British army chief says that UK troops are making Iraq less secure. That the UK should pull out and concentrate on Afghanistan.

LONDON, England (CNN) -- The chief of the British Army has called for a pullout of British troops from Iraq "sometime soon" and said that post-invasion planning for that war was "poor, probably based more on optimism than sound planning."

Gen. Richard Dannatt told London's Daily Mail newspaper that he had "more optimism" that "we can get it right in Afghanistan."

Dannatt said that Britain's continued presence in Iraq had made the country less secure.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/12/iraq.general/index.html

Finally, someone is getting a clue!

General: ''Well chaps,we've buggered up as best we can here,Corporal,wheres that bloody list''
Corporal:Coming right up sir''
General:Thats a good chap,now let me see,
India,no we've done that,
Kenya,no we've done that also,
Ireland,no we're sick of doing that,
Palestine,no,those awful Americans are involved there,
by goove Ive got it,Corporal''
Corporal:''Sa''
General:''Corporal,go pack my overnite bag,and be sure to bring my hunting rifle,we're off to Afghanistan,theres a good chap''.

I assume you know that over 7500 British troops and 2500 Canadian troops are already fighting in Afghanistan.

Yep.Its taken the Brits 150 years to take Afghanistan,but their getting there.

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, and the women come out to cut up what remains, jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains and go to your gawd like a soldier.
Rudyard Kipling (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/rudyardkip152251.html)

Kipling wrote that? He's a great writer, I love his works. Good poem

Kipling was an anti Irish son-of-a-bitch.

What I find amazing is the scorn heaped upon Dannat by so many righties. On another board I post at, people are saying he has committed treason and are calling for him to be drummed out of the military FOR SPEAKING THE TRUTH! One arsehole actually announced that Dannat should be shot.

I dunno what's wrong with people. Is the truth SO dangerous that people who speak it should be shot?

:confused:




Note: I briefly posted here ages ago, and just wandered across the link again. Thought I'd drop in and see what was happening.

Its all played down now,hes just saying there should be a time frame for withdrawl,silly us,thought he meant pack up and leave.

I dunno what's wrong with people. Is the truth SO dangerous that people who speak it should be shot?

Never underestimate the condemnation or fear of assholes.

Blair forced to claim Dannatt's criticisms are 'absolutely right'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=410345&in_page_id=1770

This is the British Empire we're talking about 500.

This is the British Empire we're talking about 500.
?

The British dont get thrown out of anywhere,they withdraw,talking otherwise is a Capital offence,in some peoples eyes.

bah thats BS aristorcrical projection of power when there is none. Appearences for appearences sake.

Thats right,and thats the British way,illusions of granduer.They still talk about their Empire for fucksake.

I dunno what's wrong with people. Is the truth SO dangerous that people who speak it should be shot?


The TRUTH is always dangerous, but it is more dangerous to ignore it.

During the initial stages of WWII, when Germany was over-running France, the British military leaders often had to talk Churchill out of some very bad ideas. Fortunately, stubborn as he was, he had the sense to listen.

As an aside, pity that Roosevelt did not have the same attitude; especially regarding the personality of Stalin.

During the initial stages of WWII, when Germany was over-running France, the British military leaders often had to talk Churchill out of some very bad ideas. Fortunately, stubborn as he was, he had the sense to listen.


Sounds interesting. What kind of bad ideas?

like standing their ground in Northern France.

Churchill wanted to move more fighter squadrons to France. The Chief of the RAF told him they would not affect the battle in France, but many would be lost. The end result would be insufficient numbers of fighters to defend Britain. Fortunately Churchill listened.

Churchill wanted to move more fighter squadrons to France. The Chief of the RAF told him they would not affect the battle in France, but many would be lost. The end result would be insufficient numbers of fighters to defend Britain. Fortunately Churchill listened.
So Ot, do you think Britain should stay in Iraq or pull out and put more into Afganistan. We lost another soldier yesterday. Do you think Canada should be there? We are traditionally peacekeepers not fighters.

So Ot, do you think Britain should stay in Iraq or pull out and put more into Afghanistan.
We lost another soldier yesterday. Do you think Canada should be there? We are traditionally peacekeepers not fighters.

Why are the British in Iraq? Don't tell me it's to provide the US with oil and it will be hard to convince me it's because Blair is Bush's puppet. Politically, Blair had nothing to gain by following Bush, in fact he had more to lose. Oddly enough, I think the coalition went in because they truly believed there were WMD. Yes they were badly mistaken; that's easy to see in hindsight, but not as obvious beforehand.

OK, Iraq is a mess. What to do? First some history. None of the Middle East countries existed prior to about 1920. They were all part of the Ottoman Empire which was destroyed in WW1. The area comprising Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon became French or British protectorates under the League of Nations. France and Britain created these countries for their own purposes. I'm sure they had a good reason for drawing the borders where they did, but they seem to have some mistakes. Similarly, the UN made some mistakes when drawing the Israeli and Palestinian borders in 1948.

