive and they too could become very dangerous 20 years from now. Clearly we will need replacement Trident submarines for a very long time, as the only possible deterrent.
To do otherwise would be a terrible mistake and put this country in the greatest peril.
Email to a friend
Print this page- Leeds lose Ward to Palace: Is there anyone they can afford now?
- Sheffield Wednesday leaving it late to hijack Leeds United over Ward
- As Snodgrass dithers over Leeds, Warnock throws a lifeline
- Ball is in Leeds United’s court over contract - Snodgrass
- Police turning blind eye to Asian voter fraud, says MP
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Yorkshire
Saturday 26 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 9 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 17 mph
Wind direction: East
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 9 C to 22 C
Wind Speed: 13 mph
Wind direction: East
