Gen Michael Rose "Insurgents 'right to take on US"

[Logic 7]

Sir Michael said the government had to admit defeat in Iraq
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."

The total number of UK troops killed in operations in Iraq stands at 147.

'Admit defeat'

Sir Michael has written a book drawing similarities between the tactics of insurgents and George Washington's men in America's War of Independence.

He told Newsnight: "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'.


It is the soldiers who have been telling me from the frontline that the war they have been fighting is a hopeless war
Gen Sir Michael Rose

"The Iraqi insurgents feel exactly the same way."

He said it was time to bring troops home.

"It is the soldiers who have been telling me from the frontline that the war they have been fighting is a hopeless war, that they cannot possibly win it and the sooner we start talking politics and not military solutions, the sooner they will come home and their lives will be preserved."

This meant the UK government would have to admit defeat, he added.

"The British admitted defeat in North America and the catastrophes that were predicted at the time never happened," the ex-Bosnia UN chief said.

"The catastrophes that were predicted after Vietnam never happened.

"The same thing will occur after we leave Iraq."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6618075.stm





Not so hard to comprehend, iraq belongs to iraqies, period.

 

[Zzarchov]

That 147 soldiers, killed in what? 4 years? after invading a heavily militarised nation and occupying it since then...


Thats defeat? My god, I guess we really lost WWII then. At some points we were losing over 500 people a minute.

 

[Logic 7]

That 147 soldiers, killed in what? 4 years? after invading a heavily militarised nation and occupying it since then...


Thats defeat? My god, I guess we really lost WWII then. At some points we were losing over 500 people a minute.

It is a non ending war, of course the allies could win, but how? heavy bombing raid, killing mostly innoncent peoples? Nuclear bombs?

The way it is going, it will last for the next 100 years

 

[RomSpaceKnight]

The west bwould need to scale up the war to "Tot5al War" were our inductries are full geared to war production and conscription was brought in. This half arsed anti-insurgency stuff is pointless. Any sort of popular support for an insurgent army makes them almost indefeatable. No conventional army has ever beaten a popular resistance movement with popular support. Sunnis may not be the majority but 40% is close enough to hide their fighters.

 

[Zzarchov]

or more likely, people will get bored and move on long before then. They stopped fighting against the last regime that ruled the place, and they allowed far less freedom in government.

 

[RomSpaceKnight]

That regime used total war methods. Intentional targeting of civilians, mass arrests and use of a secret state police. If the US geared up for total war they could sweep the country free of insurgents. Most would go into long term hiding or exile in Iran and bide their time.

Sun Tzu from the Art of War says "If you cannot win, do not fight".

 

[able]

So what do you tell the kids who have to fight these stupid wars. Sorry about that, we were hoping for an easy win, pip pip tallyho, better luck next time. SUCKERS!

 

[Logic 7]

or more likely, people will get bored and move on long before then. They stopped fighting against the last regime that ruled the place, and they allowed far less freedom in government.

The very big difference in what you say, it was ruled then by a muslims regime, however this time espedically they won't let a foreign nation to rules their place, that is what most of the peoples in the west doesnt comprehend, they will fight until their last blood, that is how arabs are, something the west isnt preprare to.

 

[earth_as_one]

Most Iraqis wanted the US out of their country only a year after the initial invasion.

4/30/2004
BAGHDAD — Only a third of the Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate military pullout even though they fear that could put them in greater danger, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll....

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm

The numbers must be even lower today.

A recent survey of conditions in Iraq:

March 19, 2007

...More than half of Iraqis, 53 percent, have a close friend or relative who's been hurt or killed in the current violence. One in six says someone in their own household has been harmed. Eighty-six percent worry about a loved one being hurt; two-thirds worry deeply. Huge numbers limit their daily activities to minimize risk. Seven in 10 report multiple signs of traumatic stress.

This is the third poll in Iraq sponsored by ABC News and media partners -- in this case USA Today, the BBC and ARD German TV -- and the changes are grim. In November 2005, 63 percent of Iraqis felt very safe in their neighborhoods. Today just 26 percent say the same. One in three doesn't feel safe at all. In Baghdad, home to a fifth of the country's population, that skyrockets: Eighty-four percent feel entirely unsafe.

