Pages: 1 2

 

2006-11-17 20:59:52
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6787|Global Command
According to Tony Blair.
Curious, I always thought the Brits had more stomach than that when it came to forging empires.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a … p;ito=1490


The level of disaster is yet to be seen. Shame on Bush to think he could stand a chance politically in a war of choice ( not making any commentary on what I think about it here, but you can't argue that it wasn't a war of choice ) when he came into office so hated by the liberal establishment.

It's always easier to armchair quarterback, but it would take a blind fool not to realize the region was more stable with Saddam. Let's hope that there is some bigger play the public didn't see that made the war in Iraq nessacary, other wise, it does appear to be a disaster.

Two words: bigger Iran.

Last edited by ATG (2006-11-17 21:00:44)

2006-11-17 21:59:48
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6819
I'm confused.  What are you saying?
2006-11-17 23:06:02
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|7030|PNW

All war is disaster. How exactly is this admitting anything?
2006-11-18 00:41:42
Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|6923|NT, like Mick Dundee

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

All war is disaster. How exactly is this admitting anything?
Yeah.... True that. I'm thinking Mr. Blair means it from a political standpoint though.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
2006-11-18 00:44:51
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6813
Tony Blair is a disaster.
2006-11-18 00:44:53
stryyker
bad touch
+1,682|6978|California

Since when does Blair had an affect on the War? Its our war, everyone else go the fuck away.
2006-11-18 00:45:01
commissargizz
Member
+123|6722| Heaven
hehehehe how are Lowing and cogoing to defend the war now
2006-11-18 04:29:10
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|6911
Since Britain tried nearly a century ago to pacify, subjugate and exploit the people of Mesopotamia (or Iraq) and failed, we were more than happy not to go back.  But of course, when you are allied with another nation, you are expected to join in on their hairbrained schemes.  We went into Iraq again, with the same message again and got beaten again.  Big suprise.


http://www.bankingonbaghdad.com/archive … /8726.html
wrote:


The current saga began in WWI when Britain invaded Mesopotamia (as the three neglected Turkish provinces were collectively called) for oil and only for oil. Despite this, the British declared in their May 18, 1918 proclamation, read aloud in Baghdad: “Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators.” Subsequent invaders would employ the phrase again and again.

As part of that wartime liberation, the British illegally seized the most valuable oil lands in Mesopotamia, the Kurdish Mosul region, this on November 7, 1918, a full week after the general armistice with Turkey. This invasion enabled Britain to cobble the three ethnically separate Ottoman provinces together—Kurdish Mosul, Sunni Baghdad and Shiite Basra—into a single land that London would rename “ Iraq.” The name “ Iraq” came from the ancient Arab cartographic designation.

The British then established Iraq as a nation for the sole purpose of structuring the exploitation of its oil. Arnold Wilson, the British civil administrator of Mesopotamia, the man who authorized General William Marshall’s unauthorized push into Mosul, wrote, “Thanks to General Marshall, we had established de facto, the principle that Mosul is part of ‘Iraq,’ to use the geographical expression… Whether for the woe or weal of the inhabitants, it is too soon to say.” Wilson added, that had General Marshall waited just 24 hours for the restraining instructions from London to arrive, history would be otherwise. But, Wilson continued, Marshall did not wait to invade Mosul, and so “laid the foundation stone of the future State of Iraq.”

From the Western view, Britain and France wanted to install a leader who would sign on the dotted line, thereby authorizing the oil and pipeline concessions that London and Paris had divided between them. Democracy, or a facsimile thereof, was needed to create a stabile environment for the oil to flow.
On creating "democracy" in Iraq to get more oil: France learned, and refused to go back.  We learned for a while, but Bush tricked us into forgetting.
2006-11-18 04:32:38
jord
Member
+2,382|6936|The North, beyond the wall.

stryyker wrote:

Since when does Blair had an affect on the War? Its our war, everyone else go the fuck away.
Without British troops i'm sure many more Amercians would be dead.
2006-11-18 04:46:52
JahManRed
wank
+646|6886|IRELAND

