Insurgents right to take on US says former GOC.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by inbredyokel666, May 3, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Not sure what to make of the one, Sir Michael Rose-a soon to be former member of the old boys interesting to hear what upstairs says in reponse to his statements.
  2. Simple really. What would you do if the somebody invaded your country?

    I really don't think there IS anything else to make of it although wether or not it will stir things up and see more troops killed as a result of the comments I can't say. In that respect just how responsible is it for him to say it?

    Sorry I'm coming to the end of a 12 hour night shift and my brain is a bit adled.
  3. Oooh. Isn't that going to go down like a cold cup of sick Spamside? :wink:
  4. Maybe. I guess I missed the part where George Washington ordered his men to kill innocent people as an intimidation tactic and the part where he used human shields.

    If they mean that both use hit and run tactics, than sure. However I don't think it's a totally accurate comparison. Similarly, I think I'm not totally comfortable comparing the insurgents with the Vietcong (on grounds that I think it's unfair to the Vietcong, who while sometimes brutal, did not stoop to the demented and sick tactics of Iraq's "freedom" fighters)
  5. Anything that explains in further detail the natural desire on the part of a nation's people to defend their country against an aggressive foreign invader has to be welcome.

    Insurgents are also battling against ignorance, and any progress made in the worthy cause of educating the Americans is a large step towards the goal of peace.

    We're being given the false impression that all these insurgents desire is a state of anarchy and terror in which to do their dirty deeds. It's not quite like that. They wish to avenge their dead, but also to restore the (relative) peace they had prior to an invasion which offered much - but delivered less security, heightened bloodshed and an intense climate of fear.

    Maybe the stated goal of freedom from oppression was different to the hidden agenda - that of securing a valuable foothold in the ME?
  6. Bring Back isolationism! In God we Trust (everyone else dies!!)
  7. Because all El Sadrs militia want to do is be nice little citizens sharing their countries rule with the Sunni. Because all the Sunni insurgents want to do is share the rule of their country with Al Q, and all Al Q want to do is drive out the infedel and then they will fade away to Momma.

    This is not to say that the aspirations of 'yer average man' are to have Iraq dominated by Sunni/Shia/Caliphate, but to think that everything will be tickity boo if the boys are driven out of the sandpit is simplistic - as simplistic as the military minds that thought that the post war era would be 'job done'.
  8. Which on supports the Caliphate - Sunni or Shia?
  9. Osama or if He is dead then the number two old bloke - too early in the morning after too little sleep to dredge up His name
  10. Really? Because when they dump the bodies of children at the gates of military bases, that seems to be a clear message.

    Battling against ignorance? How is detonating chemical bombs in crowded areas fighting ignorance? How is cutting the heads of of civilian aid workers fighting ignorance? How is murdering Journalists fighting ignorance?

    Any efforts they do to "educate" the American people is worthy you say? Forgive me if I'm not filled with gratitude when they send American and British soldiers home in coffins.

    Let me tell you something. My friend, who served in Iraq in 2005, is working to get a friend of his (an Iraqi) out of the country. You see, the selfless freedom fighters want to kill him, his friends, and his family. Wonderful people those insurgents are.
  11. The BBC News article rather misses the point. The best part of the Newsnight interview last night was the neo-con twerp in the powder blue (I kid you not) jacket beamed into the studio from Washington. His opening gambit was to suggest that Gen Rose was ignorant of history before going on to display a minimal understanding of his own country's fight for independance! He also completely missed the point of Gen Rose's argument.

    Gen Rose's point was very simple, we have fought insurgencies before and haven't learnt our lessons - remarkable considering that the Yanks have conducted an insurgency before. His comment on the insurgent's activities is entirely correct; were Britain to be invaded, we would start an insurgency - we just wouldn't use any of the less gentlemenly tactics employed in Iraq. We certainly wouldn't start killing our own countrymen.
  12. That's exactly the way I see it too, Bat_Crab. The General even states that, while he doesn't condone the methods used by the Iraqis et al, he can understand why they're fighting. I can't see what's so controversial about that.

  13. General Rose is a most unusual man - he is both an intellectual and an 'action man'.

    I met him on a number of occasions and always thought he was living and thinking on an entirely different plane - not wholly surprising considering our differing ranks!

    I would be inclined to listen to, or read, carefully any of his statements.

    I am sure nothing is further from his mind but in a fantasy world he is precisely the sort of general who would lead the country following a military coup. I can only dream on!
  14. Not sure about this. Call me old fashioned, but if Britain were invaded by a Muslim Army and started linking up with "British Militias" made up British Muslims in order to impose a sharia law caliphate on us, I think I probably would start killing them, actually.
  15. Maybe, but these people are not Vietnamese, they are Arabs with various tribal and religious allegiances. Different cultures entirely. Your comments seem to indicate that you believe there is an 'acceptable' standard of warfare. I'd venture that 'acceptability' is in the eye of the beholder - and that is determined by individual culture and history.

    There is far too little real understanding of the mentalities of the opposition, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Korea etc etc. It's so unwise - and ultimately counter-productive - to make assumptions about 'joint perceptions' of the world. That inability to enter and understand the minds of opponents has caused such difficulty for America and many other countries. The USA may have the world's finest intelligence gathering machinery, but if it does not understand the data then the exercise is pointless.

    The alternative is for America to impose its values and culture upon the rest of the world by military force. How likely is that?