IMPACT -- The impact is overwhelming: As violence has grown, measures of basic well-being have plummeted. In 2005, despite the difficulties in their country, 71 percent of Iraqis said their own lives were going well. Today that's been all but halved, to 39 percent. In 2005, two-thirds expected their lives to improve over the coming year. Now just 35 percent see better days ahead....

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2954716

Compare that to the atrocities the US government claims were committed by the Hussein regime between 1999 and the US led invasion on March 20, 2003

Fact Sheet
Office of the White House Press Secretary
Washington, DC
April 4, 2003

Life Under Saddam Hussein: Past Repression and Atrocities by Saddam Hussein's Regime

122 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in February/March 2000;

23 political prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in October 2001; and

At least 130 Iraqi women were beheaded between June 2000 and April 2001.
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/19675.htm

Compare that to Iraq in the four years since March 20, 2003

...On March 20, 2003, the United States and a group of allies invaded Iraq, without the authorization of the United Nations Security Council and against the overwhelming majority of world public opinion. Claims about weapons of mass destruction and terrorist ties to Iraq’s government eventually proved thoroughly unfounded.

Though US President George W. Bush delivered his “mission accomplished” speech on May 2, 2003, the conflict has continued for more than four years. Hundreds of thousands of people are now dead or injured, over than three million are displaced, several of Iraq’s cities lie in ruins, and hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on a failed military campaign....

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/occupation/report/execsummary.htm

The worst atrocities committed by the Hussein regime were back in the 1980's when Iraq was an American allie. The worst suffering in Iraq during the four years before the war US led invasion resulted from the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq for allegedly possessing and hiding WMDs.

Can anyone remember these lies?

Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-CT, September 4, 2002​

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

Dick Cheney August 26, 2002​

If we wait for the danger to become clear, it could be too late.

Sen. Joseph Biden D-Del., September 4, 2002​

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

George W. Bush September 12, 2002​

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.

Ari Fleischer December 2, 2002​

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003​

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.

George W. Bush January 28, 2003​

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.

Colin Powell February 5, 2003​

Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, February 5, 2003​

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

George Bush February 8, 2003​

So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? I think our judgment has to be clearly not.

Colin Powell March 8, 2003​

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

George Bush March 18, 2003​

We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd.

Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003​

http://www.counterpunch.org/wmd05292003.html

The American government is responsible for the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq long after Iraq no longer possessed WMDs. Those sanctions, kept in place as a result of lies and deceptions like hose above killed hundreds of thousands of people (mostly children) through disease and malnutrition. tHE US led illegal invasion and occupation killed tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians. The ongoing occupation/civil war resulting from the invasion has killed hundreds of thousands more people and displaced millions.

Given the above, the Iraqi people have every right to use force against the foreign invaders who continue to occupy their country and steal their oil wealth.

 

[Logic 7]

The American government is responsible for the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq long after Iraq no longer possessed WMDs. Those sanctions, kept in place as a result of lies and deceptions like hose above killed hundreds of thousands of people (mostly children) through disease and malnutrition. tHE US led illegal invasion and occupation killed tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians. The ongoing occupation/civil war resulting from the invasion has killed hundreds of thousands more people and displaced millions.

Given the above, the Iraqi people have every right to use force against the foreign invaders who continue to occupy their country and steal their oil wealth.

This shows perfectly the credibility of the US governement and their allies, which is none.

 

[I think not]

The American government is responsible for the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq long after Iraq no longer possessed WMDs. Those sanctions, kept in place as a result of lies and deceptions like hose above killed hundreds of thousands of people (mostly children) through disease and malnutrition. tHE US led illegal invasion and occupation killed tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians. The ongoing occupation/civil war resulting from the invasion has killed hundreds of thousands more people and displaced millions.

Given the above, the Iraqi people have every right to use force against the foreign invaders who continue to occupy their country and steal their oil wealth.

I thought the UN imposed those sanctions?

And btw, show us where all this oil wealth is flowing. Please.

 

[darkbeaver]

Nobody can show where the oil wealth is flowing, the meters haven't been working for four years, another botched contracted job to corporate pigs.

 

[Logic 7]

I thought the UN imposed those sanctions?

And btw, show us where all this oil wealth is flowing. Please.

