There's a growing groundswell in the UK that we should withdraw from Iraq...

[p_p_man]

Most Brits aren't happy with it anyway. The illegality of it, the ever-changing excuses for it and Bush's apparant view of himself as a 'leader' - not necessarily wartime - just leader. Like the rest of the world we Brits think of Bush as being a joke and that's now been proved right time and time again, and we Brits don't like being identified with a joke.

We're a self depreciating lot who, on the most part shrug our shoulders and say 'what's changed?' because we've seen it all before. And we've been allied with jokes before. The difference being though was that we were the senior partner. Now it's Bush's America.

We do have certain sensibilities built up over hundreds of years of being a world super-power. We knew that although we were in charge, we also had an obligation to those races whom we brought under the British Empire umbrella. And we carried out our obligations firmly but fairly. Our word was trusted and we felt national dishonour if it was thought that we were acting below par.

So we Brits are questioning the necessity of aligning ourselves with a man who at best is someone's retarded older brother and at worst a dangerous megolmaniac.

And the abuse of the prisoners in America's charge and the wriggling and discomfort of Rumsfeld when being questioned on the matter is quickly becoming the last straw.

There's even more speculation, fuelled by our Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, that Tony Blair will soon stand down and that MPs are already positioning themselves for that eventuality.

In our sense of duty Brits don't like leaving a job undone, we don't like leaving a partner, we don't like breaking our word. But it may happen that we will be doing just that in the not so distant future...

So if we withdraw from the Coalition, as many other countries are set to do, what will happen to America's position in Iraq? Will you continue to fight the fight, throwing in more and more of your young men and women to be killed on the battlefield or will you withdraw as peacefully as possible leaving the Iraqis to sort out the mess we created?

It's a tough call and I doubt if Bush is capable of rationally making it but the question may soon have to be answered...

ppman

 

[fgarvb1]

Yeah, now you guys have the chunnel your getting to be a lot like the french.

 

[Worm]

According to John Kerry your just window dressing anyways there is no coalition.

 

[Karen Kraft]

Most Brits aren't happy with it anyway. The illegality of it, the ever-changing excuses for it and Bush's apparant view of himself as a 'leader' - not necessarily wartime - just leader. Like the rest of the world we Brits think of Bush as being a joke and that's now been proved right time and time again, and we Brits don't like being identified with a joke.

We're a self depreciating lot who, on the most part shrug our shoulders and say 'what's changed?' because we've seen it all before. And we've been allied with jokes before. The difference being though was that we were the senior partner. Now it's Bush's America.

We do have certain sensibilities built up over hundreds of years of being a world super-power. We knew that although we were in charge, we also had an obligation to those races whom we brought under the British Empire umbrella. And we carried out our obligations firmly but fairly. Our word was trusted and we felt national dishonour if it was thought that we were acting below par.

So we Brits are questioning the necessity of aligning ourselves with a man who at best is someone's retarded older brother and at worst a dangerous megolmaniac.

And the abuse of the prisoners in America's charge and the wriggling and discomfort of Rumsfeld when being questioned on the matter is quickly becoming the last straw.

There's even more speculation, fuelled by our Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, that Tony Blair will soon stand down and that MPs are already positioning themselves for that eventuality.

In our sense of duty Brits don't like leaving a job undone, we don't like leaving a partner, we don't like breaking our word. But it may happen that we will be doing just that in the not so distant future...

So if we withdraw from the Coalition, as many other countries are set to do, what will happen to America's position in Iraq? Will you continue to fight the fight, throwing in more and more of your young men and women to be killed on the battlefield or will you withdraw as peacefully as possible leaving the Iraqis to sort out the mess we created?

It's a tough call and I doubt if Bush is capable of rationally making it but the question may soon have to be answered...

ppman

Oh my God!! PP you must be a real bore at a cocktail party!

 

[Daedalus77]

ppman said-

"So if we withdraw from the Coalition, as many other countries are set to do, what will happen to America's position in Iraq? Will you continue to fight the fight, throwing in more and more of your young men and women to be killed on the battlefield or will you withdraw as peacefully as possible leaving the Iraqis to sort out the mess we created"

The US just might pull out but it is not a mess that the "we" created. I guess you hope that Iraq will return to the happy, happy land that Saddam created. If a civil war happens that will be because Saddam killed anyone he thought might be a danger. If only we had left Saddam in power all the Iraqi people would feel safe.

 

[p_p_man]

From today's Guardian...

"Blair: I can't quit until Iraqis have free rule

Cabinet rivals jockey for position round wounded Blair

Gaby Hinsliff, chief political correspondent
Sunday May 16, 2004
The Observer

Tony Blair has told friends he will fight on in Downing Street at least until Iraq is under free rule, amid feverish speculation that he is already plotting an exit.

