Get others to help out in Iraq

[Dangermouse]

@Fred Smith

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

We barely have 100, 000 troops.

@fred Smith

Why do I need to be nice? Did your leadership not state that Afghanistan and Iraq were in YOUR interests?

My leadership does not speak for my interests, the same as your leadership seems not to speak for the interests majority of the population of the us.

@fred Smith

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.

Military population. What do you think we are talking about? Kids, grandma’s and grandpa’s?

The UK army has a total of 134,200 personnel while the US army has 1,011,800. So by my reckoning using mental arithmatic is roughly 6% of the total force. The US supplies 12% based on the figures you have provided. Lets not forget that the British contingent was in double figures - the total number I can’t remember and can’t be bothered to research - but it wasn’t near 20 thousand?
I believe 20,000 troops as a ratio would be close to 80% of what the US has provided in manpower given that both armies were the same size. No?

@Fred Smith

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.

Have a look at what our commanders have been saying about why troops moving to Afghanistan would be a good thing. The reasons are for too great to list here. Do your own background reading.

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.

I’m just rebelling against your totally misplaced pride and arrogance in the failure of yet another US led conflict. How dare you accuse me of flaccid nationalism and then compare me to something as insignificant as French opinions about American consumer culture. You’re an idiot.

What notes of frustrated aspirations and humbled dreams resonate from your ruffled pride.

None.

Don’t blame me or the US for your inability to acclimate to global realities.

I’m not. Pretty defensive today, aren’t you Fred?

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.

Swings and roundabouts. It’s the way of the world.

Until then, ta.

Toodle pip.

[fred_smith]

We barely have 100, 000 troops.

And that is my fault because…

My leadership does not speak for my interests, the same as your leadership seems not to speak for the interests majority of the population of the us.

Great. Let me know when we get to the point that representative democracy is geared to allow you and me to make our views known and acted upon by our respective governments.

Military population. What do you think we are talking about? Kids, grandma’s and grandpa’s?

Who the hell can tell? Did you define that?

The UK army has a total of 134,200 personnel while the US army has 1,011,800. So by my reckoning using mental arithmatic is roughly 6% of the total force. The US supplies 12% based on the figures you have provided. Lets not forget that the British contingent was in double figures - the total number I can’t remember and can’t be bothered to research - but it wasn’t near 20 thousand? I believe 20,000 troops as a ratio would be close to 80% of what the US has provided in manpower given that both armies were the same size. No?

You have 7,000 troops in Iraq. The US has 130,000. Your troops are leaving while our numbers are surging. So please explain to me what percentages you would like to use to show the reality as it exists on the ground. I am sure that this will be interesting and what the hell, it is Monday, so entertain me.

Have a look at what our commanders have been saying about why troops moving to Afghanistan would be a good thing. The reasons are for too great to list here. Do your own background reading.

So you cannot give me ONE reason? That would be too much to list? Or say even three of the top reasons that come to mind? I have to do my own background reading to support a point that I was not even making? hahah

I’m just rebelling against your totally misplaced pride and arrogance in the failure of yet another US led conflict.

Where are the other failures? Vietnam? Strange that it is now a closer and closer ally of the US moving toward the same capitalist system that we tried so desperately to preserve? What is misplaced? The pride or the arrogance? And wherein lies the pride? I am merely pointing to the fact that whether your troops stay or leave, they are marginal to the overall strategic success of the effort. They can assist, they can be useful but what they are not is core to this effort.

How dare you accuse me of flaccid nationalism and then compare me to something as insignificant as French opinions about American consumer culture. You’re an idiot.

I thought that would do the trick and, apparently, once again, I am right as always…

I’m not. Pretty defensive today, aren’t you Fred?

How so? Aren’t you the one who was getting all snitty about the perceived lack of respect for your nations efforts in Iraq? I thought that I was clarifying where and how my statements were couched and that your response was therefore inappropriate. I do appreciate any and all efforts made by any and all nations in Iraq BUT they are not central or core to the overall effort. They are merely addons. It would be nice to have more such efforts but… what would lead you to think that I would believe that any nation is capable of or willing to make such an effort?

[GUEST2]

@fred smith

[quote=“Truant”][quote=“fred smith”]“arrogant” and “pushy”

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.”[/quote]

Bush administration deserve a gold medal for arrogance when they decided to go to war despite many countries warning.

So sure of their winning results, so sure of finding WMD, so superior .

[games]

@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.

