[moodymonster]

The head of the Army is calling for British troops to withdraw from Iraq "soon" or risk catastophic consequences for both Iraq and British society.

In a devastating broadside at Tony Blair's foreign policy, General Sir Richard Dannatt stated explicitly that the continuing presence of British troops "exacerbates the security problems" in Iraq.

In an exclusive interview with the Daily Mail, Sir Richard also warns that a "moral and spiritual vacuum" has opened up in British society, which is allowing Muslim extremists to undermine "our accepted way of life."

The Chief of the General Staff believes that Christian values are under threat in Britain and that continuing to fight in Iraq will only make the situation worse.

His views will send shockwaves through Government.

They are a total repudiation of the Prime Minister, who has repeatedly insisted that British presence in Iraq is morally right and has had no effect on our domestic security.
...

Army chief declares war on Blair: 'We must quit Iraq soon' | the Daily Mail

that'll put the cat among the pigeons.

I think this has been boiling up for some time and the gov't just hasn't listened to the armed forces at all, something had to give.

[Chuckit]

I wish I knew how to quit you, Iraq!

[moodymonster]

could try force quitting...

[Taliesin]

Actually the army-chief of Britain has already backpedalled and said there is no division between him and the government, and that what he said, meant only that the situation in Iraq is bettering, that the iraqis are handling more and more responsibility and therefore soon capable of doing the job on their own...

Taliesin

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Actually the army-chief of Britain has already backpedalled and said there is no division between him and the government, and that what he said, meant only that the situation in Iraq is bettering, that the iraqis are handling more and more responsibility and therefore soon capable of doing the job on their own...

Taliesin

And they say Tony has no power left.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Actually the army-chief of Britain has already backpedalled and said there is no division between him and the government, and that what he said, meant only that the situation in Iraq is bettering, that the iraqis are handling more and more responsibility and therefore soon capable of doing the job on their own...

Taliesin

There is a whole lot of inbetween twixt saying:

"...out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems"

and

"meant only that the situation in Iraq is bettering, that the iraqis are handling more and more responsibility and therefore soon capable of doing the job on their own"

[Dork.]

The real question this guy needs to ask himself is....

Why does he Hate America so much??!!?!?

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by Dannatt

“I have withdrawn none of the comments that I have made. I have given a little more explanation about what I meant by ‘sometime soon’ - that’s not backtracking.”

Army chief: I stand by my call for troops to leave Iraq - Britain - Times Online

[marden]

Ladies and Gents,

There is not a pure Iraq VS America war going on in Iraq, as you might think.

There are hard core islamofascists groups trying to hijack Iraq. We are trying to help the Iraqi people keep them from doing so. No one FORCED the people of Iraq to head out from their apartments and houses and villages and farms to vote in the first free election in their lives. THEY WERE PROUD TO DO IT. What we all wish the moderate Muslims the world over would do...stand up to the islamofascists who are trying to hijack them and their religion, is exactly what we are helping the moderates do in Iraq.

We HAVE to encourage and support moderate Islam and Muslims who will stand up to the violent, terrorist, jihadist, islamofascists. President Bush has NEVER advocated or even suggested anything except that the evil doers are the ones we are at war with. We can not and must not look at all Muslims as the enemy even though all of the evil doers we have seen come from Islamic backgrounds. This is why the war is so difficult in Iraq. We are there to help MODERATE MUSLIMS to defeat and resist JIHADIST MUSLIMS. The jihadist Muslims want the world, especially the U.S. liberal world, to believe we are against ALL Muslims.

That is not the case.

We are risking thousands of our fighting men and spending billions of dollars to help the Iraqi people create a MODERATE MUSLIM nation. If we are unsuccessful it will become an ISLAMOFASCIST nation. In addition to that being bad for western civilization it would mean the death of most of our strongest allies in Iraq. Those who are bravely combatting islamofascists and their death squads would be left defenseless. And anytime in the future if America needs a friend in another land those would-be friends will think about how America leaves it's friends to die and they will refuse. We are helping Muslim civilization to make the change that will prevent a global Holy War that would surely ruin your day.

