Get others to help out in Iraq

This probably won’t help. [quote=“BBC”]UN chief Ban Ki-moon has been left shaken by a blast which interrupted a news conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki in Baghdad.

As Mr Ban was speaking during the live televised event, a mortar or rocket landed about 50 metres (165ft) from the building, causing him to duck.

Mr Ban appeared frightened but neither he nor Mr Maliki was hurt.

The UN chief had earlier arrived on his first visit to Baghdad since he took office in January this year.

The BBC’s Hugh Sykes in Baghdad says buildings and windows shook and people clutched their furniture when the huge bang reverberated throughout the city at about 1530 (1230 GMT).

He says it appeared to be caused by a mortar attack on the international zone, otherwise known as the Green Zone, where all the diplomats and most of the US military are, in the centre of Baghdad.

At the moment of the blast, the camera filming the news conference shook slightly, while in the middle of the frame the UN chief could be seen ducking.

Interestingly, just to the left, the Iraqi prime minister did not duck, our correspondent says. [/quote]
Though I guess you can get used to just about anything.

Get others to help out in Iraq? Don’t make me laugh. When have “others” contributed much of anything even to the very causes that they are “concerned about” and “committed to” acting upon?

As usual, this will be a US effort and if and when the Iraqi people step up to the plate, then and only then will we know what the final result of this effort will be. I remain very confident.

Yeah, after all WTF does the US need the Iraqi people for?

Jaboney -
It is considered correct ‘netiquette’ to use the title of the article quoted as the title of the thread.
This lessens confusion and repeat postings of the same article by others.

Plenty of room either before or after quoted article for personal commentary.

Hey, don’t forget about Poland.

How can you say that? Fred needs them direly for his personal rerun of that vastly successful “white man’s burden” program. 3rd rerun already - first the Victorians, then the hippies, now Fred.

Bets are on: what will he wear? Flowers in his hair or pith helmet?

I blame the Iraqi people.

Excellent. We’ll withdraw our troops then.

Perhaps this war would be over faster if we made this a solely Fred event. He can go over and fight it to his heart’s content along with the others that love this quagmire so much.

Apparently you are and even those that are in Iraq are really marginal to the overall effort. They do help but don’t pretend that the UK and its 7,000 and rapidly dwindling numbers are going to be crucial to the final result. THAT was my point not that the troops were not appreciated at all. You seem to be overly sensitive to any slights real or otherwise to the great British nation. Such excessive prickliness reminds one more of the French rather than that of a citizen from a nation confident in its abilities. Get over yourself.

Apparently you are and even those that are in Iraq are really marginal to the overall effort. They do help but don’t pretend that the UK and its 7,000 and rapidly dwindling numbers are going to be crucial to the final result. THAT was my point not that the troops were not appreciated at all. You seem to be overly sensitive to any slights real or otherwise to the great British nation. Such excessive prickliness reminds one more of the French rather than that of a citizen from a nation confident in its abilities. Get over yourself.[/quote]
Exactly the attitude why the ‘US led coalition’ will soon be just ‘the US’.

Right… It is all about the US being “arrogant” and “pushy” and that is why so few nations want to support the effort in Iraq. And this is in direct contrast to the massive outpouring of effort that has been seen by other nations in places such as… er… um… well… because it’s like this… you see… anyway…

Right… It is all about the US being “arrogant” and “pushy” and that is why so few nations want to support the effort in Iraq. And this is in direct contrast to the massive outpouring of effort that has been seen by other nations in places such as… er… um… well… because it’s like this… you see… anyway…[/quote]

Darfur…that’s the one you’re looking for…

Yes I agree with you. These terms accurately describe the lead up to the invasion of Iraq.

The Victorians were supremely successful. The hippies made no true efforts to actually do anything about anything. They merely marched (and were thus a counterforce) to efforts to civilize the world. Would you like to deny that conditions in India are far better because of the British, both in terms of development and in terms of democracy and human rights. Ditto for most of the nations ruled by France or the UK. I cannot really say the same for the Germans but certainly the Portuguese, Dutch and Spanish all brought higher levels of civilization and improved qualities of life. While the hippies would focus on the “oppression” of the Spanish and others, would they really have liked the life of the Incas or Aztecs? Would they really deny that the level of civilization in those areas was vastly improved upon by the Spaniards?

Neither. We now roam the world in Brooks Brothers.

I would like to come back to an attitude that you have revealed here. It is ironic, and highly so, to me that most people do not understand the overall thrust and tenure of your statement and what it really says not about me but about them. Here, you have all those who claim that they want to do something for the world but in reality they are doing nothing while the supposed evil Republicans who want to oppress the world and steal its resources are actually the ones doing the most good for the greatest numbers. East Asia 30 years ago would have seemed a disaster. China was still a mess, Korea, Taiwan, HK and Singapore had not yet reached their current levels of economic prosperity and in many ways their economies were weak and the subject of hand-wringing articles. Today, a new arc of stability and prosperity and increasingly democracy with a strong focus on human rights sweeps from Japan down the eastern seaboard of China and through Southeast Asia (Indonesia remains a weak link) to India and even the Persian Gulf statelets. THAT is a huge accomplishment that has directly benefited nearly 3 billion people. What have you or the hippies done that would rival this achievement in terms of scale and goodness? So laugh all you want about our “White Man’s Burden” efforts in the Middle East. And I believe that in 30 years, given the absolute atrophying of Europe, that it will no longer be the White Man who carries the burden but a Korean, Taiwanese, Indian, Thai and Filipino. AND that will be for the good of the world. It does not matter, after all, what the color of the skin of the person carrying the burden is so long as the burden is being carried. I very much recall the absolute certainty of people in political science classes merely 20 years ago that Asians were not suited to democracy, that Communism would eventually have to be accommodated and that Catholic nations were prone to excessive child-bearing that would make economic development and thus democracy impossible. How are Italy, Spain, Portugal and Latin America doing these days? What a difference, eh?

