PDA

View Full Version : Take over............?


Grandpa
7th Apr 2004, 20:41
It was said on French media to day, that US personnel present in Iraq will have to stay there for an unknown period of time.

The troops supposed previously to take them over will arrive on time, but will not replace them, because Paul Bremer badly needs reinforcements to face the degrading situation.

It was said that prolonging duty time in Iraq was the only solution for USA, because it could be devastating for Dubya in present pre-election period, to announce he has to send more troops in Iraq.

Wether this is true or not, I hope Pruners have the answer..........and if it is true, how long do you think soldiers will have to wait before going home?

Heard also that a journalist from Wall Street Journal was pushing for bombing Iran nuclear plant.............

With this kind of guy you never get bored!

airship
8th Apr 2004, 12:13
My sentiments remain with the troops on the ground there and their families at home. I'm sure (or hope fervently) they are doing their best vis-a-vis their role and Iraqi civilians. I'm reminded that during WWII, the US Army's General George Patton was known as the "blood and guts" General, to which the GI's reply was "yeah, our blood, his guts". GWB may have got them there, but now they are there and the situation has been degrading rapidly recently. A sufficiently long period has now passed that many of those who were probably right, in principle, to have opposed the Iraqi invasion then, should now reconsider their positions. They have made their point. The risk of Iraq falling into a murderous civil war today is greater than ever. So just forget about GWB, the same sort of ordinary Americans (and others) who were there for the rest of us in WWI and II, now need your help to find a satisfactory conclusion in Iraq...

And Grandpa, with regard to bombing Iran's nuclear plant: It's interesting to note that back in the good ole days of the early '80s, the Israelis destroyed Iraq's French-built nuclear reactor at Osiris with I understand, some non-negligible help from the Iranians. Presumably, they can be relied upon to accomplish the same thing today provided they are helped by the Iraqi authorities. But they probably won't need to intervene, hopefully.

I get the impression from recent posts here in JB that these types of topics are increasingly frowned upon. Too politicised, much too open to abuse from USA or Israel bashers etc. But I've always thought it was better that the means to exchange viewpoints of ordinary folk exist, as opposed to everyone hiding in their dark corner. Keeping JB open to these sort of topics may one day earn PPRuNe a Nobel Peace Prize?!

ORAC
8th Apr 2004, 12:38
A journalist from the Wall Street Journal?

Turning (plough)shares into swords?..... :hmm:

Capt.KAOS
8th Apr 2004, 13:17
Agree with Airship, one can only feel with the coalition troops and especially with their resp. families now relief will be postponed because of the recent clashes. Cynically most of Bush's war cabinet members asking everything from their troops are chickenhawks themselves (exc. Rummy the Great).

Boy_From_Brazil
8th Apr 2004, 14:25
We can all do without another Iraq / anti-Bush thread. Lets get this one closed down. A lot of us have friends and family in-theatre and can well do without more of this [email protected]

BFB

airship
8th Apr 2004, 14:37
You're welcome (to your opinion) B_F_B. Umm, just to be on the safe side, the building I live in is also occupied by completely innocent families with children and pets. Just thought you ought to know before sending out the Blackhawks...:rolleyes:

West Coast
8th Apr 2004, 16:13
Grandpa

Perhaps you can round up some French soldiers who won't retreat, drop their weapons, immediately surrender the flag or otherwise might be able to give a descent accout for themselves and send them over. That should take a few years, guess our boys will be there for awhile.

Slim20
8th Apr 2004, 16:26
WC

You might not like Grandpa and his politics but that was low, low low. None of us complained about the French holding the Western flank of Desert Storm in '91 - they did a frickin good job of it and all, even when we (you) started bombing them.

That kind of unfounded insulting post is the kind of thing which will get JB closed down - then its Pink Headsets for all of us!!

:}

West Coast
8th Apr 2004, 17:27
Read the warning posted on the door to jet blast.

