I could hear Bush on the phone with Blair now:

"Hey, Tony, your boys have really done jussa fine job there in Basra.  I hear ya'll have really stabilized things really good.  Yeah, well, we still have quite a situation in Bagdad.   We could really use some of your troops for that surge thing we have going [click!] . . . hello Tony . . . Tony?"  

-- Modified on 2/21/2007 7:48:36 PM

If the surge doesn't show improvement within 120 days,  I think Bush is gonna shift the US forces up to Kurdland to protect them and then let the sunni and shitties have their religious war. Currently,  Bush is trying to prevent a bloodbath.

zinaval, what bullshit!  The going has been rough all along so it's ridiculous to assert the British are leaving because things are now less than comfortable.  

Know your facts before you go attacking other countries who are 'standing shoulder to shoulder' with this pointless war.

...signed up to do!

I recommend to My "loved-ones" not to sign up! (depending on the conflict, SOME military actions around the world have been just, right, and necessary!)

In my opinion, we as a nation fought our last "necessary" battle when out tanks rolled into Bagdad and pulled down that statue of Saadam! Then we could have air-lifted our troops out, let the "looting" begin and civil-war commence! But this assinine post-war bullshit we've been quagmired in since the day that statue was pulled down has been a foolish waste!

The only other war I can see the USA becoming involved in is the toppling of Iran and N.Korea, but we won't do it, and if we didwe wouldn't to it right! And would bury ourselves in the post-war shit just like we have in Afganistain and Iraq,,, So I cannot recommend any of my "loved ones" fight any of those battles either... Under current and future-dem policy, it's all going to be a waste of life!

I'm sorry you felt a collateral insult.  I might have written a better joke here.  I meant "rough" in terms of what the Bush administration is going through, also that it won't be rescued by help from Britain.    

You know the war has never been popular in Britain except with one guy that is-- Tony Blair.  So, my post was a joke, to show that the British, who are retiring Blair now, have had quite enough of the US failed policy.  The Iraqi war is a policy so bad that no ally, no matter how good, could support it over time.

Furthermore, three to seven thousand troops aren't going to mean anything in the "surge."  They'd probably just be fodder for friendly fire.  Meanwhile, at most, it would be symbolic support.  We need 250 thousand more soldiers to make a difference.  

It looks like Basra is calm, and with fewer troops, it looks as though the British  have done a better job than the Americans in not alienating the Iraqis.  

If the Bush administration had followed the British advice not to disband the military and  not to abolish the Baathist government, we probably wouldn't have the insurgency.        

-- Modified on 2/21/2007 8:22:06 AM

It is too late to prevent the bloodbath now.

-- Modified on 2/21/2007 8:38:32 AM

It ruins your chops.

Which is not to say that you shouldn't explain them when they misfired.  The joke still works for people between the Atlantic and the Pacific, but not every joke works for every audience.    

He would have never been in power except for outside (western) meddling... We were simply putting things back to how they needed to be by removing him and killing his sons... but we've over-stayed our usefulness... Our work was finished in week 3 of the conflict...

...and one weekend per month unless or until their FULL TIME service was needed!

If someone signed that contract to serve if called upon, and traded (more like "wagered") their freedom in exchange for a free-ride through college, then it's time to go do the job your task-master demands of you! But if you never sign up and take the freebees, then you are FREE (like me!) from the responsability of serving!!

BTW, I am anti-draft! And WILL run before fighting unless the cause justifies my partisipation... Nobody owns me and I pity the fools that sold their freedoms for a free lunch!

to remove the military dictator and restore democracy? Or is that different since they don't have oil and actually do have nuclear weapons?

No, it doesn't defeat my logic to classicly snowball it... I don't think it's our job to undo all evil in all places (and Pakistan is reasonably willing to cooperate with us, plus, they are India's problem...)

Side note: Randomly dropping bombs on muslim-crowds burning American flags would go a long ways towards "stabilizing" the region...