Those who oppose a moderate Islam also oppose the war.

SUPPORT MODERATE ISLAM.

[Doofy]

These two items he's on about aren't really gelling for me. There's the war thing. Then there's the moral vacuum thing.

The moral vacuum thing is being caused by the left, not by any war. Of course, this moral vacuum is leading some people to convert to islam in an attempt to find some kind of moral base, but it's been going on for a while and it's nowt to do with any war.

[moodymonster]

Soldiers united in praise for general on web forum

The comments from General Sir Richard Dannatt that he wants his forces to leave Iraq sometime soon have met with overwhelming support on the Army Rumour Service website, where officers can air their views anonymously via forums which promote lively debate.

Many express shock about the frankness of his words and there are several references to Sir Richard’s "moral" courage in speaking his mind, as well as calls for the Prime Minister to take heed of his remarks. "I hope Blair is listening," says user "Nigegilb".

"Sir Richard has made the call and said it how it is. Good on him. Stand by for incoming. Getting out of Iraq is essential if [Afghanistan] is going to work in the long run. God knows what will happen to Iraq, not sure it will be any worse though. He made the point that we were never invited in we kicked the door in.

Nigegilb adds: "Can someone close to Sir Richard tell him that if he gets sacked he should run for office against whoever is the PM at the time. He will win by a landslide."

"Sir Richard, I'm saluting you right now!," says Purple_Flash. "It's about time someone of your standing actually lived up the Values & Standards that we so often pay lip service to. They are what should make us a breed apart; thank you for walking the walk rather than talking the talk."
...

Soldiers united in praise for general on web forum - Britain - Times Online

I think it's about time the army had someone in their corner.

[DBursey]

Those who oppose a moderate Islam also oppose the war.

Great non-sequitur Batman!

I would've expected you'd know better.

[marden]

Originally Posted by DBursey

Great non-sequitur Batman!

I would've expected you'd know better.

I maintain that anyone who opposes moderate Islam, an Islam which allows for representative government and man-made laws, opposes the war which is being waged to support moderate Muslims create a moderate government.

Those who oppose the war may have several reasons for their opposition but the net result of a premature withdrawal would be to enable the forces of islamofacsism to defeat moderate Muslims.

[DBursey]

The only people who oppose moderate Islam are the taliban, the wahhabists, al qaeda and various other fundamentalist groups.

So yes, it might follow that they opposed the invasion - but not by your line of reason.

You seem to have conflated opposion to the United States' invasion of Iraq with 'opposing' moderate muslims. This is an utterly ineffectual, fallacious means of advancing the argument. There's no point in playing ball when you toss out the rules.

[Kevin]

Those that want to pull out, also have no plan for what happens to Iraq afterward.

All the know is, they want to pull out!!11

I mean the plan to save Iraq has nothing to do with Bush bashing. So it's irrelevant.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DBursey

The only people who oppose moderate Islam are the taliban, the wahhabists, al qaeda and various other fundamentalist groups.

So yes, it might follow that they opposed the invasion - but not by your line of reason.

You seem to have conflated opposion to The United States' invasion of Iraq with 'opposing' modereate muslim. This is utterly ineffectual, fallacious means of advancing an argument. There's no point in playing ball when you toss out the rules.

Invasion implies we are there to conquer and take over.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Invasion implies we are there to conquer and take over.

Or to topple sovereign governments, set up our own, then count the bags of money coming in.

[olePigeon]

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...ush-predition/

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Dork.

The real question this guy needs to ask himself is....

Why does he Hate America so much??!!?!?

He hates our freedom.

[DLQ2006]

Originally Posted by marden

Ladies and Gents,

There is not a pure Iraq VS America war going on in Iraq, as you might think.

There are hard core islamofascists groups trying to hijack Iraq. We are trying to help the Iraqi people keep them from doing so. No one FORCED the people of Iraq to head out from their apartments and houses and villages and farms to vote in the first free election in their lives. THEY WERE PROUD TO DO IT. What we all wish the moderate Muslims the world over would do...stand up to the islamofascists who are trying to hijack them and their religion, is exactly what we are helping the moderates do in Iraq.