The Prime Minister wants to see the damaging conflict through at least until next January's planned elections in Iraq, allowing him to claim a respectable legacy for his premiership."

ppman

 

[p_p_man]

If a civil war happens that will be because Saddam killed anyone he thought might be a danger.

No. It's because the Coalition (and I'm now beginning to use that title loosely) did not fulfil it's security obligation to an occupied country.

In the first months after Baghdad was occupied ever growing criminal gangs freely roamed the streets, dissident groups grew into armed insurgents and the citizens of the city were left to their own devices and defences.

We heard nothing but pretty and pointless words from Bush about how well everything was going and how Iraq was being returned to democracy but what we didn't hear was how the lawlessness was being solved...

Simple answer? It wasn't. Whilst Americans were safe in their Green Zone the Iaqis were living a life of fear. So if a Civil War starts the blame must fall squarely on the Coalition's shoulder for not making sure that a stable society is left behind...

ppman

 

[ubertroll]

Growing groundswell. Let's review.


Growing groundswell.


Generally, if you're trying to hide the fact that you're using euphamisms for "unfounded opinion" you avoid using redundancy.


For instance, when trying to accuse a politician of being corrupt without accusing him yourself, or requiring a source, you say "Hounded by accusations of corruption." You don't, however, say "hounded by many people making accusations of corruption."

See, the latter is more obviously shitty.

 

[p_p_man]

Growing groundswell. Let's review.


Growing groundswell.


Generally, if you're trying to hide the fact that you're using euphamisms for "unfounded opinion" you avoid using redundancy.


For instance, when trying to accuse a politician of being corrupt without accusing him yourself, or requiring a source, you say "Hounded by accusations of corruption." You don't, however, say "hounded by many people making accusations of corruption."

See, the latter is more obviously shitty.

I agree. But that's the burden we all have to bear when we dumb down what we say to make it understandable to the general populace.

I write, and occasionally get published, short stories for magazines. When I first started I received the same advice from most of the editors. I was writing too intellectually for the readership. No sentences to be more that 10-15 words long and definitely no long desriptive phrases.

So I dumbed down...and started to sell...

I do miss working on my opus though...

ppman

 

[ubertroll]

I agree. But that's the burden we all have to bear when we dumb down what we say to make it understandable to the general populace.

You don't seem to understand. I was saying that, in addition to your thread being titled in such away as to suck out anything RESEMBLING journalistic integrity, it was also an imperfect, rendant form of the type.


In other words, this thread is the kinda of propagandic tripe that you'd find in a high school paper with propagandic intent, rather than a professional one with propagandic intent [like FOX News].

 

[p_p_man]

In other words, this thread is the kinda of propagandic tripe that you'd find in a high school paper with propagandic intent, rather than a professional one with propagandic intent [like FOX News].

And even now as I am writing a reply, Robin Cooke (the former Foreign Secretary who resigned over Iraq, is saying on the radio that once elections are over in January 2005 (hopefully) regardless of the situation on the ground Blair should start preparing for the withdrawal of the British troops. A popular sentiment both among Labour politicians and the people.

Propaganda? Where? Just repeating the news old boy...

ppman

 

[ubertroll]

What authority does a resigned minister have? Oh, right--a little less than my right nut.

 

[rjohns86us]

Talk about a joke! You Brits as the "Senior Partner"? Senior partner to what?

Most Brits aren't happy with it anyway. The illegality of it, the ever-changing excuses for it and Bush's apparant view of himself as a 'leader' - not necessarily wartime - just leader. Like the rest of the world we Brits think of Bush as being a joke and that's now been proved right time and time again, and we Brits don't like being identified with a joke.

We're a self depreciating lot who, on the most part shrug our shoulders and say 'what's changed?' because we've seen it all before. And we've been allied with jokes before. The difference being though was that we were the senior partner. Now it's Bush's America.

We do have certain sensibilities built up over hundreds of years of being a world super-power. We knew that although we were in charge, we also had an obligation to those races whom we brought under the British Empire umbrella. And we carried out our obligations firmly but fairly. Our word was trusted and we felt national dishonour if it was thought that we were acting below par.

So we Brits are questioning the necessity of aligning ourselves with a man who at best is someone's retarded older brother and at worst a dangerous megolmaniac.

And the abuse of the prisoners in America's charge and the wriggling and discomfort of Rumsfeld when being questioned on the matter is quickly becoming the last straw.

There's even more speculation, fuelled by our Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, that Tony Blair will soon stand down and that MPs are already positioning themselves for that eventuality.

In our sense of duty Brits don't like leaving a job undone, we don't like leaving a partner, we don't like breaking our word. But it may happen that we will be doing just that in the not so distant future...

So if we withdraw from the Coalition, as many other countries are set to do, what will happen to America's position in Iraq? Will you continue to fight the fight, throwing in more and more of your young men and women to be killed on the battlefield or will you withdraw as peacefully as possible leaving the Iraqis to sort out the mess we created?

