Insurgents 'right to take on US' - British General

news.bbc.co.uk

Insurgents in Iraq are right to try to force US troops out of the country, a former British army commander has said.

Gen Sir Michael Rose also told the BBC's Newsnight programme that the US and the UK must "admit defeat" and stop fighting "a hopeless war" in Iraq.

Iraqi insurgents would not give in, he said. "I don't excuse them for some of the terrible things they do, but I do understand why they are resisting."

(visit the link for the full news article)




[edit on 3/5/07 by stumason]

Hmm...

It appears even respected British generals now see the War in Iraq as a foolish enterprise.

I think General Sir Michael Rose should know more than any politician that Iraq is an unwinnable war and perhaps we should consider withdrawing sooner rather than later.

Considering the British Army is one of the most experienced forces in Counter-insurgency, one should think that the chap knows of what he speaks.

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 3/5/07 by stumason]

Col. Tim Collins summed-up our role in Iraq with his passionate speech to the troops on the eve of war:

"We are going to Iraq to liberate and not to conquer. We will not fly our flags in their country ... The only flag that will be flown in that ancient land is their own ... Iraq is steeped in history; it is the site of the Garden of Eden, of the Great Flood and the birthplace of Abraham. Tread lightly there."

Saddam's regime was deposed and the beginnings of an open and democratic goverment formed with free and fair elections for all...job done, and to the thanks of many Iraqis.

We have grossly overstayed our welcome, and now instead of liberators we are seen as conquerors and looters, and in that respect, every Iraqi has the right to take up arms against us, as Gen. Rose aptly pointed out in his comparison to the fight for American independance:

..."As Lord Chatham said, when he was speaking on the British presence in North America, he said 'if I was an American, as I am an Englishman, as long as one Englishman remained on American native soil, I would never, never, never lay down my arms"..."The Iraqi insurgents feel exactly the same way."

The Russians wouldn't listen to the British when they went into Afghanistan, like GI-Joe wouldn't listen to Ivan.

Do you think the Yanks would listen then going into Iraq?

You got plenty of mostly negative experiences from the two places, fighting imperial wars, so you should know the odds.

I'm not sure Yankies take advice, they want to make their own mistakes.

Unfortunately, our "Elected Leaders" decided to join in the fun as well, so we have to bear the responsibility of this folly.

I'm surprised this thread is so quiet. Would have thought it would be a good discussion, seeing as we now have British General's as well as Yanky Generals speaking out against this foolish enterprise

Sure is strange that all the people supporting the wars would oversee this thread

But i think this sums it up

Not really...respected and not so respected people all can have a "difference of opinion".

Difference of opinion doesn't mean being right or wrong.

What did you expect people were going to say about this?

I was in the military and I know "some" officers and enlisted personnel really believe some of the crap that "civilians are lower than military personnel".

A majority don't believe that, but there are some who do, and while in training troops these men have "shared" such thoughts with enlisted personnel as if they were facts...

I know one officer, and two staff sergeants who believe/believed and would claim the above, and they were "respected".... does it mean they were right?...

[edit on 4-5-2007 by Muaddib]

I really wonder who the people of Iraq really FEAR the most;

Independant

"Be careful," warned a senior Iraqi government official living in the Green Zone in Baghdad, "be very careful and above all do not trust the police or the army."

He added that the level of insecurity in the Iraqi capital is as bad now as it was before the US drive to make the city safe came into operation in February.

The so-called "surge", the dispatch of 20,000 extra American troops to Iraq with the prime mission of getting control of Baghdad, is visibly failing.

There are army and police checkpoints everywhere but Iraqis are terrified because they do not know if the men in uniform they see there are, in reality, death squad members.

When looking through the eyes of an Iraqi certain articles get a whole new meaning...

Citizen Smith just please don't try to make it look like the US went in there to "free" the Iraqies and then simply missed their plane home. I need not remind you that this is called the war on terror - Sadam was a dictater, Bin Laden was the terrorist. The whole thing started with Afghanistan, quickly got turned into Iraq though. If the US is so worried about dictaterships around the world - why not go finish vietnam then...oh wait, the only thing you could pump out of the ground there is all the agent orange (or whatever it's called) left over from the war. And I hope I don't need to remind you that it was, in fact, the US who put him to rule there.

