ARmy Rumour SErvice

**Sven** · 29-01-2007, 21:51

Originally Posted by Stonker

Originally Posted by Sven

Just ask Belgium about it being an illegal war

WTF?

Tell you what Sven, instead of these convoluted discussions, where you automatically quote the entire preceding post, and turn to other threads etc. etc.

Why don't you give yourself 20 minutes with a sheet of A4, and a pencil.

Make some brief notes, and then - concisely - state your position on Iraq. Answer some of the key questions. Simple Qs like:

Was the invasion legal?
Is the post-war operation competently planned?
What are the options open to the US-led coalition?
Under what circumstances would it be possible to withdraw coalition forces from Iraq, with honour?
Should the UK be trying to sustain 2 inadequately resourced operations simultaneously in Iraq and Afghanistan, or seeking to withdraw from one, in hopes of succeeding at the other?
If not, how will we deal with 2 successive strategic failures?
Do the west have the will and the resources to bring about conditions where a withdrawal with honour is possible?
If 'NO' to the preceding question - should the coalition remain without prospect of success, and if so, for how long, and to what purpose?
If 'YES' to the same question, where is the evidence of the public's determination to support such a policy, and where will the resources be found to make it viable?

Y'know, stuff like that, 'cos right now, I have no idea where you stand on any subject you've posted on in the last 48hrs, and - like what seems to be everyone else on ARRSE - I have simply lost the patience needed to exchange views with you.

Who needs A4

-Yes
-No
-When the Iraqis have a trained and hopefully unprejudiced Armed Forces and police.
-It shouldn't have committed to fight two wars, however we are where we are
-General Lamb would disagree with You about Iraq, likewise Brig Thomas
-Yes

**SLRboy** · 29-01-2007, 22:21

stonker'
check pms

**Stonker** · 29-01-2007, 23:16

Originally Posted by Sven

Who needs A4

You do. With some grid squares on so you can match Qs to As.

1. Was the invasion legal? Sven: Yes

2. Is the post-war operation competently planned? Sven: No

3. What are the options open to the US-led coalition? Sven: No Answer

4. Under what circumstances would it be possible to withdraw coalition forces from Iraq, with honour? Sven: When the Iraqis have a trained and hopefully unprejudiced Armed Forces and police.

5. Should the UK be trying to sustain 2 inadequately resourced operations simultaneously in Iraq and Afghanistan, or seeking to withdraw from one, in hopes of succeeding at the other? Sven: It shouldn't have committed to fight two wars, however we are where we are (This is No Answer)

6. If not, how will we deal with 2 successive strategic failures? Sven: General Lamb would disagree with You about Iraq, likewise Brig Thomas (See above - This is No Answer)

7. Do the West have the will and the resources to bring about conditions where a withdrawal with honour is possible? Sven - Yes

8. If 'NO' to the preceding question - should the coalition remain without prospect of success, and if so, for how long, and to what purpose? Sven: No answer required - see below.

9. If 'YES' to the same question, where is the evidence of the public's determination to support such a policy, and where will the resources be found to make it viable? Sven: No answer

8 questions. 4 answers, 4 evasions.

Well done:
Confirmed my worst suspicions.
Go and play on the motorway.

**Sven** · 29-01-2007, 23:34

Originally Posted by Stonker

Originally Posted by Sven

Who needs A4

You do. With some grid squares on so you can match Qs to As.

1. Was the invasion legal? Sven: Yes

2. Is the post-war operation competently planned? Sven: No

3. What are the options open to the US-led coalition? Sven: No Answer

4. Under what circumstances would it be possible to withdraw coalition forces from Iraq, with honour? Sven: When the Iraqis have a trained and hopefully unprejudiced Armed Forces and police.

5. Should the UK be trying to sustain 2 inadequately resourced operations simultaneously in Iraq and Afghanistan, or seeking to withdraw from one, in hopes of succeeding at the other? Sven: It shouldn't have committed to fight two wars, however we are where we are (This is No Answer)

6. If not, how will we deal with 2 successive strategic failures? Sven: General Lamb would disagree with You about Iraq, likewise Brig Thomas (See above - This is No Answer)

7. Do the West have the will and the resources to bring about conditions where a withdrawal with honour is possible? Sven - Yes

8. If 'NO' to the preceding question - should the coalition remain without prospect of success, and if so, for how long, and to what purpose? Sven: No answer required - see below.

9. If 'YES' to the same question, where is the evidence of the public's determination to support such a policy, and where will the resources be found to make it viable? Sven: No answer

8 questions. 4 answers, 4 evasions.

Well done:
Confirmed my worst suspicions.
Go and play on the motorway.

OK I missed number three and number nine, but You are talking bollox to say that the other answers are evasions - especially since I do not agree with the tenet of number 6 - the fact that we are fighting two wars does not mean we will lose them both. Indeed, in the South of Iraq are we not about to hand another province over..

With 5 I was as honest as I can be - it was a strategic failing to start on Iraq but we are there now and cannot desert the people of Iraq.

As to the personal attack at the end - very childish

**whitecity** · 29-01-2007, 23:47

Originally Posted by Sven

They are a direct result of the invasion - since the insurgency had been put down prior to that.

The insurgency was over before the invasion? WTF are you on about?

Originally Posted by Sven

However the vast majority deaths were NOT AT THE HANDS OF THE COALITION FORCES but by the insurgents.

And who in this thread is even remotely disputing this?

It's another of your lame attempts to redirect the discussion into areas that nobody is challenging to cover up your poor performance.

Originally Posted by Sven

And what other questions?

1) Why do you mistrust the UN figures?

2) Why do you promote the efforts of a bunch of amateur bloggers sitting in the UK and elsewhere over the UN in Baghdad?

**Sven** · 29-01-2007, 23:53

Originally Posted by merkator

Originally Posted by Sven

They are a direct result of the invasion - since the insurgency had been put down prior to that.

The insurgency was over before the invasion? WTF are you on about?

Originally Posted by Sven

However the vast majority deaths were NOT AT THE HANDS OF THE COALITION FORCES but by the insurgents.

And who in this thread is even remotely disputing this?

It's another of your lame attempts to redirect the discussion into areas that nobody is challenging to cover up your poor performance.

Originally Posted by Sven

And what other questions?

1) Why do you mistrust the UN figures?

2) Why do you promote the efforts of a bunch of amateur bloggers sitting in the UK and elsewhere over the UN in Baghdad?

There was an insurgency in the time of Saddam, which allowed him to fill graves with over 100,000 shia and marsh arabs

insurgent (în-sûr´jent) adjective
Rising in revolt against civil authority or a government in power; rebellious.

noun
1. One that revolts against civil authority.
2. A member of a political party who rebels against its leadership.

[Latin ìnsurgêns, ìnsurgent-, present participle of ìnsurgere, to rise up : in-, intensive pref.. See in-2 + surgere, to rise. See surge.]
- insur´gently adverb

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

That, Merkator, is what the fucck I am on about

**whitecity** · 30-01-2007, 00:04

Originally Posted by Sven

There was an insurgency in the time of Saddam, which allowed him to fill graves with over 100,000 shia and marsh arabs

Rewind a few moments....

Originally Posted by Sven, line 1

They are a direct result of the invasion - since the insurgency had been put down prior to that.

Originally Posted by Sven, line 2

However the vast majority deaths were NOT AT THE HANDS OF THE COALITION FORCES but by the insurgents.

How the hell is anybody supposed to know that in your head, the insurgents in line 1 are not the same insurgents in line 2????

And if they are the same insurgents, are you now trying to us that the 100,000 of dead bodies that Saddam hid were massacred by the insurgents and not Saddams security forces (see my highlighting above)?

Keep digging Sven, you'll be in Oz by this time tomorrow!!!

Having tried the old misdirect routine, any chance of answering the 2 questions posed?? Or will it be option 3: ignore and hopefully he'll forget routine?

**Stonker** · 30-01-2007, 00:14

Merk,

Remember Thatcher: "the oxygen of publicity".

I've had more reasoned discussions whilst under the influence of 2 litres of Rauchbier.

My vote henceforth is to ignore Sven's posts altogether.

At best they are inconsistent, at worst deliberately obtuse.

**Sven** · 30-01-2007, 00:18

Originally Posted by merkator

Originally Posted by Sven

There was an insurgency in the time of Saddam, which allowed him to fill graves with over 100,000 shia and marsh arabs

Rewind a few moments....

Originally Posted by Sven, line 1

They are a direct result of the invasion - since the insurgency had been put down prior to that.

Originally Posted by Sven, line 2

However the vast majority deaths were NOT AT THE HANDS OF THE COALITION FORCES but by the insurgents.

How the hell is anybody supposed to know that in your head, the insurgents in line 1 are not the same insurgents in line 2???? And if they are the same insurgents, are you now trying to us that the 100,000 of dead bodies that Saddam hid were massacred by the insurgents and not Saddams security forces (see my highlighting above)?

Keep digging Sven, you'll be in Oz by this time tomorrow!!!

Any chance of answering the 2 questions posed??

When did the UN get back into Baghdad?

IBC uses "Casualty figures are derived from a comprehensive survey of online media reports and eyewitness accounts"

**whitecity** · 30-01-2007, 00:29

Stonker,

Maybe that's the only option. I'm all in favour of speaking your mind and offering your own opinion - even if it's the wackiest thing going.

What grips me is when perfectly sane people get fixated on ideas that are either utterly incomprehensible which they try to palm them off as 'fact' (that's one of tomahawk6's favourite tricks), or those that come to discuss and debate - but do neither - then, when challenged, simply cannot provide any sane explanation why they have chosen to believe such rubbish.

I suspect that at the very beginning, Sven assumed that the NY Times was regurgitating the old Lancet data. Instead of doing a bit of background checking, and finding out that it was new UN data, he went into auto pilot and did a typical Neue Arbeit spin routine with triple toe and pike.

Having made that initial error, he either continued stupidly up a blind alley hoping we'd lose interest, or having realised his error, thought he could bluff his way out. Ignorance or arrogance? Don't know.

All I'm hoping for is a sensible explanation as to why the UN data should be mistrusted in favour of some amateur research by some bloggers. I may not agree with his answer, but at least I'll understand why he's being so obtuse.