British to Withdraw from Iraq

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by tw

The title is correct. Facts say that title is inevitable.

Erm...no. A headline that says "British to Withdraw from Iraq" means that they've announced that that's what they are about to do, not that tw thinks it's "inevitable".

Facts don't "say" anything--are they talking to you? If you're hearing voices when examining facts, at best you're interpreting them. which wouldn't be "facts"; we call that "opinion"....a distinction I encourage you to work at making in the future. Worst case, you're halluicinating.

The facts in the case (as reported) are that a British officer made a public statement, a big splash of interpretation was made over it in the media, and now he's distancing himself from the interpretations.

None of which justifies your subject line.

[tw]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

The facts in the case (as reported) are that a British officer made a public statement, a big splash of interpretation was made over it in the media, and now he's distancing himself from the interpretations.

Maggie would have you believe Gen Sir Dannatt no longer calls for leaving Iraq. His statements did not change. He even said he is still preparing "force packages for 2007 and 2008". But as long as we are there, Iraq will only get worse. US and UK are attacked only because we are there. This contradicts MaggieL who says we are welcome by most Iraqis and are winning the "Mission Accomplished" war.

Dannatt says we need an exit strategy. Obviously none exists for same reason that we even disbanded the army and police and did no nation building for seven months. Anyone at this point knows either "500,000+ troops in-country now" or a "withdrawal" are the viable options.

Why would MaggieL misrepresent reality? Remember her reasoning:

Originally Posted by MaggieL

You do know that "preemptive strike" and "surprise attack" are not the same thing, right?

More rationalizations justified by a political agenda. Meanwhile Dannatt does not withdraw from his statements.

Originally Posted by BBC News

General Sir Richard Dannatt said troops should come home within two years - flatly contradicting the Prime Minister's policy that the military will stay "as long as it takes".

Tony Blair later said he agreed with Gen Dannatt causing the White House to demand a clarification. Meanwhile, since we will not deploy 500,000 troops for one year, then Gen Dannatt is only saying the obvious - to anyone without a political agenda.

Originally Posted by BBC News

He later told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that when he talked about pulling out of Iraq "sometime soon", he meant "when the mission is substantially done, we should leave". ...
BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said Sir Richard's remarks were little different from what other officers had been saying in private.

His original comments:

Originally Posted by Daily Mail

"I think history will show that the planning for what happened after the initial successful war fighting phase was poor, probably based more on optimism than sound planning," he said.

"The original intention was that we put in place a liberal democracy that was an exemplar for the region, was pro West and might have a beneficial effect on the balance within the Middle East."

"That was the hope, whether that was a sensible or naïve hope history will judge. I don’t think we are going to do that. I think we should aim for a lower ambition."

I don't see MaggieL posting anything to support her accusations. I see Dannatt saying same things he originally said. MaggieL would spin confusion since this "Mission Accomplished" war demonstrates why MaggieL's political agenda even justified 'Pearl Harboring'.

Originally Posted by MaggieL

When there' s been long escalating warnings and statements that a given situation is unacceptable, and that the ultimate recourse will be to the use of miltary force, an attack can't can't possibly be a surprise.

There were no escalating warnings. There were nothing but lies from George Jr - who even denied what he was told by UN Weapons Inspector David Kay long before the invasion - that WMDs did not exist. MaggieL will not even admit George Jr lied repeatedly. She cannot. It would prove fallacies in a political agenda.

So MaggieL now says

... a British officer ... now he's distancing himself from the interpretations.

Well that is what MaggieL says. Facts? I don't see any. I just see her posting a Rush Limbaugh type speculation. Ironic that tw posts facts and MaggieL repeatedly calls them rants. Well, tw has been correct about Iraq and MaggieL's extremist political agenda - even before the expression "Pearl Harboring" was first used. MaggieL still denies the "Mission Accomplished" mess by hiding behind a political agenda. Even misrepresents what Gen Dannatt says to protect a political agenda that condones torture.