As for the Brit. Gen.'s comments - captain obvious strikes once more. It's amazing how many people actually expect Iraqies to be totaly fine with someone occupying their country lol. I'm really glad this guy actually speaks out about it, you don't hear many military guys that do, and I respect this guy for this.

Oh and if I somehow am wrong in my views and the US is actually fighting for the good of the world and against tyrany, cheesburgers and baseball caps for all blah blah blah my advice is atleast know where the country is, that you are invading, on the map...or any geography for that matter. It's just something I just can't seem to figure out - the US gets involved in matters everywhere in the world, yet more than half of the US doesn't seem to even know where the rest of the bloody world is located or what they speak.

Regards,
Maestro

Originally posted by maestro46
Sadam was a dictater...

who was installed to power by the CIA to fight those who deposed the Shah of Iran, just ask Don Rumsfelt for the trade reciepts of the shipments of VX, Tabun, and Sarin to Saddam that he eventually used on the Iranian front-lines and Halabja kurds

Bin Laden was the terrorist

In who's opinion? He was a well-trained, respected and funded 'General' by the CIA to fight against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan during the 1970/80's (i can still vividly remember watching 'al-queda' battle-victory footage of downed 'Hind' attack choppers on ITV/BBC news when I was a kid back then)

As for the Brit. Gen.'s comments - captain obvious strikes once more. It's amazing how many people actually expect Iraqies to be totaly fine with someone occupying their country lol. I'm really glad this guy actually speaks out about it, you don't hear many military guys that do, and I respect this guy for this.

Me too...his Churchillian references to liberation and not conquest, and to tread lightly upon ancient historical ground make me think that at least the Bristsh Army are trying to do something right by combining humanitarian aid with martial law...at least as politely as only we Brits know how...form an orderly queue or else it's no tiffin for you, sunshine!

Oh and if I somehow am wrong in my views and the US is actually fighting for the good of the world and against tyrany, cheesburgers and baseball caps for all blah blah blah my advice is atleast know where the country is, that you are invading, on the map...or any geography for that matter. It's just something I just can't seem to figure out - the US gets involved in matters everywhere in the world, yet more than half of the US doesn't seem to even know where the rest of the bloody world is located or what they speak...

Have you been reading/listening to Bill Hicks by any chance?

I have a cunning theory about the invasion of Iraq...a theory more cunning than even a cunning fox with an Oxford Degree in Cunning could have devised.

The nation state of America, nearly 250 years old, and jealous of the rest of the world for having vast reserves of history, decides to invade the oldest culture of all, Iraq, birthplace of moden civilization, to liberate the history and pump it down a pipeline to Ceyhan, where the history will be loaded aboard huge supertankers and shipped back to the US for processing at Fox media-refineries..

To leave you with one last Bill Hicks quote: "..while its incredible to watch a guided missile fly down an air-vent, couldn't we use that same technology to shoot food at hungry people?" Imagine flying over Ethiopia..."Hey, look there's a guy that needs a banana.....*Sssshhh-boom*..thats him fed"

I return the respect of your opinions though Maestro!

Actually smith I do owe you an apolgy lol. I labeled Bin Laden as a terrorist for the WTC attacks, completely forgeting i'm a controled demolision theory supporter.

Originally posted by citizen smith
I have a cunning theory about the invasion of Iraq...a theory more cunning than even a cunning fox with an Oxford Degree in Cunning could have devised.

As cunning as a fox with an Oxford Degree in Cunning who after graduation became the proffesor of cunning at Oxford but has moved on and now works for the UN in the International Department of Cunning Planning?

lol pst - that's cunning

Regards,
Maestro

Originally posted by maestro46
............
And I hope I don't need to remind you that it was, in fact, the US who put him to rule there.

Spare us the twisted sense of history that some keep repeating.

