Withdrawal of US and UK troops would be...

Withdrawal of US and UK troops would be...

  • a catastrophe for Iraqi corruptioners

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • a catastrophe for British and American peoples

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • a catastrophe for Iraqi people

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Not a catastrophe at all

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
#1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4314308.stm

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has told the Iraqi president British troops will stay in the country "as long as he wants them".
Speaking after talks in London, Jalal Talabani said an early withdrawal of US and UK troops would be a "catastrophe".
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#2
....not a catastrophe for Britain....but eminently self-centred or selfish..take your pick.....in other words mirroring the foreign policy of most other states, notably France, Israel and the People's Democratic Republic of South Yorkshire....

Le Chevre
 
#3
Goatman said:
....not a catastrophe for Britain....but eminently self-centred or selfish..take your pick.....in other words mirroring the foreign policy of most other states, notably France, Israel and the People's Democratic Republic of South Yorkshire....

Le Chevre
Thank you for your comment. Previously I thought that Yorkshire is something solid - lovely place for emmigrants (from Danes to these four 'fully integrated new Britons').

I remember that in 1989 there was outcry by Soviets puppets in Aghanistan that withdrawal of Soviet troops would be a catastrophe. But in real life despite all predictions pro-Soviet government of Afghanistan (anyway it was better than Taleban) was able to be at power 2 years (and take into account that USa helped so called 'freedom fighters'). The government was defeated only after collapse of Soviet Union and abrupt end of help (material and military).

Has Iraqi army in current situation any motivations to fight with insurgents? No of course, US/UK do it. And really number of insurgents is not so big.

Suppose that the withdrawal takes place. And what? Do you think that immediately insurgents would take power? I doubt. Some of them will be at power soon. Sunni trianle probably will be under control of tribal leaders and that's all.

Current Iraqi army and police sufficiently strong and with American help they are able to guard the government. Cna you imagine that more than 2 years many billions of $$$ were spent without a result.

It is an another question: will be Iraqi army pro-American after the withdrawal? Not sure. Will be military coup possible? Probably yes and new Saddam will be at power soon.
 
#4
Goatman said:
....not a catastrophe for Britain....but eminently self-centred or selfish..take your pick.....in other words mirroring the foreign policy of most other states, notably France, Israel and the People's Democratic Republic of South Yorkshire....

Le Chevre
WHAT! Its the People's Republic of Cork and has been since the early 90's. ven have its own site and all.

http://www.peoplesrepublicofcork.com/

South Yorkshire Democratic republic might do ye lot. SYRD


To stay vaguely on topic: Who cares as long as more oil comes out and prices come down a little?

GO ON YA GOOD THING! PUMP THAT BABY!


(damm this polish beer is good.
 
#5
Bombard said:
To stay vaguely on topic: Who cares as long as more oil comes out and prices come down a little?
Once, in Soviet times I met one Irishman in Moscow - Dennis from Limerik. He said that IRA was just about 150 nutters but so big fuss was about them. I suspect that real number of insurgents is very low. They are unable to capture the power (as IRA was unable). So this talks about 'impossibility of withdrawal' are simply a game to remain on Iraqi soil (very rich soil btw) as long as possible. True objective is a creation of controlled regime. Yes after 'early withdrawal' it is questionable.

Let's wait.
 
#6
KGB_resident said:
Bombard said:
To stay vaguely on topic: Who cares as long as more oil comes out and prices come down a little?
Once, in Soviet times I met one Irishman in Moscow - Dennis from Limerik. He said that IRA was just about 150 nutters but so big fuss was about them. I suspect that real number of insurgents is very low. They are unable to capture the power (as IRA was unable). So this talks about 'impossibility of withdrawal' are simply a game to remain on Iraqi soil (very rich soil btw) as long as possible. True objective is a creation of controlled regime. Yes after 'early withdrawal' it is questionable.

Let's wait.
Agreed Sergey - it's not in America's and by extension, Britain's interest to have peace and a gradual withdrawal soon. They're in there to get what they invaded for, at almost whatever cost. Don't be surprised if any more botched undercover operations turn up. The longer it stays in a state of upheaval, the greater the justification provided to stay for 'the long haul'. The furthering of chaos, whilst presenting a smokescreen of benevolence and concern for 'ordinary Iraqis' is the order of the day. It's depressingly cynical, but the second largest lake of blackstuff is beneath their feet and you don't walk away from riches like that over a few innocent, dispensable civilian lives. You remain focused on the much bigger goal. If you do walk away, then it'll be before an election and you have time to groom your electorate into believing it was a popular move
 
#8
KGB_resident said:
Once, in Soviet times I met one Irishman in Moscow - Dennis from Limerik.
Dennis? Do you really know Dennis from Limerick? Guy with brown hair and medium height+build? Sure don't me and him go back years... he's a great lad... :lol:



FrenchPerson,

I'm probably gonna regret replying to your post but here goes. Do you seriously think believe the coalition is setting 'fake' bombs in Iraq? What would the motivation be? You mention getting access to the black stuff. No doubt oil explains a lot of our actions in the Middle East. But its not some sort of 'oil grab' - we still have to pay for the stuff. Plus, you don't have to have soldiers on the ground to ensure long-term access to the oil. If, big if, Iraq becomes a normal-ish democratic state the soldiers can go home and we can trade with the Iraqis. The US buys raw materials from lots of different countries without having to invade and occupy the country.

Tricam.
 
#9
Tricam!

Dennis? Do you really know Dennis from Limerick? Guy with brown hair and medium height+build?
I think that there are too few Dennis's from Limerick who have computer business and visited Moscow.

FrenchPerson... Do you seriously think believe the coalition is setting 'fake' bombs in Iraq? What would the motivation be?
I don't know what would be an answer of our friend FrenchPerson, as for me then I don't think and don't believe in 'fake' bombs in Iraq. However I can't say that it is absolutely impossible. What would be possible reasons? Before an answer I would like to repeat that I do not believe in staging of bombing by coalition forces.

First of all what is the main reason of presence of US army in Iraq? WMD? There is no WMD in Iraq? Interests of Iraqi people? Maybe but unlikely.

From my point of view the main cause is own American intersts. And I don't see anything wrong with it. Each country has right to have own intersts. According to vision of current powerkeeprs in Washington long-term presence of American troops in Iraq, creation of pro-american regime there are in American strategical intersts. But now it is impossible to declare openly such selfish objectives and smokescreen of 'struggle with terrorism', 'promoting democracy' is being used.

The Insurgents routinely are being portrayed as terrorists. But how is it possible to prove it? Attacks against coalition forces and even against Iraqi army and police should be regarded as military operations. Some bombings have been directed agaist Iraqi civilians. But have thay been made by the insurgents? Who knows?
 
#10
KGB_resident said:
Tricam!

Dennis? Do you really know Dennis from Limerick? Guy with brown hair and medium height+build?
I think that there are too few Dennis's from Limerick who have computer business and visited Moscow.

FrenchPerson... Do you seriously think believe the coalition is setting 'fake' bombs in Iraq? What would the motivation be?
I don't know what would be an answer of our friend FrenchPerson, as for me then I don't think and don't believe in 'fake' bombs in Iraq. However I can't say that it is absolutely impossible. What would be possible reasons? Before an answer I would like to repeat that I do not believe in staging of bombing by coalition forces.

First of all what is the main reason of presence of US army in Iraq? WMD? There is no WMD in Iraq? Interests of Iraqi people? Maybe but unlikely.

From my point of view the main cause is own American intersts. And I don't see anything wrong with it. Each country has right to have own intersts. According to vision of current powerkeeprs in Washington long-term presence of American troops in Iraq, creation of pro-american regime there are in American strategical intersts. But now it is impossible to declare openly such selfish objectives and smokescreen of 'struggle with terrorism', 'promoting democracy' is being used.

The Insurgents routinely are being portrayed as terrorists. But how is it possible to prove it? Attacks against coalition forces and even against Iraqi army and police should be regarded as military operations. Some bombings have been directed agaist Iraqi civilians. But have thay been made by the insurgents? Who knows?

