British presence in Iraq 'exacerbates' security problems. Head of British Army



MountainPro

New Member
Aug 11, 2004
3,071
1
38
Britian's military persence in Iraq is making the security situation worse.

"the original intention of invading Iraq was to put a pro-Western liberal democracy in place that "might have a beneficial effect on the balance within the Middle East," Dannatt told the Daily Mail newspaper he did not think "we are going to do that."

bearing in mind that the Iraqis think very highly of the British troops with thier 'hearts and minds' approach and are far more aggressive towards the US's 'shock and awe' approach.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/13102006/323/british-presence-iraq-exacerbates-security-problems-army-head.html
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
55
The Arab World also respects strength and despises weakness. This was why Saddam was idolised in places like Gaza. Don't be fooled. The Iraq War was a mistake but if the Americans and Europeans show themselves to be weak, that weakness will be exploited to the hilt. I often think when you say the Islamic extremists walking shoulder to shoulder in the streets of London with left-wing British pacifists there is a pretty wide gap in the mentalities of the people who are marching. The pacifists believe the Islamicists represent some kind of liberalism and tolerance or resistance towards imperialism. In reality these are, in fact, a highly conservative people who believe in the same death penalty as George Walker Bush and dictatorship in place of democracy. If and when Islam becomes the official religion of the U.K. in 20 - 30 years time, I believe the liberals will be marching to a different tune perhaps.

MountainPro said:
Britian's military persence in Iraq is making the security situation worse.

"the original intention of invading Iraq was to put a pro-Western liberal democracy in place that "might have a beneficial effect on the balance within the Middle East," Dannatt told the Daily Mail newspaper he did not think "we are going to do that."

bearing in mind that the Iraqis think very highly of the British troops with thier 'hearts and minds' approach and are far more aggressive towards the US's 'shock and awe' approach.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/13102006/323/british-presence-iraq-exacerbates-security-problems-army-head.html
 

roadhog

New Member
Feb 13, 2005
272
0
0
MountainPro said:
bearing in mind that the Iraqis think very highly of the British troops with thier 'hearts and minds' approach and are far more aggressive towards the US's 'shock and awe' approach.
You don't say? Have you been in country to ask the Iraqis about this comparison?

Do you think different regions of that country require different approaches?

Are you aware the US practices different policies in different regions?

Are you aware how relatively tranquil the Basrah region is when compared with many other regions?

Do you think the difference in aggressiveness you mention might have something to do with the region?


None of this is to say the US knows the best way to handle this of course. Nor do the British. It's quite obvious that it's a messy situation with no good answer. The US has modified its tactics greatly in different areas. If anybody knew a magic solution, it would be practiced everywhere.

The notion that the British forces have solved the problem with their approach in one relatively small, passive area of the country is an incredibly simplistic view.
 

Wurm

New Member
Aug 6, 2004
2,202
0
0
roadhog said:
Have you been in country to ask the Iraqis about this comparison?

There are plenty of interviews and reports extant that support what MP has posited. Try not to be silly, RH.

roadhog said:
Are you aware the US practices different policies in different regions?

Yes, such as: cluster bombs in the sparse areas, and conventional rounds in the cities?

How many Iraqi innocents did the US military kill and maim again today? How many of the US military were needlessly killed and maimed?

Same as its been for the past 3 1/2 years.

roadhog said:
The US has modified its tactics greatly in different areas.

And how's that - by instead of outright saturation bombing, they now merely kick the doors in on their house-to-house murder sprees?

The infrastructure is not tangibly better (and in many cases worse) than it was in March 2003. Ask Halliburton/KBR what they did with the allocated billions of dollars, because there is little or nothing to show for it.

roadhog said:
If anybody knew a magic solution, it would be practiced everywhere.

Many know a solution, although not much 'magic' is involved: get the hell out of a place you're not welcome in, especially since your presence is causing endless death and misery.
 

Wurm

New Member
Aug 6, 2004
2,202
0
0
MountainPro said:
Britian's military persence in Iraq is making the security situation worse.

