From King George II

#1
Reuters report this morning on King George's lastest speech to Veterens of Foriegn wars
"Bush: US must finish job in Iraq to honor the fallen."
So we have moved on once more fom WMD to restoring Democracy to HONOR.
john
Er sumfing about last refuge of
 
#2
So the reason for the war is, in fact, the war?


HHHmmmmm. I might try that with the landlord at chucking out time: 'I must carry on drinking because I am drunk. It would dishonour the 8 pints, 6 whiskies and 3 bags of pork scratchings I have already had, were I not to carry on and have a lot more. George W says so. Get your hands off me you peasant!'

I'll tell you if he thinks any more of me than I do of W.
 
#3
So the reason to continue to take casualties, is the casualties already taken.

When politicians speak of honour, something inside me dry-heaves.

Isn't that the word Hoon used, before he sent BW and QDG North (while still denying a decision had been made?)
 
#4
Does it matter?

It was never that that WMD might have existed that was the issue. It was the fact that they were, almost certainly, in the hands of a nasty, b@stard, murdering dictator. After all, lots of countries have WMD, us included. It's not the weapon, it's who's holding the weapon that counts (just ask Arrse about firearms).

Restoring democracy? Sounds good to me. Do you object to that one John?

'Honor', or rather 'Honour', is also a fair point. Pulling out too early purely because of the wet lettuce brigade would be an unforgiveable betrayal of the blokes that have been killed.

Or do you see things differently?
 
#5
I agree with PTP about the dry heaves. After a pub triathalon* I do wet heaves.




*gallon of beer, 8 Scotch chasers, bottle of red.
 
#6
Awol, yeah but, right, staying on just because of the dead guys would be a betrayal of the next poor bastrad who gets killed. There's got to be a bett er reason than that, even if that prize fool W can't say it properly.

And when you're wrong you're wrong. Best just take it on the chin and admit it.
 
#7
Steamywindow said:
Awol, yeah but, right, staying on just because of the dead guys would be a betrayal of the next poor bastrad who gets killed. There's got to be a bett er reason than that, even if that prize fool W can't say it properly.

And when you're wrong you're wrong. Best just take it on the chin and admit it.
Only if you're wrong. Which way would the Iraqis vote?
 
#8
Can't get into this in too much detail now, I'm in court in 8 hours. I just think we were wrong to go to Iraq for the reasons we were given. Not to say we shouldn't have gone at all, not to say we shouldn't stay, not to say the lads and lasses did anything but a sterling job. I'd just like a bit of honesty about the whole thing.

And while I'm dreaming, can Girls Aloud drop by with my new Jag and the lager scented baby oil they've been aching to try out.
 
#9
Does john object to restoreing democracy ?
No
But please tell me when there was ever Democracy in Iraq, not in the time since Britian made the modern state from three old provinces of the old Turkish Empire.
I do worry about what we are making for the future, I do. Will your granchildren be dieing for Tone and King George's decisisions when we are dead and buried ?
I do worry about Yankee democracy look at the Philepeanes (spelling) 80% + of the land/ business owned by 5. five familes, very democratic.
And you really belive it's about Honour, cum on.
john
 
#10
If Dubya believed in honor maybe he'd have honored his pledge to serve in the Air National Guard. After all the time & cost to get him so far he just gave up.
 
#12
1864 dead. Lot of Honour there for Georgei boy who never stuck his neck out when he had the chance.
john
memory say Dick C. never place his neck in harms (uniform) way.
 
#13
I think Jonwilly makes a very valid set of points. GW can bang on about honour all he likes but he still bottled it when he had the chance. That makes him a cnut.
 
#14
jonwilly said:
1864 dead. Lot of Honour there for Georgei boy who never stuck his neck out when he had the chance.
john
memory say Dick C. never place his neck in harms (uniform) way.
Citizen Dick got no less than three draft deferments (college after dropping out of Yale-twice- and then he got married) during the 1960s, but favorite excuse came from right-wing cheerleader, Rush Limbaugh, who got a medical deferment for an **** cyst.

