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.
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?
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.
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.
None.
I’m not. Pretty defensive today, aren’t you Fred?
Swings and roundabouts. It’s the way of the world.
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.
Who the hell can tell? Did you define that?
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.
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
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.
I thought that would do the trick and, apparently, once again, I am right as always…
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?
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?
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.”
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!
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?
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.
Yes, I can see that you fancy yourself the all-knowing cynic. Great. How’s that posture working out for you?
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?
But India is a better place because of the British right? And that is what matters.
Oil. Lots of it. I bought some oil company shares. I want to retire early, young… is that so wrong?
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!
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.
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.
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?
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.
Lack of respect for any assistance the UK gives you, anywhere.
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.
Great. Then we’ll merely withdraw. I’d like to see my tax pounds spent elsewhere.
If you read the news, Fred, even your nation isn’t willing to make the effort anymore.
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.
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.
Really? Please explain this in greater detail. Here’s more rope. Hang yourself.
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?
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?
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.?
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.
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?
