The world of Fiero, so he has spoken, so it shall be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

Before 1982 barely any of the British public knew about the Falkland Islands. Now we look back at that campaign as a proud military victory which at the time the US Navy called 'a military impossibility'.

Sure, if Brown was in charge in 1982 he probably wouldn't have made the same risk that Thatcher did. But if the Falklands were invaded for a 2nd time (unlikely as they are better defended now) then any government would be under enormous pressure to launch a counter attack. If they didn't then the 200+ Britons who lost their lives in the war would have been for nothing.

Even if we don't think we should be in Afghanistan or shouldn't have gone to Iraq the British public will always support its military.

The Falklands proved the British Lion still had teeth and claws...and was something that had to be done.

The British support their military, as does Canada ours, but in Afghanistan, both of us are there against some opposition at home. I suggest that the supporting of the troops is noble in theory, but if you want them home before they accomplish something then you are just telling them they failed....and that their sacrifices mean nothing also. It is delicate, because no one sane suggests Afghanistan will be a peaceful garden of eden now or a year from now, but I would like to see something concrete change there before the NATO troops pull out. The real issue is the gutless lack of participation on the part of the Germans, French and others who in theory back the operation, but wont put troops on the line to make the mission happen. The US, Dutch, UK and Canada have borne the brunt of the losses, most through IED's....not actual combat missions....and the people who want a better life there are waiting to see which side is more committed. THAT is the real issue with us being there. No one in the West has any patience for problems that are not easily fixed.