...and may have done so even sooner had Bush not been begging you to stay so he doesn't look like the last fool in the land... Good for you guy for what you did and having the sense to see that the "job" is done!

or is it just typical bullshit gossip associated with and generated because of Harry's royal lineage?

I mean no disrespect ... I'm curious as to the sense "on the streets" of London.

or as I prefer to say Mesopotamia. Please permit me at the risk of sounding pretentious, to provide – for those not acquainted in world history- an historical synopsis of the Forgotten Army of the First World War; that of the British campaign in Mesopotamia which proved as disastrous as the events at Gallipoli.

When the Mesopotamian war campaign began in 1914, victory seemed assured. British forces easily secured the head of the Persian Gulf i.e. Basra – a maneuver designed to protect British oil installations. Tasting victory, the British commander, the ambitious Major General Sir Charles Townshend, hero of the defense of Chitral, began to drive toward Baghdad. Townshend’s march was, initially an epic of guts and improvisation. But he outran his resources and after a furious bloody battle with the Turks at Ctesiphon the British were forced to retreat to Kut.

After the disaster at Kut the British reorganized and swept the Turks from Mesopotamia, but not before the cost in casualties of 100,000 soldiers and 350 million pounds. For the troops themselves the war between the rivers, was a hell of intolerable heat, mud, flies, unpredictable floods, and blood. For General Townshend, Mesopotamia marked the end of his career. For the Enver Pasha, Mesopotamia ended the Turkish dream of continued German suzerainty.  For Gen. Maude, who rallied the demoralized British forces and who might have expected a hero’s welcome in London, Mesopotamia was a triumph and a graveyard.

I admit, I sometimes wonder if the American and coalition forces in modern day Iraq will befall the same fate as the British Army in the Mesopotamian war campaign of 1914-1918.


-- Modified on 2/21/2007 9:27:40 PM

What?  250 thousand casualties and defeat for the British.  

Your so full of contradictions, I truly wonder if you have a split personality or are naturally self-serving. Demeaning the sacrifice of the members of the Armed Forces is neither honorable or humorous. The Holy Book states to render under Caesar's what is Caesar's. Yes this means, obeying the law, even it means being drafted to a war, you disapprove of.

You want to live free and allow others to sacrifice. Yes, you do own something to this country, you live here, and live under her protection. Who pays for the roads, that allow you to travel, freely and comfortably on your quests. Ugh! what's the use.

By the way, adding Religion to the "Politics" title of this board, was a bad idea. Please show some humility and correct your mistake.


-- Modified on 2/21/2007 11:09:14 PM

weren't the casualities in Gallipoli, mostly incurred by the Australia and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC) forces?

-- Modified on 2/21/2007 10:40:43 PM

You: "Demeaning the sacrifice of the members of the Armed Forces"

My response: I for one am SICK of this "military worship" that people like you blindly engage in! "Sacrifice" should be reserved for war-time such as WWII when all the sons of a family were drafted, the women worked in the factories, everyon lived under a system of "rationing" that America or ecpecially the Brits had to endure!
What a crock of shit that every young person that signs up for service in hopes of never going and gleening a free education out of the deal is! Then they WHINE about it when they do get called to service! If you signed the papers, then going to fulfill the commitment it hardly a reason for honor and accolades! Although within the ranks of average men and women who signed up for a free ride through school are several Honor-deserving soldiers! But the rest don't get the praise just because they've been required to fulfill the mortage on their life that paid for their school!



You: "render under Caesar's what is Caesar's"

My response: You are mis-qouting a half-truth! Jesus was being "tested" by the Pharisees... You forgot to read the preceding verse which says; "Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words." Jesus was NOT advocating blind obediance in government! You ALSO are failing to quote enen the entire verse that you cite! The words that follow; "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's..." are finished in thought by the words; "...and to God what is God's." MY LIFE DOES NOT BELONG TO THE UNITED STATES!! IT IS PROPERTY OF GOD!!! And God's law trumps man's law every time! So there are some battles in America's history that I would have signed up for and faught, and others I would have ran to the far ends of the earth to avoid... each stands or falls on it's own merit!

