British to Withdraw from Iraq

[tw]

He says clearly we shoud "get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems."

"We are in a Muslim country and Muslims' views of foreigners in their country are quite clear."

The military campaign we fought in 2003 effectively kicked the door in. Whatever consent we may have had in the first place, may have turned to tolerance and has largely turned to intolerance."

"That is a fact. I don’t say that the difficulties we are experiencing round the world are caused by our presence in Iraq but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them."

This from the top commander of the United Kingdom's armed forces.

More from The Daily Mail of 12 Oct 2006

Army chief declares war on Blair: 'We must quit Iraq soon'
"The original intention was that we put in place a liberal democracy that was an exemplar for the region, was pro West and might have a beneficial effect on the balance within the Middle East."

"That was the hope, whether that was a sensible or naïve hope history will judge. I don’t think we are going to do that. I think we should aim for a lower ambition."

Both George Jr and Blair have insisted

that British troops must stay until the Iraqi security forces are able to take charge - a forlorn hope as the country has slipped to the brink of civil war.

Iraqi forces are now as competent as they can be expected to be - after almost four years. Hell, US with no military built armies and won battles everywhere in the world in this same time. After all these years, this is the best that the Iraqi military is going to get. Continued American presence with too few troops now guarantees Iraqi civil war. One must be as dumb as George Jr to not see that.

Meanwhile,

General Dannatt says he has "more optimism" that "we can get it right in Afghanistan."

But he condemned the treatment of injured British soldiers, who have been forced to share wards with civilians in Selly Oak hospital in Birmingham.

Sir Richard said he confronted Mr Browne about the "covenant" between a nation and its armed forces.

"I said to the Secretary of State the army wont let the nation down but I don’t want the nation to let the army down."

"It is not acceptable for our casualties to be in mixed wards with civilians. I was outraged at the story of someone saying ‘take your uniform off’. Our people need the privacy of recovering in a military environment …"

"I am going to stand up for what is right for the army. Honesty is what it is about. The truth will out. We have got to speak the truth."

Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox said: "When I was in Iraq, soldiers told me the same thing."

"They said the reaction had gone from welcome, to consent to mere tolerance and they said that this meant we didn't have an indefinite licence to be there."

"To have one of our senior military figures speaking out on behalf of those under his commenad is a refreshing change."

An honest Cellar Dweller long ago admitted that both the "Mission Accomplished" war and a justified war in Afghanistan cannot be won. Meanwhile, every patriot was asking this question repeatedly, “When do we go after bin Laden?” Only those with a political agenda don’t ask that question.

Military Science 101 - we only had six month - one year max - to win the peace. But a mental midget insisted that "Americans don't do nation building". So when do we go after bin Laden? After we torture how many? No wonder this is the same political party that would even protect a sexual predator and endorse intelligent design be imposed in Dover PA - even by lying under oath.

Gen Dannatt will probably lose his job only for being honest.

A larger question of every Cellar dweller. How honest have you been? Facts stated by Gen Dannatt have been obvious for a terribly long time. Publically available are all the facts. A lesson even from Vietnam. The facts don't get any more obvious - welcome to reality. This is when you learn about yourself - if you can even stand up for yourself - or act like an indecisive ostrich. How true can you be to yourself? Gen Dannatt was bluntly honest. Can you be?

[Aliantha]

Australia is heading towards a federal election early next year and the labor party are in front according to the polls, largely because they've promised to withdraw troops from Iraq if they're elected. Presently labor is the opposition party to the liberal party who are conservative right(ish) wing and who've been in power for 12 yrs.

[xoxoxoBruce]

It seems to me, neither the police nor insurgents can be successful without the support of the population. As long as we're there, they really don't have to make the choice.

That said, I would hope we would announce our intentions, complete with a time line, and respond to any attacks on our troops, with massive deadly force.

You can argue the semantics of cut and run vs turning the country over to the natives, but the fact remains that Bush's plan (plan?) didn't happen and never will. Time for a (new) plan.

Bush can always shake his head and say the Iraqis were given the opportunity and refused to be helped. So now they can do what ever the hell they want, the ingrates......since truth has never entered into it.

Bin Ladin? The only way is to start a new war in Pakistan..... armed to the teeth, nuclear, Pakistan. No thanks, he ain't worth it.
Just keep in mind the Pakis aren't friends or family....just business partners looking out for their own.

[9th Engineer]

I hope this teaches us that it's never a good idea to intervene anywhere in the world for whatever reason. Just ain't worth it.

We never seem to learn. Many Americans today were around at the time of the Vietnam conflict. There are some here on the Cellar, as well. Its like we're a nation of Mayflies with short little ephemeral memories. And Bush is such a nut case that he'll probably declare the Brit's and the Aussies "unlawful enemy combatants" against the States if they withdraw their troops. Nothing would surprise me, anymore. (sigh)

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The only way is to start a new war in Pakistan..... armed to the teeth, nuclear, Pakistan. No thanks, he ain't worth it.
Just keep in mind the Pakis aren't friends or family....just business partners looking out for their own.

Not Pakis, pretty please? Won't labour the point, we've raised this before.

In this country, there are MANY Brits of Pakistani origin, from recent immigrants to 3rd generation. Pakistan is one of the last places Britain would want to start a war against because there are family and friends there (although the old nuclear deterrant helps).

[9th Engineer]

There have been a bunch of activist groups here on campus trying to raise support for US intervention in Darfur, except when you look at the situation it's pretty well the same thing we haven't been able to do shit about in Iraq. What makes them think us marching in there is going to do anything except get us picked apart be local guerilla militias until, once again, we start screaming that too many of our soldiers are dying and we pack up for home. Iraq is the proof that we cannot stop local tribes from killing each other off for any reasonable length of time. Of course if I stopped to say that to any groups here you'd be hearing about the student beaten to death with peace protest signs...