BTW...it wasn't the U.S. who put Saddam there, but nice try... It was Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr who helped Saddam get in power...but then Saddam turned out to be more than al-Bakr could handle, and al-Bakr tried to depose Saddam before he could get more power in Iraq.

Succession
In 1976, Saddam rose to the position of general in the Iraqi armed forces, and rapidly became the strongman of the government. As the weak, elderly al-Bakr became unable to execute his duties, Saddam took on an increasingly prominent role as the face of the government both internally and externally. He soon became the architect of Iraq's foreign policy and represented the nation in all diplomatic situations. He was the de-facto leader of Iraq some years before he formally came to power in 1979. He slowly began to consolidate his power over Iraq's government and the Ba'ath party. Relationships with fellow party members were carefully cultivated, and Saddam soon accumulated a powerful circle of support within the party.

In 1979 al-Bakr started to make treaties with Syria, also under Ba'athist leadership, that would lead to unification between the two countries. Syrian President Hafez al-Assad would become deputy leader in a union, and this would drive Saddam to obscurity. Saddam acted to secure his grip on power. He forced the ailing al-Bakr to resign on July 16, 1979, and formally assumed the presidency.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by maestro46
As for the Brit. Gen.'s comments - captain obvious strikes once more. It's amazing how many people actually expect Iraqies to be totaly fine with someone occupying their country lol.

Noone is expecting for Iraqis to be "totally fine with the war"... That's one of the most assinine comments I have read around these forums...

The terrorists the coalition are fighting against have killed more Iraqis than they ahve killed coalition forces...yet some are claiming the "terrorists are fighting for the people of Iraq when the people of iraq themselves ahve raised their arms to fight against insurgents...the terrorists have bombed poll stations in Iraq and killed civilians who were just trying to vote...and Iraqis have died en mass panic when they believed there was one of such "insurgents/terrorist" among them with a bomb..... But i forgot...some people really think the insurgents/terrorists are fighting for the Iraqis....

Originally posted by maestro46
I'm really glad this guy actually speaks out about it, you don't hear many military guys that do, and I respect this guy for this.

Good for you...this only proves that people can agree to disagree.

Originally posted by maestro46
It's just something I just can't seem to figure out - the US gets involved in matters everywhere in the world, yet more than half of the US doesn't seem to even know where the rest of the bloody world is located or what they speak.

Regards,
Maestro

Taking a pot shot at the U.S. again "maestro"?...

It is nice to know some people try to use the fact that there are other people around the world, and not only in the U.S. that have not gotten enough education for one reason or another....

Such statements only show the integrity of those people making such claims...

Originally posted by citizen smith

who was installed to power by the CIA to fight those who deposed the Shah of Iran, just ask Don Rumsfelt for the trade reciepts of the shipments of VX, Tabun, and Sarin to Saddam that he eventually used on the Iranian front-lines and Halabja kurds

What the U.S. sold to Saddam were samples of those agents. Yes it was a mistake...but the nerve gases, and the means to deliver them which were used to kill the Kurds and the Iranians came from European countries such as Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Russia and China...(well Russia and China are not European countries).....

Back in the 80s it was Germany who was the main provider of nerve gas and other arms to Iraq...then in the 90s Russia became the main provider, and since then Russia became the country that Iraq owed the most to because of those arm sales....

In the 1980's, the German firm Karl Kolb and the French firm Protec combined to furnish millions of dollars' worth of sensitive equipment to six separate plants for making mustard gas and nerve agents, with a capacity of hundreds of tons of nerve agent per year. These companies had to know what the specialized glass-lined vessels they peddled were to be used for. It is insufferable that, like Pontius Pilate, Germany and France now wash their hands of the whole affair, and even chastise others for cleaning up the mess their companies helped create.

And how would the poison gas be carried? A gas doesn't stream through the ether by itself to reach a target. A specially prepared munition has to deliver it. Iraq admits that in the 1980's it bought more than 3,000 chemical-ready aerial bombs from Spain, more than 8,000 chemical-ready artillery shells from Italy and Spain, and more than 12,000 chemical-ready rocket warheads from Italy and Egypt. Most of these munitions remain unaccounted for. If our troops take casualties from a gas attack, they will have been inflicted by an international consortium of reckless suppliers.

www.iraqwatch.org...