W is clutching at straws here. To quote his vanquished opponent, John Kerry, how do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? It is a much greater disservice to the men and women who serve to ask them to put their lives on line for an ultimately pointless cause.

The sad fact is, as we can see from the fustercluk that is the Constitutional Convention they're having, Iraq as a cogent political entity has almost no chance surviving as a representative democracy. The Sunnis will continue to kick off because they know they're going to lose out. The Shia in the South will have the oil, the Kurds will have some oil, most of the arable land and the ability to control the water supply to everything to the South, and the Sunnis in the middle will be stuck in the middle with little else to export but sandbags. If fact, the idea that one could overcome over a thousand years of religious, ethnic, racial and political rivalries and hatred in just seven months is just nuts. We've been trying in Europe now for over 50 years and we're still not even close.

Yes, Saddam is a cnut, but like Tito in Yugoslavia, only a thug could keep order in such circumstances. Has anyone taken a look at a comparative body count of Iraqis between the the period 1991-2003 and 2003 onward? The fact is, as many Iraqis knows, that you can't eat democracy, democracy doesn't put a roof over your head and democracy can't keep you alive in a state of anarchy.
 
#15
Yes Sunnis, Shias and Kurds we only had Prod and Catlicks to entertain us and thats not finished yet.
Shia was top dog and has now't but violence to offer. The Shia with their oil will gravitate to Iran and as you say the Kurd has it's own land with the new oil WATER.
I always remember that young yank trooper being Interogated by Comical Ail, "Did people come out and welcome you ?"
Georgei boy and his advisers really belived they'd be welcome
The History channel does a good long prog on how Iraq has allways been the Cockpit of the Mid East, since long before Christ, let alone Mohamed.
john
 
#16
By that logic, the US would still be in Vietnam today, as 55,000 + dead soldiers would of taken a lot of honouring..
 
#17
crabtastic said:
The sad fact is, as we can see from the fustercluk that is the Constitutional Convention they're having, Iraq as a cogent political entity has almost no chance surviving as a representative democracy. The Sunnis will continue to kick off because they know they're going to lose out. The Shia in the South will have the oil, the Kurds will have some oil, most of the arable land and the ability to control the water supply to everything to the South, and the Sunnis in the middle will be stuck in the middle with little else to export but sandbags. If fact, the idea that one could overcome over a thousand years of religious, ethnic, racial and political rivalries and hatred in just seven months is just nuts. We've been trying in Europe now for over 50 years and we're still not even close.

Yes, Saddam is a cnut, but like Tito in Yugoslavia, only a thug could keep order in such circumstances. Has anyone taken a look at a comparative body count of Iraqis between the the period 1991-2003 and 2003 onward? The fact is, as many Iraqis knows, that you can't eat democracy, democracy doesn't put a roof over your head and democracy can't keep you alive in a state of anarchy.

Good post Mr Crab. It does look like the best bet for all concerned is a kind of benign overlord. Just like the one that used to teach cricket to the rest of the Middle East, most of Africa, all of India etc. If the locals hadn't bitten the hand that fed them, these places wouldn't be the latrines that they are today.
 
#18
Awol said:
crabtastic said:
The sad fact is, as we can see from the fustercluk that is the Constitutional Convention they're having, Iraq as a cogent political entity has almost no chance surviving as a representative democracy. The Sunnis will continue to kick off because they know they're going to lose out. The Shia in the South will have the oil, the Kurds will have some oil, most of the arable land and the ability to control the water supply to everything to the South, and the Sunnis in the middle will be stuck in the middle with little else to export but sandbags. If fact, the idea that one could overcome over a thousand years of religious, ethnic, racial and political rivalries and hatred in just seven months is just nuts. We've been trying in Europe now for over 50 years and we're still not even close.

