Why is he loosing his last real ally? Was the ally held captive?

Why don't Americans care about Iraqis?

Reply By: Gideon MacLeish Posted: Tuesday, October 09, 2007
"Why is he loosing his last real ally? Was the ally held captive? "


YES - The VAST majority of the British people did not agree with their involvement in Iraq from the OUTSET. It cost Blair his job! You would think Bush would get the picture-- Time to get OUT of Iraq!

(sigh) Humour is lost on you, COL.

OK, I'll spell it out for you.

When one is not on a winning side, one is said to be "losing". Notice the presence of only one "O". This is pretty much the agreed standard for grammar.

Now...when one is in captive and their captor releases them from their chains, they are said to be "loosed" and the process is said to be "loosing". Two "o's" are present in this particular word.

Now, the word you used stated that we were "loosing" our ally, meaning we had held our ally captive and were releasing the chains. It's a serious grammatical misstep, the kind of thing that calls all of your "academic" writings into question, especially since you didn't note it even when it was pointed out to you.

I can't believe I just had to explain that!

You really can't, Gid?

Loosing our ally, because we had one in reserve, and now we're loosing our ally, like an arrow, onto the Iraqi militants!

You are correct about my spelling. It should be losing. However the substance of my post is never the less true! Would you like to make a rational comment about that?

Do you think Bush will get the message and follow suit?

Let's hope not. The Iraqis want the US to stay. They also wanted the British to stay, but I cannot blame the British for not wanting to do what the Iraqis ask them to, given how "Muslims" treat Britain.

http://www.michaeltotten.com/

Col Gene,

As someone who was born in Germany and is probably only alive because the US invaded my country and stayd, let me tell you that I feel weird talking to a person whose political opinion basically says that I, specifically because of where I was born, should not have been born free.

Why don't you demand the retreat of all American troops from Germany? Chicken? Or what about a retreat from all states west of the original 13 colonies? Where do you live, Col Gene? Do you live in the original colonies or in a territory formerly occupied by US forces?

Would you have demanded a retreat from Europe during WWII or during the early cold war? If so, why would you want to see all Germans dead or under communist rule? And if not, what makes Germans deserve American protection and Arabs not?

Feel free of accusing me of changing the subject if you don't want to answer. I would still like to know, just in general.

However the substance of my post is never the less true!

Indeed so. However, it is not completely true because the British are merely reducing their numbers yet again to a minimum and remain allies and present in Iraq. And it is unimportant because the British occupation forces were never of the large number that they would make a huge difference for the entire country.

What did the British forces do, you ask? (Or perhaps you don't care.)

"My family returned yesterday from a vacation in Syria and they have used this road twice in six weeks. I had tried hard to convince them not to do that and take a flight instead but now after hearing their story I'm convinced that my fear was not justified; the road is safe…

This is good not only for Iraq's economy and traveling but also for the American troops who can use this road as an alternative supply route in case the British troops withdraw and leave the strategic southern highway between Kuwait and Baghdad unguarded."

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2007/08/crossing-anbar.html

Whenever British or American troops withdraw, Iraqis suffer. Something will be unprotected, some rebuilding project will be stopped or handed over to Iraqis not yet able to take over, connections between allied forces and locals will loosen (hehe), and local traders will have fewer customers.

It's NOT a good thing.

Your observation is correct, Col Gene, but why you are happy at the prospect of Iraqis suffering is beyond me.

P.S.: It's "nevertheless", one word. "Never the less" in three words sounds really old-fashioned to me. But be that as it may...

Indeed so. However, it is not completely true because the British are merely reducing their numbers yet again to a minimum and remain allies and present in Iraq. And it is unimportant because the British occupation forces were never of the large number that they would make a huge difference for the entire country.


They British had 46,000 in Iraq and will drop to 2,500. If U.S. Forces were reduced the same percent as the British forces we would have only 9,000 by spring of 2008 when the British plan to be at 2,500. That would be acceptable to the majority of Americans who want us to withdraw from iraq!

Your observation is correct, Col Gene, but why you are happy at the prospect of Iraqis suffering is beyond me.

Any suffering by the Iraqi's will be because they refuse to compromise and take responsibility for the security of THEIR country. We removed Saddam, helped them elect a government and trained about 400,000 military and police. The time has come for them to be responsible for their country!

Any suffering by the Iraqi's will be because they refuse to compromise and take responsibility for the security of THEIR country. We removed Saddam, helped them elect a government and trained about 400,000 military and police. The time has come for them to be responsible for their country!