For some reason those facts keep being ignored by some who just keep trying to blame the U.S. for everything....

As for the rest of your rant...i just have to disagree...

[edit on 4-5-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
For some reason those facts keep being ignored by some who just keep trying to blame the U.S. for everything....

Ya see, the difference between you and those "some", is that you tend to accept mainstream news/history as truth...whereas we look at mainstream news/history as progaganda. No matter how smart we are, or how much we share in common... as long as our view point on mainstream is different, there will always be a big difference in thinking. And it's then, we just have to agree to disagree.

Originally posted by Navieko

Ya see, the difference between you and those "some", is that you tend to accept mainstream news/history as truth...

Well, I guess the whole world is in on it...since I read news form all over the world and not just the U.S....

Originally posted by Navieko
whereas we look at mainstream news/history as progaganda. No matter how smart we are, or how much we share in common... as long as our view point on mainstream is different, there will always be a big difference in thinking. And it's then, we just have to agree to disagree.

Actually, i just see some people making things up just because they want to despite the U.S., not because of "any truth" or because there are facts which contradict what i showed above....

We even had some members around here claim it was the U.S. who gave Israel it's nuclear weapons...when even France admits it was them.... but somehow Europeans, and some other people around the world want to forget what their countries have done, and what they are still doing and want to instead bash and blame the U.S. for everything that happens in the world......

There is a word in psychology to describe this symptom... It is called "psychological projection". If you don't know what that is here is a simple definition of it.

psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes to others one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions.

en.wikipedia.org...

In the context that I am trying to describe, this projection comes from the inability of "Europeans" to accept the fact that their countries and themselves have been cause for even greater calamities in the world, more so because European countries have been around much longer than the U.S. has, and they still commit many attrocities but don't want to accept them and instead try to blame everything on one country...

Originally posted by Muaddib
Well, I guess the whole world is in on it...since I read news form all over the world and not just the U.S....

Sort of. More like "those few" control the whole world.

Actually, i just see some people making things up just because they want to despite the U.S., not because of "any truth" or because there are facts which contradict what i showed above....

We even had some members around here claim it was the U.S. who gave Israel it's nuclear weapons...when even France admits it was them.... but somehow Europeans, and some other people around the world want to forget what their countries have done, and what they are still doing and want to instead bash and blame the U.S. for everything that happens in the world......

Well, I agree, there are probably a few that put the blame on others so it's easier to deny their own problems... but most who are believers of the same sort of "conspiracies", are against their own corruption aswell. Mostly because they believe the corrupters are the same few that control the west, just as they control most of Europe. Right now it's the west that are in the headlines, therefore it's the west that will take the blame.

Another way to look at it, is the "leaders" of each side shouts their own progaganda in order to make themselves look the "better" and the other side "bad guys". Therefore the people of each side will always be against each other (assuming they take the bait).

There is a word in psychology to describe this symptom... It is called "psychological projection". If you don't know what that is here is a simple definition of it.

psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes to others one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions.

en.wikipedia.org...

Heh... sort of reminds me of how the mainstream medical world give names such as "ADHD" for having all sorts of normal symptoms. Better take those meds!

In the context that I am trying to describe, this projection comes from the inability of "Europeans" to accept the fact that their countries and themselves have been cause for even greater calamities in the world, more so because European countries have been around much longer than the U.S. has, and they still commit many attrocities but don't want to accept them and instead try to blame everything on one country...

I agree, that it was in Europe that the whole "agenda" began, where the "controlling elite" of today, was founded. But again, most of us arent here to "protect" our own nation. A lot of us are from western countries and still share the belief that the west is a hell hole.

Originally posted by Muaddib
BTW...it wasn't the U.S. who put Saddam there, but nice try...

A fantastic researcher like Yourself, should do more Research on this topic...

Two Words in GOOGLE can help You:

SADDAM & CIA

But then again - I am just being Anti-American Right?

Nice Try Mate...



[edit on 6/5/07 by Souljah]