Saddam Tape Urges 'US' Withdrawal

The US has to leave, but everyone else can stay?

Mr Happy

Spoon said:
lol maybe theyve forgotten about us, but the chances of the americans withdrawing....are....not..likely
Until next election of course and then they'll reverse 95% of their foreign policy and send yet another message to the world.
they "liberated" a country which is SO grateful for it's 'rescue' that it is actively seeking out and killing it's 'saviours'.

perhaps it's a good idea to leave.

Mr Happy

You can't go around invading places and then leaving them in turmoil. It looks like running away. And NOBODY will like you then.

Of course, it would be nicer to invade AND have a plan but seeing as the US leadership blah blah blah.

The US did of course do a fine and reasonable job in 1945 in Germany, perhaps what we all need to remember is that war brings casualties and that people get unhappy, the mission however should be what is concentrated on.

Oh, and for the record. If I was the US/UK government, and any press wanted to go into Iraq. I'd have them arrested on sight and exported out of the region. What possible fcking good can the presence of a camera man and a reporter or two do in a life or death situation for the soldiers on the ground? They are already 'non-combatants' - their own code says they can't say "hey Tommy, look out for the RPG team on your right" so why the hell should we have them along?

I can't help but feel that the Afghan war received a far better approval rating because even though it also has so far failed in its aim and it has cost lots of lives as well the press aren't charging around the country digging up crap stories to slander friendly forces. The only thing I approve of OBL was his 30,000 USD per head of a journalist...

Mr Happy

I suspect that they are under some geneva rules about assisting in medical care and avoiding shooting for non-combatants as reasonably possible.

But i don't think we're under any obligation to pluck them out of dangerous situations except as so far as the wording on their passports about being (if) british nationals and so forth.
The US military certainly seem to think the journos are worthwhile - remember the way they did a re-take of their landings in Kosovo and Somalia for the cameras?

The US public want to see how well their brave boys are doing against the crazy Muslim hordes, and that's just what they get. Rarely anything critical of their government, or any reporting of cock-ups that doesn't end in a whitewash. You only have to see the sort of reaction to any comment on friendly fire posted on GIJargon to understand. Also, they rarely feature anyone else, thus strengthening Bubba's view that the US is doing it on their own.

As for us, no-one trusts the politicians, so having the press along is seen as a way of reporting impartially (and believably). However, the BBC seems to be a bunch of pinkos these days, and the rest are just out for a story that sells papers. Embedding at least allows an element of control.
wouldnt it be such a splendiferous idea :D if we dumped the journos onto the yanks then they would get shot at (by our allies) and wouldnt want to be inside iraq a moment longer.

Mr Happy

Whilst I liked the embedded journo's more (because frankly they were more interesting and when Tommy Atkins is getting interviewed I can read between his lines to understand the real situation) I feel that they are almost the only acceptable option. Those reporters in Baghdad and now running around filming rioting Palestinians claiming to be Iraqi's is getting right up my nose.
but are they really essential to the rebuilding of iraq?...hmm thinking that over maybe it seems its just not possible to do the work without the journalists. ready to pounce on anything to that can turn into a "sensational story"

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads