0
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 02:27 am
McTag wrote:
This was the big lead story on the BBC radio news this morning.


As said, "you first read it here :wink:

Quote:
BRITAIN'S top soldier today insisted his call for our troops to be withdrawn from Iraq "some time soon" was not a break with Government policy.

General Sir Richard Dannatt said his comments about Iraq were neither "substantially new or substantially newsworthy".

Sir Richard, who only became Chief of the General Staff in August, was speaking after warning in a newspaper interview that we should "get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems".

Speaking on BBC Radio 4 this morning, he said: "It was never my intention to have this hoo-ha which people have thoroughly enjoyed overnight in trying to suggest there is a chasm between myself as head of the Army and the Prime Minister or between myself as head of the Army and the Secretary of State for Defence.

"My intention is particularly to speak up for what is right for the Army. That is my job. That is my constituency.

"If some people have chosen to pick up one or two of the comments I have made and tried to make frankly quite a large mountain or chasm out of that then so be it.

"But I think a lot of this comment has just grown comment on comment and some of it has got a bit fanciful."
Source
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 02:34 am
Yes, I heard the General say that this morning, but the discussion that followed was much wider and deeper.
There is a certain amount of damage-limitation going on. Quite possibly he did not know (although he should have known) what a storm his previous remarks would cause. Certainly, the Government was rocked by this.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 04:32 am
And then, there's this...

Quote:
International terrorism could be fuelled by anger over the US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, the Government has admitted for the first time.

Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, made the most strident British demand yet for its closure, but faced immediate accusations of hypocrisy for refusing to intervene on behalf of UK residents incarcerated there.

She warned that the camp was as much a "radicalising and destabilising influence" as it was an aid in the "war on terror".
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1868066.ece
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 05:44 am
Come on Bernie-

You ended up on the side of a Republican judge at Dover because you approved his decision even though he probably had different reasons from yourself.

And now you seem to be in favour of generals making Government policy over the head of an overwhelming vote in the House of Commons of democratically elected MPs. And he's supportive of Christian values.

What does "soon" mean anyway.

I'm a bit surprised the general hasn't been sacked. He's supposed to take orders and get on with the job not undermine discipline and morale within the ranks and strengthen the insurgents position.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 06:17 am
From what I can tell, this general is not a "radical left" because of his views on Christianity and Islam; (If you have those in UK?) but just a soldier looking out for soldiers rather than being a yes man to the politicians.

Sir Richard Dannatt : A very honest General
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 06:33 am
revel wrote:
From what I can tell, this general is not a "radical left" because of his views on Christianity and Islam; (If you have those in UK?) but just a soldier looking out for soldiers rather than being a yes man to the politicians.

Sir Richard Dannatt : A very honest General


Yes. Not too many "radical left" generals in the British Army. Smile
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 07:35 am
Cuttin through the crap
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 10:39 am
spendius wrote:
Come on Bernie-

You ended up on the side of a Republican judge at Dover because you approved his decision even though he probably had different reasons from yourself.

And now you seem to be in favour of generals making Government policy over the head of an overwhelming vote in the House of Commons of democratically elected MPs. And he's supportive of Christian values.

What does "soon" mean anyway.

I'm a bit surprised the general hasn't been sacked. He's supposed to take orders and get on with the job not undermine discipline and morale within the ranks and strengthen the insurgents position.


spendi
I don't recall disagreeing with anything that judge wrote.

What I am in favor of is honest admissions/appraisals by everyone as regards the completely avoidable messes of Iraq and Afghanistan. What I'm not in favor of is silent generals, silent politicians, a silent press and silent citizens when their silence is born of some authoritarian notion of loyalty or proper hierarchy. With any luck at all, Blair, Bush and quite a few others will spend time in jail for propagating this monstrous foreign policy.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 10:58 am
blatham wrote :
"With any luck at all, Blair, Bush and quite a few others will spend time in jail for propagating this monstrous foreign policy. "

i'm afraid that the soldiers and civilians get killed and maimed , but the top honchos will retire with a good pension - isn't that what usually happens ?
i'm getting old and cranky Twisted Evil
hbg
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 01:43 pm
ican711nm wrote:

...
What do y'all think?
Confused
What are the likely consequences for both Iraq and British society of removing British troops from Iraq before the Iraq government asks the British government to remove its troops?

What are the likely consequences for both Iraq and American society of removing American troops from Iraq before the Iraq government asks the American government to remove its troops?

What are the likely consequences for both Iraq and British society of not removing British troops from Iraq until the Iraq government asks the British government to remove its troops?

What are the likely consequences for both Iraq and American society of not removing American troops from Iraq until the Iraq government asks the American government to remove its troops?
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 01:45 pm
This furore is still boiling away good style, in our media. I saw Channel 4 News this evening, and it chipped big holes in Blair's position, by showing statements he made today with statements recorded previously on different occasions.

He is pretending the military's position is identical with his government's, but no-one is buying it.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 01:55 pm
McTag wrote:
This furore is still boiling away good style, in our media. I saw Channel 4 News this evening, and it chipped big holes in Blair's position, by showing statements he made today with statements recorded previously on different occasions.

He is pretending the military's position is identical with his government's, but no-one is buying it.

Obviously you Brits hate freedom, not to mention America.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 02:10 pm
I hate GWB's freedom, because if there was any justice he would be behind bars...er, prison bars this time.

Our good general Chief of Staff obviously feels his soldiers have been put in a position they can't win from, and more and more of them are being killed.
Some Torys say, if he did not agree with official policy, he should have resigned. He ought not to have given that interview.
I disagree, and the messages from the troops in the front line are supportive of his stance. It's not a question of morale-boosting or otherwise, but one of pragmatism and recognising the situation which exists.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 04:35 pm
ican asked :
"What are the likely consequences for both Iraq and British society of not removing British troops from Iraq until the Iraq government asks the British government to remove its troops? "
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it seems to me that british army chief , sir richard , gave an answer to this question .
he said : " get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems".

in plain words : "if we don't get out soon , it will make the security problems worse" .

i think that sir richard knows something about the situation in iraq .
what do others think of his comments ?
hbg
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"In a Daily Mail interview, Sir Richard, who took on his role in August, said UK troops should "get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems".


I don't say that the difficulties we are experiencing round the world are caused by our presence in Iraq but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them

And he said planning for what happened after the initial successful war military offensive was "poor, probably based more on optimism than sound planning".

read the full text here :...WHAT SIR RICHARD SAID...
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 06:50 pm
hamburger wrote:
ican asked :
"What are the likely consequences for both Iraq and British society of not removing British troops from Iraq until the Iraq government asks the British government to remove its troops? "
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it seems to me that british army chief , sir richard , gave an answer to this question .
he said : " get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems".

in plain words : "if we don't get out soon , it will make the security problems worse" .

...

Thanks for your response to my questions.

I interpret sir richard to mean: "if we don't get out soon , it will make the security problems [in Iraq] worse".

Will we make the security problems in the west and elsewhere better or worse, if we do get out soon?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 11:19 pm
McTag wrote:
Our good general Chief of Staff obviously feels his soldiers have been put in a position they can't win from, and more and more of them are being killed.


Quote:
What the general said

Saturday October 14, 2006
The Guardian


Key quotes from General Dannatt's interviews in the Daily Mail and on BBC Radio 4's Today programme
[We should] get ourselves out some time soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems.
Daily Mail

We are in a Muslim country and Muslims' views of foreigners in their country are quite clear. As a foreigner you can be welcomed by being invited in a country, but we weren't invited certainly by those in Iraq at the time. The military campaign we fought in 2003 effectively kicked the door in.
Daily Mail