At least a few in the upper echelons of your Army are starting to show some integrity, better judgment, and backbone - much more than can be said about the current crop of gutless US Chiefs.

Gen. Dannett's statement shows one of the important differences between the US and Britain. Much of the problem is the character of the American rich - the GOP's core constituency. They are overly impressed with themselves. They imagine that they are the "upper class". They delude themselves by thinking themselves intelligent and citing their wealth in evidence. The nouveau riche are the most egregious offenders, more likely to think their wealth deserved.

The English aristocracy - by contrast - are educated at Cambridge and Oxford. An American Rhodes scholar was impressed with English university life and summed it up this way:

"Three thousand young men, every one of whom would rather lose a game than play it unfairly."

Those are certainly not the values that can be associated with the party that gave this nation a slogan: "Greed is good." They're not the values of a party knee deep in the Savings and Loan scandal, Tom Delay, Enron, Jack Abramoff, and Mark Foley. Those are not the values of the Boeskys, the Helmsleys, Iran/Contra, Watergate, and Iraq-gate.
 

roadhog

New Member
Feb 13, 2005
272
0
0
Wurm said:
There are plenty of interviews and reports extant that support what MP has posited. Try not to be silly, RH.
Dear Wurm,

You have shown in past conversations that you have no interest in genuine participation in an intelligent debate on the sorts of topics I discussed above (not to be confused with the potpourri of topics you tried to bring into it), so please have no surprise if I don't try very hard with you.

MP didn't posit anything. He stated something as fact.

Do you acknowledge no difference between the indigenous situation in Basrah and some other regions of Iraq?

Do you not acknowledge that the situation on the ground is vastly different in various areas of Iraq?

Simple questions. No need to drag Halliburton or Cheney or any of your other favorites into this one. Can you have a discussion without going back to them?

And yes, the US has changed tactics quite drastically and more than once. The British have also changed tactics on occasion. Imagine that.

To support the notion that the US military has not made many changes in an attempt to adapt to various circumstances on the ground is to show ignorance of what is going on over there. The Brits have also adapted. This doesn't mean that anything has been particularly successful. I have never argued as such. If anything, I would argue that our military shouldn't be put in these types of situations to start with, but that's a different conversation.

No need to cut and paste any interviews or such that you might be tempted to collect from your favorite web sites to somehow convince me the US hasn't changed tactics considerably. Forgive me if I trust my own eyes and experience in theater throughout the country to form my own opinion on the topic. And I certainly won't waste my time feeling like I need to prove it to Wurm from cyclingforums.com. I've been to Basrah. And I've been to Baghdad, Ramadi, etc, you name it. In 2003 and recently. There are huge differences that must be confronted with different techniques. To argue otherwise is to not respect the situation enough to be taken seriously.

Now you stop being silly Wurm and perhaps some people will take you seriously.
 

MountainPro

New Member
Aug 11, 2004
3,071
1
38
roadhog said:
You don't say? Have you been in country to ask the Iraqis about this comparison?


None of this is to say the US knows the best way to handle this of course. Nor do the British. It's quite obvious that it's a messy situation with no good answer. The US has modified its tactics greatly in different areas. If anybody knew a magic solution, it would be practiced everywhere.

The notion that the British forces have solved the problem with their approach in one relatively small, passive area of the country is an incredibly simplistic view.
we have reporters to go to Iraq on our behalf so that we dont have to..

i never said that the British have solved any problems that the Americans have created. Forced democracy will never work in Iraq, the same way as forced Islamic ideals will not work on America.

Its time to accept the truth and move on roadhog or you'll be in Iraq to the next 20 years.
 

roadhog

New Member
Feb 13, 2005
272
0
0
MountainPro said:
we have reporters to go to Iraq on our behalf so that we dont have to..

i never said that the British have solved any problems that the Americans have created. Forced democracy will never work in Iraq, the same way as forced Islamic ideals will not work on America.

