Matthew Henderson
9/10/2009
5:55 pm
This question was posed by The Herald. Then they gave two different views on the subject. The first, Lt Col David Reynolds, was in favor of British forces in Afghanistan. He said that he had been there and that victory is possible. It is necessary for them to be there so that the number of terrorist attacks does not rise. He says that other countries need to step up and join the fight. The other argument, Tony Stauton, obviously was against being in Afghanistan. He believes that Britain troops should not be there any longer if ever. He said that they are not combating terrorism because Britain was not a target before the war. They are wasting money and not helping in any way. The government has not improved and the people don’t want them there. British citizens want the troops back home.
I don’t think anybody should be there. Whether it is US troops or British troops I think they need to get out. I realize that this cannot happen all at once but I’m ready to see some long overdue progress. I can see the other side of the argument. They want to bring stability and keep terrorist attacks low. I know we can win but what is winning, the loss of lives upon lives? To me that is not winning. No there needs to be an exit plan set in place as soon as possible. I do not see the merit in staying there if they are losing lives and money and accomplishing nothing.
http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/news/BRITISH-FORCES-AFGHANISTAN/article-1324649-detail/article.html
No comments:
Post a Comment