Foolestroupe - 08 Dec 06 - 06:13 AM

"The British with their professional Army succeeded in both Malaysia and Borneo."

Sorry, I musta grown up on a different planet...

OK then Foolestroupe - The "War of the Running Dogs" 1947 to 1964, a Communist backed insurrection that attempted to exploit the grievances of the Chinese-Malay community against the majority indigenous Bumiputra Malays. So on the planet you inhabit the Chinese-Malay insurgents won did they Foolestroupe? On the planet I inhabit Foolestroupe they didn't.

Tell me Foolestroupe in what was known as the Borneo Confrontation which ran from 1964 to 1968 when Dr. Sukarno, President of Indonesia, decided that he was going to take over the Eastern Malayan provinces of Sarawak and Sabah plus the Kindom of Brunei. The UK responded to a request from the Malaysian Government for assistance under the terms of the bi-lateral defence treaty between the UK and Malaysia - That treaty still stands good to date. Tell me how many Indonesian insurgents made it from the border to the coast? Tell me how many successful insurgent attacks were carried out? Both questions are rhetorical Foolestroupe answer to both questions is NONE - what happens to be your criteria for successful defence on the planet you inhabit Foolestroupe? Tell me Foolestroupe do the provinces of Eastern Malaysia exist today as part of the Federation of Malaysia or are they part of Indonesia? Does Brunei exist as an independent Sovereign Nation or is it part of Indonesia?

Paul from Hull - 08 Dec 06 - 11:12 AM

Teribus,...."...a considerable number of the British troops deployed in the 'Malayan Emergency' were National Servicemen. I think we have therefore to look elsewhere for the reasons for the title of this thread."

You are partially correct in what you say above Paul, British National Servicemen did serve in Malaya up to 1956/57, when National Service ended in the UK, from that point onward all operations were conducted by Britain's professional armed forces.

"Currently in Afghanistan while BBC repeatedly reports that the number of deaths in Helmand Province have rocketted since the British took over, they somehow fail to mention that the vast bulk of those killed are Taleban fighters..."

While I can believe the above, do you have a source for it?

"BBC

There has been a four-fold rise this year in the number of people killed in the conflict in Afghanistan, according to a report on the insurgency.

It suggests that more than 3,700 people have died so far this year - about 1,000 of them civilians."

Now according to my maths that makes 2,700 people have been killed who were not civilians, they were insurgents actively engaged by UK/NATO troops. In the run up to UK taking over Helmand Province the BBC gleefully reported on a Taleban conference where local Taleban Commanders stated that they were going to combine forces and crush the British troops sent to the province - looks like they are having a tough time of it.

akenaton - 08 Dec 06 - 01:15 PM

"America saw Saddam's Iraq as a soft target, an easy way to gain the political initiative and grab a bunch of oil."

Well Akenaton if you actually believe that to be true can you tell us how much Iraqi oil has been grabbed by the US in the last three years? Perhaps you could tell us how many American Oil Companies operate oilfields in Iraq?

"In the UK this conflict was indeed   "Blair's War" single handedly he convinced a willing party and many here that he was fighting for freedom.

He lied and lied again.....For personal glory.
I remember arguing with wld years ago over this point.
wld excuses Blair, but most now believe that he should be tried and imprisoned......."

So Akenaton, "most now believe that he should be tried and imprisoned"??? Now that is not exactly true is it Ake? Instead of most people believing that he should be tried and imprisoned, most people relected him - didn't they??