She may post in a sane tone. But what she advocates even approves of secret prisons and violations of the Universal Declaration for Human Rights. That is scary. Trying to claim Dannatt has changed his statements - false. But necessary to proclaim "Mission Accomplished" can be won - we must stay the course. Vietnam rhetoric complete with misrepresenting what Gen Dannatt says. Well back in Vietnam, extremists still denies facts in the Pentagon Papers - also called them rants.

[Griff]

Isn't it lovely the way the left and right agree that American troops need to die all over the planet.

[Clodfobble]

tw, when several top generals over here called for the resignation of Rumsfeld, your thread title was (roughly), "Top US Generals Call for Rumsfeld's Resignation."

It was not "Rumsfeld to Resign." Do you see the difference? That's all Maggie's saying. The success or failure of the war has nothing to do with it. The British are not withdrawing or even committing to withdraw--one general has called for withdrawal.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

New Cellar dwellers may not appreciate repeated references to "Pearl Harboring". It was cited specifically in a post to MaggieL in 2002 when she advocated a 'big dic' agenda - the "Mission Accomplished" war. The Iraq war was defined as the “Pearl Harboring of a sovereign nation”. Guess what. That is exactly what it is complete with nothing but lies to justify it – just like in 1941.

I'm betting new readers have the same problem I do, with "Pearl Harboring". To me, and everyone I've talked to in the last 50 years, 'Pearl Harboring" brings sneak attack to mind. tw is the only one I've ever heard, use it as an unjustified or unwarranted, attack. Even after him explaining his interpretation and seeing it on my screen, what?...50 million times?.... it still sounds wrong, to me. Carry on.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

It was not "Rumsfeld to Resign." Do you see the difference?

I do not see the difference. MaggieL posts to confuse – to diffuse a reality that confronts her biases; that exposes more than four years of her war mongering posts as wrong. Like PA’s Senator Rick Santorum, MaggieL has been promoting things that are bad for American soldiers – to promote a failed political agenda.

Britain’s number one General calls for "British to Withdraw from Iraq". Where is that title wrong? It is not. It clearly defines the topic. MaggieL is posting deception - including errors about the General's backtracking – so that you will ignore reality. She complains about the title so that you don’t ask, “MaggieL, when do we find Saddam’s WMDs?” So that you ignore her guilty advocations for more war and for torture.

MaggieL hopes you also forget that all American Generals who served in Iraq and are now retired have been calling for the same thing. Iraq is not winnable. It was lost in the first six months when Tobias was there. See how Iraq was being lost even in his 2003 posts.

MaggieL cannot even admit that Saddam did not have WMDs. Her contrarian claims were based only in myths and lies. Proof for WMDs did not exist. MaggieL cannot even admit that fact. She cannot admit a "Mission Accomplished" war was advocated only by and for a political agenda. So she nitpicks.

The title is 100% correct. General Sir Richard Dannatt calls for "British to Withdraw from Iraq". Rather than admit reality, MaggieL attacks the title using Rush Limbaugh spin; so that reality will be ignored. When relevant facts are push right back at her, then she promotes more myths such as Gen Dannatt backtracking. He is not. But this same MaggieL cannot admit to an only reason Saddam had WMDs – lies promoted for a political agenda.

The title is 100% correct. MaggieL will argue irrelevant – just like Rush – to avoid admitting realities such as attacks on Americans every 15 minutes will only increase. Such realities say her political agenda was a lie.

Since we will not deploy 500,000 troops now, then General Dannatt notes that “British to Withdraw from Iraq” is necessary. Again, the title is 100% correct. MaggieL is wrong - again arguing semantics to ignore how wrong “Mission Accomplished” always was. Maybe you will also forget that she advocates torture, secret prisons, suspension of Writ of Habeas Corpus, violation of principles upon which America was founded… Maybe you will forget that she still sees no difference between Tojo in Pearl Harbor and "Pearl Harboring of Iraq". So she nitpicks about a title. Nitpickings and credibility are not same. But MaggieL nitipicks anyway.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

To me, and everyone I've talked to in the last 50 years, 'Pearl Harboring" brings sneak attack to mind.

