Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by KGB_resident, Aug 19, 2007.
So what's your point? (BTW, I'm asking myself why I'm bothering to ask you as I type.)
Forget KGB_r and read the NYT article. Articulate, well argued stuff from guys on the front line. Well worth reading.
Our friend Mister_Angry is absolutely right. It is a very informative and trustworthly article written by soldiers for frontline.
As for my comment then in fact I commented the article by bolding the last phrase. I agree with the authors that the only workable method to handle such a country as Iraq is using of brutal and lethal force (btw, Saddam was skilled in these matters). As for the West then this method is unacceptable. So the failure is inevitable.
I'm sure that mr.Bush should read the article. It would be more informative for him than reports of his generals.
What struck me so much was the ability of front line troops to be able to write such a well thought out piece without official sanction. Can you imagine British troops being allowed to do this? Its strikes me as very odd that those who have more to loose, namely their lives, are gagged from giving their views by those who are not in harms way. And importantly these same politicians will let them fight and die for democracy but put bureaucratic hurdles in their way to practice it at home when on active service.
Point well made. I notice that these US troops caveat their comments with "Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command." For similar reasons, ARRSE constantly reminds the visitor that it is "THE unofficial British Army community website".
That'll be the 'widespread use of lethal and brutal force' that failed to work for the Soviets in Afghanistan and for the US in Vietnam will it? How exactly do 'we' expect it to work now in Iraq?
I'm in two minds with Arabs. They seem to thrive on chaos and brutality. They were offered the opportunity to become a democracy and in resonably short order no doubt a well run and fincnced country with all the benefits that brings. But they've rejected it in short order and when they're not killing us they're busy killing each other in brutal and horrific ways.
I don't think Iraq can be recovered without some kind of Sadam type dictator. We in the west don't subscribe to that way of doing things so this will continue to spiral out of control until we decide we've had enough and withdraw and let them get on with it. Lets be honest with the notable exceptions of probably Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar the ME is a dump with infighting all over the place.
They don't seem to want to progress and are busy hating someone all the time. When its not Israel it's the US or us or the west in general. Once they can get over hating everyone else for their own problems perhaps we can then offer our hand in friendship, right now they don't seem to want it.
There you have it. Pull out, let the bloodbath run unabated and un-restricted until the nastiest b@stard on the block wins, quietens down (or kills) them wot disagree, and before you know it, you'll have an orderly country once more; perhaps even one you can deal with (if not, kill him). This is indeed what they expect from 'strong' gummint and leadership, the tough, leathery, big testicled leaders who can keep the bad boys at bay.
You would probably find that despite it being a despot in charge, the actual casualty rate amongst civpop for him to become such would be lower in the same time-frame than it would be if we kept trying to 'keep the peace'.
Let them massacre each other, they'll soon get tired of it, or dead.
Edited for mongness.
Western, Christian armies entered Iraq without any invitations and you expect friendship?
Suppose that United Muslim armies enter the UK to save British people from brutal dictator Brown and because of danger of British WMD. British jirga is elected from RESPECT, Communists, IRA and so on. Brish prsident would be former IRA operative. Would your feelings be friendly then?
Do grow up Sergei. The Iraqis were all over us in Basra in 03, they couldn't get enough of us. Please don't start with the old 'should have stayed at home minding your own business' stance.
Also, I'm not too sure how a united Muslim Army (yea right) would feel the need to recruit Communists and the IRA into its Jirga. Or are you just picking the biggest bogeymen you can find in a clever attempt to undermine your schoolboy view of Iraq even further?
Incidentally, the second most powerful man in my country IS a former IRA operative. Get over yourself.
Is this before or after the United League of Dogs, Cats and Mice invade us?
That aside, I'll bite. Your assumption is that the elected political leadership are our puppets, and that the current situation is due to their rejection, as we would reject an imposed RESPECT government (you'll see me in the trenches with a kitchen knife on a broom handle before that comes to pass! ). It isn't, the problem is they don't understand that democracy isn't a winner takes all sport, and as a result those elected are using both their position and private armies to try and gain absolute power.
We'd be quite friendly if they entered Russia. That's for sure. You mention Christian army. Is the British Army officially a christian army? What makes you certain that the Iraqis see it that way?
That's what the propaganda says. Christian army in a crusade against Islam. That's what Russians do well, propaganda. Right Serg?
Wasn't the west invited, almost pleaded with to intervene on the shia behalf during the first gulf war and years beyond it? Wasn't the thought then that we let them down by not invading Baghdad?
What about the non-iraqi fighters? Are they welcome because they're muslim? Shia, Sunni, or other?
Fact of the matter is that each one of these little sects is vying for power in the region, up to and including Iran.
In one of Michael Yons reports, he stated that some American officers could run for *democratically elected* office and win by Iraqi vote.
Britain pulling out puts the locals in a precarious spot having to worry about getting blown up or shot by their brethren muslims for not following their specific views on their religion or being friendly to the British.
This isn't exactly "Unfriendly" behavior.
Indeed why? My scenario is mirroring current American actions in Iraq. The Americans cooperated with Iraqi communist. And current Iraqi president is a leader of separatists.
I see, you would cooperate with Muslim invadors (in my imaginary scenario) and help them to build new British Islamic republic under sharia Law... No? You would not? But why? From point of view of the Muslims their style of life and their laws are the best possible.
Separate names with a comma.