It's a tough call and I doubt if Bush is capable of rationally making it but the question may soon have to be answered...

ppman

 

[p_p_man]

Re: Re: There's a growing groundswell in the UK that we should withdraw from Iraq...

Talk about a joke! You Brits as the "Senior Partner"? Senior partner to what?

Once again I suppose I have to cross the Ts and dot the Is for certain Americans.

Read again. I'm not talking about now, I'm talking about then...

<phew>

ppman

 

[woody54]

Re: Re: There's a growing groundswell in the UK that we should withdraw from Iraq...

Talk about a joke! You Brits as the "Senior Partner"? Senior partner to what?

The joke is really the premise on which the coalition is based.
It is an American war in Iraq, without question.
Remember"the war against terror" and how Bush bullied countries into joining with his "you are either with me or for terrorism" line.

At least France and Germany had the integrity to see through the horse shit and tell him to go fuck himself. They knew it was a scam.

Britain is a parrot on Washington's shoulder so was expected to join. Do you see Britain making any decisions that affect the future direction in Iraq... no fucking way, they are cannon fodder bit players in Bush's game.and they will get their piece of the pie.
The rest of the coalition are of no account and needed the Washington credits.

 

[Somme]

Actually, Woody, things were more pragmatic than a matter of integrity. France (and Russia) lost their concessions on the Border to Iran & Germany gets oil & gas from where?

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: There's a growing groundswell in the UK that we should withdraw from Iraq...

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Re: There's a growing groundswell in the UK that we should withdraw from Iraq

 

[Ishmael]

Re: Re: Re: Re: There's a growing groundswell in the UK that we should withdraw from

Germany & France voted in favour of 1441.

France had the most to lose (financially) from the war in Iraq, along with the Russians.

The corrupt French were not, and never have been interested in what's right/wrong. They're a selfish entity who're soley interested in what THEY will lose out on.

They had billions worth of contracts with Saddam. The French will whore themselves out to any dictator.


And just what kind of nation would help nuclear arm the middle east?

They built Iraq's nuclear facilities, and helped Israel too. Nevermind that they were arming 2 enemy's at the sametime, with WMD's.


A truly vile country with vile/rude/smelly people.

I hope that after the tanks pullout of Iraq, that they make their way to France.

What do you REALLY think of the French Hanns?

Ishmael

 

[LadyG]

Hmm...what about the fact that the U.S. armed them also?

Conveniently forgotten? ALL the coalition troops should pull out and let GW fight his own battle in Iraq, while the others go after Bin Laden.

Remember him? 9/11?

 

[p_p_man]

ALL the coalition troops should pull out and let GW fight his own battle in Iraq, while the others go after Bin Laden.

Remember him? 9/11?

I think most, if not all, of the Coalition countries will pull out in 2005. Powell has already declared that if the elected Government in Iraq wants Coalition troops out of the country America would honour that request.

Nobody thinks for a moment that Iraq will ask that and so the 'honouring' bit is nothing but a piece of piss squirted into the wind...

But countries like the UK who are now hearing the electorate say "bring our troops home" probably will withdraw. Although as Blair said today, only when Iraq is considered safe...

I think that too, is pissing into the wind. The demands from the UK electorate, Blair's own Parliamentary backbenchers and Europe saying that Blair should start distancing himself from Bush is slowly taking effect.

Now what Bush has got to decide is what to do next.

You mention going after bin Laden but again I think that would be a waste of time, money and lives. It's nigh on impossible to go after an intangible, as al Qaida is. All that can be done is build up networks of intelligence throughout the world so that bin Laden can be contained because of our prior knowledge of his plans.

There has been a lot of hysteria around since 9/11 about the extent of the al Qaida network and its ability to harm others. With it's affiliated terrorist groups it's large, no doubt about that, and it has money no doubt about that either, and it has a global network and hi-tec communications systems. But what it doesn't have is security...

To declare war on the world is a foolhardy thing to do and right now I wonder how many of al Qaida's top men are looking around at each other just wondering who they can trust.

Infiltration seems to be easy judging by the number of young fools who joined through Pakistan. Just a matter of asking a few questions, being pointed in the right direct and hey presto they were members. al Qaida may have tightened up a bit by now but that won't stop it being infiltrated by the security forces of all those countries who want to see the end of it. Yes even Muslim countries.

In the first flush of 9/11 Bush went after them in Afghanistan, using the Bush method of destroying everything and you're bound to get your target. He missed.

If Bush's America feels that's the right thing to do all well and good, it's your decision. And if Bush's America feels that it is right to remain in Iraq and continue a war which should never have been started in the first place, well that's your decision as well...

But I reckon that after January 2005 you'll have to go it alone...

ppman