Spuds McKenzie
8th Apr 2004, 17:39
Poor excuse, WC.
Fact is, the sh!t has hit the fan in Iraq, big time.
US troops just lost control over Najaf.
Now where are all those "the-world-is-a-better-place-after-Saddam-is-gone-and-the-Iraqi-people-live-a-better-life-than-before" asserters?
I pity the troops as well, BTW, they're taking the flak literally.
I hope the administration responsible for that will get it in November...

Had to get it out.



:mad:

VFE
8th Apr 2004, 17:55
Stands to reason that he Iraqi people are a little peeved with the the troops sent out there after years of bile dished out by Saddam. Understandably, they have little patience left and wish to see the ruling body who replaced Saddam ousted sooner rather than later. Methinks they wanna have their country for themselves but being rather naive they do not realise that this would mean total anarchy until some other Saddam like figure got into power, proclaiming the allies as infidels and down with the west once more.

Sadly the muppets protesting about the war on our own shores do not realise this too but that's why they are camping out on the streets in the pouring rain telling Bliar to pull out the troops and why Tony Blair is prime minister in cozy number 10.

A lot of blinkered thinking going on here and it was all predicted prior to the attacks last spring. The Iraqi's are begining to resent the Americans for ridding Saddam and installing a worse standard of living. Their rebellions are justified but unhelpful.

What to do about it?

I don't really care anymore. As long as they don't come here bombing the tube trains the troops can use the territory for field exercises as long as they like. Problem is that they soon will be targeting us and that does concern me. I think it's time to secure a coupla oil fields on the boarder and get the hell out before thousands here get wiped out in a 911 part II.

VFE.

El Grifo
8th Apr 2004, 17:58
One really has to ask, in light of the complete breakdown which is now taking place in Iraq, and the terrible situation which the troops are now facing on the ground :-

A. Did the Bush administration actually have a strategy for Iraq.

B. Is this the strategy, proceeding according to plan.

C. Was there never a calculated strategy in the first place.

Things are taking a terrible turn for the worse in Iraq.
The situation is spinning completely out of control.

Spuds McKenzie
8th Apr 2004, 18:18
El Grifo,

In my opinion:

A. No

B. Yes (their strategy is to have none) and No (remember, they don't have a plan/strategy, except, as stated, to have none)

C. see under A

VFE
8th Apr 2004, 18:19
The strategy was to appear the liberators whilst half-inching the oil wasn't it? Time to complete the blag and get the funk out if you ask me.

VFE.

DeepC
8th Apr 2004, 18:21
Some thoughts......

The world is a much changed place since the advent of Suicide Bombers. This has not just caused widespread fear but also a complete breakdown of trust between 'The West' and the Muslim world. This mistrust has asserted itself in the towns and cities of Iraq which has made it nigh on impossible for the armies to pursue an effective 'hearts and minds' policy without laying themselves wide open to massive risk (some perceived most actual).

Nearly every major long term conflict in History has ended with the winner being the one who has the support of the majority of the citizens of the area which is being fought over. There can be no change to this rule-of-thumb especially in this day of suicide bombers and fighters armed to the teeth taking guerilla warfare to another level.

Until there is a massive improvement in the Iraq standard of living then we cannot hope to achieve a significant shift in the 'Hearts and Minds' battle.

So how do we achieve massive standard of living increases? The answer certainly doesn't involve pulling troops out of the country. The only internationally led way that I can see is the massive deployment of an international (UN Led prefferably) force to stabilise the situation on the ground, such that Engineering Companies can get in their to build infrastructure to alleviate the post-war suffering of the people.

The only other option is for an alliance of Arabic/Muslim nations to act as peacemakers and commit large numbers of troops and police to restore law and order without the suspicion and mistrust surrounding the American led forces at the moment.

It is painfully obvious that The Bush Administration were ill prepared for the follow-up to the war. That does not mean that they had not thought about it and tried to prepare some kind of plan. Recent history has shown that the plan which they had was somewhat lacking in application.