Personally I prefer a bunch of impotent hippies singing their tralala about “all these nice 3rd world people who only need a helping hand reaching out from them” than George Bush doing the same.

Both rosey-rosey feel-good rehtoric backed up by the desire to be just looooooooved… but the former comes about 3,000 dead U.S. personal cheaper as it seems.

That’s the common denominator I see in you and the hippies. The tralala about “how the poor poor 3rd world plainly deserves our intervention because they are … well … brown people, you know? Oppressed and all … unjustly … you know? Kumbaya.”

Nice try btw to distract how things worked out in India and Japan. Geography is as much your specialty as history, correct? Anything to say about what you base your hippie projections on in case of the Iraqis? Last time I asked (some time ago already but you probably remember) you referred to abra-cadabra. Anything more substential this time or do you again need some limping reference to other places, other times, other societies and other cases?

You cited people were wrong about Asians … anything though you like to tell what makes you right about the Iraqis? And while you are at it how this oversold war fits into this “most good for the greatest number”?

I am impressed though you noticed India worked out okay … for the Indians. What was it again the British got in the end? I mean except the boot?

What’s in for the U.S. in Iraq? Besides your hippy dreams?

[fred_smith]

Bush administration deserve a gold medal for arrogance when they decided to go to war despite many countries warning.

Why was Saddam not a threat? Is that what the debate was about in the UN? No, the French and German governments also believed that Saddam had wmds but did not want to act. They wanted to “talk.”

So sure of their winning results, so sure of finding WMD, so superior .

Knowing that you are French has made it possible for me to appreciate the no-doubt-intended irony of your statement. Les Francaises sont tres drole! Quel amusant!

[fred_smith]

Personally I prefer a bunch of impotent hippies singing their tralala about “all these nice 3rd world people who only need a helping hand reaching out from them” than George Bush doing the same.

So you are saying that we should never help people? that we were wrong to rebuild and protect, say, Germany? When we could have just kept bombing them back to the Stone Age any time they decided to rebuild a city or factory?

Both rosey-rosey feel-good rehtoric backed up by the desire to be just looooooooved… but the former comes about 3,000 dead U.S. personal cheaper as it seems.

Who is asking to be loved? But the one thing that seems to be working out is that these issues are finally being fought where they need to be and that is in the Middle East not in New York or Hamburg.

That’s the common denominator I see in you and the hippies. The tralala about “how the poor poor 3rd world plainly deserves our intervention because they are … well … brown people, you know? Oppressed and all … unjustly … you know? Kumbaya.”

Yes, I can see that you fancy yourself the all-knowing cynic. Great. How’s that posture working out for you?

Nice try btw to distract how things worked out in India and Japan. Geography is as much your specialty as history, correct? Anything to say about what you base your hippie projections on in case of the Iraqis? Last time I asked (some time ago already but you probably remember) you referred to abra-cadabra. Anything more substential this time or do you again need some limping reference to other places, other times, other societies and other cases? You cited people were wrong about the Asians … anything though you like to tell what makes you right about the Iraqis? And while you are at it how this oversold war fits into this “most good for the greatest number”?

You have lost me. I realize that you are no doubt trying to be caustically clever here but I just don’t know what you are after. Care to speak in a bit plainer English. Perhaps, this reads better in German?

I am impressed though you noticed India worked out okay … for the Indians. What was it again the British got in the end? I mean except the boot?

But India is a better place because of the British right? And that is what matters.

What’s in for the U.S. in Iraq? Besides your hippy dreams?

Oil. Lots of it. I bought some oil company shares. I want to retire early, young… is that so wrong?

[games]

@fred smith

No, the French and German governments also believed that Saddam had wmds but did not want to act.

Not to get too personal, but after reading again how much stock you put into what “ze German and le French government” say … is there now any way to disprove you are plain dumb anymore?

[fred_smith]

Not to get too personal, but after reading again how much stock you put into what “ze German and le French government” say … is there now any way to disprove you are plain dumb anymore?

Better get on the global warming thread and share that information with all those who believe that Europe will be leading us to the Promised Land of No Global Warming… and Save the Polar Bears! Cuz they’re cute!

[games]

@fred smith

Better get on the global warming thread and share that information with all those who believe that Europe will be leading us to the Promised Land of No Global Warming… and Save the Polar Bears! Cuz they’re cute!

So in essence we can put you into the same bag as Die Grünen wähler?

Exactly what I am saying all along.

[fred_smith]

So in essence we can put you into the same bag as Die Grünen wähler?

Nein nein, aber der gruenen Mahler ist ausgezeichnet.

[GUEST2]

@fred smith

[quote]Bush administration deserve a gold medal for arrogance when they decided to go to war despite many countries warning.

Why was Saddam not a threat? Is that what the debate was about in the UN? No, the French and German governments also believed that Saddam had wmds but did not want to act. They wanted to “talk.” [/quote]

Oh yes again this “do nothing” thing. I think our governments and the people knew exactly what was awaiting you there and all the very bad consequences we will have to live with in the near future. Not you… because you are too far away.

Saddam was less a threat than the Iranian or Al Qaeda now “playing” in Iraq.

[quote]So sure of their winning results, so sure of finding WMD, so superior

Knowing that you are French has made it possible for me to appreciate the no-doubt-intended irony of your statement. Les Francaises sont tres drole! Quel amusant![/quote]

Glad you appreciated. Well I suppose the Bush administration did learn something from the french. Well done. You beat us in that now.

[cfimages]

@fred smith

[quote]Bush administration deserve a gold medal for arrogance when they decided to go to war despite many countries warning.

Why was Saddam not a threat? Is that what the debate was about in the UN? No, the French and German governments also believed that Saddam had wmds but did not want to act. They wanted to “talk.”

[/quote]

Well, seeing as no WMDs were found, continuing to “talk” would have saved a lot of lives and money. Hell, even giving the IAEA the extra time they asked for to do their inspection work prior to the war could have shown that Saddam had no wmds.

For that matter, if the proposal to lift the sanctions back in the mid 90s after countries such as France and Russia recognised the sanctions weren’t working and were just punishing Iraqi civilains hadn’t been opposed by the US/UK, a lot more lives could have been saved, and there’d have been no “Oil for food” scandals.

[ImaniOU]

@fred smith

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?

Ask the Incas (or the Aztecs for that matter).

Not many people would call the massacre, plundering, destruction, and extinction of an entire culture an “improvement”, per se.

Well, I mean fred smith, excepted of course.

Wait a minute! Now I understand why you’re so positive about what’s happening in Iraq!

Iraqis are the new Incas!

[Dangermouse]

@Fred Smith

You have 7,000 troops in Iraq. The US has 130,000. Your troops are leaving while our numbers are surging. So please explain to me what percentages you would like to use to show the reality as it exists on the ground. I am sure that this will be interesting and what the hell, it is Monday, so entertain me.

Surging? No one except yourself and Bush want to send extra troops to Iraq.
But the point is, the UK has given proportionately the same amount of troops to the conflict as the US has with regards to the size of its army. Now are you going to keep debating this or just keep your damn mouth shut?

@Fred Smith

So you cannot give me ONE reason? That would be too much to list? Or say even three of the top reasons that come to mind? I have to do my own background reading to support a point that I was not even making? hahah

If I was Prime Minister, I would cut off any support for the US altogether. The more I read into the history of Anglo-US relations regarding both conflicts and economy, the more I see that our “special relationship” has been rather one sided. You can stuff your damn war up your own arse as far as I’m concerned, you arrogant fool.

[quote=“Fred Smith”]I am merely pointing to the fact that whether your troops stay or leave, they are marginal to the overall strategic success of the effort. They can assist, they can be useful but what they are not is core to this effort.
[/quote]

Great. Then you won’t mind if we pull out, kick your troops out of the UK and have our airbases back, and also stop all the logistical support that your troops and aircraft need. We might actually be able to save a bit of cash and cut some taxes.

@Fred Smith

How so? Aren’t you the one who was getting all snitty about the perceived lack of respect for your nations efforts in Iraq?

Lack of respect for any assistance the UK gives you, anywhere.

@Fred Smith

I do appreciate any and all efforts made by any and all nations in Iraq BUT they are not central or core to the overall effort.

I can’t remember saying or insinuating that the UK was core to any effort Fred. You seem to be getting yourself all mixed up. But you obviously don’t appreciate anything at all. I can tell by the tone of your bitter posts.

@Fred Smith

They are merely addons.

Great. Then we’ll merely withdraw. I’d like to see my tax pounds spent elsewhere.

@Fred Smith

It would be nice to have more such efforts but… what would lead you to think that I would believe that any nation is capable of or willing to make such an effort?

If you read the news, Fred, even your nation isn’t willing to make the effort anymore.

[Jaboney]

Nice to see that fred’s on the same page as the administration when it comes to drumming up support for its programs.