We HAVE to encourage and support moderate Islam and Muslims who will stand up to the violent, terrorist, jihadist, islamofascists. President Bush has NEVER advocated or even suggested anything except that the evil doers are the ones we are at war with. We can not and must not look at all Muslims as the enemy even though all of the evil doers we have seen come from Islamic backgrounds. This is why the war is so difficult in Iraq. We are there to help MODERATE MUSLIMS to defeat and resist JIHADIST MUSLIMS. The jihadist Muslims want the world, especially the U.S. liberal world, to believe we are against ALL Muslims.

That is not the case.

We are risking thousands of our fighting men and spending billions of dollars to help the Iraqi people create a MODERATE MUSLIM nation. If we are unsuccessful it will become an ISLAMOFASCIST nation. In addition to that being bad for western civilization it would mean the death of most of our strongest allies in Iraq. Those who are bravely combatting islamofascists and their death squads would be left defenseless. And anytime in the future if America needs a friend in another land those would-be friends will think about how America leaves it's friends to die and they will refuse. We are helping Muslim civilization to make the change that will prevent a global Holy War that would surely ruin your day.

Those who oppose a moderate Islam also oppose the war.

SUPPORT MODERATE ISLAM.

You make a very good argument. I really hope you are right. I want to believe you are right. If the moderate muslims in Iraq are a very different breed then the "moderate Muslims" in Western Europe and America, then maybe you are right and Iraq is worth saving afterall. I'm not convinced that they want saving or even helped, but maybe I am wrong. I very much hope I am and that you are dead on right because a lot of blood and money has been spent on helping Iraq when we could have flattened everything in sight and let them rebuild themselves.

If Iran ever gets its hands on nuclear weapons and strikes us, will we then invade them in the same way we did Iraq, topple their leadership, and then proceed to build schools and hospitals for 10 years or so while our troops get killed in the process? I don't have a lot of faith in that type of strategy but I hope I'm wrong.

[DLQ2006]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Or to topple sovereign governments, set up our own, then count the bags of money coming in.

"bags of money coming in". We've spent far more on Iraq then we'll ever see come back to us.

[DLQ2006]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Invasion implies we are there to conquer and take over.

I think there is a huge disconnect between what muslim countries think our military could do to them and what they could really do to them if fully unleashed. Our Air Force can do things to other countries that most Americans cannot even conceptualize, much less them be able to. They think that because we invaded by land just to topple Sadam's regime and have then proceeded to rebuild them while our troops get popped off like sitting ducks, that this is the best we've got. No, it's what we do because of our sense of mercy toward enemy nations because we no longer view the poor people of enemy nations as our enemies. There is a limit to that type of mercy and it ends where the human instinct of survival begins. We are fighting Iran in Iraq and if we ever get to the point that we must trade our sense of mercy for our sense of survival, the Muslim world and the entire world will be awakened to what we are really capable of when the political will is there.

Maybe videos like this can reach the terrorists and wanna be terrorists with the explanation that this is a tiny fraction of what we are even allowed to know about our Air Forces capabilities.

Do Something Amazing

[marden]

If Iraq falls to the jihadists these men will be very happy.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by marden

If Iraq falls to the jihadists these men will be very happy.

Photo collages are so much better when you can reuse them to make the same point on multiple occasions

[marden]

Originally Posted by itai195

Photo collages are so much better when you can reuse them to make the same point on multiple occasions

Some people don't read every thread.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by DLQ2006

"bags of money coming in". We've spent far more on Iraq then we'll ever see come back to us.

That doesn't change the premise of this war (or most wars.)

[marden]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

That doesn't change the premise of this war (or most wars.)

What is your position on the war? Should we pull out or continue to help the Iraqi government until they can defend themselves against Iran's insurgents?

[nath]

Originally Posted by marden

What is your position on the war? Should we pull out or continue to help the Iraqi government until they can defend themselves against Iran's insurgents?