[Elspode]

Ah, my favorite protest sign quote, written by an old friend years ago, when peace protesting meant something:

"Give me peace, or I'll kill you..."

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

Not Pakis, pretty please? Won't labour the point, we've raised this before.

In this country, there are MANY Brits of Pakistani origin, from recent immigrants to 3rd generation. Pakistan is one of the last places Britain would want to start a war against because there are family and friends there (although the old nuclear deterrant helps).

We have plenty of them here also. They are, however, neither family nor friends. At least I don't think so...they won't get off the phone long enough to answer a question when they're suppose to be waiting on me in the store, so I really don't know.

[BigV]

I think SG's point was "Please don't use the perjorative phrase "Pakis", not "Oh no, don't go to war with them because...". I could be wrong...

[MaggieL]

Is there something in the original post that justifies titling this thread "British to Withdraw from Iraq"? I wouldn't want to think that "an honest Cellar Dwellar" would post a lie as a subject line just to draw attention to his thread.

[tw]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

I hope this teaches us that it's never a good idea to intervene anywhere in the world for whatever reason. Just ain't worth it.

Such simplistic Rush Limbaugh logic that gets us into trouble. Are you saying that intervention in Kuwait was wrong? Are you saying that intervention in the Balkan was wrong? Of course those interventions were necessary and were justified. But again, each American is required to first learn from history. Americans don’t have the option to ‘don’t care’.

Whereas I clearly identified Iraq as a "Pearl Harbor" action well before Iraq was invaded ... I also was furious with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfovitz, etc for not advocating a Kuwait rescue. In both cases, I was clearly in the minority because I was advocating based upon facts – not on Rush Limbaugh logic. Don't fool yourself for one minute. On 2 Aug 1990, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc were saying we could do nothing for Kuwait. And most Americans were saying we should do nothing. Today, many conveniently forget what they were saying then – therefore don’t learn from history.

Intervention is a necessary function of nations. Intervention, when successful, was obvious because (in part) the UN said it was justified. Amazing how often the UN is right and American ‘big dics’ get it wrong. Again, learn from history.

Whereas an invasion of Iraq was clearly and obviously wrong even in 2002 - a full year before Iraq was invaded. The Kuwait rescue was clearly a smoking gun that justified war. Today, can you say why; did you learn from history? Darfur is a worldwide disaster for reasons I will not even begin to discuss. Answers are found by having learned from WWII, Vietnam, Somalia, Kuwait, and Iraq.

Facts have been obvious for so long that even Britain’s #1 soldier publicly defined Iraq. Facts of the Iraq war are obvious - don’t get any more obvious. So obvious that those who learned from history can easily answer this simple question – 500,000 troops now or get out. And yet so many will not even touch that question – and will not speak out against George Jr’s S3930 bill to make secret prisons, kidnapping, and torture legal.

Where a solution is 'no interventions', then one’s historical grasp is little different from those ‘big dics’ who advocate ‘axis of evil’ lies. Kuwait and Balkan were clearly justified. Iraq was clearly wrong long before 'shock and awe'. It demands one learn from history - not just watch it. It demands that one make a decision - as Britian's #1 General has done - and learn from those mistakes. So many here do not have balls to conclude as 9th Engineer just did - take a risk - and therefore remain the most ignorant. Shocking still are the so many Cellar dwellers who promote torture by their silience and who don't routinely ask, "Did George Jr lie today?" Learn from history. He usually does.

General Sir Richard Dannatt has taken a major risk - told a truth that should have long ago been obvious to all in The Cellar. He is also demanding you to learn from history. Why are his words so new to so many? Why are so many still unable to see the obvious?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Careful..when the cheering throngs raise you up on their shouders....you never know where they'll put you down.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Is there something in the original post that justifies titling this thread "British to Withdraw from Iraq"? I wouldn't want to think that "an honest Cellar Dwellar" would post a lie as a subject line just to draw attention to his thread.

I'll take that as a "no".

[tw]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

I'll take that as a "no".

Title says wackos promoted the "Pearl Harboring" of Iraq in 2002 and now support a lying president using gospels from Rush Limbaugh. New Cellar dwellers may not appreciate repeated references to "Pearl Harboring". It was cited specifically in a post to MaggieL in 2002 when she advocated a 'big dic' agenda - the "Mission Accomplished" war. The Iraq war was defined as the “Pearl Harboring of a sovereign nation”. Guess what. That is exactly what it is complete with nothing but lies to justify it – just like in 1941.

The title is correct. Facts say that title is inevitable. Title reminds us how 'big dics' got US and UK into two quagmires – deja vue Vietnam. Title reminds us how wacko extremists even now refuse to admit both wars are being lost.

Gen Dannatt specifically cites why an Australian patrol was attacked. They left; so why did they come back? Patriotic Iraqis attacked that Australian patrol only because Australians were there. This is what Iraqis want from a US and UK military occupation.

What has happened in Iraq was predicted by those who confronted MaggieL back in 2002. She now takes offense of what is inevitable? Victory in Iraq is no longer possible - no matter how the 'big dics' lie about it. British to withdraw from Iraq is inevitable because victory is no longer possible.

MaggieL - I was just taking to another ex-Marine. He now records a running daily total of America soldier killed in Iraq. At least someone here has been standing up for American troops. You don't. Now wonder you only post sound byte insults. What you advocate for American troops is shameful - because your political agenda is more important than America.