Pulling troops out and leaving them to fight it out internally is an over simplistic escape strategy which would lead to massive destabiliation of the Middle East as the different Muslim factions within Iraq call on their 'brothers' from the surrounding countries to join in the fight.

This will ferment into an anarchic situation which will be a breeding ground for Al Qaeda and very difficult to get effective human intelligence out of.

Just some thoughts......

DeepC

Spuds McKenzie
8th Apr 2004, 19:23
Pulling troops out and leaving them to fight it out internally is an over simplistic escape strategy which would lead to massive destabiliation of the Middle East as the different Muslim factions within Iraq call on their 'brothers' from the surrounding countries to join in the fight.

This will ferment into an anarchic situation which will be a breeding ground for Al Qaeda and very difficult to get effective human intelligence out of.

DeepC,

Except for the "pulling troops out" bit, everything you've said is happening now !

El Grifo
8th Apr 2004, 22:40
Scary, or what ???

Grandpa
9th Apr 2004, 13:58
Sorry Airship, you can't have a thought for the poor soldiers in Iraq and forget they are under GWB command.

This "preemptive" war has turned into a nightmare.

We don't have any control of this stupid operation.

This was a unilateral decision by USA, endorsed by Bliar and Aznar with minor followers.

The Spaniards decided to withdraw.
Many foreign contingents are locked in their barracks and quit controling anything in the territory they were supposed to pacify.

For the moment, Dubya is still refusing to give way to UNO.
When he has to do it, may be too late, UNO will be faced with the worst situation.

What will be the result of Dubya miscalculations:

Iraq's partition?
Civil war?
Islamic fundamentalist shiit state?

We can just hope this lesson will be understood by USA , so that they will no more confuse power and intelligence.

And for the tens of thousands of deads( US and coalition soldiers, Iraqi civilian and soldiers) may they rest in peace!

airship
9th Apr 2004, 14:02
Deep C: So how do we achieve massive standard of living increases? We don't need massive :

1) The streets are safe.
2) The children can go to school.
3) Someone looks after the home.
4) Someone goes out to work.

That would be a good beginning from which to leave the Iraqis to be getting on with...:ok:

WC: I thought you were talking about Somalia for a moment back there! :=

Grandpa, the new Spanish government will withdraw unless there is UN involvement. How about calling Jacques and suggesting that now would be the moment to start thinking about simple GIs in the shithole, remembering the actions of their grandfathers and great-grandfathers and their service to La Patrie. In the manner of Vergennes, Rochambeau, Maurepas, and La Fayette. Jacques can do this today because there is a new French Foreign Minister, there will probably be a new President in the White House in November and there will never be a better opportunity to reaffirm France's solidarity with ordinary Americans...! :8 :ok: :\\

Grandpa
10th Apr 2004, 08:32
November will be too late.........

There is no way for romantism, and your comparison are not justified: I don't think any military action could be usefull in Iraq without approval from Iraqis.

The problem is : how can you get this "yes" without negociating with Iraqi factions which are now divided.

This means may be that Iraq's unity is definitely out of reach, as a consequence of US intervention: easy to destroy Saddam dictature but no way to build anything acceptable for all Iraqis.
Two Minister of Iraqi/US backed government resigned yesterday.

Remember Yougoslavia, and division which happened a few years ago, with ethnic and religious criteria overpassing federal unity.

I don't see what could come next for Iraq except that.

And for God sake, don't fancy French soldiers to be send there: USA has lost more than 500 for NOTHING!

That's enough.

DeepC
10th Apr 2004, 08:40
It's been an interesting (not to say pretty scary for the coalition) last few days in Iraq. What does seem to have happened is that due to the seige of Fallujah the Sunni and Shiite people are now talking and fighting the common enemy. To get the Sunnis and Shiites working together has been a long time political aim. Perhaps not the best way of going about it but every cloud seems to have a silver lining!