Yes, Saddam is a cnut, but like Tito in Yugoslavia, only a thug could keep order in such circumstances. Has anyone taken a look at a comparative body count of Iraqis between the the period 1991-2003 and 2003 onward? The fact is, as many Iraqis knows, that you can't eat democracy, democracy doesn't put a roof over your head and democracy can't keep you alive in a state of anarchy.

Good post Mr Crab. It does look like the best bet for all concerned is a kind of benign overlord. Just like the one that used to teach cricket to the rest of the Middle East, most of Africa, all of India etc. If the locals hadn't bitten the hand that fed them, these places wouldn't be the latrines that they are today.
Not quite the logical extension I would have made, but thanks for the compliment anyway. I'm not saying that dictator's are desirable, I'm simply stating that the hard reality is that when things are as screwed up as they are now, order has to precede justice. Now, if you want to ask me how one proceeds from dictatorship to democracy without being able to appeal to any higher sense of collective interest, nation or purpose, I'm sorry but I have no idea.

The sad fact is that all over the region people are struggling to find a collective identity and trying to establish cogent political communities after being ruled for 500 years by some other bugger.

The British (and Ottoman) Empire, for whatever good you might think it did regarding a 'civilizing mission', essentially ruled by a strategy of divide and conquer. We decide it's all too much for us and retreat from East of Suez commitments, leaving a bunch of people really p1ssed off with each other. Cue the Spams and the Russkie's arrival to stir the sh1t a bit more for another 40 years and lo and behold, we have a clusterfcuk on our hands.
 
#19
You don't honour the dead by making sure more of your troops die. I imagine that everyone on these boards knows that.

You honour the dead by doing your damndest to make sure they didn't die in vain - but at some point, you might need to accept that they did. Then you honour them by making sure that no more of them die. And then you resign.

smithie
 
#20
I hate the way that it was quoted before, it would be a betrayal to those dead American soldiers not to complete the mission.

Well if THAT, stated just above, is the mission, then what is the mission it talks about? The mission is to not betray the dead, and we'll do this by completing the mission? WHAT mission?!

You're all right, but I think what we need most out of this is honesty. First it was regime change, then that went out of fashion so it was WMD, then that wasnt found and we found out Blair had completly twisted the information the JIC had provided him, so now its restoring democracy, but that looks to have a chance in a million of working so now its honour? Lets have some solid concrete aims, and a bit of HONOUR in political mastery of the forces there, this argument wouldnt stand up in any O group - the guy in charge (Bush & Blair) would be laughed out!

If they cant set down in clear terms what the troops are there to do, and what higher aim this would achieve, then that tells me the troops shouldnt even be there. Like steamy said that isnt to say we shouldnt have gone, shouldnt stay, or that the lads didnt do well. But why? Lets hear it Bush! Just having them bleeding over there to make Dubya feel better about himself (or because one irrational hero-wannabe was going to get his war no matter what) is a massive fcuking-over of our forces!

As for restoring democracy, well yes a rather noble aim giving people their own right to self-determination, but are we going to do that to every country that doesnt have a political system Dubya approves of? How many of those countries are there, it just isnt realistic (and we'd just create more hatred of the West in the world)! Ever thought some people are content with other political systems, look at how many people voted in the last General Election, we're all for democracy in the Middle East but cant be arrsed about it in the Midlands... Also if democracy is their goal, look at who America is bezzers with - Saudi Arabia, Kuwait (promised elections in months when liberated in '91, still waiting!) Pakistan (taken by military coup!) anyone?

We need to recognise US foreign policy is inconsistent (corrupt and hypocritical even) and a set of knee-jerk reactions. Then we need to do what we did during Vietnam - distance ourselves so that we only get involved in conflicts etc if theres an actual reason to, not just because Dubya says so - yet do our best to preserve our "special relationship" with America (look at the political pressure they put on us during Suez! no difference) because ultimately we dont want them as enemies.


Gook
 

Similar threads

Top