Its time to accept the truth and move on roadhog or you'll be in Iraq to the next 20 years.
There are currently 9 (nine, no exageration) embedded western reporters in Iraq. All the rest are hiding in the green zone area hotels. Not that I blame them. It's a mess and not safe out there for anybody. But the point remains that there is a lot going on that they aren't seeing first hand. A lot of bad stuff and a lot of slightly better stuff.

What truth do I need to accept? I dare say I've accepted much more than you have over the last few years on this topic. Your post to which I responded clearly implied that the British forces in theater have a much different and more successful approach than US forces in theater - with no regard to differing circumstances. That is the only issue with which I have taken issue in this thread.

So again, what truth do I need to accept? I already believe our nation's leadership has a lot of arrogant pricks in it - and there are plenty in that category in the highest levels of both parties. I already have no faith in our elected leaders to resolve any dispute in a mature manner. I'm not registered with either of our currently-ridiculous major political parties. I already believe a lot of things.

Believe it or not, the US (and British) military doesn't choose where it goes or for how long. We're given a mission and we do the best with what we've got. Our military leaders are obligated to give candid and honest advice to our nations' elected officials (and I too feel that some of our military leaders have failed us in this regard as of late). Beyond that, we are just tools of foreign policy - and that's the way it should be. It's up to the citezenry to force the leaders to make the correct decisions. And it's up to the civilian leaders to provide an atmosphere in which candid advice from the military is tolerated and considered.

So what would you like me to accept MP? Specifically.

Is anyone willing to yet acknowledge that the situation in Basrah is different than elsewhere? Seems a tough question to answer around here.
 

Wurm

New Member
Aug 6, 2004
2,202
0
0
roadhog said:
Dear Wurm,

You have shown in past conversations that you have no interest in genuine participation in an intelligent debate on the sorts of topics I discussed above (not to be confused with the potpourri of topics you tried to bring into it), so please have no surprise if I don't try very hard with you.
I have shown in past conversations that your (or anyone else's) skewing of the facts on the "sort of topics [you] discussed above" is not acceptable in any intelligent or honest debate. IF you are to have an honest, meaningful debate, THEN both sides must start with the relevant facts, not half-truths or conveniently ignored points of fact.

In almost every discussion with you right-wingers here on YBSB, it has been plainly obvious that you'll leave out certain important facts on any given subject - as long as those bypassed truths happen to benefit your supporting the Neo Con regime and their policies/actions.

So please, try to admit not addressing the lies that you and your ilk continuously try to get by on, instead of disguising your disingenuous positions as "intelligent debate". :rolleyes:

roadhog said:
MP didn't posit anything. He stated something as fact.
Are you pretending to be "intelligent", roadhog? I for one am not impressed:

pos‧it  /ˈpɒz
thinsp.png
ɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[poz-it] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object) 1.to place, put, or set. 2.to lay down or assume as a fact or principle; postulate. –noun 3.something that is posited; an assumption; postulate.
Notice definition #2. Yes, MP did "posit" a position. Your attempt to dodge and discredit with semantical hair-splitting didn't work. Well, what else is new with the RW Sheep?

As for the rest of your statement, it seems to me that you're being deliberately vague about the situation "in theater". :rolleyes: IF you had been to Iraq as you claim, AND IF you were to be completely forthcoming and honest about the events there, you would not leave out the observations of the daily slaughter that is taking place by the US and other militaries - unless you simply just happened not to be in a particular area at the time to see it.

You may hope to cover up the actual results of the US occupation by saying merely that they've "changed tactics", but that only shows further disingenuousness and distortion.
Why? Because you are not the only individual that has been to Iraq and reported what they've seen.

The actions (and inactions) of Bremer, Halliburton/KBR, Cheney, Negroponte, et al ARE quite relevant, directly and indirectly, because for one thing, they are collectively responsible for the very bad ongoing infrastructure mess that is currently the reality in Iraq. They took on the job, and thus far have been miserable failures. They HAVE however seen to it that they've PROFITED immensely in financial terms.

Besides the bombing, shooting, and abductions by the US military upon the population of Iraq, the average citizen's plight is extremely exacerbated by the lack of a good water supply, electricity, physical safety, and the rest.

Need proof?:

Robert Greenwald’s latest film, "Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers," has just been released, triggering a mix of praise, outrage and grave concern among concerned Americans across all political and cultural boundaries.


“Iraq for Sale” is a tale of unspeakable greed and fraud, misery and betrayal, and brazen waste of public tax dollars for private enrichment. The film reveals in compelling detail the depth of control corporate war profiteers exert over our elected representatives and the danger these alliances have created for soldiers and innocent civilians.

This is a story you won’t hear or read in America’s mainstream, corporate-sponsored media.

In “Iraq for Sale” Greenwald:

- Interviews soldiers, former private contractor workers, widows and children whose lives have been devastated as a result of profiteering in the reconstruction of Iraq.

- Exposes the price gouging and exorbitant compensation levels of not just Halliburton and its subsidiary, KBR, but also companies like CACI International and Blackwater Security Consulting.

- Reveals the longtime personal connections between executives of these corporations and members of the current administration.

- Details the stories of truck drivers promised they would be kept out of harm's way, only to be forced to drive into battle zones unprotected.

- Takes viewers inside the story of Halliburton’s contract for millions of dollars to purify water -- and how our troops still do not have clean water for things as basic as brushing their teeth or making coffee.

In the true spirit of grassroots support, “Iraq for Sale” was funded entirely outside corporate America. More than 3,000 people donated $367,892 to help Greenwald and Brave New Films produce and distribute this documentary.

This is a film every American should see.
http://iraqforsale.org/buy.php/?track=commondreams

Your (and other's) complaints about my cutting/pasting relevant articles only goes to prove that you can't handle being confronted with the facts as others across the world have found them to be. You would much rather pretend that the case is often different by obscuring the truth.

OTOH, if I didn't offer sources for my information, we would all hear the accusations that I've only "made something up". Well let's be honest about this too: that is a tactic that the Sheep use here, not I.

Deny. Obfuscate. Lie. THAT is why there is no "intelligent debate" possible with the likes of you.


Now if you don't mind, I have a metric to ride today. Perhaps you should do the same?
 

roadhog

New Member
Feb 13, 2005
272
0
0
Wurm,

Congrats on catching me on a definition error. I feel so puny now... You won't hear me ever claim to be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I know I'm no idiot either. Perhaps I should have said that you have shown no ability to have a "mature" debate instead of "intelligent".

Are you even reading my posts? You are comical. Why am I a "RW sheep"? Why am I a "right-winger"? Why have you labeled me a supporter of a "Neo Con Regime"? As far as I can tell, you have done so simply because I happen to serve in our Armed Forces. If that status of mine is enough for you to confidently label me as you have then I don't think we can carry this conversation much further. My service goes beyond this current conflict and has nothing to do with what particular "regime" might be in office at any given time. This is the third administration I have served under in uniform, and there will likely be a couple more after this. I might not even care for them much. Who knows. You talk as though you have access to a person's voting record or something. You might be surprised if you saw mine.

Of course life is horrible in Iraq right now. It's a freakin' mess. And we started it all. Nobody (including you) knows with certainty the best way to end it all. Our presence is not fixing the situation for sure. Our absence will create a different kind of nightmare as well - at least temporarily. So what to do? I'm not so arrogant to pretend I know with certainty what we should be doing. You are as much an arrogant ass as the folks who put us in this mess.

So, does anyone yet acknowledge that Basrah is a quite different situation than other regions?

Oh yeah, and metrics are for wussies. Do a real century or double. (that's a joke, no need to get all worked up about it).
 

Wurm

New Member
Aug 6, 2004
2,202
0
0
roadhog said:
Congrats on catching me on a definition error.
"Definition error"? Not when you tried to embarrass MP so vehemently as if you knew for certain what you were asserting was true. IMO, the best way to handle something like that is to admit you were being an asshole, apologize, then don't do it again in the future.

In fact, that's not a bad prescription for anyone that has supported the regime that's now in power. But that would require some actual character and honestly, along with a lack of insecurity - wouldn't it?

roadhog said:
Why am I a "RW sheep"? Why am I a "right-winger"? Why have you labeled me a supporter of a "Neo Con Regime"?
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

roadhog said:
As far as I can tell, you have done so simply because I happen to serve in our Armed Forces.
My assuming you've been a Repig supporter has nothing to do with your occupation. You keep harping on your enlistment or commission as if your debate position should automatically be given carte blanche, simply because of your occupation. (Similar to cdpatten's try on another thread with the "working-class hero" speech.) It also seems that you're fishing for accolades by harping on your military creds.

I could not care less what your occupation is. If ones job has something to do with the subject - fine, let's hear it. (In your case it may have.) If not, then there is generally no need to bring it up.

I don't become rapturous just because someone waves a uniform or a flag either. I was in the US Army, 1st Cavalry and III Corps in the late 70's/early 80's as an Intelligence Analyst. I got lots of commendations & promotions & special assignments, a good service record, blah, blah. If I can use something that I learned from that job, of course I'll do so. I don't use it simply to get a pat on the back - NOR to gain creedence in an argument when my military experience is not that relevant.

roadhog said:
Nobody (including you) knows with certainty the best way to end it all...You are as much an arrogant ass as the folks who put us in this mess.
Of course nobody knows with certainty. You or I don't know with certainty what's going to happen outside our front doors 30 seconds from now. I never said I knew with certainty about the future of Iraq.

I would say that nobody can predict exactly what will happen should all or most troops be withdrawn. A well-informed and reasonable assessment can be made however and that should be done in a non-partisan way. Most assessments I've seen say Iraq would most likely eventually break up into the 3 main factions, unless a Saddam-like strongman rises, and the Shiites would be the majority.

Those chips will have to fall where they may because the ongoing carnage and wasting more untold billions is not a viable option.

Well, that's just the bunch that Bu$hCo can't handle. They probably would not fork over their oil assets to US Big Oil control. They'd kick the US bases the hell out, so Bu$hCo would not have a launch pad smack in the middle of the Mid East.

THOSE are THE main reasons Bu$hCo does not want to leave Iraq. Has not a thing to do with the other lies they've given as reasons to "stay da course".

Bu$hCo focked it up and they should have known it would come out as it has, but their power & greed lust prevented that.

IMO, Iraq should have been left to the pre-2003 Baathists. Saddam was well-contained with the North & South No-Fly Zones, and his military was weak. There were no WMD's and Bu$hCo knew it. What the people of Iraq were tolerating under Saddam was unfortunate, but since March 2003 it has been far worse for them. In the end, it is their problem to sort out as to who's going to rule, and what form of gov't they'll have. The US or Britain should NOT be nation-building there.



roadhog said:
Oh yeah, and metrics are for wussies. Do a real century or double. (that's a joke, no need to get all worked up about it).
Not worked up at all. I try do 1 to 3 metrics/week in the 3 good seasons, excepting of course weather and circumstances. "Metric" used loosely - anywhere from mid-50's to 70+ miles, so it averages out. Full centuries come when I can get them - 3 this year so far, and I hope 1 more before the snow flies. Rarely do I have time for 5+ hours on the bike. 25-40 milers on days when long isn't possible. :( My weekly average from Jan. 1, 2006 to today is 75.8 miles, so I'm right on track for this year's 4k goal. Double's...when?
 

stevebaby

New Member
Jun 22, 2004
3,515
2
0
roadhog said:
Wurm,

Congrats on catching me on a definition error. I feel so puny now... You won't hear me ever claim to be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I know I'm no idiot either. Perhaps I should have said that you have shown no ability to have a "mature" debate instead of "intelligent".

Are you even reading my posts? You are comical. Why am I a "RW sheep"? Why am I a "right-winger"? Why have you labeled me a supporter of a "Neo Con Regime"? As far as I can tell, you have done so simply because I happen to serve in our Armed Forces. If that status of mine is enough for you to confidently label me as you have then I don't think we can carry this conversation much further. My service goes beyond this current conflict and has nothing to do with what particular "regime" might be in office at any given time. This is the third administration I have served under in uniform, and there will likely be a couple more after this. I might not even care for them much. Who knows. You talk as though you have access to a person's voting record or something. You might be surprised if you saw mine.