History will show that the planning for what happened after the initial successful war-fighting phase was poor probably based more on optimism than sound planning ... The original intention was that we put in place a liberal democracy that was an exemplar for the region, was pro-west and might have a beneficial effect on the balance within the Middle East. Whether that was a sensible or naive hope, history will judge. I don't think we are going to do that. I think we should aim for a lower ambition.
Daily Mail

Whatever consent we may have had in the first place, may have turned to tolerance and has largely turned to intolerance. I don't say that the difficulties we are experiencing round the world are caused by our presence in Iraq but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them.
Daily Mail

I am a soldier speaking up for his army and just saying come on we can't be here for ever at this level.
Today

I have an idea of what I would like this country to be and a clear idea of how I would like the army to be and those values and standards are being threatened by other people and other influences.
Today

I'm a soldier - we don't do surrender, we don't pull down white flags. We will remain in southern Iraq until the job is done - we're going to see this through.
Sir Richard's statement yesterday
Source
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Oct, 2006 03:51 am
The General has obviously been got at- big time.

"We're going to see this through": what is "this"? If the present arrangements are causing a worsening situation on the ground, and we haven't got any more men or materiel to apply to the problem, that is what I would call the horns of a dilemma.

These mollifying and qualifying statements yesterday don't do much to disguise the rift between the military and the government.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1922453,00.html
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Oct, 2006 01:30 pm
ican :
the general said a lot more than what i posted .
he did not just talk about iraq and the present situation ; he spoke of afghanistan , his responsibility for his soldiers and what the situation might be several years down the road .
to me , he gave a pretty convincing argument why the present action can no longer be sustained .
i'll just post one more excerpt from his interview :
"We are in a Muslim country and Muslims' views of foreigners in their country are quite clear. As a foreigner you can be welcomed by being invited in a country, but we weren't invited certainly by those in Iraq at the time.
"The military campaign we fought in 2003 effectively kicked the door in."

there are several pages dealing with sir richard's interview conveniently linked throughout the BBC web pages for anyone interested in what the general had to say .
'nuff said .
hbg
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Oct, 2006 05:40 pm
hamburger wrote:

... the general ... did not just talk about iraq and the present situation ; he spoke of afghanistan , his responsibility for his soldiers and what the situation might be several years down the road .
to me , he gave a pretty convincing argument why the present action can no longer be sustained.
...

I readily concede that our present military tactics in Iraq and Afghanistan are not effective. Either those tactics have to be changed to more effective tactics or the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan will deteriorate further.

We have four choices:
(1) Change our military tactics to more effective tactics;
(2) Continue the present tactics until we or our enemy tire of the conflict;
(3) Withdraw from each country before their governents ask us to;
(4) Withdraw from each country after their governents ask us to.

A. What are the consequences of each choice to the people of Iraq?

B. What are the consequences of each choice to the people of Afghanistan?

C. What are the consequences of each choice to the people of the western nations?

D. What are the consequences of each choice to humanity?

The general answered only questions A and B for choice 2.

I've posted my recomended tactics here for choice (1) several times. Here's a brief summary:

Covert tactics to locate and exterminate the killers of non-combatants;

Overt tactics to seal the borders of both Afghanistan and Iraq, and to protect the non-combatants of each country from the deliberate killers of non-combatants.

The covert tactics should be employed ruthlessly even when those tactics are expected to unavoidably kill non-combatants too. I claim such covert tactics will rapidly reduce the total rate non-combatants are killed in each country--both by the deliberate killers of non-combatants, and by the covert tactics--than the total rate non-combatants will be killed by our choosing choices 2, 3, or 4.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Oct, 2006 08:25 pm
for a full report from the "sunday times - online edition" on the interview with sir richard - and the interest and furor it has caused , please see pages one and two here :...SUNDAY TIMES - ONLINE...

darned good reporting imo .
i'd say one has to give the general credit for putting the iraq situation plainly and openly before the citizens of britain to allow them to see what is going on rather than speaking in platitudes . i think the citizens are entitled to know the truth .
hbg
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/21/2025 at 08:07:02