glacier Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 I am deeply concerned about Iraq. The task you have given me is becoming really impossible. Our forces are reduced now to very slender proportions. The Turkish menace has got worse; Feisal is playing the fool, if not the knave; his incompetent Arab officials are disturbing some of the provinces and failing to collect the revenue; we overpaid £200,000 on last year's account which it is almost certain Iraq will not be able to pay this year, thus entailing a Supplementary Estimate in regard to a matter never sanctioned by Parliament; a further deficit, in spite of large economies, is nearly certain this year on the civil expenses owing to the drop in the revenue. I have had to maintain British troops at Mosul all through the year in consequence of the Angora quarrel: this has upset the programme of reliefs and will certainly lead to further expenditure beyond the provision I cannot at this moment withdraw these troops without practically inviting the Turks to come in. The small column which is operating in the Rania district inside our border against the Turkish raiders and Kurdish sympathisers is a source of constant anxiety to me. I do not see what political strength there is to face a disaster of any kind, and certainly I cannot believe that in any circumstances any large reinforcements would be sent from here or from India. There is scarcely a single newspaper - Tory, Liberal or Labour - which is not consistently hostile to our remaining in this country. The enormous reductions which have been effected have brought no goodwill, and any alternative Government that might be formed here - Labour, Die-hard or Wee Free - would gain popularity by ordering instant evacuation. Moreover in my own heart I do not see what we are getting out of it. Owing to the difficulties with America, no progress has been made in developing the oil. Altogether I am getting to the end of my resources. I think we should now put definitely, not only to Feisal but to the Constituent Assembly, the position that unless they beg us to stay and to stay on our own terms in regard to efficient control, we shall actually evacuate before the close of the financial year. I would put this issue in the most brutal way, and if they are not prepared to urge us to stay and to co-operate in every manner I would actually clear out. That at any rate would be a solution. Whether we should clear out of the country altogether or hold on to a portion of the Basra vilayet is a minor issue requiring a special study. It is quite possible, however, that face to face with this ultimatum the King, and still more the Constituent Assembly, will implore us to remain. If they do, shall we not be obliged to remain? If we remain, shall we not be answerable for defending their frontier? How are we to do this if the Turk comes in? We have no force whatever that can resist any serious inroad. The War Office, of course, have played for safety throughout and are ready to say 'I told you so' at the first misfortune. Surveying all the above, I think I must ask you for definite guidance at this stage as to what you wish and what you are prepared to do. The victories of the Turks will increase our difficulties throughout the Mohammedan world. At present we are paying eight millions a year for the privilege of living on an ungrateful volcano out of which we are in no circumstances to get anything worth having. Winston S. Churchill to David Lloyd George (Churchill papers: 17/27) 1 September 1922 From Martin Gilbert, WINSTON S. CHURCHILL IV, Companion Volume Part 3, London: Heinemann, 1977, pp. 1973-74. Reprinted by kind permission of Winston S. Churchill. Quote
ChrisT Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 Didn't W claim victory and an "end" to the war more than 6 months ago - some photo op on top of an aircraft carrier? Yet we have lost (and keep losing) more troops and civilians than during the time we were officially at "war" with Iraq. I think I heard the death toll of Iraqi civilians was more than 100,000. Iraq is every bit as disastrous and unnecessary as Vietnam - IMHO. Quote
chucK Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 Here's some good news from Iraq for all you Kool-Aid peddlers Quote
ChrisT Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 Another thing I hate: The expression that "freedom isn't free" which I heard over and over yesterday. Such bullshit. So how much did Switzerland "pay" for their freedom...or Sweden for that matter. It just kind of insures that the US will always be at war - in some form or another - because we "fight" for our freedom - dammit! Quote
nonanon Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 Bush had a plan for getting out of Vietnam... Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 Bush had a plan for getting out of Vietnam... Kerry's the one with "plans" Quote