DeepC

X-QUORK
10th Apr 2004, 16:34
It's a shame that the Sunni and Shi'ite fundamentalist fighters don't understand that the more they fight the US forces, the longer those forces have to stay in Iraq. Put down the weapons, elect politicians, start own government, wave goodbye to US forces. Not that hard to understand really is it?

Grandpa
10th Apr 2004, 17:13
Usually army commanders and political leaders try to divide their opponents.

Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld....worked a new concept in strategy when invading/occupying Iraq, with to basic principles:

1- Make as many ennemies as you can.

2- Manage to have them build their unity AGAINST you, instead of attracting them on your side.

You had to wait for centuries to see Shiits and Sunnits side by side. Too bad it's against the invader.

Don't forget also that Bush created the situation in Iraq wich allowed the bigest increase ever seen in terrorism, with an alliance between ex-Baathist and fundamentalist, no control at Iraq's borders...

The problem is so badly engaged that nobody sees any solution.

Dalriadan Archangel
10th Apr 2004, 17:32
West Coast,

You might take your own advice. While you are there try reading the ROE of Jet Blast for a reminder.

airship
11th Apr 2004, 03:05
Grandpa and X-QUORK, you're both missing the point:

The principle of "divide and rule" is still being followed here. Except that it is probably the ex-Baathists who are now doing it, not the coalition forces. They know they can't possibly win with the Americans around. On the other hand, they can't afford to wait until the Americans leave of their own accord because that would probably mean that Iraq would by then have reconstructed some form of representative army dominated by the Shias. Hence the Baathists are doing all they can now to precipitate the evacuation of US forces. If they succeed, I imagine we may finally see proof of ex. Iraqi WMD. If the UN are going to have any sort of effect, they'd better get into Iraq PDQ. :uhoh:

Danny
11th Apr 2004, 13:15
Unfortunately, we still see opinions being formed based solely on what the media luvvies want to portray. As with almost anything that we have portrayed to us by the news organisations, it is all presented in a way to generate as much controversy as possible which in effect keeps their audience hooked and if necessary as outraged as as the news editor luvvies themselves.

As has been pointed out many times before, what we see on the little box in front of us has been edited and cut before it is presented to us and those that believe that what we are shown through that narrow field of vision is the whole truth and nothing but the truth need their heads examinig.

No one is understating the fact that the situation on the ground in those affected cities is unstable and dangerous but to listen to the pundits who base their pontifications on what their news editors have told them is policy is absurd. It is precisely that kind of diet that gives rise to the pseudo-intellectuals who are in reality just post pubescent university plebs with as much international exposure to areas of conflict as a pimple on a babys @rse. There are some areas of insurrection, led mostly by crooked and power hungry Mullahs who have a small but not unsubstantial following. They are effective in isolated areas and are causing problems for coalition forces. it is not, by a long shot, the crumbling of Iraq. In fact, I believe that the vast majority of Iraqis just want to get on with their lives and the pictures of thousands fleeing Falluja and other current hot spots shows that it is still the murdering thugs that are the problem. Those 'fighters' (I use the term loosely as they are not capable of fighting in the truest sense fo the word and rely on the cover of innocent civilians and the foreign media luvvies to interspread shots of hospitals with injured children to arouse the less enlightened into shock and horror) are operating in what have always been areas of insecurity for the coalition. The vast majority of Iraq and Iraqis are still slowly getting used to an environment of peace and security. It takes much more than a year of regime change from one extremem to another to get used to it.

The power struggle that is taking place is unfortunate but not unexpected. It is just the lack of political momentum due to media induced shock and horror tactics that prevents the coalition forces from doing their job effectively. In my opinion, this is turn into another Vietnam but it doesn't have to be. War is filthy dirty and full of horrors. Whilst commanders will try to do their job most effectively and with as few casualties to their own forces, letting the news editor luvvies dictate what is acceptable or not is the achillies heel that is preventing their political masters giving them the permission to do their jobs properly.

