Gen Dannatt: Majority of Our Opponents Are Not Bad People

annakey said:
cpunk said:
I really, honestly, have no problem at all with what they were trying to achieve.
I've no problem either with genuine nation-building. Just because there's a line on a map (probably drawn by a drunk Etonian in 1871)
Make your points, annakey.

Don’t foul them up with juvenile asides like that.
 
annakey said:
cpunk said:
annakey said:
GW1 achieved it's objectives. It was a UN operation from start to finish. Are you claiming it wasn't decisive, lacked legitimacy, was silly and was not a worthwhile achievement?
Bollox. It was a military operation under US command authorised by the UN. Edited to add: In the atmosphere of the time, when the Soviet Union had just collapsed, everyone was bending over backwards to do exactly what the US wanted, because they were the big kids on the block.
I take your point, but you're splitting hairs! The UN signed off on the US GW1 battle plan, something the UN crucially didn't do for GW2. Why didn't it? Because France, Russia and China refused to sign. They told the Yanks not to do it. The Yanks didn't listen. The Yanks - and, more importantly, the Iraqis - got stuffed as a result.
That wasn't splitting hairs. There is a huge difference to an operation run by the UN and one sanctioned by it. Realy huge. The second can be a military style operation and the former is almost certainly going to be a beuracraticaly bogged down nightmare.
 
I think 9/11 shocked the hell out of both the conservative Republicans and the Neo Cons (Goodkurtz won't agree with me in this as he believes the US administration actually did it)
Goodkurtz is old enough and uglier enough to speak for himself. And he is not in the habit of allowing unreliable self appointed narrators to speak on his behalf.
If anyone wishes to know what goodkurtz has to say for himself they must ask kurtz and kurtz and only kurtz will answer for kurtz.
No fcuker else.
Do I make myself clear? Good.
 
goodkurtz said:
I think 9/11 shocked the hell out of both the conservative Republicans and the Neo Cons (Goodkurtz won't agree with me in this as he believes the US administration actually did it)
Goodkurtz is old enough and uglier enough to speak for himself. And he is not in the habit of allowing unreliable self appointed narrators to speak on his behalf.
If anyone wishes to know what goodkurtz has to say for himself they must ask kurtz and kurtz and only kurtz will answer for kurtz.
No fcuker else.
Do I make myself clear? Good.
Pretty much. Made me curious. So who do you think organised the events of 9/11?
 
pre·text (pr?'t?kst')
n.
An ostensible or professed purpose; an excuse.
An effort or strategy intended to conceal something.
To allege as an excuse.
cpunk:
The genuinely held belief that Saddam was still attempting to conceal WMDs in contravention of UNSC resolutions provided an obvious pretext for action, but it would be childish to pretend it was ever anything more than that.
And pray, just who exactly 'genuinely held the belief' in an 'obvious pretext'?
Did the persons who designed the 'obvious pretext' 'genuinely believe' it!!!!
Or was the 'obvious pretext' intended only to be 'genuinely believed' by the trusting and unsuspecting citizen?
And are you saying that anyone who objects to being lied into supporting war is being childish for not recognising an obvious pretext.?

Because if you are, as well as holding in contempt those who seek the truth, you are trying to create a difference between a lie and a pretext. And in this context at least - there isn't one.
Here is the word that best describes one who thinks and talks in the manner that you just have.


Online Dictionary : M : mealymouth

Moby Thesaurus words for "mealymouth":
Joseph Surface, Pecksniff, Tartuffe, apple-polisher, ass-licker,
backscratcher, backslapper, bootlick, bootlicker, brown-nose,
brownie, canter, clawback, courtier, creature, cringer, dupe,
fair-weather friend, false friend, fawner, flatterer, flunky,
footlicker, groveler, handshaker, helot, hypocrite, instrument,
jackal, kowtower, lackey, led captain, lickspit, lickspittle,
minion, peon, pharisee, phony, puppet, sanctimonious fraud, serf,
slave, snuffler, spaniel, stooge, suck, summer soldier, sycophant,
timeserver, toad, toady, tool, truckler, tufthunter,
whited sepulcher, yes-man
And to that list I would add:
a Tory, a shinny faced Tory boy, a Doughty street bum bandit, a Carlton club masseur, a Lombard street fruit or a Cambridge quad saddle sniffer.
 
Perturbed:
Pretty much. Made me curious. So who do you think organised the events of 9/11?
Not here son.
Either start a thread on it or meet me in the gents at Victoria station tomorrow afternoon where I will fill you in if you are a very lucky boy.
 

Nehustan

On ROPS
On ROPs
goodkurtz said:
Perturbed:
Pretty much. Made me curious. So who do you think organised the events of 9/11?
Not here son.
Either start a thread on it or meet me in the gents at Victoria station tomorrow afternoon where I will fill you in if you are a very lucky boy.