You: "You want to live free and allow others to sacrifice."
My response: No, I just want people to do the job they signed up to do, and I'll do any that I chose to sign up to do... I could care less why they signed up, they got the freebee back when it was "free", now their service is required... tough shit!


You: "Who pays for the roads?"
My response: I DO!! And so do you, and anyone else who pays taxes! Here's a BIGGER question; WHO PAYS FOR THAT IMMORAL FUCKING "EARNED-INCOME TAX-CREDIT" that our gov hands out like fuckin' candy to all the shiftless freeloaders that cannot pull their own weight?? Hmmm??? Yet they and every other welfare-class person in this country is free to use MY roads!


You: "adding Religion to the "Politics" title of this board, was a bad idea."
My response: I think it was a great idea, and I think "seperation of church and state" is a CROCK OF SHIT! Show me where that mis-quoted line is found in our nation's founding documents! IT'S NOT! It is quoted from one of Jeferson's letters that was written to a CHURCH to ensure them that the GOVERNMENT would be held at bay from forming a STATE RELIGION! NOT that religion would be held out of politics! You are reading it upside down and looking at it out your ass!


So go ahead and worship the military at the shrine of the VFW bar if you want, but I'll only join you when the cause is moral and just according to God!

-- Modified on 2/22/2007 11:07:46 AM

You state that whether a battle is justified for you depends entirely on YOUR interpretation of what God's will is.  This is precisely what Islamic terrorists are doing: they feel it is God's will that they murder women and children in the name of Allah.  So how do you argue that what they are doing is wrong?:

I sure beats your justifcations which are based on nothing...

... a few children with dynamite strapped to them by their mothers die in the conflict that needs to happen... what's the big deal?? It isn't like they were doing anything constructive with their miserable lives anyways... At least a whole lot of murderous Islamo-fascists will die as well, everyone that is dead is one less that's trying to kill us!

(I think you were using a TWIST OF MY WORDS, Please show me a direct quote!)

MY LIFE DOES NOT BELONG TO THE UNITED STATES!! IT IS PROPERTY OF GOD!!! And God's law trumps man's law every time!

...Even by our own president!

Allah is not my god,,, I belong to Yehweh... you are mixing apples and oranges...

(My God is not asking me to kill in his name or for honor and reward... I justify killing agrsive muslims on my own, apart from Scripture!)

I seem to recall that somewhere in Leviticus the Jews are exhorted to go out and kill unbelievers.(”And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him.” Leviticus 24:16). (I suspect you would consider all Muslims blasphemers, no?)

That, however, is not my main point.  Allah holds the same place in Muslims' hearts that Yehweh does in yours.  They feel the Koran DOES justify killing in Allah's name, so they are justified in their actions according to their faith.  You, on the other hand, have to live with the Judaeo-Christian injunction AGAINST killing, which disenfranchises you from killing "agrsive" Muslims in principle.

Suppose that, in some unknown island --- say, Ubugrubutenudu --- the natives worship their ferocious war god Kowabungamunga, and he tells them to kill all strangers.  Your argument gives you no ground to argue against their position, since THEY believe that Kowabungamunga is the El Supremo of all deities (just as you believe Yehweh is El Supremo).

...So FINALLY, God just sent them out to finish the job!
I can also think of a few place in the O/T where God killed the enemy himself shile the slept in their war-tents w
iting to make seige against Israel, and also drowning Pharoh's Army when in their blind-hate of Jews followed them inti the Red sea to attack them from the rear!

If anybody deservse the right to agressively and pre-emptively attack their enemy it would be the Jews... all they ever wanted to do is live in that tiny land and peacefully farm, but they've been attacked steady for 6,000 years!


Apples and oranges come from different trees... N/T says: "know them by their fruits"... What "fruit" does Islam bear? "Blood oranges"??