I go along with all of that except I don't agree with the idea of lying to your electorate about your true intentions, whilst causing and spreading carnage abroad. If you examine my posts, you'll see no mention of 'fake bombs' - that was tricam's idea. All I will say is that you shouldn't believe a thing you're told. I don't believe we've had the truth behind the recent springing of two apparent SAS men - and probably never will - but what was noticeable was the whitewashing machine quickly going into overdrive. I suppose there have to be off-the-peg contingency stories for when you get found out, and it seems to have worked for the time being, but next time the occupying forces might not be so lucky
 
#11
frenchperson said:
...
I go along with all of that except I don't agree with the idea of lying to your electorate about your true intentions, whilst causing and spreading carnage abroad. If you examine my posts, you'll see no mention of 'fake bombs' - that was tricam's idea. All I will say is that you shouldn't believe a thing you're told. I don't believe we've had the truth behind the recent springing of two apparent SAS men - and probably never will - but what was noticeable was the whitewashing machine quickly going into overdrive. I suppose there have to be off-the-peg contingency stories for when you get found out, and it seems to have worked for the time being, but next time the occupying forces might not be so lucky
frenchperson

I didnt see you making any detailed accusations about these two soldiers being on some kind of bomb planting mission, but your posts referred more than once to their being in possession of explosives. All their kit was seized and later put on display by the Basra police, and included no IED type material.

One of your posts also stated - at a time when the two soldiers were still detained and in danger - that they were "obviously up to no good". I thought that an irresponsible thing to say at that time on a site such as this, even if it had been true. The only reason you werent picked up on it at the time is that people didnt want to draw attention to your allegations.
 

cpunk

LE
Moderator
#12
frenchperson said:
The Insurgents routinely are being portrayed as terrorists. But how is it possible to prove it? Attacks against coalition forces and even against Iraqi army and police should be regarded as military operations. Some bombings have been directed agaist Iraqi civilians. But have thay been made by the insurgents? Who knows?
I go along with all of that except I don't agree with the idea of lying to your electorate about your true intentions, whilst causing and spreading carnage abroad. If you examine my posts, you'll see no mention of 'fake bombs' - that was tricam's idea. All I will say is that you shouldn't believe a thing you're told. I don't believe we've had the truth behind the recent springing of two apparent SAS men - and probably never will - but what was noticeable was the whitewashing machine quickly going into overdrive. I suppose there have to be off-the-peg contingency stories for when you get found out, and it seems to have worked for the time being, but next time the occupying forces might not be so lucky
Do you routinely sport headwear made from tinfoil? Do you think that people on TV are talking to you and/or making secret signs to you? Are the voices in your head getting louder?
 
#13
cpunk said:
frenchperson said:
The Insurgents routinely are being portrayed as terrorists. But how is it possible to prove it? Attacks against coalition forces and even against Iraqi army and police should be regarded as military operations. Some bombings have been directed agaist Iraqi civilians. But have thay been made by the insurgents? Who knows?

I go along with all of that except I don't agree with the idea of lying to your electorate about your true intentions, whilst causing and spreading carnage abroad. If you examine my posts, you'll see no mention of 'fake bombs' - that was tricam's idea. All I will say is that you shouldn't believe a thing you're told. I don't believe we've had the truth behind the recent springing of two apparent SAS men - and probably never will - but what was noticeable was the whitewashing machine quickly going into overdrive. I suppose there have to be off-the-peg contingency stories for when you get found out, and it seems to have worked for the time being, but next time the occupying forces might not be so lucky
Do you routinely sport headwear made from tinfoil? Do you think that people on TV are talking to you and/or making secret signs to you? Are the voices in your head getting louder?
I would like to make one remark. Probably by mistake you marked my words "The Insurgents...Who knows?" as written by our friend FrenchPerson. So it is up to me to answer your questions.

1. I never used any headwear made from tinfoil (and don't know that it is possible).
2. People on TV hardly know about my existence.
3. Voices in my head. No, however my daughter frequently hears them then she uses MP3-flash-player.
 
#14
FrenchPerson - I do understand that you never suggested the Army planting fake bombs. That was me trying to interpret what you are saying. I vaguely remember you talking about the Army using SAS Agent Provecuters. I presume you are not accusing these rufty tufty types of wearing women's lingerie. So what exactly are you implying those lads were up to when they got caught?

Tricam.
 
#15
tricam said:
what exactly ... those lads were up to when they got caught?
As for me, I don't know. But

http://www.newstatesman.com/200510030009

...al-Sadr has actually co-operated with the British. What did he have to say about the "rescue"? Quite a lot, none of which was reported in this country. His spokesman Sheikh Hassan al-Zarqani said the SAS men, disguised as al-Sadr's followers, were planning an attack on Basra ahead of an important religious festival.

"When the police tried to stop them," he said, "[they] opened fire on the police and passers-by. After a car chase, they were arrested. What our police found in the car was very disturbing - weapons, explosives and a remote-control detonator. These are the weapons of terrorists."
 