The Mail is a fascist war mongering paper. Even it has turned against the war.
2006-11-18 05:31:11
WilhelmSissener
Banned
+557|6991|Oslo, Norway
https://ergh.org/bn/pshops/fark4/meowmeow.jpg
2006-11-18 05:49:29
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6909|USA

commissargizz wrote:

hehehehe how are Lowing and cogoing to defend the war now
Actually pretty easily, the coalition underestimated the insurgency, things are not going as we all hoped ( republicans anyway), but this does not mean we shouldn't have gone back there given the intel we were working with at that time and the facts of the time line that lead to restarting hostilities.

funny thing about war, when your country is united ( ww2, start of gulf war '91) wars are won and our soldiers come home.

when your country is divided, (Vietnam, gulf war '02) wars are lost and drag out 10 years resulting in MORE deaths. Right or wrong, our country is at war and I will support the effort until it is won and our folks can come home. I am convinced, that all this strife here at home, encourages our enemy and results in MORE casualties than are really necessary.
2006-11-18 08:08:15
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6839|SE London

lowing wrote:

commissargizz wrote:

hehehehe how are Lowing and cogoing to defend the war now
Actually pretty easily, the coalition underestimated the insurgency, things are not going as we all hoped ( republicans anyway), but this does not mean we shouldn't have gone back there given the intel we were working with at that time and the facts of the time line that lead to restarting hostilities.
Wrongly underestimated is right. Seems strange that what is effectively the same administration as under Bush snr came to totally different and wrong conclusions this time round. When asked why he didn't go into Baghdad in the first gulf war Bush snr replied that they didn't want to get into an unwinable guerilla war. His son doesn't seem to share his opinion (wrongly, I'd say).

lowing wrote:

funny thing about war, when your country is united ( ww2, start of gulf war '91) wars are won and our soldiers come home.

when your country is divided, (Vietnam, gulf war '02) wars are lost and drag out 10 years resulting in MORE deaths.
Have you ever thought the reason for this could be that the public get pissed off about going into stupid wars that are virtually unwinable, rather than the army doing badly because the public are against the war?
2006-11-18 08:28:36
IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|7000|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

commissargizz wrote:

hehehehe how are Lowing and cogoing to defend the war now
Actually pretty easily, the coalition underestimated the insurgency, things are not going as we all hoped ( republicans anyway), but this does not mean we shouldn't have gone back there given the intel we were working with at that time and the facts of the time line that lead to restarting hostilities.
Wrongly underestimated is right. Seems strange that what is effectively the same administration as under Bush snr came to totally different and wrong conclusions this time round. When asked why he didn't go into Baghdad in the first gulf war Bush snr replied that they didn't want to get into an unwinable guerilla war. His son doesn't seem to share his opinion (wrongly, I'd say).

lowing wrote:

funny thing about war, when your country is united ( ww2, start of gulf war '91) wars are won and our soldiers come home.

when your country is divided, (Vietnam, gulf war '02) wars are lost and drag out 10 years resulting in MORE deaths.
Have you ever thought the reason for this could be that the public get pissed off about going into stupid wars that are virtually unwinable, rather than the army doing badly because the public are against the war?
No point in arguing with him Bertster, Lowing doesn't question the modus operandi of his President, to do so to him is to be unpatriotic, so because the office of the President is infallible and un questionable, the reason for failure must lie with the people of America or any opposition politically who does not share his ridiculous bigoted worldview
2006-11-18 08:33:40
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6909|USA

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

commissargizz wrote:

hehehehe how are Lowing and cogoing to defend the war now
Actually pretty easily, the coalition underestimated the insurgency, things are not going as we all hoped ( republicans anyway), but this does not mean we shouldn't have gone back there given the intel we were working with at that time and the facts of the time line that lead to restarting hostilities.
Wrongly underestimated is right. Seems strange that what is effectively the same administration as under Bush snr came to totally different and wrong conclusions this time round. When asked why he didn't go into Baghdad in the first gulf war Bush snr replied that they didn't want to get into an unwinable guerilla war. His son doesn't seem to share his opinion (wrongly, I'd say).

lowing wrote:

funny thing about war, when your country is united ( ww2, start of gulf war '91) wars are won and our soldiers come home.

