Bush and Vietnam

Originally posted by Merk

I don't follow. That answer would imply a running total. As in one single total, where's the second come in? Is this the second highest daily total? Monthly total? Weekly total? Second largest single attack?

I'm not quite sure what you find so unusual about that, Merk: monthly totals of casualties have been the norm since the beginning of the occupation. This refers to the second highest monthly tally since the Surge began. If you want the latest figures, they're available on the BBC as well as any number of other mainstream sites:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6928586.stm

I don't think you can characterize this as hot war in the precise sense of the occupiers having a single enemy with clear and distinct aims and objectives and a discrete force. You can't win because there are no
convincing mission objectives other than a vague aspiration by Bush to build a nation whilst simultaneously humiliating it with wave after wave of foreign troops, alienating its assets without the consent of its elected institutions and consistently undermining its current Prime Minister, who is looking nearly as weak as Hamid Karzai as a result. Maybe he's crap and maybe he isn't, but contrary to what Bush and Petraeus think, it really isn't any of our business: we're not Iraqi.

Originally posted by Amaurote
I'm not quite sure what you find so unusual about that, Merk: monthly totals of casualties have been the norm since the beginning of the occupation. This refers to the second highest monthly tally since the Surge began. If you want the latest figures, they're available on the BBC as well as any number of other mainstream sites:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi ...[text shortened]... y to what Bush and Petraeus think, it really isn't any of our business: we're not Iraqi.

Second highest monthly total since the Surge began?

I haven't been following this thread, but I wonder what argument that fact could possibly support.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Second highest monthly total since the Surge began?

I haven't been following this thread, but I wonder what argument that fact could possibly support.

You do realize this Surge has been running for nearly eight months, right?


PS: Another reason for not supporting the continued occupation is the previous good sense of one of its chief instigators:

http://www.youtube.com/v/6BEsZMvrq-I&

Originally posted by Amaurote
I'm not quite sure what you find so unusual about that, Merk: monthly totals of casualties have been the norm since the beginning of the occupation. This refers to the second highest monthly tally since the Surge began. If you want the latest figures, they're available on the BBC as well as any number of other mainstream sites:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi ...[text shortened]... y to what Bush and Petraeus think, it really isn't any of our business: we're not Iraqi.

Thanks for clearing that up.

You are correct about us not being Iraqi, but that's about it. We aren't Japenese or German or South Korean either, but that didn't stop the world from stepping up and helping those people build a country and real government. You're attitude is isolationist and, in time, will get you an enemy at your gates every single time.

I will agree that going into Iraq was a bad idea and created huge problems. I will also agree that much of the administration were out to lunch when consideration the difficulties of post invasion. The least they could have done is tell the country that there's a good chance that it will take several decades. What I don't agree with, is pulling out. The objectives are clear, I don't know where you get that they aren't. How to accomplish the objects are what isn't clear. There was no clear plan for settlling the west either, but it got done. And guess why? Because nations didn't run and hide the when they took some casualtys. Sure, Iraq is a quagmire, but so is Los Angeles. I don't hear anybody saying, "L.A. can't be pacified! California is lost! Pull the cops out!"

I would stay in Iraq if for no other reason other than geography.

Originally posted by Amaurote
You do realize this Surge has been running for nearly eight months, right?


PS: Another reason for not supporting the continued occupation is the previous good sense of one of its chief instigators:

http://www.youtube.com/v/6BEsZMvrq-I&

The Surge (if there ever was anything overrated, its the surge, by the way) has only been in place since earlier this summer. You're counting troop build up time.

Originally posted by Merk
The reason there is no clear plan for Iraq because one cannot possibly exist. The situation is far too unstable. There are to many players involved and too many separate goals. The reason vo one has ever heard of a solid plan for Iraq is because one cannot be created.

So no plan can exist..agreed.

As mentioned its a lose / lose situation which was created by him directly....to compare it to Vietam withdraw is a tad hypocritcal as everyday more and more innocent people do die whiile troops are their....so either way people will did.

I just would have thought that as the leader of the current most powerful nation, then he would at least have been advised a bit better....at the moment it just looks like a muppet show

Originally posted by knightwest
Incidentally, it is my opinion that the British went into Iraq with the US. To even consider a withdrawal know is wrong. In together, out together, the rest is disgusting politics and currying of public favour. Our previous PM was oh so very good at that, and it looks like our new one is good at it too.

Fair enough...but two wrongs don't make a right, if one person walks into a fire, does not mean that Britain should also,

You know that the majorty of the popluation disagree with the war and do not like the idea that the UK is becoming the "lap dog" of the US.

Uk should do wants right and leave, consdering they have been already critished by the US for "being too soft" and the British army is becoming over used as mentioned recently by a general on the weekend

At the end of the day, the Talaban / Saddam or whoever is the new "enemy", did not attack the UK before the start of the conflicts in Iraq / Afganistan.

Originally posted by Merk
Thanks for clearing that up.

You are correct about us not being Iraqi, but that's about it. We aren't Japenese or German or South Korean either, but that didn't stop the world from stepping up and helping those people build a country and real government. You're attitude is isolationist and, in time, will get you an enemy at your gates every single time.

ops out!"

I would stay in Iraq if for no other reason other than geography.

"I would stay in Iraq if for no other reason other than geography."....spoken like a true imperlist.

Well done mate......one day you might understand that people have a right not to be occupeded, where are you from again...the land of the free right ?