cracked Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 America... America... America, FUCK YEAH! Coming again, to save the mother fucking day yeah, America, FUCK YEAH! Freedom is the only way yeah, Terrorist your game is through cause now you have to answer too, America, FUCK YEAH! So lick my butt, and suck on my balls, America, FUCK YEAH! What you going to do when we come for you now, it's the dream that we all share; it's the hope for tomorrow FUCK YEAH! McDonalds, FUCK YEAH! Wal-Mart, FUCK YEAH! The Gap, FUCK YEAH! Baseball, FUCK YEAH! NFL, FUCK, YEAH! Rock and roll, FUCK YEAH! The Internet, FUCK YEAH! Slavery, FUCK YEAH! FUCK YEAH! Starbucks, FUCK YEAH! Disney world, FUCK YEAH! Porno, FUCK YEAH! Valium, FUCK YEAH! Reeboks, FUCK YEAH! Fake Tits, FUCK YEAH! Sushi, FUCK YEAH! Taco Bell, FUCK YEAH! Rodeos, FUCK YEAH! Bed bath and beyond (Fuck yeah, Fuck yeah) Liberty, FUCK YEAH! White Slips, FUCK YEAH! The Alamo, FUCK YEAH! Band-aids, FUCK YEAH! Las Vegas, FUCK YEAH! Christmas, FUCK YEAH! Immigrants, FUCK YEAH! Popeye, FUCK YEAH! Demarcates, FUCK YEAH! Republicans (republicans) (fuck yeah, fuck yeah) Sportsmanship Books What would you do If you were asked to give up your dreams for freedom What would you do If asked to make the ultimate sacrifice Would you think about all them people Who gave up everything they had. Would you think about all them War Vets And would you start to feel bad Freedom isn't free It costs folks like you and me And if we don't all chip in We'll never pay that bill Freedom isn't free No, there's a hefty fuckin' fee. And if you don't throw in your buck 'o five Who will? What would you do If someone told you to fight for freedom. Would you answer the call Or run away like a little pussy 'Cause the only reason that you're here. Is 'cause folks died for you in the past So maybe now it's your turn To die kicking some ass Freedom isn't free It costs folks like you and me And if we don't all chip in We'll never pay that bill Freedom isn't free Now there's a have to hook'in fee And if you don't throw in your buck 'o five Who will? You don't throw in your buck 'o five. Who will? Oooh buck 'o five Freedom costs a buck 'o five Quote
catbirdseat Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 I am deeply concerned about Iraq. The task you have given me is becoming really impossible. Our forces are reduced now to very slender proportions. The Turkish menace has got worse; Feisal is playing the fool, if not the knave; his incompetent Arab officials are disturbing some of the provinces and failing to collect the revenue; we overpaid £200,000 on last year's account which it is almost certain Iraq will not be able to pay this year, thus entailing a Supplementary Estimate in regard to a matter never sanctioned by Parliament; a further deficit, in spite of large economies, is nearly certain this year on the civil expenses owing to the drop in the revenue. I have had to maintain British troops at Mosul all through the year in consequence of the Angora quarrel: this has upset the programme of reliefs and will certainly lead to further expenditure beyond the provision I cannot at this moment withdraw these troops without practically inviting the Turks to come in... The more things change, the more they stay the same. Quote
Jake Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 Another thing I hate: The expression that "freedom isn't free" which I heard over and over yesterday. Such bullshit. So how much did Switzerland "pay" for their freedom...or Sweden for that matter. It just kind of insures that the US will always be at war - in some form or another - because we "fight" for our freedom - dammit! Everybody always wants to take down the big dog. If you are weak, the path you chose to safety might not be the same as a big tough guy. Read this. It's pretty good. Long, but well worth it. It seems like a good theory. What do you think?Power and Weakness Quote
chucK Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 Everybody always wants to take down the big dog. If you are weak, the path you chose to safety might not be the same as a big tough guy. I don't think Iraq or Vietnam are situations where the people want to "take down the big dog". I think it's more like they want to kick the shit out of that big dog that's shitting all over their furniture and having their children for snacks. It's a no-win situation. If we continue to get our asses kicked over there that will, of course, suck. If we somehow win (at obviously great cost as we have already paid a great price) it may ring hollow, as a "victory" will embolden "our" leaders to move on to the next nation-state that needs to be disciplined. Although, I could be wrong about the second part. I don't really think Bush had the safety and security of the world in mind when he "rushed to war" against Iraq. Thus, I don't think it would be a given that he would move as recklessly against other nations as he did in Iraq, even though they are arguably as or more dangerous than Iraq ever was. Finally here's distressing tidbit from the news today reminiscent of Vietnam days. However, a steady stream of wounded being flown to the U.S. military's Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany suggests that fighting in some parts of Fallujah has been intense. Hospital staff were expanding bed capacity as 102 wounded U.S. service members were flown in Thursday - up from the usual 30 to 50 a day the U.S. military hospital receives, officials said. A day earlier, 69 wounded were brought in. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 It's a no-win situation. If we continue to get our asses kicked over there that will, of course, suck. If we somehow win (at obviously great cost as we have already paid a great price) it may ring hollow, as a "victory" will embolden "our" leaders to move on to the next nation-state that needs to be disciplined. How do we get out? Quote