when your country is divided, (Vietnam, gulf war '02) wars are lost and drag out 10 years resulting in MORE deaths.
Have you ever thought the reason for this could be that the public get pissed off about going into stupid wars that are virtually unwinable, rather than the army doing badly because the public are against the war?
I am not going to get into whether or not the war was just. You know my opinion on that. I am saying, win the damn war, the nafter everyone is home and safe, you can disect it. and history can be the judge. All of this strife is at the expense of our troops lives.
2006-11-18 08:35:08
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6909|USA

IG-Calibre wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:


Actually pretty easily, the coalition underestimated the insurgency, things are not going as we all hoped ( republicans anyway), but this does not mean we shouldn't have gone back there given the intel we were working with at that time and the facts of the time line that lead to restarting hostilities.
Wrongly underestimated is right. Seems strange that what is effectively the same administration as under Bush snr came to totally different and wrong conclusions this time round. When asked why he didn't go into Baghdad in the first gulf war Bush snr replied that they didn't want to get into an unwinable guerilla war. His son doesn't seem to share his opinion (wrongly, I'd say).

lowing wrote:

funny thing about war, when your country is united ( ww2, start of gulf war '91) wars are won and our soldiers come home.

when your country is divided, (Vietnam, gulf war '02) wars are lost and drag out 10 years resulting in MORE deaths.
Have you ever thought the reason for this could be that the public get pissed off about going into stupid wars that are virtually unwinable, rather than the army doing badly because the public are against the war?
No point in arguing with him Bertster, Lowing doesn't question the modus operandi of his President, to do so to him is to be unpatriotic, so because the office of the President is infallible and un questionable, the reason for failure must lie with the people of America or any opposition politically who does not share his ridiculous bigoted worldview
It is not that I don't question anyuthing. I do. I simply agree with fighting this war. How that makes me a bigot I dunno, but, whatever ya say.
2006-11-18 08:41:23
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6839|SE London

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:


Actually pretty easily, the coalition underestimated the insurgency, things are not going as we all hoped ( republicans anyway), but this does not mean we shouldn't have gone back there given the intel we were working with at that time and the facts of the time line that lead to restarting hostilities.
Wrongly underestimated is right. Seems strange that what is effectively the same administration as under Bush snr came to totally different and wrong conclusions this time round. When asked why he didn't go into Baghdad in the first gulf war Bush snr replied that they didn't want to get into an unwinable guerilla war. His son doesn't seem to share his opinion (wrongly, I'd say).

lowing wrote:

funny thing about war, when your country is united ( ww2, start of gulf war '91) wars are won and our soldiers come home.

when your country is divided, (Vietnam, gulf war '02) wars are lost and drag out 10 years resulting in MORE deaths.
Have you ever thought the reason for this could be that the public get pissed off about going into stupid wars that are virtually unwinable, rather than the army doing badly because the public are against the war?
I am not going to get into whether or not the war was just. You know my opinion on that. I am saying, win the damn war, the nafter everyone is home and safe, you can disect it. and history can be the judge. All of this strife is at the expense of our troops lives.
I didn't think I mentioned anything to do with the war being just.

Just about how practical it was. Bush snr said taking Baghdad successfully would be impossible when he was in office. What made his son think it would be any different for him? That was my first point.

My second point was that the public tend to be against guerilla wars, which are the ones where superior forces take the highest casualties. Which is why I think the US tends to lose (or suffer high casualties in) wars that public opinion is against.

Nothing to do with the war being just in there.
2006-11-18 08:42:20
IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|7000|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann
You're a Bigot Lowing because you deem the whole sale slaughter of Palestinian Civilians as acceptable & justifiable, yet you make grandiose statements like "we shall never tolerate the murder of innocent civilians in Iraq" - that makes you a bigot in my eyes. good day.
2006-11-18 08:50:15
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6787|Global Command

Bubbalo wrote:

I'm confused.  What are you saying?
I'm like a reporter reporting the facts.
I say disaster in a political sense.
2006-11-18 08:57:38
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6909|USA

IG-Calibre wrote:

You're a Bigot Lowing because you deem the whole sale slaughter of Palestinian Civilians as acceptable & justifiable, yet you make grandiose statements like "we shall never tolerate the murder of innocent civilians in Iraq" - that makes you a bigot in my eyes. good day.
please show me where I condoned the "whole sale slaughter" of ANY innocent civilians, Palistinian or otherwise.
2006-11-18 09:05:20
IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|7000|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann

lowing wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

You're a Bigot Lowing because you deem the whole sale slaughter of Palestinian Civilians as acceptable & justifiable, yet you make grandiose statements like "we shall never tolerate the murder of innocent civilians in Iraq" - that makes you a bigot in my eyes. good day.
please show me where I condoned the "whole sale slaughter" of ANY innocent civilians, Palestinian or otherwise.
Oh please Lowing stop with these "show me where... blah blah blah" just look at any of your posts on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict - news flash Lowing "Israel is slaughtering The Palestinian civilian population wholesale" and you deem it acceptable, it is inferred & stated in every post you make in any debate on the subject, so don't be feigning any kind of a shocked response to me, you're just a bigot plain and simple..
2006-11-18 09:05:49
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6909|USA

lowing wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

You're a Bigot Lowing because you deem the whole sale slaughter of Palestinian Civilians as acceptable & justifiable, yet you make grandiose statements like "we shall never tolerate the murder of innocent civilians in Iraq" - that makes you a bigot in my eyes. good day.
please show me where I condoned the "whole sale slaughter" of ANY innocent civilians, Palestinian or otherwise.
besides, if that were true, that would make me a hypocrite, NOT a bigot. I think you better ask Santa Claus for a dictionary this Christmas
2006-11-18 09:08:35
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6909|USA

IG-Calibre wrote:

lowing wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

You're a Bigot Lowing because you deem the whole sale slaughter of Palestinian Civilians as acceptable & justifiable, yet you make grandiose statements like "we shall never tolerate the murder of innocent civilians in Iraq" - that makes you a bigot in my eyes. good day.
please show me where I condoned the "whole sale slaughter" of ANY innocent civilians, Palestinian or otherwise.
Oh please Lowing stop with these "show me where... blah blah blah" just look at any of your posts on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict - news flash Lowing "Israel is slaughtering The Palestinian civilian population wholesale" and you deem it acceptable, it is inferred & stated in every post you make in any debate on the subject, so don't be feigning any kind of a shocked response to me, you're just a bigot plain and simple..
Yup, I feel Israel is the ones on the defensive, I feel HAMAS is hiding behind civilians causing more civilian deaths. Where did I condone this behavior?

I am not shocked, you are a liberal, your response is EXACTLY what I expect.
2006-11-18 09:09:34
IG-Calibre
comhalta
+226|7000|Tír Eoghan, Tuaisceart Éireann

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

You're a Bigot Lowing because you deem the whole sale slaughter of Palestinian Civilians as acceptable & justifiable, yet you make grandiose statements like "we shall never tolerate the murder of innocent civilians in Iraq" - that makes you a bigot in my eyes. good day.
please show me where I condoned the "whole sale slaughter" of ANY innocent civilians, Palestinian or otherwise.
besides, if that were true, that would make me a hypocrite, NOT a bigot. I think you better ask Santa Claus for a dictionary this Christmas
No lowing not only should santa buy you a dictionary, maybe you should use it, infact double whammy for you pal, you're a hypocrite and a bigot, so bully for you, bravo!! 10/10

Eidt: and i'm not a fucking liberal i'm a socialist..

Last edited by IG-Calibre (2006-11-18 09:10:31)

2006-11-18 09:09:48
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6839|SE London

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

You're a Bigot Lowing because you deem the whole sale slaughter of Palestinian Civilians as acceptable & justifiable, yet you make grandiose statements like "we shall never tolerate the murder of innocent civilians in Iraq" - that makes you a bigot in my eyes. good day.
please show me where I condoned the "whole sale slaughter" of ANY innocent civilians, Palestinian or otherwise.
besides, if that were true, that would make me a hypocrite, NOT a bigot. I think you better ask Santa Claus for a dictionary this Christmas
Could be both.

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard