NS: the 7,200 British soldiers know they are sitting ducks

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by mora, Jun 3, 2006.

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. Newstatesman

  2. It's such a shame, really!

    *not much more I can say really, I could rant but it's like beating your head against a brick wall, ain't it!
  3. Yaaaawn! more media hysteria. For you you jurno's out there, I can assure you that the situation on the ground does not reflect the pish you churn out. Still, we've been around long enough to know that good news doesn't sell the rags you produce.
  4. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    Mora, you really are a tool. If you want to know what Morale is like here, I can assure you it is quite excellent. The Soldiers here know what they are doing, and certainly know a lot more about the situation here on the ground than the New Statesman.

    Of course, the NS were quite happy to see a vile dictator like Saddam remain in power, and will no doubt be quite happy to see us pull out prematurely so allowing the locals to slaughter each other? Arrogant, ignorant, hypocritical pr1cks.

    You lost the cold war, Blair destroyed 'socalism', the only 'communists' left are in Cuba and N Korea. Get used to t, moonbats.
  5. Well said Snowy
  7. I partially agree. Journos just fail to understand that if everyone is purging, morale is actually fine. The blokes are also obviously more aware of what is going on on the ground. HOWEVER, do we really know what we are doing there, long term? At the local level, we do: we carry out all of our drills and operations as best as we can, so that we and our mates come out of it alive. However, where are we going? Do we really think that we can make the IPS/ IA into effective organisations, capable of maintaining some sort of stability over southern Iraq? Not a hope. We either have to admit our mistakes, take over security completely, and start again with the Iraqi security forces, or get out and let the inevitable factional infighting start. As the former is political suicide for Blair/ Bush, then the latter (although not much better) is the only option. In reality it will happen anyway, and we only have to decide whether we want thousands dead over 20 years, or thousands dead over a short civil war that will sort out the whole thing.

    Danger of the civil war option is that Iran may take control of the southern oil fields, but tough luck really- that should have been identified as a possible risk before the invasion took place. Was it worth replacing a dictator who presided over a secular, stable but brutal regime with many years of chaos, spreading instability in the region, and possibly ceding control of oil reserves to an aggressive (nuclear) power? Too late to say.
  8. How was Iraq under the Ba'athist regime particulary stable? The country had open insurrection in the north since the early 80's, was fighting a war with it's neighbour between 1980 and 1988, then went to war again a year and a half later against another neighbour, then had more uprisings in both the north and south, plus half of it's airspace denied to it.
  9. Snowy, I agree. Mora- You really are a tool. Would like to think that the next article 'you" churn out will be more realistic, however somehow I doubt it.
  10. My English may not be perfect and my spelling is atrocious but this stands out.

    I cannot take anything seriously is it has lapses like that.
  11. It was strategically stable after the Gulf War- it could be little else with "half of it's airspace denied to it". Add to that sanctions, UN inspections, etc. Also, are you forgetting the southern insurretion was sparked by the belief- encouraged by the US or not- that they would be supported if they rose against Saddam?

    You have hit the nail on the head, however: internal uprisings are the only way long- term 'regime change' works. We (Us/ UK/ 'West') just failed to support them (although hindsight is a wonderful thing).
  12. Bit confused...but why is it that mora only ever bothers to post bullsh*t articles on here and not even have the sense to make any opinions on it.
    I always thought arrse was about debate, gaining useful advice and general pis* taking so would it be possible to get any of that out of him/her?
  13. He/she's a journo mate and is looking for some feedback on the pish produced.
  14. Churn out as in 'produce many of'

    Journo as in 'Journalist'

    Mate as in 'friend or pal'

    Pish as in 'urine' although online it could also be 'piece of shit'

    Mora as in 'donut'

    Give us your opinion, did you post the article because you believe it to be true or did you post it to say look at this badly researched piece of work? Maybe neither? Don't be scared if you start talking bollocks people will respond in politely written well thought out counter arguments.

    So what is YOUR opinion on the article you posted?
  15. Mora,

    Why did you pull your last post? You've made mine look silly now. That will teach me for not selecting "Quote".


    Muzzleflash - If you didn't see Mora's response to your last please don't think I'm mocking you :)