chucK Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 I thought you wanted to stay the course? If I thought there was a good way out, I wouldn't call it "no-win" now would I? Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 12, 2004 Posted November 12, 2004 Thus, I don't think it would be a given that he would move as recklessly against other nations as he did in Iraq, even though they are arguably as or more dangerous than Iraq ever was. Maybe they aren't more dangerous (I assume you mean Iran and N. Korea). Maybe it's all just exaggerated - like the WMD programs in Iraq. If not, then what can we do about it? Quote
chucK Posted November 13, 2004 Posted November 13, 2004 That an easy one. If they aren't more dangerous, then we certainly shouldn't invade them. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 13, 2004 Posted November 13, 2004 I thought you wanted to stay the course? If I thought there was a good way out, I wouldn't call it "no-win" now would I? I agree with Colin Powell morally - "you buy it, you break it". But I don't know if we can put Humpty Dumpty back together again. I also worry that we would share in the responsibility of the deaths in a civil war that would undoubtedly ensue. Damn the imperialist Brits with their artifical borders (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq...). Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 13, 2004 Posted November 13, 2004 That an easy one. If they aren't more dangerous, then we certainly shouldn't invade them. Should we allow nuclear proliferation to occur? Quote
chucK Posted November 13, 2004 Posted November 13, 2004 How can you consider it broken?? Before we arrived it was a horrible place to live with genocide taking place everywhere you looked. Uday and Qusay froliced in their rape rooms on top of sacred ancient mass burial grounds. No Iraqi was left untouched! On top of that they were a danger to the security of every single person in the USA. How can you consider it broken??! Don't you think Iraq is a better place without Saddam? Quote
chucK Posted November 13, 2004 Posted November 13, 2004 That an easy one. If they aren't more dangerous, then we certainly shouldn't invade them. Should we allow nuclear proliferation to occur? Your premise was that they weren't more dangerous. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 13, 2004 Posted November 13, 2004 How can you consider it broken?? Before we arrived it was a horrible place to live with genocide taking place everywhere you looked. Uday and Qusay froliced in their rape rooms on top of sacred ancient mass burial grounds. No Iraqi was left untouched! On top of that they were a danger to the security of every single person in the USA. How can you consider it broken??! Don't you think Iraq is a better place without Saddam? Yes, I'm glad he is gone. But the stage is set for a revolution with a political power vacuum, ethnic strife, chaos, and neighboring countries either worried or licking their lips with the promise of booty to be gained. Our presence is the only thing holding anything together, but, as you say, the cost is high. Quote
Blake Posted November 13, 2004 Posted November 13, 2004 Chuck Says: On top of that they were a danger to the security of every single person in the USA. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 13, 2004 Posted November 13, 2004 Should we allow nuclear proliferation to occur? Your premise was that they weren't more dangerous. It seems clear that Iran is close to completing a nuclear reactor, but they claim it is for non-military purposes. The stance of countries with nukes is to not allow proliferation to new nations. Even with nuclear power plants, one has to ask whether it constitutes a threat? It is hard to prove that Iran has military intentions, and it might be impossible to do until it is too late. And then what? Would deterrence be enough? I guess in principle I am for non-proliferation, but I don't see how we can force it. It makes the evaluation of "threat" a lot easier, that's for sure. Quote
chucK Posted November 13, 2004 Posted November 13, 2004 This discussion is supposed to be "compare and contrast Iraq and Vietnam". I don't see how delving into the threat that Iran poses makes sense. Unless of course you are implying that Iran and North Korea were much greater threats to our security than Iraq ever was. From which it would follow that you are saying that the justifications we used to enter into this Iraq conflict were flimsy at best. From which stance you could make a good point about the similarity of this war to the Vietnam conflict. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted November 13, 2004 Posted November 13, 2004 This discussion is supposed to be "compare and contrast Iraq and Vietnam". I don't see how delving into the threat that Iran poses makes sense. Unless of course you are implying that Iran and North Korea were much greater threats to our security than Iraq ever was. From which it would follow that you are saying that the justifications we used to enter into this Iraq conflict were flimsy at best. From which stance you could make a good point about the similarity of this war to the Vietnam conflict. Yeah, OK, but threads evolve. Similarities: 1) imperialism f**ked up the world (French in Vietnam, Brits in Iraq) 2) there's no good way out 3) threat of post war violence in the region (Cambodia vs. Kurds/Shia/Sunnis/Iran/Turkey) Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.