USA-UK did impose those sanctions in 1991, when iraq invaded koweit,the deal was iraq has to get out of koweit, then the sanctions would be out.

Just like everything the west does, that wasnt respected, so What happened, was Bush 1( another great us governement) decided after the war, that the sanctions will never be lifted unless there is a regime change,so the other nation in the UN couldnt do nothing to lift the sanction, cause USA-UK would have used their veto, clinton did and said the same, and we know what the other moron(bush 2) did, then we know the result.


In a just couple word, i just told you why iraqies and musllim will never like the UNITED STATES and their allies, but coming from you(an american) i didnt expect you to know those facts..

 

[I think not]

USA-UK did impose those sanctions in 1991, when iraq invaded koweit,the deal was iraq has to get out of koweit, then the sanctions would be out.

Just like everything the west does, that wasnt respected, so What happened, was Bush 1( another great us governement) decided after the war, that the sanctions will never be lifted unless there is a regime change,so the other nation in the UN couldnt do nothing to lift the sanction, cause USA-UK would have used their veto, clinton did and said the same, and we know what the other moron(bush 2) did, then we know the result.


In a just couple word, i just told you why iraqies and musllim will never like the UNITED STATES and their allies, but coming from you(an american) i didnt expect you to know those facts..

The UN Security Council imposed comprehensive economic sanctions against Iraq on August 6, 1990.

But coming from you, a halfwit, I didn't expect you to know this fact.

 

[MHz]

At the insistence of who? Remember the ambassador of state saying to Saddam the US has no 'interest' in disputes between Arab Nations. The primary reason for Saddam going south of his borders was a response to Kuwaiti allowing drilling rigs to slant drill into Iraq oil-fields. Guess what nationality the drilling rigs belong to?

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA Hits/Iraq_CIAHits.html
"The whole dispute started because Kuwait was slant-drilling. Using equipment bought from National Security Council chief Brent Scowcroft's old company, Kuwait was pumping out some $14-billion worth of oil from underneath Iraqi territory. Even the territory they were drilling from had originally been Iraq's. Slant-drilling is enough to get you shot in Texas, and it's certainly enough to start a war in the Mideast."


http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-consp.htm
"Information that has come to light suggests that the United States interfered in and aggravated the Iraq-Kuwait dispute, knew that an Iraqi military response against Kuwait was likely, and then took advantage of the Iraqi move to carry out a long-planned U.S. military intervention in the Middle East. This evidence includes:

1. The tiny, but oil-rich sheikdom of Kuwait became the tool of a U.S.inspired campaign of economic warfare designed to weaken Iraq as a regional power once the Iran-Iraq war ended. During 1989-1990, the Kuwaiti monarchy was overproducing and driving down the price of oil, a policy that cost Iraq $14 billion in lost revenue.[1] Iraq also complained that the Kuwaitis were stealing Iraqi oil by using slant drilling technology into the gigantic Rumaila oil field, most of which is inside Iraq. Kuwait also refused to work out arrangements that would allow Iraq access to the Persian Gulf. In May of 1990 at an Arab League meeting, Saddam Hussein bitterly complained about Kuwait's policy of "economic warfare" against Iraq and hinted that if Kuwait's over-production didn't change Iraq would take military action. Yet the Emir of Kuwait refused to budge. Why would an OPEC country want to drive down the price of oil? In retrospect, it is inconceivable that this tiny, undemocratic little sheikdom, whose ruling family is subject to so much hostility from the Arab masses, would have dared to remain so defiant against Iraq (a country ten times larger than Kuwait) unless Kuwait was assured in advance of protection from an even greater power - namely the United States. This is even more likely when one considers that the Kuwaiti ruling family had in the past tread lightly when it came to its relations with Iraq. Kuwait was traditionally part of Iraq's Basra Province until 1899 when Britain divided it from Iraq and declared Kuwait its colony.
   Coinciding with Kuwait's overproduction of oil, Iraq was also subjected to the beginning of de facto sanctions, instituted incrementally by a number of western capitalist governments. Hundreds of major scientific, engineering, and food supply contracts between Iraq and western governments were canceled by 1990.[2]
2. The U.S. policy to increase economic pressure on Iraq was coupled with a dramatic change in U.S. military doctrine and strategy toward Iraq. Starting in the summer of 1989, the Joint Chiefs of Staff revamped U.S. military doctrine in the Middle East away from a U.S.-Soviet conflict to target regional powers instead. By June 1990 - two months before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait - General Norman Schwarzkopf was conducting sophisticated war games pitting hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops against Iraqi armored divisions.[3]
3. The Bush administration lied when it stated on August 8, 1990, that the purpose of the U.S. troop deployment was "strictly defensive" and necessary to protect Saudi Arabia from an imminent Iraqi invasion. King Hussein of Jordan reports that U.S. troops were actually being deployed to Saudi Arabia in the days before Saudi Arabia "invited" U.S. intervention.[4] Hussein says that in the first days of the crisis Saudi King Fahd expressed Support for an Arab diplomatic solution. King Fahd also told King Hussein that there was no evidence of a hostile Iraqi build-up on the Saudi border, and that despite American assertions, there was no truth to reports that Iraq planned to invade Saudi Arabia.[5] The Saudis only bowed to U.S. demands that the Saudis "invite" U.S. troops to defend them following a long meeting between the king and Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney. The real substance of this discussion will probably remain classified for many, many years."