OOOOhhhh, Kurtz...we're neighbours. Think I'll avoid the multiple toilets in the station from now on ;) By the way, I hope none of you think this thread is boring, I've just read it after finishing a day at college and work and its really very entertaining/enjoyable/though provoking.

N.
 

cpunk

LE
Moderator
goodkurtz said:
pre·text (pr?'t?kst')
n.
An ostensible or professed purpose; an excuse.
An effort or strategy intended to conceal something.
To allege as an excuse.
cpunk:
The genuinely held belief that Saddam was still attempting to conceal WMDs in contravention of UNSC resolutions provided an obvious pretext for action, but it would be childish to pretend it was ever anything more than that.
And pray, just who exactly 'genuinely held the belief' in an 'obvious pretext'?
Did the persons who designed the 'obvious pretext' 'genuinely believe' it!!!!
Or was the 'obvious pretext' intended only to be 'genuinely believed' by the trusting and unsuspecting citizen?
And are you saying that anyone who objects to being lied into supporting war is being childish for not recognising an obvious pretext.?

Because if you are, as well as holding in contempt those who seek the truth, you are trying to create a difference between a lie and a pretext. And in this context at least - there isn't one.
Here is the word that best describes one who thinks and talks in the manner that you just have.


Online Dictionary : M : mealymouth

Moby Thesaurus words for "mealymouth":
Joseph Surface, Pecksniff, Tartuffe, apple-polisher, ass-licker,
backscratcher, backslapper, bootlick, bootlicker, brown-nose,
brownie, canter, clawback, courtier, creature, cringer, dupe,
fair-weather friend, false friend, fawner, flatterer, flunky,
footlicker, groveler, handshaker, helot, hypocrite, instrument,
jackal, kowtower, lackey, led captain, lickspit, lickspittle,
minion, peon, pharisee, phony, puppet, sanctimonious fraud, serf,
slave, snuffler, spaniel, stooge, suck, summer soldier, sycophant,
timeserver, toad, toady, tool, truckler, tufthunter,
whited sepulcher, yes-man
And to that list I would add:
a Tory, a shinny faced Tory boy, a Doughty street bum bandit, a Carlton club masseur, a Lombard street fruit or a Cambridge quad saddle sniffer.
I think you would be better saving your posts until you've sobered up.
 
Annakey wrote:

I take your point, but you're splitting hairs! The UN signed off on the US GW1 battle plan, something the UN crucially didn't do for GW2. Why didn't it? Because France, Russia and China refused to sign. They told the Yanks not to do it. The Yanks didn't listen. The Yanks - and, more importantly, the Iraqis - got stuffed as a result.
I agree with you over the Might = Right stuff. Might = Might imo, but *sensible* Might can sometimes lead to Right if it's done properly.

On the other hand I don't see how UN blessing neccessarily helps anything. If there had been UN blessing of the invasion with the US as lead nation then all the mistakes: Rumsfeld, Bremer, Abu Ghraib, no reconstruction plan, disbanding the Iraqi army, COIN doctrine based on force-protection etc would still have c*cked everything up. If they'd done everything right then the lack of UN blessing wouldn't have made a difference imo.

Russia, China and France were against the invasion because they had a lot of business interests in Iraq, not for moral or practical reasons. The Russians don't bother with the UN in Central Asia, the Chinese don't bother in Tibet and the French don't bother in their former colonies. They just get on with it as quietly as they can.

If a person believes in the UN as an instrument of good in the world then it would have been *better* if the US worked with it rather than ignoring it. Personally though, I think the UN is b*llocks and I'd much rather we left it and had a United Democratic Nations instead, with a list of principles you had to abide by to join the club.

As far as I can make out the neo-cons are a mixture of quasi-imperialist types like Cheney and ex-lefties who shifted right as the left got more anti-Israel. I think that tortured alliance led to a lot of the problems.

Most Americans don't want to see themselves as an empire and most of them don't even realize they are a "sort of" empire. That means people like Cheney have to be sneaky and secretive and rely on a small pool of the total available brains. Added to that is the ex-lefties needed to pat their anti-imperialistic consciences a bit with the idea of spreading sweetness and light in the mid east. So they ended up with a naive objective wrapped up in a lot of devious fibs and run by a group of people who were seriously defective in areas of common sense.

Pax Americana and being global cop requires a certain amount of sensible, pragmatic imperialism (for want of a better word). So what the US needs (imo) is to first have that debate internally and decide if that's what they want to do. Then if they decide yes, they can do it a lot better if they do it openly, using all the brains available, than they can if it's all covert CIA stuff and little coteries of neo-cons trying to operate an empire behind a facade.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top