Do you agree with this comment by the Head of Army?

Question

The British Head of Army, says that the presence of Allied troops in Iraq is exasperating the situation in Iraq and we should leave.

The truth finally coming out. We cannot stay the course..

Please read the British Daily Mail...

scorbore.. I know you are a repug.. and not very bright.. these days we have the Internet.

Jim V V, Take your lazy azz to the link.. I am busy working and paying taxes to do the work for you.

Answer 1

Yeah, i will go get the British daily mail, as soon as I live in England

EDIT: Not very bright huh. Ok, I have no convictions against you, just your beliefs. You did not know that didn't you. So... how about you post a link? OH wait, you are busy doing taxes. Then get off here and do them! Jeesh, if you are not going to be able to post a link with such a bold statement, at least don't ask the question. Do you see a pattern here? Many people are asking for a link, yet you can not provide one. So.. why should anyone take you credible?

EDIT2: It may be 3 hours later, but I finally see what you are saying(the article). If the army decides its best, who am i to question them? As long as it is not politicians who decide to leave, then I am fine with it.

Answer 2

Duh, the well leaked National Security Intelligence Analysis said even more. It said that the presence of American troops in Iraq is actually increasing terrorism. Iraq has become the "hip" place for wanna-be terrorists.

The only person that thinks we need to stay in Iraq is the heavily deluded George Bush, and his puppet master Dick Cheney. Even the Republican Party knows it is time to get out, but they have to tow the party line. The recent estimate by the Army leaders that the Army is planning to stay in Iraq for the next 4 years or longer is only valid under the current regime. The Army has to say things like that, because if the Iraqi terrorists and their civil war mongering buddies know that the US is leaving then they will just wait for the US to leave and then go nuts on each other.

The problem with terrorism is that physically fighting it only creates more of it. Terrorists hide in the population and if you go after them then innocent civilians are going to get hurt. When that happens it only inspires more people to join their cause.

The only way to fight terrorism and win is to break their public support. If the population won't harbor them anymore, if they can't hide, and if their supplies of money dry up then the terrorist will dry up as well. If you can figure out a way to do this then please write me (Tony Blair, George Bush, the Republican party etc.).

Short of that the only other way to stop them is to use a nuclear bomb, or several, to destroy whatever they are fighting over. Because as long as there is a bit of disputed ground the terrorists will fight for it. Even if they are totally kicked out of the country they will continue to fight for it and they invade other countries to get their way.

Answer 3

Thank you for making the point to Americans that there are other countries in the war, and that they too have media.
Our general pointed out that if the average Afghanis life does not improve greatly, he anticipates that more than 70% of them will become hard-line Taleban supporters.
What I can't understand is why our troops, Canadians and other NATO troops are in Afghanistan, just because of an attack on the US. Where were the American troops when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands?

Answer 4

He is saying that life is threatened in Britain by the troops staying in Iraq because extremists will come and disrupt life.

GB is an island, it is easily defended, don't let the terrorists in.

Essentially he is saying that if the British troops don't leave the terrorists will go to Britain. Does he know where the terrorists are now? He is fighting them in Iraq. When the British troops leave the terrorists will FOLLOW them and continue fighting, except on British land, not in the Iraqi desert. Great strategist this guy is, I always thought British officers had training in the history of warfare.

He is playing the role of politician, not military leader. He should step down if the job is beyond his capabilities. You cannot lead men into battle with a defeatist attitude.

Answer 5

If Britain leaves, which they just might do after Tony Blair steps down next year, then the 2 troops from Morocco & the 3 from Sweden will join the U.S. as being the only remaining members of the "Coalition of the Willing".

Answer 6

I agree with Jessi. He appears to conflict himself regularly. For example he says this: "We can’t wish the Islamist challenge to our society away and I believe that the army both in Iraq and Afghanistan and probably wherever we go next, is fighting the foreign dimension of the challenge to our accepted way of life."

Then he says they should leave becaue the Iraqi people barely tolerate them. I think the moral here is that the "gloves on" approach of the military has failed.

Answer 7

It amazes me to hear comments from people who will go out of their way to see, read, and hear anything that supports their pre-conceived notion of what is going on. For every comment by someone against the war, I can find you one that is for the war. Neither has a lock on the truth, so those comments are void.

Answer 8

What a laugh! No, I don't think I will listen to a bunch of cowards making the case to cut-and-run. What other case would they make? You're a coward, Humanist----why don't you move to England?
Go Bush! Stay the course!

Answer 9

Nice to know that you think it is important for Americans to pay attention to British army officials to help decide US foreign policy.

Answer 10

More Foreign Bull.