No French and German troops in Iraq, ever

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-09-27 12:00pm

link

Well, I guess that puts an end to Kerry's nonsense about bringing our "allies" back to us so they'll help us in Iraq.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-09-27 12:02pm

An astoundingly intelligent move by the Franco-German alliance there. The sooner the UK can pull out of that shithole, the better. We just need Brown to kick Blair in the balls and make us independent again.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-09-27 02:52pm

Guess the US ought to look into bailing as well. Maybe we can carpet bomb the place on the way out.

And so much for allies.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-09-27 02:57pm

Now, hold on there. We've been pulling out all the stops to back the mighty US of A in this frankly pathetic War on Terror if only to avoid being labelled enemies of the state or commies or something else altogether.

But I think it's high time the UK shifted on this little issue (by "UK" I mean "Labour Party") and let the US sort Iraq out itself given it's obviously such a big thing to Americans what with the commitment already.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-09-27 03:02pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Now, hold on there. We've been pulling out all the stops to back the mighty US of A in this frankly pathetic War on Terror if only to avoid being labelled enemies of the state or commies or something else altogether.

I think Bush's stance on that is pretty well flawed. Applying the if you're not with us you're against us measure to everyone is more than a bit stupid.

However I do agree that it's more than time to reevaluate who really is an ally and who's not. (And no that doesn't mean every one not an ally is an enemy).

Admiral Valdemar wrote:But I think it's high time the UK shifted on this little issue (by "UK" I mean "Labour Party") and let the US sort Iraq out itself given it's obviously such a big thing to Americans what with the commitment already.

Given that the UK helped get into the mess at least as much as US fail to see why they should get a "Get out of Iraq" pass.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-09-27 03:03pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:But I think it's high time the UK shifted on this little issue (by "UK" I mean "Labour Party") and let the US sort Iraq out itself given it's obviously such a big thing to Americans what with the commitment already.
Given that the UK helped get into the mess at least as much as US fail to see why they should get a "Get out of Iraq" pass.

Sovereignty is a wonderful thing, isn't it?

With any luck, Blair will disengage his mouth from Bush's cock and we'll have the magic S-word back so we can decide to leave you to this fuckup Bush was railing for.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-09-27 03:06pm

SirNitram wrote:Sovereignty is a wonderful thing, isn't it?

And so are double standards.

SirNitram wrote:With any luck, Blair will disengage his mouth from Bush's cock and we'll have the magic S-word back so we can decide to leave you to this fuckup Bush was railing for.

Good luck with that. Personally I think if the Brits bail the US should as well; no point in going it alone with such faithful allies.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-09-27 03:08pm

SirNitram wrote: Sovereignty is a wonderful thing, isn't it?

With any luck, Blair will disengage his mouth from Bush's cock and we'll have the magic S-word back so we can decide to leave you to this fuckup Bush was railing for.

So says Mr. I'm-Too-Good-For-The-UK-I'll-Move-To-The-US.

What both nations need is a giant smack upside the head. That, my friend, comes from new administrations in the White House and Whitehall. Once that is done, maybe some sense will come of this campaign. I have every confidence in the US and UK public to correct this clusterfuck and alter the current status quo.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-09-27 03:09pm

SirNitram wrote:
Stormbringer wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:But I think it's high time the UK shifted on this little issue (by "UK" I mean "Labour Party") and let the US sort Iraq out itself given it's obviously such a big thing to Americans what with the commitment already.
Given that the UK helped get into the mess at least as much as US fail to see why they should get a "Get out of Iraq" pass.
Sovereignty is a wonderful thing, isn't it?

With any luck, Blair will disengage his mouth from Bush's cock and we'll have the magic S-word back so we can decide to leave you to this fuckup Bush was railing for.

Abso-fucking-lutely. The UK pulling its support would be a disasterous blow to the Bush Administration's foreign policy and would make Iraq look more and more like the giant clusterfuck it is, which is a positive thing as we are lying to ourselves about the chances of anything improving before a giant civil war engulfs the country.

And Nitram is absolutely right, the UK is a soverign nation and they do not have the same foreign policy agenda we do. They have every right to pull their support, and I encourage them to do so; they know better than anyone the troubles with a colonialist foreign policy agenda.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-09-27 03:09pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:What both nations need is a giant smack upside the head. That, my friend, comes from new administrations in the White House and Whitehall. Once that is done, maybe some sense will come of this campaign. I have every confidence in the US and UK public to correct this clusterfuck and alter the current status quo.

I wish I had the same faith. Because right now we have Kerry or Bush. Not a great set of choices.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-09-27 03:16pm

Stormie's sig image - if representing a major view of the public - probably doesn't help us. I'd like a third party to get in, however, people seem to want to just throw their own shit at the opposing parties rather than bring about a good campaign that will convince everyone the situation is salvageable.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-09-27 03:23pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Stormie's sig image - if representing a major view of the public - probably doesn't help us.

I think a lot of people, even some party faithful, are disgusted by both and want neither. Certainly the general trend seems to be to vote for one or the other reluctantly.

As for the sig, it represents me growing disgust and loathing for both sides.

Admiral Valdemar wrote:I'd like a third party to get in, however, people seem to want to just throw their own shit at the opposing parties rather than bring about a good campaign that will convince everyone the situation is salvageable.

I would too, preferably some one that would actually have more than half assed plan for the future. Unfortunately we're stuck with the shit flinging dogmatics of both parties; one only has to look at the board these days to see that.

I'm increasingly thinking the situation isn't salvagable; at least not to any meaningful extent. With both nations supposed allies either packing up and running like gutless wankers and the rest paying lip service to support and it doesn't look salvagable.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-09-27 03:26pm

Withdrawing from Iraq now would be a horrible idea for the U.S. Iraq is too strategically important, it would be like Somalia a hundredfold to pull out.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-09-27 03:47pm

Joe wrote:Withdrawing from Iraq now would be a horrible idea for the U.S. Iraq is too strategically important, it would be like Somalia a hundredfold to pull out.

With the inevitable result of staying being? A civil war is going to happen in Iraq sooner or later, the only thing we are accomplishing by staying is to ensure that the government that eventually replaces our government in Iraq is going to be more hostile towards the US. There is no concievable way that the current Iraqi government can stay in power without US troop support and unless you suggest keerping 140,000 troops in Iraq for the next 10+ years, there is absolutely nothing we can do that would not just be delaying the inevitable.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2004-09-27 04:18pm

Stormbringer wrote: Given that the UK helped get into the mess at least as much as US fail to see why they should get a "Get out of Iraq" pass.

The US is rather more responsible than Britain; the UK didn't initiate action against Iraq and certainly wasn't informing the world that people are either with us or against us.

I'm also not convinced that the US would have backed down if Britain had sat in the corner and decided we weren't taking sides.

The US is also in charge of the mess and bears primary responsibility for the lack of planning that has gone into the occupation since they are running the show.

With all of that said I don't agree with pulling our troops out, we made a commitment (even if we possibly were misled about how much planning the US had done) and should see it through.
Beyond our obligations is also the fact that the collapse of Iraq isn't a forgone conclusion and we must do whatever possible to prevent such an occurrence.
If Iraq does collapse then at least we can't be blamed for abandoning the Iraqis and thus causing said collapse.

I wouldn't worry however, Blair isn't going anywhere so neither are our troops.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-09-27 04:27pm

A civil war is going to happen in Iraq sooner or later, the only thing we are accomplishing by staying is to ensure that the government that eventually replaces our government in Iraq is going to be more hostile towards the US.

So who's going to participate in this civil war, and how is it going to consume the whole country? About 2/3s of Iraq's provinces are peaceful, as Allawi pointed out the other day, the Kurds aren't clamoring for their own Kurdistan as much, and the insurgents are not representative of a large portion of the Iraqi population (as it turns out, blowing up Iraqi policemen trying to do their jobs doesn't win them much popularity points with the masses). The only area that's really a huge problem is the Sunni Triangle and Baghdad, and I will concede that that is in fact a huge problem and we've not done a very good job handling it. But can you prove that civil war in Iraq is an inevitable outcome? Because if you can't, I see no reason to just sit back and let it happen, especially when it's our responsibility to make sure it doesn't.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-09-27 04:35pm

I think it's time we realized that our interest and the French/German interest no longer run the same course. This doesn't mean they're enemies, it just means they're not longer the close allies of the Cold War. (Not that France were ever that close, Mr. I'll bail out of the military part of NATO and come back when the Soviets are gone...)

This doesn't have to be the end of close and fruitful relations, we just have to step back from tradition and look at reality here.

Post by **Edi** » 2004-09-27 04:42pm

Joe wrote:The only area that's really a huge problem is the Sunni Triangle and Baghdad, and I will concede that that is in fact a huge problem and we've not done a very good job handling it.

I don't know how many people exactly live in the Sunni triangle, but Baghdad has a population of 5 million. Throw in, say, 3 million more for the rest of the Sunni triangle (yes, I pulled that out of my arse, and I think it's on the high side, I don't know what the real figure is), that's one third of the population of the whole country that is not under any kind of meaningful control.

The insurgent numbers have been estimated to be from 5000 to 20,000 active fighters. Out of a population of 24 million, 20,000 is less than one tenth of one percent, factor in silent support / noncooperation with the Coalition from another few hundred thousand people and you'll get a total insurgency rate of around 3% of population, tops (for whole country, would be higher in Sunni Triangle and less elsewhere).

And if that 3% can disrupt the whole fucking country and occupation as badly as it has shown it can, how can you expect things to improve in the mid-long term? If you go for the really long term (several decades), something might start happening, but given current situation, prognosis is not good. If more of the general population just gets fed up with and joins the insurgency just to get the foreign troops out of the country, there is fuck-all anybody can do to salvage the situation, short of carpet-bombing or nuking the whole country, which obviously is not an option of any kind (practical or moral).

Edi

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-09-27 04:46pm

Wow, maybe now with that looming commitment done away with;

those wannebee super powers could send a couple MP battalions and a heilcopter squadron to Sudan.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-09-27 04:53pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
SirNitram wrote: Sovereignty is a wonderful thing, isn't it?

With any luck, Blair will disengage his mouth from Bush's cock and we'll have the magic S-word back so we can decide to leave you to this fuckup Bush was railing for.
So says Mr. I'm-Too-Good-For-The-UK-I'll-Move-To-The-US.

You know, this sort of thing would be so much more effective if it bore even a seed of something resembling an iota of truth.

What both nations need is a giant smack upside the head. That, my friend, comes from new administrations in the White House and Whitehall. Once that is done, maybe some sense will come of this campaign. I have every confidence in the US and UK public to correct this clusterfuck and alter the current status quo.

Quite. I suspect the UK will either boot Blair or pressure him enough to do something about fixing this mess. While I don't know about pulling out or not, I am still amused by the silliness of 'Uh, they can't leave, we haven't left yet.' that was put forth here. Of course the UK can leave; their electorate is the one who'll make the decision. That it would hurt the US does enter into it but doesn't negate it; it was Bush who brought this all into happening, and if the UK moves that he sink in his own quicksand, you can hardly screech it's unfair. No reason to drag two nations down the toilet if one doesn't want to go and can legally withdraw.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-09-27 04:56pm

Joe wrote: So who's going to participate in this civil war, and how is it going to consume the whole country? About 2/3s of Iraq's provinces are peaceful, as Allawi pointed out the other day, the Kurds aren't clamoring for their own Kurdistan as much, and the insurgents are not representative of a large portion of the Iraqi population (as it turns out, blowing up Iraqi policemen trying to do their jobs doesn't win them much popularity points with the masses).

The presence of US forces has discouraged any outright rebellion except for the most radical of insurgents, but let's look at the bigger picture here. Elections have yet to be held and the interim govenment in Iraq does not as yet have much more than token authority. It is when the US turns actual control over to the Iraqi government that these old conflicts will flare up again as no side is going to feel adaquately represented.

The only area that's really a huge problem is the Sunni Triangle and Baghdad, and I will concede that that is in fact a huge problem and we've not done a very good job handling it. But can you prove that civil war in Iraq is an inevitable outcome? Because if you can't, I see no reason to just sit back and let it happen, especially when it's our responsibility to make sure it doesn't.

Of course I can't prove it, but it is the logical outcome of this level of violence and hatred and a lot of strategic reports back this up.

As for it being our responsibility, how far exactly do we take this? The only way to prevent outright rebellion is to side with one group or another and keep troops in Iraq to put down any resistance as the Iraqi security forces are an absolute joke and are simply not capable of dealing with heavy fighting even if they were trusthworthy (which they aren't).

So are you saying you are willing to commit hundreds of thousands of US troops to Iraq for possibly the next decade with the best result we could hope for being the alienation of two of the three ethnic/religious groups in Iraq?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-09-27 04:57pm

Stormbringer wrote:
SirNitram wrote:Sovereignty is a wonderful thing, isn't it?
And so are double standards.

What double standard, precisely? That the British people might want out of this clusterfuck Bush and Blair lumped them with? Wow.. No one wants to get dragged down with Bush just because he has his own people following.

SirNitram wrote:With any luck, Blair will disengage his mouth from Bush's cock and we'll have the magic S-word back so we can decide to leave you to this fuckup Bush was railing for.
Good luck with that. Personally I think if the Brits bail the US should as well; no point in going it alone with such faithful allies.

That's a choice for the US to make. I'm just casually pointing out no document says 'The UK must do whatever the US thinks it should'.. And hearing that they must be employing a double standard to leave after this mockery of a war, when the US crapped all over other people telling it not to.. Is quite, quite funny.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-27 04:59pm

Joe wrote:But can you prove that civil war in Iraq is an inevitable outcome? Because if you can't, I see no reason to just sit back and let it happen, especially when it's our responsibility to make sure it doesn't.

So how do you prevent it? Indefinite military occupation?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-09-27 05:09pm

Chatham House's report had a convincing enough scenario to me so I don't doubt that such a mass insurrection may be highly probable. Thing is, if it does flare up and we're still there, what the hell do we do? Try and quell the situation without taking sides? How does one go about halting a civil war like that? You think the people of the nations left footing the death toll bill of having their soldiers in there and dealing with a situation we really didn't need will help assert the belief that we shouldn't pull out?

No, I don't see anyone expecting good things to come of such an event if it does occur. We've dealth with radical extremists so far and not with amazing degrees of success so forgive me if I remain a tad cynical over the whole nation going into aggression overdrive.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-09-27 05:12pm

I gotta check out, give me a day or two to respond (if the thread hasn't died).