Diplomatic revolt in UK

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

However, the fact remains the war was lost here at home.

Just curious as to where you're getting this fact from. McNamara would disagree with you. It was a variety of factors, this was one of them. But solely responsible, no. Read the following interview.


http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/11/interviews/mcnamara/

[Skyrad 0]

They tried that a couple of weeks ago...

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Skyrad 0]

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/11/interviews/mcnamara/

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[billvon 2,471]

>"This is the U.S. Military, again. . . .Nobody will be left alive."

Well, at least we can be thankful that no one that believes as you do is currently running things in Iraq. I have a feeling even loyal US troops would have a problem slaughtering 500,000 men, women and children. And even if we could talk them into it - I question the value of proving we are worse than Saddam.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>"This is the U.S. Military, again. . . .Nobody will be left alive."

Well, at least we can be thankful that no one that believes as you do is currently running things in Iraq. I have a feeling even loyal US troops would have a problem slaughtering 500,000 men, women and children. And even if we could talk them into it - I question the value of proving we are worse than Saddam.

Try reading ALL of what I said instead of just cutting and pasting to suit your own agenda.

[christelsabine 1]

Look at these Americans, always ready for a good joke and always matching to actual funny situation..



but: as already one of your famous colleagues said:
are you really taking this for serious?


i'm afraid i do

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

Quote

Have you ever considered that if the millatry backed off a bit the diplomats might be able to do their job alot quicker and the troops would be able to come home alot sooner?

Have you ever considered that the other side doesn't have any diplomats and isn't interested in any peaceful solution other than 100% what they want? Unless you want to let our combat leaders talk it out with their combat leaders, you would not be talking with equals.

Quote

After the fighting comes the talking, instead of escalating into a war without end, why not cut to the chase and sort out the peace?

You left something out.

After winning the fighting comes the talking. If no one has won, there isn't a whole lot to talk about.

I thought we won back in May when GWB made his victory speech on the carrier. (Good photo-op, turned out they lied when they said it was necessary, though).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,471]

>Try reading ALL of what I said instead of just cutting and pasting to
>suit your own agenda.

I did read it all. You suggested allowing the people of Fallujah to surrender and walk out of the city, then killing the rest. The result of your plan would be a systematic slaughter of everyone, including children, who did not want to leave their homes and walk through gunfire-filled streets into a military camp.

Like I said, it's a good thing people who believe as you do are not in charge.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

They tried that a couple of weeks ago...

And it failed because the diplomats didn't allow it to go forward. Thanks for making my point.

[markd_nscr986 0]

Typical Brit sell out!!!

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>Try reading ALL of what I said instead of just cutting and pasting to
>suit your own agenda.

I did read it all. You suggested allowing the people of Fallujah to surrender and walk out of the city, then killing the rest. The result of your plan would be a systematic slaughter of everyone, including children, who did not want to leave their homes and walk through gunfire-filled streets into a military camp.

Like I said, it's a good thing people who believe as you do are not in charge.

Thats exactly right. During the ensuing battle we would accept anyones surrender.

Biggest problem in Iraq right now is the Diplomats get in the way and the appeasers allow the militants to regroup. IMO thats the only reason our guys are still dying.

This is war. People die in wars. Sometimes it's innocent people. Sometimes its not so innocent people. Hopefully, we will remember the lessons of Vietnam and start fighting this one to win instead of allowing the appeasers to cause more American deaths.

And oh, yes Bill, the diplomats are doing such a great job. Lets continue to let them operate. Maybe the death toll will top 1000 and then John Kerry will be elected.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Also the attitude that you have at the moment is part of the problem. What I mean is Vietnam was a war, America was in Vietnam to fight a war. The war in Iraq was declared over, the job then was nation building. Its a totaly different job and one that the US forces were totaly unprepared for, hence we've gone back to a war situation that is escalating.

Well, during and since the war, the U.N. and its whining members refused steadfastly to get behind us and make workable solutions happen. They preferred to spite us by refusing to support us, and proved that they were more interested in seeing us fail than they were in helping the Iraqi people. Bunch of petty morons -- is it any wonder that Americans don't give a shit about what the U.N. and Europe says in criticism of America?

And if the Iraqi people would sit down and put a damper on their hatred of all things American, they might figure out that if they let us conduct ourselves over there, EVERYTHING about their lives would be better. I guess they must like having bombs go off in their streets, and not have power and running water and stuff like that. Maybe it really is time to pull the fuck out, like I guess the U.N. would love for us to do, and let them die in their own filth, just to show by contrast what they could have had, but rejected.
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Remster 24]

I try so hard not to post on this side of the fence, but man.....

Quote

And if the Iraqi people would sit down and put a damper on their hatred of all things American, they might figure out that if they let us conduct ourselves over there, EVERYTHING about their lives would be better.

Trust me, I'm a doctor...

Remster

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Maybe it really is time to pull the fuck out, like I guess the U.N. would love for us to do, and let them die in their own filth, just to show by contrast what they could have had, but rejected.

I'm sure the U.N. would love this. Then they can go back to ripping off the Iraqi people again. No wonder so many U.N. member countries opposed the war. I really hope Volker gets to the bottom of this because I think it's going to be a huge scandal. Sad part is even if they find criminal conduct (which I have no doubt they will) what governing body will be responsible for adjudication?

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

This is war. People die in wars. Sometimes it's innocent people. Sometimes its not so innocent people. Hopefully, we will remember the lessons of Vietnam and start fighting this one to win instead of allowing the appeasers to cause more American deaths.