How is this any different than the way the American West was 'settled'? When the Natives 'didn't fight fair' the invaders chose other targets, the civilians and the food supply. There was no attempt at liberation.

 

[Logic 7]

The UN Security Council imposed comprehensive economic sanctions against Iraq on August 6, 1990.

But coming from you, a halfwit, I didn't expect you to know this fact.

US-UK are part of the 5 permanents members of the UN,and the sanctions was for the invasion of koweit, , nothing else, iraq pulled out of koweit, then the US-UK decided not to lift the sanctions until there is a regime change(weapons of mass deception for others), and we know the results, millions of peoples who are dead directly from those policy, it is a shame.

 

[gopher]

" Not so hard to comprehend, iraq belongs to iraqies, period."

It sure as hell does. For some critics to say that they do not have a right to fight is tantamount to saying George Washington was a traitor to the USA.

 

[earth_as_one]

I thought the UN imposed those sanctions?

And btw, show us where all this oil wealth is flowing. Please.

Average Iraqis see almost no benefit from their oil wealth. Most Iraqi oil money goes into corrupt contracts involving mostly American corporations.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/crudedesigns.htm

A UNSC resolution imposed sanctions, but the US and UK made it clear that they would use their veto to maintain them. The UNSC neverheld a pointless vote for the US/UK to veto. Effectively the US and UK required Iraq prove they did not possess WMDs before they would allow the UNSC to lift them. Even today, Iraq still hasn't proven they don't possess WMDs, because proving a negative as required by the US/UK is a logical impossibility.

That abuse is just like the no-fly zones. No UN resolution ever defined them or explicitly approved them. Basically the UNSC looked the other way as the US and UK bombed Iraq at will and maintained punishing sanctions long after Iraq no longer possessed WMDs. In 1997 and 1998, Iraq tried their best to get the sanctions lifted, but by that time UNSCOM had become a front for US/UK spy operations, focusing on Iraq's legal defences and identifying Iraq's command and control structure rather bothering to look for Iraq's WMDs. That's why Iraq stopped cooperating in 1998. Thats when the US told UNSCOM to leave Iraq or else take their chances. A few days later during the 1998 Desert Fox bombing campaign, the US and UK bombed Iraq using intel acquired by UNSCOM. After UNSCOM reveaed their true purpose in Iraq, Iraq refused to allow them to return and continue their assistance to American bombing missions.

As a result of American/UK abuses, no country will ever willingly submit themselves to UN weapons inspections. If Iraq had been treated fairly, its possible war could have been avoided and today weapon inspections could be used to resolve WMD disputes involving North Korea and Iran. Instead we will likely have a nuclear war and the blame can be put squarely on the shoulders of the US/UK and the UNSC.

 

[Logic 7]

" Not so hard to comprehend, iraq belongs to iraqies, period."

It sure as hell does. For some critics to say that they do not have a right to fight is tantamount to saying George Washington was a traitor to the USA.

IF george washington was a traitor to the US, then everyones are, withouth exception. ;-)