#16
One of reasons that has been advanced is loss of prestige if coalition retired from Iraq in any way that suggested they had 'lost'. Emotive wording but such a thing did not seem to have much lasting effect after Vietnam. Yes - returning and vets were dissed but that only lasted very short while.
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#17
KGB_resident said:
1. I never used any headwear made from tinfoil (and don't know that it is possible).
2. People on TV hardly know about my existence.
3. Voices in my head. No, however my daughter frequently hears them then she uses MP3-flash-player.
Surge,

if you are to make any sense of much of what passes for humour hereabouts you need to grasp the essentials of tinfoil head gear....this picture may help:


if I might quote from their estimable literature:
An Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie (AFDB) is a type of headwear that can shield your brain from most electromagnetic psychotronic mind control carriers. AFDBs are inexpensive (even free if you don't mind scrounging for thrown-out aluminium foil) and can be constructed by anyone with at least the dexterity of a chimp (maybe bonobo). This cheap and unobtrusive form of mind control protection offers real security to the masses. Not only do they protect against incoming signals, but they also block most forms of brain scanning and mind reading, keeping the secrets in your head truly secret. AFDBs are safe and operate automatically. All you do is make it and wear it and you're good to go! Plus, AFDBs are stylish and comfortable.

What are you waiting for? Make one today!

BEWARE OF COMMERCIAL AFDBS: Since you should trust no one, always construct your AFDB yourself to avoid the risk of subversion and mental enslavement. Sometimes, AFDBs will be sold on places like eBay. Do not purchase these pre-made AFDBs, even if the seller seems trustworthy. They may contain backdoors, pinholes, integrated psychotronic circuitry or other methods that actually promote mind control.

It is possible the more enlightened tinfoil hat wearer would wish to take Miss Sylvia Spankhurst's rather poignant ditty to heart on these matters: http://eclectech.co.uk/mindcontrol.php

( ARRSE respectfully requests patrons not to expectorate on their keyboards)

Naturally, tinfoil hat wearers will not wish to take my word for it - the link is http://zapatopi.net/afdb/

An impressed user writes:
NeoCon writes: gee willykins, this here AFDB has sure shown me the error of my ways....there ARE no black helicopters!...THANKS zapatopi, you sure are an all-American heerow ! At last, when I look in the mere, I can see a true Woyer....
Hope this helps,

be at peace with your pipe - Krasniya Okjabre !

Lee Shaver
 
#18
OldRedCap said:
One of reasons that has been advanced is loss of prestige if coalition retired from Iraq in any way that suggested they had 'lost'.
Absolutely agree. So inevitable withdrawal should be presented not as a defeat. American senator Carl Levin is working in this direction.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/09/AR2005100900533.html

There is, however, one point on which leaders of the three main groups in Iraq agree: None of the Iraqi groups wants U.S. troops to leave precipitately.
It appears that respected senator has rich imagination.

The Shiites want us to stay until Iraqi security forces are strong enough to deal with the insurgency on their own.
Yes, yes, Moqtada al-Sadr urges constantly American and British forces to stay (probably to kill as many of them as he could).

The Kurds want us to remain for the impending future.
I dare to correct the senator: 'for the independent future'.

And the Sunni Arab leaders want us to stay as a deterrent to those who might seek revenge against them for the actions of Saddam Hussein.
So, really insurgents in Sunni triangle love Americans as their liberators and fear that if they would go away then crowds of Shiites would storm Fallujah, Tal'afar and other places.

We must use that leverage -- the possibility of an American withdrawal -- to achieve the broad-based political settlement that is essential for defeating the insurgency.

I believe that if the Iraqis fail to reach a political solution by the end of the year we must consider a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. forces.
So dangerous threat! The senator siscerely believes that the withdrawal would be a catastrophe for Iraqi people, especially for insurgents. Yes it would be a catastrophe for them. Whom would they kill after the withdrawal?

We should not mislead the Iraqis into thinking they have unlimited time to reach a settlement.
So it is not American defeat at all. Really USA already won the war and now simply wait for withdrawal as soon as possible.

The administration also needs to end its own self-deception about U.S. ability to stay in Iraq.
I guess the insurgents read this string with a smile.

The administration should tell Iraqis that if they do not reach a political settlement by year's end, we will consider a timetable for our withdrawal.
Iraqi corruptioners! Loot quicker! Your American guardians are losing patience.

PS. I have a bad habit. Sometimes I intentionally pretend that I don't understand humour.
 

Top