"Colin Campbell"
gmail.com (remove underscore)> wrote in
message news:bqcv1412jvqk5ru2ne4qhrstmni6qn1jdf@4ax.com...> On Sun, 4 May 2008 20:31:11 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
>
jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In message
4ax.com>, Colin Campbell
>>gmail.com> writes>>>On Sun, 4 May 2008 00:08:27 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
>>>
jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:>>>>So how many Canadian, German and French troops are supporting the fight
>>>>in Iraq?
>>>
>>>None. Of course considering Germany's performance in Afghanistan -
>>>this may be a good thing.
>>
>>So, just so we know: foreigners are to be despised if they _don't_
>>support the US, and we're to be despised if we _do_ support the US...
>>doesn't sound like much incentive to care what you think, since no
>>matter _what_ we do you'll complain.
>
> Can you name something that Germany has actually _done_ in
> Afghanistan? Why should I be impressed by allies who won't fight?
>
You first ..... what has the USA actually achieved in Afghanistan except to
extend the misery there into a 7 year war that hasn't moved much forward in
achieving any goals since Dec 2001?
How long do you think you need to win a war against the Taliban camel
hurders exactly? 70 years be enough for you?
Anyone found Osama bin laden lately?
Got enough troops in Iraq so that there's none spare for Afghanistan?
Any chance you can design a military and politcal leadership that knows how
to win a war decisively?
Not likely anytime soon.
>>
>>>(Notice how we had to wait for the British
>>>to leave before Basra could get straightened out?)
>>
>>Quite so: the moment we pulled back to the COB it became a haven of
>>peace and tranquility, didn't it?
>
> They could not get any worse at that point.
>
> BTW - notice how the British commander was snubbed by the Iraqis after
> they started clearing out Basra? Apparently, the British reputation
> over there is somewhat tarnished.
>
> The fact of the matter is that the British never had any control in
> Basra.
>
Nor the USA in Iraq ... ANY where, at ANY time!!!
But feel free to dump on the British ... they and Blair were as dumb as the
Yanks, unfortunately.
>>
>>>Can you explain why the US is having to send more troops to
>>>Afghanistan in order to make up for the fact that our allies are not
>>>sending their fair share?
>>
>>Well, you don't want the Germans, presumably you don't want the French,
>>the Canadians and the UK don't have any more troops to send.
>
> The Germans would be nice if they actually did something. As it is
> all they are doing is tying up logistic support that could be better
> used elsewhere.
>
How many 'fighting" US troops and war planes are there in Afghanistan?
How many in Iraq still looking for those elusive WMD that was such a dire
threat to the world?
Which part of total failure and incompetence on the part of the US
leadership and Military do you refuse to see for what it is?
All of it apparently.
>>
>>But that's okay, you have plenty more allies with lots of top-notch
>>troops just waiting for the call, right?
>
> Lets just say we now who our allies are - and who they people who just
> claim to be out allies are.
>
Penny finally dropping is it?
Who wants a big mouth and a moron and a fool for a friend who keeps shooting
himself, and his allies, in the foot repeatedly anyway?
>>
>>>>Whereas those of us who were there for you in the 1990s get blamed for
>>>>following US plans.
>>>
>>>Like the Balkans? I am still waiting for somebody to explain to me
>>>why the US had to do the heavy lifting here.
>>
>>How many troops did you put on the ground?
>
> The 1st Infantry Division for starters. And I am still waiting for
> somebody to explain why it was necessary for us to bail you out there.
>
And the 1st infantry did what? Stopped what from happening in the Balkans?
Like barely anyone in the USA even knew where it was, or what was happening
there.
>>
>>>>Will there be a problem in Iraq after Hussein falls? No, there'll be
>>>>rejoicing followed by peace and stability... oops!
>>>
>>>So the job is harder than we anticipated.
>>
>>Harder than *you* anticipated. Of course, anyone warning you got
>>dismissed, the US had a cunning plan that would sort the situation
>>out...
>
> The fact of the matter is we screwed up by not sending enough troops
> in the beginning. Rumsfeld simply thought he knew better than the
> professionals.
>
> But, as I stated - at least we did not cut and run the moment things
> got difficult.
>
THE FACT IS YOU SCREWED UP BIG TIME ON ALL ISSUES - AND ARE STILL SCREWING
UP.
Just because you can parrot cute emotionally laden manipulative twisted
propaganda lines like "cut and run", doesn't mean a dime.
The whole Iraq debacle is a giant screw up from the originating of the idea
to do it on 9/11 right thru to May 2008 almost 7 years later.
>
>>>Of course this was the British sector. We had to wait for them to get
>>>out of the way to get Basra fixed.
>>
>>Why, of course. The US plan, as followed... must obviously have failed
>>because of the Brits, who just wanted to get their own men killed and
>>their own sector screwed up, because that was a trivial price to pay for
>>making the US look bad?
>
> Face it. The British backed down and refused to deal with Sadr. They
> never had any control over the city and allowed it to be completely
> owned by the Iranian-backed militias.
>
> Sometimes you have to be willing to fight.
>
All the time one also needs to be willing to "think rationally" and get the
accurate information before deciding an action.
Both the British and the Americans failed dismally on both counts.
Any chance of admitting your commander in chief was/is a fool and not up to
the job of defending America and it's best interests in the world?
>>
>>>BTW - I take it you didn't notice that Basra is no longer being
>>>mentioned by the MSM?
>>
>>Whose mainstream media? Plenty of coverage over here.
>
> The US media went very quiet after the bloggers exposed the misleading
> MSM coverage of the battle.
>
You would be well served to ignore the USA's MSM.
You never get any quality info that way. In particualr don;t pay attention
to anything Bush says when his lips are moving. [ or his staff ] :-)
>>
>>>>Why is that _our_ problem? Your strong President decided he knew how to
>>>>sort out Iraq and he went and did it his way: and we're still trying to
>>>>hold the results together,
>>>
>>>It will be 'your' problem the next time you need something from us.
>>
>>It always is. Remember the Falklands? Jeanne Kirkpatrick did her level
>>best to sell us out and leave us hanging. Or go back further - recall
>>the stalwart support the US gave us over Suez?
>
> You mean by releasing our 'war reserve' Sidewinder missiles for your
> use? By providing you with imagery from our reconnaissance
> satellites? By providing our ships to replace yours on NATO
> assignments? By providing your aircraft with (free) fuel at Ascension
> Island?
>
>>
>>That's life, but that's also facts. We *know* the US will only get
>>involved when it chooses to.
>
> Did your country at any time make an official request for military
> assistance?
>
>>
>>The question remains, though - which allies are you going to get troops
>>from for Afghanistan?
>
> Those countries who don't want to be laughed at the next time they
> need us for something.
>
All anyone needs from the USA, be they western allies or Arabs in the hell
zone, is some wisdom and credibility!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seen very very little since WW2 imho.