Funny to read the thread, and older comments like this:[quote="[url=http://tw.forumosa.com/t/iraq-victory-is-not-an-option/35689/14 smith[/url]"]I suggest that the rest of you get on board because your protests are enfeebling and ultimately pointless.[/quote]So much power (well, not fred), such limited success. Allies? New or revitalized institutions? Collective effort? Pooled resources and experience? Nope. Non-existent or wasted. Shot to hell because the petulant drunken cheerleader-wannabe cowboy and his could’ve been contenders/ wannabe heavyweights gotta do it their way and to hell with both the facts, and opinions…no feelings… of others.

Stupid buggers… piss and shit in the garden, then complain that salad just don’t taste right, and wonder why nobody else is coming to dinner.

[Truant]

@Dangermouse

You can stuff your damn war up your own arse as far as I’m concerned, you arrogant fool.

Fred would need to remove his own head from there first…and one of those rubber fists.

[fred_smith]

Oh yes again this “do nothing” thing. I think our governments and the people knew exactly what was awaiting you there and all the very bad consequences we will have to live with in the near future. Not you… because you are too far away.

Yes, only you have the sophistication to understand the “nuances” of the Middle East. No, it was not a question of only awaiting bad consequences. I think that there were other factors at work as well.

Saddam was less a threat than the Iranian or Al Qaeda now “playing” in Iraq.

Really? Please explain this in greater detail. Here’s more rope. Hang yourself.

[fred_smith]

Well, seeing as no WMDs were found, continuing to “talk” would have saved a lot of lives and money.

Perhaps.

Hell, even giving the IAEA the extra time they asked for to do their inspection work prior to the war could have shown that Saddam had no wmds.

Perhaps, but it was up to Saddam to prove that he did not, not for us to prove that he did. He was not compliant with 17 binding UN resolutions. What made you think that he was suddenly going to cooperate?

For that matter, if the proposal to lift the sanctions back in the mid 90s after countries such as France and Russia recognised the sanctions weren’t working and were just punishing Iraqi civilains hadn’t been opposed by the US/UK, a lot more lives could have been saved, and there’d have been no “Oil for food” scandals.

Saddam, according to the Duelfer and Butler reports, had every intention of restarting his wmd programs once sanctions collapsed. How do their findings support your view?

[fred_smith]

Ask the Incas (or the Aztecs for that matter).

Why? What would they tell me?

Not many people would call the massacre, plundering, destruction, and extinction of an entire culture an “improvement”, per se.

So you would have a problem with the fact that both the Aztec and Inca empires were established in exactly the same way and with a great deal more barbarity. Most of the deaths that occurred in Latin America occurred because of small pox and other Western introduced diseases. Given that the numbers of Spanish troops were probably in the range of a few thousand, I would question the ability to engage in widespread massacre. What do you think? I know that the multicultis would like to have us think otherwise, but how many victims of Aztec human sacrifices were there exactly? And how many deaths occurred because of lack of medicine etc.?

Well, I mean fred smith, excepted of course.

Yes, I happen to believe that the Western civilization is a step up on many of the others that preceded it and exist around it. I imagine that given that you as a woman are having a conversation with me as a man as an equal about this subject then you would also subscribe to the view that Western civilization is not a bad thing?

[quote]Wait a minute! Now I understand why you’re so positive about what’s happening in Iraq!

Iraqis are the new Incas![/quote]

Yes, that was so clever and so funny. So droll, so amusing… Of course, when millions of Iraqis were dying because of Saddam’s ruthless regime or because of the corruption of the UN and its corrupt minions, you never said anything. Why was that exactly? Because the brown peoples of the world are allowed to be barbaric but God forbid that a Westerner ever do anything that was less than perfect or it might appear to show a disrespect for “diversity?” I thought that the whole Diversity Industry was so passe? Aren’t we into Global Warming now? Try to keep up with your movements.

[cfimages]

@fred smith

Hell, even giving the IAEA the extra time they asked for to do their inspection work prior to the war could have shown that Saddam had no wmds.

Perhaps, but it was up to Saddam to prove that he did not, not for us to prove that he did. He was not compliant with 17 binding UN resolutions. What made you think that he was suddenly going to cooperate?

How do you prove a negative? The truth was, he did eventually cooperate by letting the IAEA in with the freedom to go anywhere, and they were forced to leave Iraq before they were done so Bush could start his little adventure. Would giving the IAEA the extra few weeks they asked for have been so difficult?