Should we blame the Brits for us losing the war in Iraq?

Question

The Ministry of Defence has played down criticism of US post-war policy in Iraq by the former head of the British army.
In a Daily Telegraph interview, Gen Sir Mike Jackson, chief of general staff during the 2003 invasion, attacked the policy as "intellectually bankrupt".

Doesn't this tell us how pathetic, wrong and frankly TREASONOUS this administration has been to our troops?

This guy is the equivalent to Colin Powell, and he should know.

mommanuke... I am merely helping the CONS who wish to blame everyone and anyone but the incompetent and treasonous administration that got American soldiers to be killed..... FOR NOTHING.

Answer 1

Now it's treasonous for another country to oppose us?

And it's treasonous to tell the truth?

Look, the war was based on lies. The Brits knew that - see The Downing Street Memo - and went along with it for god knows what reason. Bush knew his war was based on lies, and he knows what reason he really did it for.

We are 'losing' the war but we never should have been there. Obstensibly we went to find WMDS (even tho Bush kicked out the inspectors who were looking for them - and not finding them) and to topple Saddam.

We toppled him. We hung him.

Now, what are we doing there? Killing the very people Bush said he wanted to liberate.

Have you ever read 1984? Orwell wrote of who the west would use continual war to distract their people and eliminate civil rights.

Are you aware that Bush said he has the right to name ANY american 'an enemy combatant' and to jail us indefinitely without charges. Who is the traitor?

Bush. And all those who support him.

To call another country traitorous because they don't support us is really the height of desparation and dishonesty.

We are losing because one cannot win against an insurgency. Period.

Answer 2

I'm sure, bush will come up with some excuse in that nature!!

I just blame both UK and US for their crappy, unjust conducts to wards other nations with natural sources or any thing that these two countries were interested in through out history.

I mean, they have always done, what the hack they wished!
Now, these plundered nations, have had enough of this BS and are not budging any more.

Before, some get touchy, go review the history book. I'm sure you'll find more unjust acts than my statement. If still not satisfy, you're nothing but being ignorant!

Answer 3

This is also the second time around for the Brits in Iraq. They dealt with an insurgency there in the years following World War 1. If anyone should have known what we would be facing, it's the British.

Answer 4

Well, it looks like that ploy was already attempted:
"General Jack Keane, a former vice-chief of staff of the US army, said there was "frustration" in Washington at Britain's role in southern Iraq as he shed light on media reports that American officials think British forces have failed there."

"I don't think that's a fair assessment at all," Gen Jackson said."
"In the south we had responsibility for four provinces. Three of these have been handed over in accordance with that strategy. It remains just in Basra for that to happen."

OK, so in admittedly over-simplistic terms... it appears the Brits have a 75% success rate in their mission so far. Then we have 18 pass/fail points of the Surge, of which the GAO report says 3 are 'pass' and the White House argues that 5 'pass'. My calculator says 75% for Brits, 16% or 28% for the US.
Hmmm... blame the Brits. Yeah, that's the ticket!

Answer 5

No, don't blame the Brits. It's the fault of the office of Bush and Cheney that put us into this war. We cannot shuffle our errors onto someone else's plight to ease our conscience. We did this to ourselves. I did not vote for Bush and Cheney. Would we have been in a worse global position if the election had rightfully gone to Gore? I don't think so.

Answer 6

usa "misplaced" the conflict by using fact it -- (a) did not supply up the reunification of Vietnam that could desire to have happened lower back in 1956, yet now occurred in 1976. (b) did not supply up Vietnam transforming into a "Socialist" usa. actually, if the US had not violated worldwide regulation and the "1954 Geneva Agreements on Indochina: lower back in 1954, then Vietnam could have been a "independent" usa and could have even remained a capitalist usa. the US government, by its movements, pushed the Viet Minh political management to take a "Socialist" physique of suggestions from 1946 as much as and after 1975 that's what that is in the present day. FYI -- the term "Viet Cong" is incorrect. The term is shortened slang for Viet Nam Cong San, which skill Vietnamese Communist, something that below 4% of the "national Liberation front of Southern Vietnam" (NLF) have been participants of. further, the tern "North Vietnamese military" is incorrect by using fact the scuffling with rigidity replaced into the people's military of Vietnam" (PAVN) which replaced into created in 1944 with the help of the yank OSS (forerunner of the CIA) to combat the eastern and Vichy French for the period of WW-2. the comparable rigidity fought against the French in the process the 1st Indochina conflict (conflict of Independence 1946-1954). the two words have been used to denigrate the "enemy forces" in the eyes of the yank people to justify what the US replaced into doing as "communists" have been the bogeyman of that era.

Answer 7

Works for me.

Blame is the name of the Bush admin game.
Even though its pretty lame, expect more of the same.
Bush bites like a chuwawa, yet barks like a great dane.
I'm oh so glad you came, to read these thoughts in my brain..

Answer 8

I'm sure Bush will try to shift the blame somewhere

Answer 9

You know, the guys who flew those planes into our buildings killing all those humans (mr humanist) are not the only people in the world on that war path.
They were bottom level people working for much bigger and spread out organizations who are trying to do it again and bigger. A lot of very foolish people seem to think that it was just those few guys and it won't happen again. Even with proof that other people want to and are trying.
We are supposed to just give up and sit and wait for it to happen again and when it does, we're supposed to send a global message to who ever it was that they hit us with a good shot and pat them on the back then go sit in the corner and wait for it again.
That is what you call the impossibly failed peace movement.
Let them hit you, congratulate them for good aim them let them try again. Is that moronic or what?!?!

As to your question... We're not going to lose this regardless of how strongly the democrats are trying. It is the democrats who are the traitors, supporting our enemy at every turn.

Answer 10

No. But those who support this occupation would probably blame anyone but themselves.