Iraq reminds me of Yugoslavia, a mixture of different peoples held together by a dictator. When the dictator fell, the country split more along tribal or ethnic lines.
There is obviously a civil war raging in Iraq. Not surprising, with the different ethnic and religious factions involved. As I mentioned previously, it is a "contrived" country, made up by the British. I think we should give Iraqis a choice. Either learn to live together or the country should be split into the several factions. If they elect to live together, then the Iraqis should maintain control. If they elect to split, then the coalition should, temporarily protect the borders. OK, there are more details to be defined, but I'm sure you get my general meaning.

Should Canada be in Afghanistan? Yes! We are fulfilling our obligations to the UN and NATO.
On 12 Sept. 2001, NATO, for the first time in history, invoked article 5 of the Washington Treaty (http://www.nato.int/issues/terrorism/index.html) stating that the attacks on the United States constituted an attack on all member nations. Alliance aircraft and ships were issued orders in response and SNFL, with its Canadian contingent, proceeded to a new operating area as a naval task group at war. On the same day the United Nations Security Council issued resolution 1368 which reaffirmed UN Charter article 51 providing the right of a nation attacked to collective and individual self-defence. On 4 Oct. 2001, NATO secretary general Lord Robertson re-stated Article 5 after having received unanimous support from the members of the North Atlantic Council, including Canada.

I reject your premise that Canadians are traditionally peacekeepers not fighters. Traditionally we have always upheld our obligations, providing either fighters or peacekeepers, as the UN or NATO requested.
Our Armed Forces are very aware of our obligations to the UN and NATO. They also realize this may mean armed combat. Note that many of our forces have also died during peacekeeping. Does the death our our fellow citizens mean we must abandon our obligations? I don't think so.

If, as a country, we want to avoid situations like Afghanistan, then we should resign from NATO and the UN. Not cut and run just because the going gets rough.

Thanks OT that was an excellent historical perspective.

Well, I thought it was the easiest way to explain my answers.

Thats right,and thats the British way,illusions of granduer.They still talk about their Empire for fucksake.
The English are amazing people. If they weren't employing the same fucked up tactics we are (primarily, allowing the pervasive and obnoxious PC movement to cripple our nations while opening our doors to lesser, exploitative cultures, etc.), then I'd move there in a heartbeat. The English are a gritty, tough bunch. I fucking love ‘em. They're some of the best engineers in the world, period.

It takes engineers to build Empires,tho these days very few engineering jobs in UK,either thru competivness or lack of vision I dont know,but the jobs are wandering off to Europe,people dont make styff in Britain anymore.

It takes engineers to build Empires,tho these days very few engineering jobs in UK,either thru competivness or lack of vision I dont know,but the jobs are wandering off to Europe,people dont make styff in Britain anymore.
Very true - the same thing is happening here, but have you taken a look at their design and general industry? The Brits are still alive and kicking. Look at the McLaren facility in Woking, Surrey. Innovative BRITISH architecture and completely brilliant. Truly amazing, and that's only one example.

I know you know your enjoying an Irishman praise the Brits,but I give credit were credits due,and the facts speak for themselves.
Read an article couple of years ago,it seems the Dutch Electronics Co,'Philips' sell all their latest Technology to 'Sony' who then brand it and market it,which I would believe because Philips tvs are superior to anyones.
Just thought of an old joke while writing here,you may or may not get it.

Did you hear about the English woman,who had swam halfway across the Irish Sea,before she realised a 21' Murphy was actually a television.

Did you hear about the English woman,who had swam halfway across the Irish Sea,before she realised a 21' Murphy was actually a television.
What's a 21-foot (or do you mean inch) Murphy? Is that supposed to be a joke about how big an Irishman's penis is?

Inch. No,its a joke about how stupid the Englishwoman was about a tv set.
PS. we dont need to joke.

I know you know your enjoying an Irishman praise the Brits,but I give credit were credits due,and the facts speak for themselves.
Read an article couple of years ago,it seems the Dutch Electronics Co,'Philips' sell all their latest Technology to 'Sony' who then brand it and market it,which I would believe because Philips tvs are superior to anyones.
Just thought of an old joke while writing here,you may or may not get it.
British (and German, for the most part) electronics are the best. Super high-end shit. Like I'm talking about home amplifiers that cost 10 thousand dollars per channel. B&W speakers, TAD, Loewe, etc. The stuff is great but you won't find it at most of our retail stores.

Inch. No,its a joke about how stupid the Englishwoman was about a tv set.
I still don't get it. Do they have a shortage of TV's in England? What did she think a 21-inch Murphy was?
PS. we dont need to joke.
Shit, then I got fucked out of some much needed inches by my German or English blood.

German and English,Hmm,pure Saxon blood then,congratulations.

B&W speakers,

Ooooo, a British speaker fan. :) I've got four of those. And a pair of KEFs too.