Apparently the head of the British Army wants to pull out.

Given that he is in a much better position to make an informed judgement on that decision than you, what do you think of his statement, mojo?

Seriously, I'd really like to know what you think of his opinion. It's something that none of the war-fans who've popped up so far in this thread have cared to address directly, for some reason.

[marden]

Originally Posted by nath

Apparently the head of the British Army wants to pull out.

Given that he is in a much better position to make an informed judgement on that decision than you, what do you think of his statement, mojo?

Seriously, I'd really like to know what you think of his opinion. It's something that none of the war-fans who've popped up so far in this thread have cared to address directly, for some reason.

First thought was that he'd bowed to political pressure from home to pull out. His field assessments might have been 50/50 (we are holding our own - not winning, but not losing) and that his statement was a way to pave the way for his life after retirement or appease a certain segment of the British public.

Then I heard Blair support the statement and the General's clarification that the pull-out should be when the Iraqis are able to stand on their own.

I agree.

[nath]

Originally Posted by marden

Then I heard Blair support the statement and the General's clarification that the pull-out should be when the Iraqis are able to stand on their own.

Sorry, where did you get that from? I haven't seen him say anything about the Iraqis 'standing on their own'. Weirdly, I think you're actually paraphrasing President Bush there, for some reason. (Do correct me if I'm wrong, with the reference to where he said that)

Here are some things he actually did say:

In the Daily Mail interview, Sir Richard, who took on his role in August, said British troops should "get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems".

...planning for what happened after the initial military offensive was "poor, probably based more on optimism than sound planning".

“I have withdrawn none of the comments I have made. I have given a little more explanation about what I meant by ‘some time soon’ — that’s not backtracking.”

There seem to be a few other misconceptions in your post as well...

Originally Posted by marden

First thought was that he'd bowed to political pressure from home to pull out.

Originally Posted by marden

his statement was a way to pave the way for his life after retirement or appease a certain segment of the British public.

He's a high-ranking soldier. He is not subject to political pressure or public appeasement, and is certainly not in a position of having to worry about his post-retirement finances. It's quite amazing that you would suggest these motivations on behalf of such a highly respected military figure.

Originally Posted by marden

His field assessments might have been 50/50 (we are holding our own - not winning, but not losing)

He seems to think that we are losing badly enough that the entire future of the British Army is under threat!

“I am a soldier speaking up for his army. I am just saying, ‘Come on, we can’t be here forever at this level’. I have got an army to look after which is going to be successful in current operations, but I want an army in five, ten years time. Don’t let’s break it on this one.”

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Those that want to pull out, also have no plan for what happens to Iraq afterward.

As opposed to those who wanted to invade Iraq but had no plan for what happened to Iraq afterward?

[moodymonster]

he's looking out for the army - it would seem apparent that military personel speaking out about what is happening is a big no no in the era of political... oops media officers.

The British armed forces are being run into the ground, the government is not listening to the army there the guy is reporting to the gov't's boss - the people.

Malcolm Rifkind seems to be doing the media circuit at the moment and seems to misunderstand the Forces loyalty - they don't swear an oath to the government Their job is not to preserve the gov't of the day at the expense of the country's wider interests.

The general is concerned about the forces - the number of people leaving, the equipment, the money, treatment of wounded soldiers - these are things the gov't is not addressing unless it gets into the public domain.

There is the wider picture of the UK armed forces which are being massively overstretched at the moment - while at the same time cutting troops, cutting funding for projects eg type 45 destroyer to fund service people's tax pay abroad (until now they've paid tax while fighting - gets in the papers, hey presto gov't do something - but keep quiet about where the money comes from).

[moodymonster]

this:

British Army Rumour Service > > Forums > > Current Affairs, News and Analysis

is the thread on the subject from the British Army's unofficial website

by Brandt

AT LAST!!!

After years and years, AT LAST someone at the top, who makes the headline on the news, has had the b@lls to stand up and be counted.