Did you click on the link in my post? Well two post down. Appeasment in Vietnam? You get both sides of the issue...from Gen Westmoreland, ManNamara, and Gen Giap Supreme Comander of the North. You have three of the major players right there telling you what happened. Appeasers didn't play a role and if you read the articles we needed diplomats towards the end. Don't blame diplomats or appeasers for mistakes we made.

[christelsabine 1]

The UN is not the US. the US is a member of UN and the only one who refused to accept their conclusions regarding Iraq.

so deal with that instead of whining. fault has to be found within your own rows.

It's an alarming signal that a member of the UN completely is ignoring their resolutions.

sounds kind of megalomania.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[shropshire 0]

NO! - The biggest problem is that we are in SOMEONE ELSES country beating the shit out of them (and have been for over a decade). Hardly a day has gone by since the end of the 1st Gulf War(?), that we (or people in OUR name) haven't bombed them back to the Stone Age (gosh we should be soooo proud!).
The Coalition of the Pirates and Muggers should NOT be there.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Gravitymaster 0]

Yes I did read the article and it only goes to re-enforce my point. From the article:

Quote

As early as December 1965, I reported to the President that I believed there was no more than a one-in-three chance -- at best a one-in-two chance -- that we could achieve our political objectives, i.e. avoiding the loss of South Vietnam, by military means. And I strongly urged, therefore, [that] we increased our efforts on the political track, that we tried to move to negotiations with the North, to avoid the fall of the dominoes; and that, to stimulate a move toward negotiation, we stop the bombing. This was a very controversial move at the time. And we eventually did: we stopped for a month, in December 1965. It was one of about seven different attempts to move to negotiations, to stop the war to negotiate a solution that would yield a satisfactory outcome for the West, which was simply to avoid the loss of all Southeast Asia.

Those efforts were unsuccessful. I don't know why.

The problem as I see it is the U.S. was restrained from winning the war because we were concerned that China or the USSR would enter it against us. We decided to go the diplomatic route and as the article points out, it was unsuccessful.

Diplomacy is necessary, but to try a Diplomatic solution before defeating your adversary is just stupid. In the case of Iraq, it only serves to give the enemy time to regroup. Truce = I will get you later in the Arab world and pulling back is a sign of weakness. Until we start to understand the cultural differences, we are doomed to failure.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Diplomacy is necessary, but to try a Diplomatic solution before defeating your adversary is just stupid.

So peace treaties prior to war is stupid? Arms reduction treaties with the Soviets were stupid? If it's stupid, why are we negotiating with N. Korea instead of defeating them first?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Diplomacy is necessary, but to try a Diplomatic solution before defeating your adversary is just stupid.

So peace treaties prior to war is stupid? Arms reduction treaties with the Soviets were stupid? If it's stupid, why are we negotiating with N. Korea instead of defeating them first?

The difference is Sadr doesn't want to negotiate.

ne·go·ti·ate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-gsh-t)
v. ne·go·ti·at·ed, ne·go·ti·at·ing, ne·go·ti·ates
v. intr.
To confer with another or others in order to come to terms or reach an agreement: “It is difficult to negotiate where neither will trust” (Samuel Johnson).

[PhillyKev 0]

Not disagreeing with that, but how do you determine that without ting a diplomatic solution and then making a determination. You said to TRY diplomacy first is stupid. I disagree completely with that statement. To NOT try diplomacy first is reckless, thoughtless, and brutal.

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

Diplomacy is necessary, but to try a Diplomatic solution before defeating your adversary is just stupid. .

"Better Jaw-Jaw than War-War". Winston S. Churchill.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Not disagreeing with that, but how do you determine that without ting a diplomatic solution and then making a determination. You said to TRY diplomacy first is stupid. I disagree completely with that statement. To NOT try diplomacy first is reckless, thoughtless, and brutal.

Let me clarify. War should always be a last resort. War should only occur after all diplomatic solutions have been exhausted. Once it has been decided war is the only option, the diplomats should sit on the sidelines and keep their mouths shut and let the military do its job. Once the enemy has been thoroughly defeated and is willing to negotiate to avoid further bloodshed, only then should the diplomats become involved again.

[PhillyKev 0]

Ok...that I agree with. Rumsfeld doesn't, though.

Quote

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters at the Pentagon (news - web sites) on Tuesday that continuing negotiations in Fallujah was "worth the try."

"I think that realistically if you've got some very tough people in a city that are terrorists ... that you have to expect that they're not going to be terribly cooperative," he said. "Now, does that mean that something can't be worked out? No."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20040427/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_12

[billvon 2,471]

>Biggest problem in Iraq right now is the Diplomats get in the way and
> the appeasers allow the militants to regroup. IMO thats the only
> reason our guys are still dying.

I can imagine Saddam Hussein himself giving such a speech before annhiliating another group of "terrorists" like the Kurds.

>This is war. People die in wars. Sometimes it's innocent people.
> Sometimes its not so innocent people. Hopefully, we will remember
> the lessons of Vietnam and start fighting this one to win instead of
> allowing the appeasers to cause more American deaths.

The primary lesson of Vietnam is that you should not fight a war you don't need to, and you should not lie to start one. Apparently we didn't learn either lesson. Would you have looked forward to another 50,000 americans dying in Vietnam to claim you "won?" Did the US fall after it failed to win the Vietnam War? Did communists succeed and take over the US?

It's about time that we stop seeing ourselves as the country that can and should beat the crap out of anyone we don't like. The problem with being a schoolyard bully is that the people we pick on have a habit of growing up.

>And oh, yes Bill, the diplomats are doing such a great job. Lets
> continue to let them operate. Maybe the death toll will top 1000 and
>then John Kerry will be elected.

Right! If we keep killing, surely fewer people will die. War is peace.