That I agree with.

You are suddenly a lot more open to compromise, Col Gene. My comments above seem to have made an impression. Didn't have the guts to tell me that I should never have been born, did you?

But one thing about the British. The United Kingdom did not promise to stay and did not initiate the invasion. Their responsibility was to help, and help they did.

It's also more difficult for the British government to stay in Iraq because British voters have, in general, even less sympathy for the Iraqis' wishes than American Democrats.

Reply By: Paladin77 Posted: Wednesday, October 10, 2007
The issue is that Bush is trying to fight a war in Afghanistan and Iraq without the force levels needed. He has attempted to compensate for the lack of military forces by contracting services in combat zones that should be handled with uniformed military.


“So let me get this straight! You who say we should do want Congress says and ignore the President. The president asked for more troops and was turned down by Congress twice.”

There was NEVER a request to Congress to increase the size of the military. Show me where Bush sent a request to Congress to increase the size of the Army and Marines! After 9/11 and given the GOP control of Congress, Bush could have increased the size of the military.

“My point is that the president is fighting the war with the tools he has.”

You do not fight a war with the tools you have. In WWII Ike did not invade Europe until we had built a force that was capable of accomplishing the mission. In addition, unlike WWII the Iraq War was not forced upon us by an attack from Iraq. In fact the Pentagon in 2002 told the White House that Saddam was only capable of conducting military operations in the central section of Iraq. That means Saddam did non have the military capability to even conduct operations in the north and southern sections of his own country. He had ZERO capability to attack the U.S. and was no possible danger to America. The danger was in Afghanistan and we attacked Iraq. We brought the War on Terrorism into Iraq by our invasion.

"It's also more difficult for the British government to stay in Iraq because British voters have, in general, even less sympathy for the Iraqis' wishes than American Democrats."


The British Public NEVER supported their invasion of Iraq. That was the PM not the people of England. My point is, regardless of a person’s agreement with the decision to invade Iraq; it is now time to turn Iraq over to the Iraqi Government, Military and Police. Bush refuses to undertake that process and wants to continue with 130,000 troops in Iraq until January 20, 2009. That is not acceptable to the VAST majority of Americans. It is far more then just Democrats that want us to leave Iraq.

Some good comments here. It is not just the British populace that wants out of Iraq--the government too would like to retreat in a friendly fashion so as not to insult the US. Gordon Brown, unlike Blair, is saying: Look we don't have the manpower to continue. What he's not saying is: This is a balls-up and we're out soon before I'm castrated for Bush/Blair's mess.

And it is a mess. The people of Basra are not smiling at British "saviours" any more. Now they want to cut their throats. I'm sorry GW but the Brits will be out sooner than you think and you, the new Dictator of Iraq, better have some answers.

That's not Gordon's problem--it's yours.

Read these comments about Iraq:

Friday, October 12, 2007
General Sanchez, Former Commander in Iraq, Harshly Criticizes the Administration in Speech
By Dr. Steven Taylor
Via the NYT: Former Top General in Iraq Faults Bush Administration


In a sweeping indictment of the four-year effort in Iraq, the former top American commander called the Bush administration’s handling of the war incompetent and warned that the United States was “living a nightmare with no end in sight.”

In one of his first major public speeches since leaving the Army in late 2006, retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez blamed the administration for a “catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan” and denounced the current “surge” strategy as a “desperate” move that will not achieve long-term stability.

“After more than fours years of fighting, America continues its desperate struggle in Iraq without any concerted effort to devise a strategy that will achieve victory in that war-torn country or in the greater conflict against extremism,” Mr. Sanchez said, at a gathering here of military reporters and editors.

Funny, this sounds pretty much like what every critic of the war has been saying for some time. I wonder how the hard-core war supporters will deal with this? My guess is that they will attack Sanchez–which will be interesting to watch, given that the drum beat for months has been that we have to show deference to high level military leaders like General Petraeus, as they know better about these things than the rest of us. Of course, much of the counter-punch will be along these lines:


his role as commander in Iraq during the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal leaves General Sanchez vulnerable to criticism that that he is shifting the blame from himself and exacting revenge against an administration that replaced him as the top commander in the aftermath of the scandal and declined to nominate him for a fourth star, forcing his retirement.

I certainly have to admit that despite my early assumptions that this administration had assembled a team of competent policymakers, that they have come to be exemplified as follows:


“There was been a glaring and unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders,” he said, adding later in his remarks that civilian officials have been “derelict in their duties” and guilty of a “lust for power.”