Pearl Harbor was a unilateral, unjustified attack; without any acceptable reason and based only upon fears and lies. Pearl Harbor was rationalized because a "preemptive strike" and "surprise attack" somehow are not the same thing. Of course they are same - militarily. Yes, they appear different in an emotional perspective. But they are same AND both occurred for same 'big dic' political reasons. We "Pearl Harbored" Iraq without even being attacked, by hyping fears and lies, and without even declaring war. UN refused to approve this "Pearl Harboring of Iraq". Even Mexico and Canada and other close American allies in S America and Africa condemned it.

We know that Saddam had no WMDs and had no interest in attacking or threatening the US. She claims a 'preemptive strike' is justified by fear. Therefore "Pearl Harboring" is OK? No wonder she must then argue about the title. Otherwise 'big dic' rationalizations that created Pearl Harbor would be exposed. Same 'big dic' rationalizations created Gulf of Tonkin and the Vietnam war. So instead complain about the irrelevant.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by tw

...She may post in a sane tone....

Yes, I do try. You should try it sometime yourself...assuming you know in which direction "sane" lies from your present location.

But despite several screenfulls of your usual bluster, namecalling, baiting, straw men, red herrings and claims that I said things that I didn't, your subject line in this thread is still total BS.

"General calls for British to do ${x}" is light-years away from "British to do ${x}". And indeed, the British will withdraw from Iraq....someday. The US will also withdraw from Iraq. Also, the Sun will become a red giant and after that a white dwarf. But a thread headed "Sun to become Red Giant" implies that we should all run out and buy sunblock tomorrow.

[Hippikos]

and now he's distancing himself from the interpretations.

MaggieL lives in her own world, as usual.

"A Downing Street damage-limitation exercise had seen Dannatt endure a 14-minute radio interview on Radio 4's Today programme. Designed to play down his comments to Sands, the general actually chose to go one step further. Dannatt suggested Iraq might ultimately 'break' his beloved British army. 'I want an army in five years' time,' he said quietly to the nation. Leaving Blair little option but to claim last Friday that he agreed with 'every' word Dannatt had told Radio 4 in his interview."

[Hippikos]

To me, and everyone I've talked to in the last 50 years, 'Pearl Harboring" brings sneak attack to mind.

It was a sneak attack for the US people. FDR was well aware of the Pearl Harbor attack before it happened. But that's worth a new thread all together, doesn't it?

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

It was a sneak attack for the US people. FDR was well aware of the Pearl Harbor attack before it happened. But that's worth a new thread all together, doesn't it?

Actually its an old thread... not that I can find it.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

MaggieL lives in her own world, as usual.

If you don't think he's distancing himself from the interpretations, you're the one intellectually isolated. Even tw's favorite "unbiased" (hoo-boy!) media, the BBC, say "Britain's most senior soldier has backed away from his remarks that the British Army's presence in Iraq 'exacerbates the security problems.'" So take your pick: either he didn't mean it the way it's interpreted, and he's distancing himself from the interpretations, or he did, and he's backing off his own opinion. Either way, he's no longer tw's "hero".

See also: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1921968,00.html

Of course, that's a red herring from my original point, which still stands: The subject line of this thread is total BS, so ironic coming from the guy who's always foaming at the mouth to claim others are lying.

[Hippikos]

MaggieL, I'd rather believe what Bannett said in his own words on Radio 4 (later backed by Bliar) than what the "biased" BBC is writing. (Have you actually read what he said or did you only looked at it?).

All the rest is only political claptrap on which you are so fond of and swallow like an innocent baby. I wonder do you actually believe what all these politicians say?

BTW Dannett is getting a lot of positive response from his own men from Iraq and currently is da man in Basra. He said what everybody knows, except those lost from reality between the White House and Downing St.10. And you of course.

The title is more than adequate.

[Undertoad]

Iraq might break the British army!

If that's the case it's not Iraq's fault.

400,000 of you dead in WW2, Brits... I say again, you may need to do heavy lifting, the time is never inappropriate to toughen up in case it becomes necessary.

[Hippikos]

Iraq is no comparising to WW2, neither in casualties nor causes.

It's not only the Brits who might break: US military stretched to breaking point