Originally posted by RSMA1234
Fair enough...but two wrongs don't make a right, if one person walks into a fire, does not mean that Britain should also,

You know that the majorty of the popluation disagree with the war and do not like the idea that the UK is becoming the "lap dog" of the US.

Uk should do wants right and leave, consdering they have been already critished by the US ...[text shortened]... ew "enemy", did not attack the UK before the start of the conflicts in Iraq / Afganistan.

To use your burning house analogy, the UK was involved in setting the house on fire. To now want to wash their hands of it is unacceptable.

Furthermore, I am always suspicious of the so called majority. In many cases (anti war sentiment, Fox hunting) the so called majority is actually a very vocal minority.
1 million (allegedly) marched on Whitehall against the war, what were the other 65 million or so doing?

You are aware that troops will never be withdrawn home to Britain, the debate currently is if they should abandon their responsibilities in Basra and be re-deployed in Afghanistan.

Originally posted by RSMA1234
"I would stay in Iraq if for no other reason other than geography."....spoken like a true imperlist.

Well done mate......one day you might understand that people have a right not to be occupeded, where are you from again...the land of the free right ?

Then they will surely be just as upset when Iranian and Saudi tanks carve up Baghdad.

Originally posted by knightwest
To use your burning house analogy, the UK was involved in setting the house on fire. To now want to wash their hands of it is unacceptable.

Furthermore, I am always suspicious of the so called majority. In many cases (anti war sentiment, Fox hunting) the so called majority is actually a very vocal minority.
1 million (allegedly) marched on Whitehall a ...[text shortened]... tly is if they should abandon their responsibilities in Basra and be re-deployed in Afghanistan.

I beg to differ, troops are already moving from Basra, why is that then ? They are moving to the airport and what happens at the airport...

So I would say they are washing their hands slowly and will abandon the reponsibilites to a nation that is now in a vastly worse state then before when Saddam in power

British troops have no real control of Basra, its a bit like a fireman going to put out a house fire (that he started) and actually increasing the size of it.

Sometimes its better to let the fire burn out by itself and not add to it. It is after all, the Iraq's peoples country and they donlt want the British or US forces their.

Also remind me why British troops are in Afganistan again ? I seem to have forgotten that one

Do you actually talk to people in London ?

I mean honestly how many people have you spoken to that have said its a "great idea", "sure leads keep our troops their", "I know that we went to war on a false premise, destroyed their nation, but we should stay their...should we not chaps"

So many people from all races / background are against the war. I really think you are in denile, so be as suspicious as you wish, the majority are against it.

As for the other 65 million, maybe they where at the pub, playing football, shagging who knows, but fox hunting and anti-war sentiments are vastly different, apples and pears

Originally posted by RSMA1234
"I would stay in Iraq if for no other reason other than geography."....spoken like a true imperlist.

Well done mate......one day you might understand that people have a right not to be occupeded, where are you from again...the land of the free right ?

Well, the Caliphate has been trying to occupy my country for decades, so I fugure occupting Babylon is just turnabout.

Lest we forget, we'll likely never see eye to eye on this, we're on different sides of this arguement. I'm not a member of the Caliphate, you are. At least until they decide that you're not Muslim enough because you're not barbaric.

Originally posted by knightwest
Then they will surely be just as upset when Iranian and Saudi tanks carve up Baghdad.

Are you just being a moron for the sake if it..... ?

Of course if any nation invades and destroyes the country, the people will not like it.

Originally posted by Merk
Well, the Caliphate has been trying to occupy my country for decades, so I fugure occupting Babylon is just turnabout.

Lest we forget, we'll likely never see eye to eye on this, we're on different sides of this arguement. I'm not a member of the Caliphate, you are. At least until they decide that you're not Muslim enough because you're not barbaric.

Do you evern understand the concept ?

I don't think you do imperlist one. I and think it would be a waste of my time to explain.

So yes, lets agree to differ

Originally posted by RSMA1234
Do you evern understand the concept ?

I don't think you do imperlist one. I and think it would be a waste of my time to explain.

So yes, lets agree to differ

I understand it as it is currently being desired and pushed for. I'm not handicapped by my skeewed vision of Islam as the Religion of Peace™.

I am neighbors to a small conveniance store owned by a Muslim couple. Ali and Wasiri. Honest - to - God great Americans that were born in the wrong country. They're great people and have 3 great kids. They came over when I was chopping trees this summer and help me haul brush. Watching a tree fall was really something for those kids. I even bought them a little splitting hatchet. (Stihl PA20 - Nice peice for camping) They're the same as kids from any Western Religion and the parents are the best neighbors I've ever had. Whenever they fire up the grill, they throw some on for me if they see I'm at home. And deliver it right to my door if I'm not outside. We argue a lot over what he will let me pay for in his store and what he's going to give me. I'm sure the guy would go broke giving me stuff if I let him. My favorite time to go there is prayer time. (which I never know exactly when that is. It's ever changing. But you know that better than I do)
At prayer time he gets out his rug and that little pad for his head, faces Mecca and forgets about his store, so I can walk right in, grab what I want and leave my money on the counter. I feel like a bum when he gives me stuff, so I actually feel better about shopping there during prayer.

Muslims like my neighbors and yourself are just good, civilized people. They're not driven to commit brutal acts in the name of religion. It's not people like you or my neighbors that are actively striving to force their Caliphate on others. That said, just because you aren't trying to impose on others, doesn't mean other Muslims aren't.