It's a sad fact of life and I'm glad I don't have to be on the front line but if we've decided to go in and do a job then we should do it properly. All this pussy footing around has only prolonged the conflict and allowed the thugs and murderers to regroup and let them think that now is the time to make their mark.

Pull out now and all we will have is another Afghanistan with the most rutheless murderers gaining the upper hand and a complete breakdown of society that will allow the religious fanatics to abuse their new found powers and to allow what remains of their country to be used by other fanatics as a base for more hostile training camps for would be suicide murderers. At least the coalition are trying to provide an infrastructure of security so that the country can be rebuilt and achieve some semblemce of peace and stability. They may have gone in under inaccurate pretexts and toppled a filthy murderer from power but now that they are there they should be allowed to do their job properly and not hamstrung by handwringers making their politicians so afraid of making unpleasant decisions. {rant off}

airship
11th Apr 2004, 13:31
That was a PPRuNe PEB, normal programming will now resume...:\

Danny
11th Apr 2004, 13:38
:E

airship
11th Apr 2004, 13:51
(((((~~~~~~~~---_____:E :E :)

chuks
11th Apr 2004, 19:42
I just returned from a week on Sicily, when I would occasionally switch on the boob tube to try and catch up with off-island events, given the relative lack of access to non-Italian meeja.

Up came CNN the other day, dependable as the sunrise, with a clip of a Marine tank somewhere in Iraq, rolling into frame with the crew members clambering out all looking a bit second-hand. The first guy remembered to unplug his leads, looking like he had been hit pretty bad in one forearm. The next guy just binned his helmet, not bothering to unplug. Then one poor b*stard was only able to hang there in the hatch, flailing weakly and then just bleeding, while someone else ignored him to grab a plastic bottle of drinking water and put out some burning kit on the side of the turret. They all looked a bit disorganised there, like some guys who had just had the sh*t shot out of them in an ambush.

Meanwhile the commentary was about George W. Bush's having been 'deeply wounded' and 'bloodied' (in the political sense) by the recent events in Iraq, if I remember it rightly. Talk about unintended irony! And, of course the ability to ignore the reality of what was being shown in favour of some deep analysis of wassup.

It sure is looking like a Mongolian cluster f*ck, all right. Well, all according to which clip the editor chooses....

It may well prove to be the case that George W. got into this operating on some happy assumptions, mainly that the grateful citizens of Iraq would all be greeting their liberators with bouquets and garlicky kisses before suddenly turning into model citizens, thus enabling Our Brave Boys to march off in good order to general acclaim.

The audience is never going to accept 'exeunt stage left, pursued by bear'. It may well be that Kerry can sort out the mess created by Bush in an odd reversal of Nixon doing the same for Johnson re: Viet Nam.

Grandpa
11th Apr 2004, 20:19
...........because I nearly found a point of agreement with you.

Situation is now so deeply engaged In Iraq that both options (leave or stay) are just as bad.

The third one, it's now too late : It was "Don't go there!"
Many, many told it, but when someone wants to ride on the wild side of the street it's difficult to convince him not to do it.

About the "media luvvie" who are the one and only cause of everything bad in this world, according to the chorus you strike up so often, with all those who, like you, never come down acknoledging their mistakes, there are a number of answers:

US lost Viet-Nam war due to "media luvvies", and...
France lost Viet-Nam, Algeria wars due to "media luvvies", and...
Russian lost Afghanistan war due to "m.l", and...
Israel had to withdraw fro Lebanon due to "m.l", and...
Holland fro Indonesia..."m.l"...

That's enough!
When you read this list you understand "m.l" are so powerfull they won all battles in which they were engaged.
Same with Iraq I fear.

Poor Danny!

