General seeks UK Iraq withdrawal

quote:

---

The head of the British Army has said the presence of UK armed forces in Iraq "exacerbates the security problems".

In an interview in the Daily Mail, Sir Richard Dannatt, Chief of the General Staff, is quoted as saying the British should "get out some time soon". [...]

Sir Richard told the newspaper: "We are in a Muslim country and Muslims' views of foreigners in their country are quite clear.

"As a foreigner, you can be welcomed by being invited in a country, but we weren't invited certainly by those in Iraq at the time."

He added: "Whatever consent we may have had in the first place, may have turned to tolerance and has largely turned to intolerance."

---

Over to you, Tony.

[ 12 October 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]

[ 12 October 2006: Message edited by: thorin_bane ]

How does one disable these war machines?

But the fundamental question remains: is the ongoing occupation of Iraq by foreign troops a destabilizing influence making both Iraq and the rest of the world less secure, something most of us on babble have always maintained?

Article on Jon's post from CBC

(edited, I miscreditted my link... Tis CBC not BBC)

quote:

---

Dannatt told The Daily Mail that Britain's Iraq policies were "naive" and the British military should "get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems."

On Friday, Dannatt said he meant British troops should take part in a phased withdrawal over two or three years.

"We'll probably reduce our soldiers over the course of the next year or two or three — let's wait and see. That's what I mean by sometime soon," Dannatt said in an interview with Sky News.
...

His comments, he told the broadcaster, were "neither substantially new or substantially newsworthy." Criticism of Britain's role in Iraq is nothing new, he said.

---

[ 13 October 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

Criticism of Britain's role in Iraq is nothing new, he said.

---

Even when it's done by a General in charge of the whole effort?

So, when Tony Blair says the Iraq war "is a travesty built on lies", we shouldn't take notice because Jeff and Michelle and everyone her already said so in 2003?

quote:

---

Tony Blair has said he agrees with "every word" the new head of the British Army said on the Iraq war

---

quote:

---

Of course it's heartening for those of us who opposed the war from the start to have backing like this. And yet, it's hardly good news. For Sir Richard has just violated a principle central to a democracy: that the military stay well clear of politics. In a democracy, soldiers are meant to be servants of the elected leadership: they follow political decisions, they don't make them.

---

This thread also might play into this now... Reconsideration if Democracy is the end all gov't that solves everything instantly. Democracy only really works when you have an informed public voting on issues. When you have people voting based on what religion they belong to, or which ethnic group, or which warlord village they belong to... Wheres the implied freedom? A democracy is likely at it's best when you have a 100% informed populace with the 100% voter turnout. Or vote on issues not just which party overall.

quote:

---

When officials working for Tony Blair got first reports of Dannatt's newspaper interview, they were baffled and wondered why he had taken the army's top job if he disagreed with its principal mission. When the full text arrived, they determined he was not frontally criticizing Blair's current policy, which also favors an exit from Iraq as soon as Iraqi forces can take over, but instead was sticking up for his beloved army in a way someone more media-savvy might have done without leaving so many hostages to tabloid fortune. At a press conference, in fact, Blair tried to put a good spin on it all by saying he agreed with "every word" of Dannatt's statements.

---

quote:

---

MILITARY LEADERS MUTINYING

Military Men Who Oppose Neo-Con Warmongering Under Attack

By Michael Piper

For generations, Republicans were strong supporters of the American
military. But now that top military men are in open rebellion against the
armchair civilian war hawks—the hard-line pro-Israel ideologues who directed President George Bush to order an invasion of Iraq and who now want war on Iran—the angriest voices condemning the military are from GOP circles.

---

And from William Lind,a rather frightening look into the next two years:

quote:

---

...Actually, I think the White House knows it too. Why then does it insist on "staying the course" at a casualty rate of more than one thousand Americans per month? The answer is breathtaking in its cynicism: so the retreat from Iraq happens on the next President’s watch. That is why we still fight.

