Bush and Vietnam

Originally posted by Merk
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 wh because you aren't trying to impose on others, doesn't mean other Muslims aren't.

Thanks for that Merk.

I am humbled

I have the same attitude to my neighbour also (he is white / english).

He too cuts my hedge for free without me ever asking and I in return give food etc to say thanks.

Its true that in every faith / country their are people that try to impose their will by manipulation and co-hersion. I guess that just life.

I only get frustrated when I read some of the ignorant comments on the forum

I take back my imperlist comment towards you and apologies

Originally posted by RSMA1234
Thanks for that Merk.

I am humbled

I have the same attitude to my neighbour also (he is white / english).

He too cuts my hedge for free without me ever asking and I in return give food etc to say thanks.

Its true that in every faith / country their are people that try to impose their will by manipulation and co-hersion. I guess that just life. ...[text shortened]... the ignorant comments on the forum

I take back my imperlist comment towards you and apologies

Oh no, don't go taking back that imperialist thing! I'm ready to invade/occupy every country we need to until we put an end to Islamofascim, as long as we leave as soon as they're gone.

Iraq was geographically important, but of no substance in terms of terror. Excepting Pakistan, the state sponsors of terror are almost all on Iraqs borders. This thing aint over when Bush leaves office. And Pakistan isn't so much a state sponsor of terror as it is a country with an ISI that's matbe got a little too much clout. Not only that, but we can hardly expect the government of Pakistan to do more than it already is.

The future prolly holds something in store for Israel/Palestine/Syria and Israel/US/Iran.

Originally posted by RSMA1234
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, ...[text shortened]... who knows, but fox hunting and anti-war sentiments are vastly different, apples and pears

The situation in Basra is very different than the one you describe. Yes, it is difficult for the troops to maintain order there, but on the other hand the majority of Basraites do not want the British out. That is the view of the people I know who have actually served in Basra, who have actually been there.

As for British troops being in Afghanistan, they are there to keep the Taliban out. That engagement is actually under a UN mandate.

And yes, I talk to people in London, and none have said staying in Iraq is a great idea, but most people think withdrawal is not an option.
Opposition to withdrawal is not the same as enthusiasm to staying there. It is, however, a refusal to condemn millions of Iraqis to generations of murder and bloodshed.

And I thought you would understand the concept of the vocal minority. After all, you are always complaining about all muslims being tarnished as terrorists due to the actions of a few nutters. These are also a vocal minority.
A couple of hundred thousand people screaming their heads off on Whitehall does not consitute a majority, just as people calling for the bombing of britain and the beheading of those who offend the prophet are represantative of the muslim faith (as you keep telling us)

Originally posted by RSMA1234
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.

So do you think the people of Iraq, including the Kurds, as a whole will be better off under Iranian/Saudi occupation?

What's moronic about it?

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

Very rich, you mock him for apparently not understanding a concept fundamentally alien to him, yet you refuse to explain.

What is the concept of the caliphate?

From what I have read about it seems agressive and expansionary. Am I wrong?

Originally posted by Merk
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.

I agree with your parentheses (it suits both extremes of the political spectrum to give the demarche more significance than it actually deserves), but the Administration's agenda has been to pretend the Surge began yesterday ever since it started misfiring (which was pretty much straight away). It's true as you say that 30,000 troops didn't simply hove out of the ether on January 22, but 3000 did (even the Bush Presidency isn't stupid enough to announce an military redeployment and then plan it), and the number has been escalating rapidly ever since. A surge is just that - a rapid increase in troop numbers. It's therefore appropriate that we judge it from its inception - in late January.

Originally posted by RSMA1234
I do agree that by leaving Iraq the situation will get worse, so can see Bush's point of view

But at the same time I did not see any clear stratergy going forward. Putting aside the discusion on wheater it was right or wrong to invade, the point was made what to do once in ? And how do the US leave ?

The British I think will leave at some point from B ...[text shortened]... eally think he has thought this through correctly. Hence I think he has over-simplifying things

they probly don't invite too many RHP forum posters to strategy planning meetings. Dick Cheney was scipio2222 but he's been banned for a while.

Originally posted by Amaurote
I agree with your parentheses (it suits both extremes of the political spectrum to give the demarche more significance than it actually deserves), but the Administration's agenda has been to pretend the Surge began yesterday ever since it started misfiring (which was pretty much straight away). It's true as you say that 30,000 troops didn't simply hove out ...[text shortened]... numbers. It's therefore appropriate that we judge it from its inception - in late January.

I would say it's a stretch to call 3,000 troops a surge. I'm not sure where you get the idea that the surge hasn't been a success. The increase in troops and the relaxed ROEs have been one of very few tangible successes since the elections. Despite clinging on to your one month death toll number, it has indeed been successful. Some fact like, "last month was the second highest death toll for the last 8 months in the last 4 years" doesn't mean squat. If we were talking about global warming, you would be able to recognize how little that stat means. The fact is, war is too complicated to judge based on a headline.

These people aren't European lowlanders, when the poop hits the prop, the Arabs don't lay down.

Originally posted by RSMA1234
So Bush states that a military retreat could trigger the kind of upheavel seen after US forces left Vietnam.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6959710.stm

Is he over simplflying things ? After all he ws the one to go into Iraq ?

Or is he just an idiot ?

He's a complete moron. And so are his advisers.

Originally posted by knightwest
The situation in Basra is very different than the one you describe. Yes, it is difficult for the troops to maintain order there, but on the other hand the majority of Basraites do not want the British out. That is the view of the people I know who have actually served in Basra, who have actually been there.

As for British troops being in Afghanistan, t ...[text shortened]... of those who offend the prophet are represantative of the muslim faith (as you keep telling us)

I disagree with you 100 %, you may have got that view from some troops, but then I question you on the accuracy of your information having actually spoken to people that live in the country and who actually are Iraqi's. They do want the British out.

As a direct result of them being their, their has been increased voilince, insurgences (from other countries coming in) and starting to a civil war etc etc

If the troops are wanted their by the people (as you suggest) then why are they withdrawing then ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6964736.stm

Should they not stay and help ? Should more troops not be sent ?

You can't say on the one hand, we are needed and wanted, then on the other move troops away...thats just complete rubbish.

Sir Richard Dannatt (an British Army general) is even hinting at a pull out in Iraq. Why does he want to leave if they are wanted ? He can point to Afganistan, but he is realising the reality that its a no win situation

Surely they should stay and finsh the job and not leave the people in the lurch ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6954802.stm

Un mandates means nothing, I know you are not naive enough to believe that every UN mandate is followed And in reality the UN is actually useless.

I also would like you to quote the UN mandate, as a former major in the British army states "Afganistan is not a UN operation". So what does the mandate refer too ? What is the role ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1657895.stm

The arctile is a little old, but what is the UN mandate number that you refer too ?

If the Taliban are in Afganistan, what bussines is that of yours / British ? Do you not realise that that country can never be conquered / controled ? The British tried it in the 19th Centrury, the USSR tried it before, when will you realise that ?

The country by its very nature is a warlike country ? On the one hand you say the BRitsih troops are their to keep the Taliban out, yet on the otherhand Afganistan has just broken all records in opium production

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6965115.stm

Where do you think that money is going ? Who do you think controls the production ? Do yo honest beleive that the British troops are doing a good job in controling the Tailban ?

What are troop number in Afgainstan ? Are they reducing ?

Rubbish, maybe your friends in the army say that, but everyday man on the street does want them to come back now, its a no win situation (which was caused by the west directcly) and can never be resloved while troops are in Afgainstan or Iraq.

Thank you for your mocking tone regarding vocal minorty, I'm just trying to explain to you that the minorty that you suggest, is actually a majority that do want troops to leave Iraq.

I will ignore you other bigoted stuff.

Originally posted by knightwest
So do you think the people of Iraq, including the Kurds, as a whole will be better off under Iranian/Saudi occupation?

What's moronic about it?

Donlt change the subject, I pointed out to you that the Iraqi people in general are not happy with being occuped by the British / Us troops which is excally what is happening at present.

The day when Saudi / Iranian troops take over the country then you may have a point. At this time they are not controlling the country.

If you donlt realise what point I'm making, their is not a lot I can do..."I can take the donkey to water, but if the donkey does not want to drink....."

Originally posted by knightwest
Very rich, you mock him for apparently not understanding a concept fundamentally alien to him, yet you refuse to explain.

What is the concept of the caliphate?

From what I have read about it seems agressive and expansionary. Am I wrong?

Did you even bother to read my other posting ?

Have a look above and you will clearly see me aplogies for my comments to him....I guess you only read want you want too....

I'm not going to waste my time exaplining things to you as I think you are a bigot from the posting that you have writtern in the past and now. So would be wasting my time

It does not matter what I explain, you have already made up your mind quite frankly

Originally posted by zeeblebot
they probly don't invite too many RHP forum posters to strategy planning meetings. Dick Cheney was scipio2222 but he's been banned for a while.

LOL....so that the same Dick that shoot his best mate... 😀

Originally posted by shavixmir
He's a complete moron. And so are his advisers.

Shavixmir,

some people see the light and other just follow properganda, like some off our fellow posters

Originally posted by Merk
I would say it's a stretch to call 3,000 troops a surge. I'm not sure where you get the idea that the surge hasn't been a success. The increase in troops and the relaxed ROEs have been one of very few tangible successes since the elections. Despite clinging on to your one month death toll number, it has indeed been successful. Some fact like, "last month was th eople aren't European lowlanders, when the poop hits the prop, the Arabs don't lay down.

Defined simply, I think a surge is a rapid increase in troop numbers. Since this is primarily a concentrated increase in a limited area (Baghdad and its environs), I don't think classifying 3000 in the first few days as a surge is stretching the terminology particularly..

As for the Surge being successful, I'm very puzzled by the tautology implied in your explanation - the increase in troop numbers is a success? Why on earth would that be? As for relaxed rules of engagement, would these be the same relaxed rules of engagement which were being roundly condemned by the US when they were practised in Basra?

We are not talking about global warming, and eight months of occupation is not a short space of time: April-June is not merely a spike in the eight months since surge began, but since 2003 - the claim that it really began in June makes it look even weaker since July was a truly appalling month of casualities. The survey already quoted clearly indicates that Iraqis themselves adjudge it to be a complete failure. Since they're living there and we aren't, I'd tend to trust them more than General Petraeus.