No way - on civil service pay it’s Anderson-Little or nothing

Yes I agree with you. These terms accurately describe the lead up to the invasion of Iraq.[/quote]

Yes, they do. Perfect descriptions for the actors in France, Germany and the UN. I am truly glad that we have now found “agreement.”

With the current US leadership at present, it’s surprising that there are any British troops left in Iraq after all.
It would also be nice of you to actually acknowledge the huge amount of help and effort we have given you over he past two gulf wars and in Afghanistan, even though the two wars have largely been fought according to US agenda.

It may also be worth reminding you Frederick (not that it will make any dent in you opinionated rants about other countries) that the UK, in proportion to population, has roughly supplied the same amount of troops as the US - figures of approximately 80% - for a war which is of little benefit to us.

Lastly, the troops being withdrawn from Iraq are being replaced by the same numbers of troops to Afghanistan - something you seem to conveniently forget about. In my opinion, the move to Afghanistan is a wise choice.

Go and swivel.

Right… With different leadership, Britain would have actually sent 100,000 troops right?

Why do I need to be nice? Did your leadership not state that Afghanistan and Iraq were in YOUR interests? Why do I have to be nice to you about appreciating efforts that your government may or may not take or how well it may support those efforts when they are as your government has frequently stated of direct importance to the strategic well-being of Britain? Do I also need to tell you how much I appreciate the cleanliness of your parks in order to be nice as well? Huge? HUGE? What are you talking about?

Two things? Your prime minister seems to think that it is of great benefit to you? AND with a population of 60 million, and with troops of 7,000 in Iraq, how do you get the 80 percent figure? The US has a population of 300 million and we have 130,000 troops in Iraq. Given that our population is five times bigger than yours, we should have 42,000 to get your “80 percent” calculation. I see that your math is no better than your analytical skills.

How many total troops do you have in Afghanistan? Where are they deployed? How are they supported logistically? and what importance are they to the overall success of the effort? And why would Afghanistan be different from Iraq? Your government did not differentiate so why don’t you tell me why one is a “wise choice” and the other is not.

Your flaccid nationalism is sadly reminiscent of those French who shrilly condemn McDonald’s and America’s consumer culture using the same sniffing tones of irrational outrage. What notes of frustrated aspirations and humbled dreams resonate from your ruffled pride. Don’t blame me or the US for your inability to acclimate to global realities. After all, there will be a day in the not-too-distant future when the role the US currently serves will be usurped by someone else and I guarantee you that the next choice will not be so selfless, and then you may truly have a reason to wax indignant. Until then, ta.

Oh and Britain does matter and it is a very important country. Are you mollified now my little precious?

[quote=“Fred Smith”]Here, you have all those who claim that they want to do something for the world but in reality they are doing nothing while the supposed evil Republicans who want to oppress the world and steal its resources are actually the ones doing the most good for the greatest numbers.[/quote]Did you really open the do-nothing bag of attack, being one of Forumosa’s most visible cheerleaders for the boot-licking do-nothing 109th Congress? Oh, but as long as its someone else’s blood left on the field, you feel ok. You’ve attempted to rationalize how civilization is being enhanced by lies, greed and murder. If enough people scream the same utilitarian argument about impeaching and imprisoning your horde of heros, will you climb up to the other side of reasoning?

While this group probably doesn’t have much credibility to those who spit attempted justifications for strategic murders executed on behalf of lies made by other chickenhawks, Veterans have a unique way of expressing their position.[quote=“Veterans Against The Iraq War (VAIW)”]…
Although we detested the dictatorial policies of Saddam Hussein and sympathized with the tragic plight of the Iraqi people, we opposed unilateral and pre-emptive U.S. military intervention on the grounds that it established a dangerous precedent in the conduct of international affairs, that it could easily lead to an increase of violent regional instability and the spread of much wider conflicts, that it places needless and unacceptable financial burdens on the American people, that it diverts us from addressing critical domestic priorities, and that it distracts us from our goals of tracking down and destroying international terrorists and their lairs.

Furthermore, we do not believe that the American military can or should be used as the police force of the world by any administration, Republican or Democrat. Consequently, we believe that the lives and well being of our nation’s soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines should not be squandered or sacrificed for causes other than in the direct defense of our people and nation.

Finally, we believe that a doctrine of pre-emptive and unilateral U.S. military attack on Iraq or any other nation is illegal, unnecessary, counter-productive and presents a truly dire and distressing threat to our vital international interests and basic national security. As military veterans, we have a unique understanding of war and know the many hidden truths that lie behind war’s easy theories and promises, as well as behind the tragic consequences that even, “victory” brings. We therefore call on all like-minded veterans and family members to endorse this statement and support us in our efforts to help avert, mitigate or stop a national tragedy and an international calamity.
…[/quote]It will make sense if Fred Smith argues that many important voices in history amounted to “doing nothing” for the world (for example Ghandi, King, Elsberg), and instead proposes appeasing imperial greed and war (for example Chamberlain).[quote=“Fred Smith”]Today, a new arc of stability and prosperity and increasingly democracy with a strong focus on human rights sweeps from Japan down the eastern seaboard of China and through Southeast Asia (Indonesia remains a weak link) to India and even the Persian Gulf statelets.[/quote]Are you really trying to historically justify the WoT, Afgh., and Iraq as a just method of advancing human rights? It sounds like even if the majority of American voters called on regime change, you are so sadly brainwashed you wouldn’t even ask yourself WHY.