BahrainLad
12th Apr 2004, 10:37
As a

post pubescent university pleb

(although one with a degree in Politics and 15 years of living in the M.E.)

I don't really know what I'm doing on this thread but I think what is becoming clear is that the US never had any post-invasion plan for rebuilding the Iraqi state - or at least, if they did, it was not watertight enough to succeed in reality.

When they started Desert Storm in 1990/1 it was widely reported that Chuck Horners plan for fighting the air war was the most elaborate, powerful but above all flexible the world had ever seen.

The 2003 Iraq campaign was similar. Very quick, very 'light' both in terms of the military-manpower requirement and undeniably effective.

It therefore can be concluded that the US is very good at fighting wars. What they are very bad at is clearing up afterwards. It seems that Rumsfeld in particular got so excited and focused by the conflict part of the campaign (and how dramatic and quick it would be) they totally neglected what would happen when the regime crumbled.

The list of mistakes they have made is far to numerous to mention. I don't know quite what they expected the result of disbanding the entire military, government and law enforcement would be but how on earth did they expect to replace it with a troop force that was designed for a totally different operation? In 1991 Saddam managed to get Baghdad's power on in months, here we are a year later and some areas still don't have power. I can't think of anything better at winning someone's "heart and mind" than providing them with functioning air-conditioning in the heat of an Arabian summer.

Anyway, enough of the history. We have a situation and as people quite rightly say, withdrawal is not, morally or politically, an option. (If it becomes and option, say bye to Bush, hello to Kerry and US isolationism for the next 30 years).

Notwithstanding their ability to deliver one, but I have serious doubts about the US desire for a truly independent Iraq. It's widely believed that if you were to hold a general election in Saudi tomorrow OBL and his thugs would get into power with barely a whisper. A lot of people are suggesting that Bahrain, with its gentle steps towards democracy, could be a model for others in the Gulf to follow. But is anyone actually looking at what is happening? More islamist parties, more restrictions on life, less freedom. Rioting against foreigners because they are drinking in a restaurant or watching a particular movie would have been unheard of 10 years ago.

Now I don't want to mention the o-i-l word but it remains important. Despite drilling in Alaska and South America, the overwhelming majority of the world's reserves up to 2050 come from one place and it's essential that the ability to buy oil (don't fall into the luvvie concept of "stealing" oil; that has never been the case nor the intention) is maintained. That means maintaining people in power who will sell it to you. Unfortunately, the US can't yet trust the Iraqis to elect a pro-US government themselves and are therefore trying to corral them into doing so. With every 'suggestion' or 'proposed' candidate the legitimacy of the new government will take another hit. That's why this June 30 deadline is totally meaningless. The US will simply transfer sovereignty from one illegitimate body to another.

So "what to do, yanni?" I think the best model would be to try and promote a benign autocracy such as exists in the UAE. Can we not find a monarchical descendant from the 50s? Promote a figure that can inspire a sense of nationhood and unity? After all, Saddam's reign was the only thing that really held Iraq together. My plan would be to install an autocratic monarch with US and religious leader support and then gently democratise over the next 20 years rather than 20 months. After all, it's very difficult to develop a political system without a historical political culture.

Unfortunately, with the US in charge, this kind of thinking will go no further.

I said in a thread a while ago that I feared for the future. In some ways I still do, but it's going to be interesting whatever happens.

Finally, a little Arab saying that would be worth remembering in this time of intercommunal strife:

I and my brother against our cousin. I and my cousin against the world.

Bletchley
12th Apr 2004, 19:53
I must be getting old and tired...and maybe a little ill !!!

I find myself sort of agreeing with you !

But also mainly with Danny.

It is an unfortunate fact of life that America never ever has a plausible exit policy for any of the 'wars' it has started.

So far every single one has been a complete horlicks which has failed in its intent.