Of course life is horrible in Iraq right now. It's a freakin' mess. And we started it all. Nobody (including you) knows with certainty the best way to end it all. Our presence is not fixing the situation for sure. Our absence will create a different kind of nightmare as well - at least temporarily. So what to do? I'm not so arrogant to pretend I know with certainty what we should be doing. You are as much an arrogant ass as the folks who put us in this mess.

So, does anyone yet acknowledge that Basrah is a quite different situation than other regions?

Oh yeah, and metrics are for wussies. Do a real century or double. (that's a joke, no need to get all worked up about it).
I suspect that,as with Australian troops in the same area,the British presence in Basrah is at the request of the British Govt.
A majority of voters in Britain and Australia don't want troops in Iraq at all. If the bodybags start returning to Britain (or Australia) at the same rate as the US,the electoral damage would be far greater than in the US,hence their assignment to less dangerous areas.
The US has been placed between the proverbial "rock and a hard place". The choice is to stay and preside over the current civil war,exacerbated by the presence of Allied troops,or leave the country to its own devices. Either way,the neocons will be rightly condemned but staying in Iraq will give them the military capacity to control Central Asia...at the cost of thousands of lives lost.It's a clusterfuck of truly gigantic proportions.
 

roadhog

New Member
Feb 13, 2005
272
0
0
stevebaby said:
I suspect that,as with Australian troops in the same area,the British presence in Basrah is at the request of the British Govt.
A majority of voters in Britain and Australia don't want troops in Iraq at all. If the bodybags start returning to Britain (or Australia) at the same rate as the US,the electoral damage would be far greater than in the US,hence their assignment to less dangerous areas.
The US has been placed between the proverbial "rock and a hard place". The choice is to stay and preside over the current civil war,exacerbated by the presence of Allied troops,or leave the country to its own devices. Either way,the neocons will be rightly condemned but staying in Iraq will give them the military capacity to control Central Asia...at the cost of thousands of lives lost.It's a clusterfuck of truly gigantic proportions.
No argument here. I agree with pretty much all that.
 

roadhog

New Member
Feb 13, 2005
272
0
0
Wurm said:
"

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

My assuming you've been a Repig supporter has nothing to do with your occupation.
Then what does it have to do with? I sure don't feel like a duck.

Wurm said:
You keep harping on your enlistment or commission as if your debate position should automatically be given carte blanche, simply because of your occupation. (Similar to cdpatten's try on another thread with the "working-class hero" speech.) It also seems that you're fishing for accolades by harping on your military creds.

I could not care less what your occupation is. If ones job has something to do with the subject - fine, let's hear it. (In your case it may have.) If not, then there is generally no need to bring it up.

I don't become rapturous just because someone waves a uniform or a flag either. I was in the US Army, 1st Cavalry and III Corps in the late 70's/early 80's as an Intelligence Analyst. I got lots of commendations & promotions & special assignments, a good service record, blah, blah. If I can use something that I learned from that job, of course I'll do so. I don't use it simply to get a pat on the back - NOR to gain creedence in an argument when my military experience is not that relevant.
I certainly don't want anything in reaction over my occupation - to include the assumption I've earned the labels you pinned me with. I mention it in this thread because it was relevant to the discussion. And you are not the first person to tell me what kind of person I must certainly be to have my occupation. That phenomenon is interesting to me is all, and I sometimes take the opportunity to try to refute it. When I first ran across you on this board a year or so ago, you were very interested in throwing around your own military background, so perhaps we are both guilty.

Wurm said:
Of course nobody knows with certainty. You or I don't know with certainty what's going to happen outside our front doors 30 seconds from now. I never said I knew with certainty about the future of Iraq.

I would say that nobody can predict exactly what will happen should all or most troops be withdrawn. A well-informed and reasonable assessment can be made however and that should be done in a non-partisan way. Most assessments I've seen say Iraq would most likely eventually break up into the 3 main factions, unless a Saddam-like strongman rises, and the Shiites would be the majority.

Those chips will have to fall where they may because the ongoing carnage and wasting more untold billions is not a viable option.

Well, that's just the bunch that Bu$hCo can't handle. They probably would not fork over their oil assets to US Big Oil control. They'd kick the US bases the hell out, so Bu$hCo would not have a launch pad smack in the middle of the Mid East.

THOSE are THE main reasons Bu$hCo does not want to leave Iraq. Has not a thing to do with the other lies they've given as reasons to "stay da course".

Bu$hCo focked it up and they should have known it would come out as it has, but their power & greed lust prevented that.

IMO, Iraq should have been left to the pre-2003 Baathists. Saddam was well-contained with the North & South No-Fly Zones, and his military was weak. There were no WMD's and Bu$hCo knew it. What the people of Iraq were tolerating under Saddam was unfortunate, but since March 2003 it has been far worse for them. In the end, it is their problem to sort out as to who's going to rule, and what form of gov't they'll have. The US or Britain should NOT be nation-building there.
Holy smokes! Somebody mark the calendar! These are perhaps the most mature, thoughtful paragraphs I have ever read from your keyboard. Thank you. I certainly agree with much of it (not all of it 100% but that's cool).

The big problem is that we are currently unable to do anything in a non-partisan way, and for that of course I blame the President. Doesn't matter what party is in power, the President is in charge and sets the tone as to how he expects our elected leaders to behave and cooperate. He ran in 2000 on a platform of bringing folks together. In that respect, we can all agree he has failed miserably.

To watch our current group of leaders, pundits, and party activists (from both sides) in action is like some sort of sideshow. They would rather spit in each other's faces and kick dirt on each other's shoes like kids on a playground than have the courage to face each other and make tough decisions on tough issues. And all this at a time when our soldiers and the good people of Iraq are bleeding on the streets everyday. It's criminal negligence by all parties involved. War is hard work. If you (as a group of elected leaders) are going to get us all involved in it, then you better have the spine to spend a few years making tough, non-partisan, courageous decisions. We've seen none of this. I no longer have the time for 90% of them. My ballot is going to very harsh on many many incumbents.

I also feel strongly that are electorate are asleep at the switch - and it's not necessarily their fault. The sacrificial burden of this conflict has so far lied on a tiny tiny percentage of our population (as well as the future generations to whom we have pushed the financial burden). Our leaders use terms like "the calling of a generation" and "the long war on terror". If those are legit terms, then why don't the resources we're throwing at it reflect those terms? Why haven't we raised taxes to actually pay for the war? Why haven't we increased the size of the military (drastically) in order to wage it? Because we refuse to do those things, it tells me a couple things:
1. Perhaps I can't take a person seriously who uses "a calling of a generation" and the "long war on terror" yet refuses to act accordingly.
2. Our average citizen feels no hardship as a result of this war. I believe they must and should feel significant hardship in time of war. This is the only way that our nation will not be asleep at the switch. And this is the only way they will activate their thought and energy enough to force our leaders to make correct, reasoned decisions. Not enough Americans feel as though they have a stake in this thing. Make them actually pay for it financially (up front - not on credit), and their stake exists immediately.

Just some random thoughts from your local RW sheep.
 

MountainPro

New Member
Aug 11, 2004
3,071
1
38
roadhog said:
Your post to which I responded clearly implied that the British forces in theater have a much different and more successful approach than US forces in theater - with no regard to differing circumstances. That is the only issue with which I have taken issue in this thread.
it depends what you mean by success, i didnt mention success nor did i imply it. My point was that the UK has far greater experience in international conflicts than the US has and a lot of peace keeping and diplomacy experience. The use of words such as 'shock and awe' implies aggression and isnt very subtle. Who exactly were supposed to be shocked and in awe? If you want the natives on your side and get them to trust you and take up your cause of democracy then dont treat them like terrorists.

If you treat them with contempt and agression then its no wonder you are despised.