Yep, it’s now all about George. Anyone who thinks that is too low, too mean, too despicable even for this bunch does not understand the meaning of the adjective "Rovian." Would they let thousands more young Americans get killed or wounded just so George W. does not have to face the consequences of his own folly? In a heartbeat....

---

quote:

---

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A four-day rampage of sectarian fighting raged unchecked Monday an hour's drive north of Baghdad and at least 91 people were dead, police and army officials said.

The authorities appeared unable or unwilling to stop the bloodshed in Balad and its environs that may set the standard for the building inter-communal conflict should it spread further and the pace hasten, which appeared likely.

---

quote:

---

"There are hidden hands behind this who want Shiites and Sunnis fight each other, they are the Iranians," Hamid said.

---

quote:

---

The recent spike in violence has also taken its toll on U.S. forces in the country, with the number killed so far in October surging past 50 over the weekend. Two Marines and a soldier were killed in fighting Sunday, bringing to ten the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq over the past three days.

---

quote:

---

“Fighting the invaders, is a right and a duty ... I call upon you my brothers and comrades in the courageous resistance, no matter whoever you are and no matter wherever you live, to embrace righteousness and justice in your jihad (holy war).
“I urge you to be tolerant with the ones who lost the right way ... The door for forgiveness must be open to everyone until the hour of liberation, which is now at hand, God willing.
“But remember that your near-term goal is confined to freeing your country from the forces of occupation and their followers and not to be preoccupied in settling scores.
“We remember it is the great unified Iraq, which is not split by any color, segment or allegation, that makes us proud.
“When you achieve victory, remember you are God’s soldiers and, therefore, you must show genuine forgiveness and put aside revenge over the spilled blood of your sons and brothers, including the sons of Saddam Hussein."

---

The reality is that most of the world will view him as:

Because when he says (from your source):

quote:

---

“And you know very well that Saddam Hussein never surrendered to any threat ... and Saddam Hussein will remain as you knew him.”

---

The reality is :

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:
Well unionist, although this is the way you wish to remember your pal,

---

I quoted a news article without comment, and you accuse me of being a friend of Saddam Hussein?

quote:

---

There are hidden hands behind this who want Shiites and Sunnis fight each other, they are the Iranians

---

This line is very correct. On 2 occasions (earlier this year and now quite recent) Sunni factions have approached US officials saying (paraphraised):
'We are fighting a Shi'a insurgency driven by Iran... We don't pose a threat to the American people, we are fighting for our freedom here in Iraq'.

Pending how above is taken by the US, it might very well become
Sunni (american supported) vs Shi'a (Iran supported) fighting for control of Iraq. Wow, 80's flashback.

I stand corrected. Unionist,your kind offer of union programs helpful to those of my ilk are appreciated but whenever hubris overcomes humility,my pro bono therapist NRK is always available to grease the skids for the descent to my ordained position among similar cretins as myself.

I am most heartened that you are genuinely discombooberated by linkage,however tenuous, to Saddam and have progressed to the point that you no longer rely on the sarcasm defense.

As to the inclusion of Saddam in this topic,I doubt he holds any sway as the geopolitical forces presently at play in Iraq carve up the country and soon,the genius's last grasp at credibility.

quote:

---

As to the inclusion of Saddam in this topic,I doubt he holds any sway as the geopolitical forces presently at play in Iraq carve up the country and soon,the genius's last grasp at credibility.

---

From him perhaps... But in the absolute lack of a central leader within Iraq (The current 'coalition govt' is quite ineffectual) Saddams comments may add a lil more resolute to one side. The ring we get is interesting to look at... Remember how Saddam and his reign works in the politics here, Saddam is Sunni and was fighting Iranian backed Shi'a. Several Sunni groups are currently inbattled with these Shi'a groups (hence the civil war concerns). Saddam would represent 'glory days' in the eyes of these Sunni currently involved in fighting with Shi'a factions.