American Warship threatens to open fire on unarmed civilian ship....in SCOTLAND!

[limerickman]

all the more reason for the US to stay and-- if needed-- take over the government ourselves.
.

You said that you won the war - in Iraq - within two weeks.

You didn't win any war, mate.
That's why the body bags continue to come home to the USA.

We stay so we can stop this sectarian ****. And the only thing this proves is that we turned over sovereignty way too soon.

Stop the sectarian ****? The head of the British Armedd forces says that your presence in Iraq fuels the violence.
I think the verdict of the Head of British Armed forces has more insight than you do, mate.

 

[thebluetrain]

You said that you won the war - in Iraq - within two weeks.

You didn't win any war, mate.

No, we did win the war. It was pretty much over before it began, matey.

 

[limerickman]

No, we did win the war. It was pretty much over before it began, matey.

You tell that to the families who received 100+ body bags in October 2006.

Not to mention the families of the 650,000 people who have perished in Iraq since March 2003.

 

[Wurm]

Yep, the Coalition "won" the war alright. That's why they can't drive outside of the Green Zone without getting shot at/blown up.

Real "winners".

How incredibly stupid or delusional must one be to believe that the US/Britain "won" this travesty?

 

[wolfix]

The word "win/won" should never be used in war. However, what is in place in Iraq is the chance for a democratic process, something they never had before. Time will tell if we "won" this chance for the Iraqi people.

 

[wolfix]

Yep, the Coalition "won" the war alright. That's why they can't drive outside of the Green Zone without getting shot at/blown up.

I have to point out that the allies were victorious in WW2. And yet US/British troops were not allowd outside Berlin , even in another allied country.

 

[limerickman]

The word "win/won" should never be used in war. However, what is in place in Iraq is the chance for a democratic process, something they never had before. Time will tell if we "won" this chance for the Iraqi people.

What's in place now in Iraq is dreadful.

The removal of Saddam and his regime has left Iraqi's in a worse situation than before.

Iraq is occupied by a foreigners (Britain/USA).
Iraq is occupied by foreign insurgents (disaffected Al Qaeda from other countries).
And the removal of the Saddam regime has unleashed the decades old tensions that existed following the cobbling together of a country (Iraq) by the former British imperial power back in the 1920's.
Iraq is slowly being "balkanised"

 

[slovakguy]

You said that you won the war - in Iraq - within two weeks.

You didn't win any war, mate.

No, we did win the war. It was pretty much over before it began, matey.

sounding like that blowhard o'reilly with this one. i just read an op-ed piece by him where he claims that he, unlike the liberals in the entertainment industry longs for a u.s. victory in iraq [um, "mission accomplished" on a big banner on a very big boat]. just a bit of a quibble here with the new right anti-intellectuals but weren't we fighting for an iraqi victory? or has the white house changed the rules again?

 

[davidmc]

What's in place now in Iraq is dreadful.

The removal of Saddam and his regime has left Iraqi's in a worse situation than before.

Iraq is occupied by a foreigners (Britain/USA).
Iraq is occupied by foreign insurgents (disaffected Al Qaeda from other countries).
And the removal of the Saddam regime has unleashed the decades old tensions that existed following the cobbling together of a country (Iraq) by the former British imperial power back in the 1920's.
Iraq is slowly being "balkanised"

You're not proposing that we would've been served better by just "waiting him out" As you know, i'm a liberal progressive but, conservative, to an extent, on foreign policy. The guy was a joke and he lobbed missiles at Israel, among other atrocities. Do you think that it would've cost less to deal w/ him in the future

 

[limerickman]

You're not proposing that we would've been served better by just "waiting him out" As you know, i'm a liberal progressive but, conservative, to an extent, on foreign policy. The guy was a joke and he lobbed missiles at Israel, among other atrocities. Do you think that it would've cost less to deal w/ him in the future

Let's look at Saddam : he was backed as a strongman in 1979 by "the West".
If "the west" hadn't have backed him we wouldn't have been where we are today.

When Saddam was cornered after the first Gulf War : "the West" refused to remove him from power in 1991 when he was at his weakest.

It seems to me that "the West's" policy toward Saddam has been expendient.
He gets US backing in 1979/80 after he starts a war with Iran (the olde "my enemies, enemy..." strategy).
It should be noted that your country's State Dept's list of Nations Supporting Terrorism - has only ever removed one country from that list : Iraq in 1982.

I do know that the strategy that helped keep Saddam in power is that same strategy that chose to remove him from power. Expediency.

And I am sure that your country and the Brits will come up with another expedient strategy now that they realise that Iraq is in a dreadful situation.
It's even been mooted that Iraq needs a "strongman" to keep Iraq together.
But wasn't Saddam referred to as a strongman in 1979..................

How ironic.

 

[Colorado Ryder]

It should be noted that your country's State Dept's list of Nations Supporting Terrorism - has only ever removed one country from that list : Iraq in 1982.

It should be noted that Limerickman is incorrect.

 

[davidmc]

And I am sure that your country and the Brits will come up with another expedient strategy now that they realise that Iraq is in a dreadful situation.
It's even been mooted that Iraq needs a "strongman" to keep Iraq together.
But wasn't Saddam referred to as a strongman in 1979..................

How ironic.

Correct. The League of Nations (Europe) drew out the borders on a table. The U.S. used them as a middle man in one of our super-power proxy wars against Iran much like we supported the muhajadeen against the, then, soviets. What I'm saying, all of that aside, is that he would've had to been dealt w/ eventually. Why not now

 

[Colorado Ryder]

It should be noted that your country's State Dept's list of Nations Supporting Terrorism - has only ever removed one country from that list : Iraq in 1982.

I should be noted that Limerickman didn't know that Libya was a country.

 

[limerickman]

Correct. The League of Nations (Europe) drew out the borders on a table. The U.S. used them as a middle man in one of our super-power proxy wars against Iran much like we supported the muhajadeen against the, then, soviets. What I'm saying, all of that aside, is that he would've had to been dealt w/ eventually. Why not now

But why set all of that aside ?

I hear the question that you're asking and I can see why you're asking the question. But.

Saddam should have been dealt with 1979 or 1991.
Dealing with Saddam in 2003 - twenty one years after your country's State Dept took Iraq off it's list of States Supporting Terrorism - was a case of expedience.

And in terms of the League of Nations decision in 1920 to create Iraq : your country was party to that decision, as well as Europe.

 

[davidmc]

But why set all of that aside ?

I hear the question that you're asking and I can see why you're asking the question. But.

Saddam should have been dealt with 1979 or 1991.
Dealing with Saddam in 2003 - twenty one years after your country's State Dept took Iraq off it's list of States Supporting Terrorism - was a case of expedience.

Point well taken.

 

[limerickman]

Point well taken.

According to the weekend papers, it looks like a possible "solution" to Iraq's situation is for a strongman to be allowed takeover in order to keep Iraq together.

I don't know what is the solution : Saddam was an evil dictator who slaughtered thousands.

 

[davidmc]

According to the weekend papers, it looks like a possible "solution" to Iraq's situation is for a strongman to be allowed takeover in order to keep Iraq together.

I don't know what is the solution : Saddam was an evil dictator who slaughtered thousands.

just desserts

 

[Wurm]

IMO, the US & Britain will not leave Iraq or A'stan until their oil & gas is gone - there is too much fuel in Iraq and the Caspian to give up. We are nearly at peak oil extraction now, (85M bbl/day vs. 94M bbl. max production).

 

[davidmc]

Slightly off topic but here is a joke for MountainPro:

A guy walks into a Glasgow library and says to the prim librarian,

"Excuse me Miss, day ye hiv ony books on suicide?"

To which she stops doing her tasks, looks at him over the top of her glasses, and says,

"F*** off, ye'll no bring it back!"

 

[limerickman]

LOL @ "Howard "the scream" Dean.
Have you seen Dave Chappelle's impersonation of Howard Dean? Its hilarious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8vLVJVyVmA

Byaaah!

Howard Dean.

Dean managed the 2006 Democratic mid-term election campaign, oui ?

Dean seems like a capable guy - judging by yesterday latest debacle.