GWB has missed the point completely with Iraq. The actual threat was from militant Muslims like Al Queda. They and Saddam Hussein had NO love. Whilst Saddam was in power Al Queda were in effect an impotent force in that area. Not so now.

Unfortunately the US has totally cocked up the 2nd Iraq 'War' and backed themselves into a corner.

Grandpa...you are so right about the 'Luvvies'. It is an unfortunate fact that they are likely to bring about increased calls for a withdrawal from Iraq.

The problem is that the US cannot and should not withdraw until a democratic government is in place. To leave before then is to leave Iraq open to becoming a major threat to world peace as the militant Muslims will gain control.

I speak as one with no hatred of America...just a deep sadness that they continue to go around the world as International Policemen when nobody really wants them to do this.

Insofar as oil is concerned, those that assert on here that that was the true reason are mistaken. If you shut down the oil fields of Iraq totally (and remember how many are still closed) it would hardly make a dent on world production.

I believe that GWB re-fought the first Iraq war to do what his Father should have done. Unfortunately time has marched on and circumstances are vastly different.

As each day goes by Al Queda get more and more recruits whilst the US is getting bogged down deeper and deeper into the morass that is modern Iraq.

I find it becoming increasigly difficult NOT to say that if they want to return to the Middle Ages in the Middle East them let them get on with it.

Sadly we know have to face this prospect ourselves

Grandpa
12th Apr 2004, 22:07
They are going to re-rebuild Iraq!

(I know it's not a good new for American taxpayers and soldiers families, but who cares?)

Wino
12th Apr 2004, 22:11
Actually,
I am not sure that just walking out of Iraq would necessarily be bad for America. It would be a tragedy for the Iraqis, but a long drawn out civil war leading to a fundamentalist Shiite regime in Iraq would not be the end of the world for the USA. Nor would the partitioning of Iraq. Long term they both might be better.

I doubt you would see Afghanistan again in Iraq. Iraq has a very important natural resource in all that oil under the stand. The very first thing that a thug that comes to power wants to do is line his pockets, in which case he will simply open the oil taps. Don't believe me on this? Well the so called Spartan taliban that did away with TV's and brought the burka's for the forefront of Islamic fashion still had quite opulent palaces for old Mullah Omar. The problem was he had no resources except opium and opening his country to the terrorists to set up training camps.

Basically from an American point of view it is better to get Arabs in the business of killing Arabs rather than having it perceived that AMERICANS are killing Arabs.... All the fighters from the different sects of Islam can come to Iraq to settle their differences. Someone will make a nice buck selling them weapons too...

So a walk out of Iraq is not the end of the world for the USA. Wouldn't be nice, but oh well here we are.

And you are right Grandpa, this never should have happened and had France not been interested in scoring points at America's expense in front of the UN, Saddam most likely would have abdicated, instead of being egged on by France's support for him.

Do you play poker Grandpa? If you play Texas Hold-em for no limit, there is a situation you get into where you become "Pot committed". The US was in that situation and France gleefully supported Iraq guaranteeing the current quagmire. Saddam was a continuing MAJOR problem for 3 administrations no matter what else you think.

That being said, I severly doubt it is as bad in Iraq as you are seeing on TV. You are seeing a snippet, and thats it. Imagine if we had TV coverage of the Normandie landings. World war II would have been over on the spot and France would be part of Germany forever.... Oh the shock and horror of bodies floating in the surf. Call it off. Its ugly... Leave the French to stew in their own juices. That would have been the result.

Cheers,
Wino

Grandpa
13th Apr 2004, 06:46
I agree with you: the less worst solution for USA would be to get out of Iraq as soon as possible.

And also the usual French bashing, if it makes you feel well, it's OK for me: Bush, Blair ..et al...
have no responsiblity for this quagmire.

Everything bad in Iraq is due to the villain, the French!

But please don't invade and destroy my country! Please!

Halliburton could do nothing to rebuild Chartres Cathedral, and we love it!

Could turn us to kamikaze, you know!