I knew the CGS when he was a Bde commander and was always really straightforward and what he said was always intelligent. I just think he has had enough of politicians raping HIS army, and has decided to do something about it.

If he gets the sack, watch out for fireworks- If he has had the balls to stand up for us, we should do the same.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by nath

He's a high-ranking soldier. He is not subject to political pressure or public appeasement, and is certainly not in a position of having to worry about his post-retirement finances. It's quite amazing that you would suggest these motivations on behalf of such a highly respected military figure.

He's a high-ranking soldier in a position to really understand the military situation in Iraq and he's calling for the army to pull out of Iraq; his motivations must be suspect (enter standard political/book promotion straw man here).

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by marden

What is your position on the war? Should we pull out or continue to help the Iraqi government until they can defend themselves against Iran's insurgents?

That's a very difficult question for someone who opposed the occupation in the first place. It would depend on two things:

1. If the U.S. is pretty much the only country funding operations in Iraq and everyone else significant has pulled out, then we need to pull out. We can not support this war by ourselves.

2. If by some miracle we can get real international cooperation, then I think we need to fight it out and help the new government. This poses a conundrum because a lot of the current violence in the country is in opposition to our presence. This would require some sort of resolution or promise that the U.S. and coalition forces will leave after a specific date when its done with.

[marden]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

That's a very difficult question for someone who opposed the occupation in the first place. It would depend on two things:

1. If the U.S. is pretty much the only country funding operations in Iraq and everyone else significant has pulled out, then we need to pull out. We can not support this war by ourselves.

2. If by some miracle we can get real international cooperation, then I think we need to fight it out and help the new government. This poses a conundrum because a lot of the current violence in the country is in opposition to our presence. This would require some sort of resolution or promise that the U.S. and coalition forces will leave after a specific date when its done with.

We aren't the only country providing financial support.

[DBursey]

Exactly. There's also the significant contributions from the south pacific nation of Pongo Pongo.

In Seven Questions: What's Next for Iraq, author Nir Rosen gives his take on the sectarian tensions fueling violence throughout most of Iraq. He paints a grim picture on prospects for a unity government, as per this excerpt:

FOREIGN POLICY: What does the current stalemate over the appointment of a prime minister say about the political process in Iraq, and whether the tensions on the ground can be discussed and eased at a political level?

Nir Rosen: I think it shows just once more that events inside the Green Zone have really no relation to what happens on the street in Iraq. They are bickering among themselves about how to create a government. But outside the Green Zone, they wouldn’t last a minute, not one of these leaders, they would immediately be killed. Events inside the zone have been a big theater: What it does show is that they can’t even cooperate at a political level. Meanwhile, their militias are already fighting each other, whether they are Kurdish, Shia, or Sunni. It shows there is no hope of any political rapprochement. Not that that would have an impact on the ground, because on the ground it is the militia leaders who are in charge. Every neighborhood has its own little army, every mosque has its own little army, that’s where the power lies in Iraq, with the guys with the guns on the street.

Rosen is a freelance writer, photographer and film-maker who has worked in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and other popular tourist destinations. He's not a military expert, but he's observed conditions on the ground and his thoughts IMHO deserve some consideration.

[marden]

Seven Questions: What Next for Iraq?
Page 1 of 1

Posted March 2006

FP: You favor a withdrawal of U.S. forces. Wouldn’t a withdrawal empower Islamist extremists and result in even greater bloodshed?

NR: Islamic extremists took over the country on April 9, 2003. The U.S. military was present, but it wasn’t in control. The vacuum we created by dissolving the security forces immediately led to clerics and tribal leaders taking over—the most reactionary, conservative forces of Iraqi society. The country hasn’t recovered from that. The looting contributed as well, there was no Iraqi infrastructure left, there were only clerics controlling various neighborhoods, both Shia and Sunni. And one of the reasons why Washington resisted Iraqi calls for elections in the spring of 2003 was because it was afraid that clerics and tribal leaders would win the elections. In fact, they both took over in January 2005. So we basically had almost two years of destruction for nothing. At this point, U.S. forces perhaps control whatever military base they’re on, but when it comes to ruling Iraq, the clerics are in control

The point he makes here bears serious consideration, too.

The U.S. military was present, but it wasn’t in control. The vacuum we created by dissolving the security forces immediately led to clerics and tribal leaders taking over—the most reactionary, conservative forces of Iraqi society. The country hasn’t recovered from that.

In the absence of a strong US opposition to Islamic extremists in Iraq the campaign and the war was made more protracted, more difficult, more costly in lives and $$$.

This suggests we should never allow Islamic extremists get the advantage.

When conservative politicians talk about continuing the war it is because if the Islamic extremists gain control of Iraq there might be an advantage they would gain in the region from the Mediterranean to the Philippines where a new Caliphate might be impossible to resist.

If we can't or won't stop them in Iraq the challenge will grow exponentially.

If we can't or won't stop them now, what would we do then?

[DBursey]

The gist of the article relates to there being no effective control in Iraq at present . The situation you seem to fear most already exists, in other words. There is no 'coalition' or central control outside the green zone.

What's more, the roots of what is largely sectarian conflict are more complex than some might want to paint with continual usage of such reductivist phrases as Islamic extremist. Much of this idea creates a convenient strawman that obfuscates the real picture.

[marden]

Originally Posted by DBursey

The gist of the article relates to there being no effective control in Iraq at present . The situation you seem to fear most already exists, in other words. There is no 'coalition' or central control outside the green zone.

What's more, the roots of what is largely sectarian conflict are more complex than some might want to paint with continual usage of such reductivist phrases as Islamic extremist. Much of this idea creates a convenient strawman that obfuscates the real picture.

In a word: no.

If one were to have looked at the military situation at Bastogne at Christmas time 1944 things looked bleak for the U.S. 101st Airborne. There was no way you could have predicted that the huge German counteroffensive designed to stop the Allied push toward Berlin wasn't going to overrun them and lead to a German resurgence throughout Europe.

But they were reinforced by Gen. Patton's forces after a record breaking drive and victory was snatched from the mouth of defeat.

I remind you of that because there is a way back from whatever position we are in. But unless we are there to help the Iraqis as THEY see fit the whole issue is left to the Islamic extremists to decide. (If our presence is counterproductive to the Iraqi government's efforts THEY would tell us in a quick Mosul minute!)

If the battling bastards of Bastogne had given up when presented the opportunity by the Nazi commander there would have been untold losses of men, time, and civilian lives. The war might have gone on longer. We might have had to drop the A-Bomb on Europe. Who knows?

What's more, the roots of what is largely sectarian conflict are more complex than some might want to paint with continual usage of such reductivist phrases as Islamic extremist. Much of this idea creates a convenient strawman that obfuscates the real picture.

So, why don't you paint the TRUE picture and please don't forget to tell us how you come by this info, ok?

[DBursey]

I think analogies to conventional warfare are all but useless in this kind of conflict. I don't consider the above to stand well at all in terms of the respective geopolitics.

So, why don't you paint the TRUE picture and please don't forget to tell us how you come by this info, ok?

I've more than painted a picture for you through my recent posts and links. I 'come by' my thoughts honestly, through digestion of various media and in discourse with others. I usually preface my opinions with the acronym IMO which stands for in my opinion.

At times you seem to engage on the opinion of others, but all too often you drop back reflexively to metaphor, anecdote and analogy that relates at best tangentially to reality as I perceive it.

Inasmuch as you disagree, why don't you build us your own scenario that doesn't relate to the status quo, which I believe we both concur is not conducive to the stated goals in Iraq. And please, lets leave Gen. Patton out of it, okay?

[marden]

Originally Posted by DBursey

I think analogies to conventional warfare are all but useless in this kind of conflict. I don't consider the above to stand well at all in terms of the respective geopolitics.

I've more than painted a picture for you through my recent posts and links. I 'come by' my thoughts honestly, through digestion of various media and in discourse with others. I usually preface my opinions with the acronym IMO which stands for in my opinion.

At times you seem to engage on the opinion of others, but all too often you drop back reflexively to metaphor, anecdote and analogy that relates at best tangentially to reality as I perceive it.

Inasmuch as you disagree, why don't you build us your own scenario that doesn't relate to the status quo, which I believe we both concur is not conducive to the stated goals in Iraq. And please, lets leave Gen. Patton out of it, okay?

If the Bush bashers and war critics of all stripes can call Bush a modern day Hitler or say that Bush was behind some crazy 9/11 conspiracy and if the protesters can use Vietnam era protests to create Vietnam war results (i.e. cut N run) then I'll use any friggin analogy I want.

If every war is going to be like Vietnam in your mindsets just think of what a nightmare you could have made out of WWII! You present day war critics surely could have used these same tactics you have used since 2003 to lose that war for us and have America kissing Hitler & Tojo's asses in no time flat!

I have said it before and I'll say it again.

We need to stay steadfast and strong and continue opposing Iran's jihadists and other Islamic extremists who wish to add Iraq to the growing Islamic extremist Caliphate in the Middle East.

Once the Iraqi government is able to stand on it's own then we should pull out.

And if we leave and the anti-government insurgents increase in number and increase their attacks we should urge Stormin Norman Schwarzkopf out of retirement and have him lead a full scale war on Iraq AND Iran and to hell with the consequences.

[DBursey]

Yes, yes, steadfast and strong. Keep the homefires burning.

f the Bush bashers and war critics of all stripes can call Bush a modern day Hitler or say that Bush was behind some crazy 9/11 conspiracy and if the protesters can use Vietnam era protests to create Vietnam war results (i.e. cut N run) then I'll use any friggin analogy I want.

Then you're applying inappropriately broad strokes as pertains your discussion with yours truly. I'm invoking Godwin's law and taking my leave of your foolish hysterics.

[marden]

Originally Posted by DBursey

Yes, yes, steadfast and strong. Keep the homefires burning.

Then you're applying inappropriately broad strokes as pertains your discussion with yours truly. I'm invoking Godwin's law and taking my leave of your foolish hysterics.

You don't invoke it when your brethren call him Hitler, do you?

[DBursey]

I've never referred to anyone as such in a public post. Further, I resent any implied 'brethrenhood' with your idiotic strawman as might fabricate the type of egregious foolishness you're describing and indulging in.

At times you're clever, most times you try too hard to personally insult your colleagues on this board. I view your sticks and stones baiting as narrow-minded and manipulative. A fools refuge if ever there was one.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Or to topple sovereign governments, set up our own, then count the bags of money coming in.

Hyperbole.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DBursey

Then you're applying inappropriately broad strokes as pertains your discussion with yours truly. I'm invoking Godwin's law and taking my leave of your foolish hysterics.

Um he wasn't making a comparison to Hitler. He was speaking about those who do.

Invoking revoked.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Iraq's Dark Day of Reckoning

President Bush says that if America leaves Iraq now, the violence will get worse, and terrorists could take control. He's right. But that will be true whenever we leave. "Staying the course" only delays that day of reckoning. To be fair, however, Bush has now defined the only realistic goal left for America's mission in Iraq: not achieving success but limiting failure.

The latest article by Fareed Zakaria - the author of The Rise of Illiberal Democracy, an article (btw) I posted last year that seemed to shape abe's vision of long-term US involvment and democratic process in Iraq. Earlier this year Zakaria did show a rather optimistic outlook on the Iraqi government and the work of its members, despite his criticism of how the war was initially handled by the US; but the events since then seem to have led him to the conclusion that the Iraqi war us fast becoming a lost cause.

greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by DBursey

egregious

You know, I just love this word. I don't know why, but I do. Say it: e-GREE-jus. So good!

greg

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Um he wasn't making a comparison to Hitler. He was speaking about those who do.

Invoking revoked.

He was claiming that DBursey's "brethren" did so, painting him into a corner with them.

Reading comprehension deficit called, and notice of Godwin ad-hominem reinstated.

End of message.