German and English,Hmm,pure Saxon blood then,congratulations.
Damn skippy.

I love my bloodlines (for the most part).

We did a genealogy study years ago, and apparently I've some (a VERY small amount, mind you) French blood on my dad's side dating back to the early 1500's. Needless to say, I was really pissed off to hear it, but seeing as to how I can't travel back in time to kill the ONE bastard ancestor responsible - I guess I'll just have to learn to live with it. Also, I have some Norwegian blood in there somewhere, but that doesn’t bother me. My dominant makeup is primarily German, English, and Irish. And having said that - I consider myself a lucky man.

I'm proud to be of north-western European stock.

Ooooo, a British speaker fan. :) I've got four of those.
I love 'em.

My brother (the self-avowed audiophile) has probably (and this is on the conservative side) 50,000 dollars worth of B&W speakers.

I can't afford them. :(

I can't afford them. :(

Well, they're not all $4,000.

Damn skippy.

I love my bloodlines (for the most part).

We did a genealogy study years ago, and apparently I've some (a VERY small amount, mind you) French blood on my dad's side dating back to the early 1500's. Needless to say, I was really pissed off to hear it, but seeing as to how I can't travel back in time to kill the ONE bastard ancestor responsible - I guess I'll just have to learn to live with it. Also, I have some Norwegian blood in there somewhere, but that doesn’t bother me. My dominant makeup is primarily German, English, and Irish. And having said that - I consider myself a lucky man.[QUOTE]I'm proud to be of north-western European stock.
Ah,its not all its cracked up to be.

Ah,its not all its cracked up to be.
Maybe not, but I'm proud of it, nonetheless. My only nationality is American, but I love where my ancestors came from. :)

Chill out man,your so easy to crack up haha.

I love where my ancestors came from. :)

Does it matter to you, and why?

My dominant makeup is primarily German, English, and Irish. And having said that - I consider myself a lucky man.

I'm proud to be of north-western European stock.
Switch mine around a bit... English, Irish and then German. Heinz 57...Tough beggars aren't we!!!? Funny though, now I just consider myself Canadian...I think in the end, my mum considered herself the same... Ultimately, it does not matter to me at all. We are all just of the human race, but I am different than most that way as to me genealogy means zero while character, morals, and ethics mean...well....everything.

nicely put.
U Canadian u.

Switch mine around a bit... English, Irish and then German. Heinz 57...Tough beggars aren't we!!!? Funny though, now I just consider myself Canadian...I think in the end, my mum considered herself the same... Ultimately, it does not matter to me at all. We are all just of the human race, but I am different than most that way as to me genealogy means zero while character, morals, and ethics mean...well....everything.
Other races don't have our "character, morals, and ethics", Sal. Think about where those came from.

Other races don't have our "character, morals, and ethics", Sal. Think about where those came from.Let me guess - your genes are superior to those of us lower primates.

Let me guess - your genes are superior to those of us lower primates.
Now that's subjective.

Other races don't have our "character, morals, and ethics", Sal. Think about where those came from.
Now that IS funny.

How so?

Are you implying that Americans have none? Or are you implying that our ancestors taught us nothing? It's one or the other...

Other races don't have our "character, morals, and ethics", Sal. Think about where those came from.

Thought that kind of race theory had been abandoned about 60 years ago...

You don't get out much, do you? You think your "character, morals, and ethics" are on par with the cannibals of South America? How about the natives in Africa or the aboriginals in Australia? How about the Chinese, or the Indians? No. Your character was cultivated by western civilization, and has been fostered throughout time by your ancestors and tweaked by newer generations. Your belief that we're "all the same" is what reeks of bullshit - not my contention that we don't.

How so?

Are you implying that Americans have none? Or are you implying that our ancestors taught us nothing? It's one or the other...
The Anglo Saxons are responsible for more death and suffering in the last 500 years than all other races combined.

You don't get out much, do you? You think your "character, morals, and ethics" are on par with the cannibals of South America? How about the natives in Africa or the aboriginals in Australia? How about the Chinese, or the Indians? No. Your character was cultivated by western civilization, and has been fostered throughout time by your ancestors and tweaked by newer generations. Your belief that we're "all the same" is what reeks of bullshit - not my contention that we don't.

Of course we are not all the same - nor did I claim that we are. I'm simply saying that "character, morals and ethics" are not linked to race, but more so to cultural heritage.

The Anglo Saxons are responsible for more death and suffering in the last 500 years than all other races combined.

I'd say that the Orientals come close to matching that number, if they don't surpass it.

PS. The Romans called the northern peoples "Angles" because they were fair, tall, and god-like-looking--like "angels".

The Anglo Saxons are responsible for more death and suffering in the last 500 years than all other races combined.
Yeah, well they've also given the world more in the last 500 years than all other races combined. A point in which is conveniently overlooked to appease the world's collective notion of how evil we are.

I think youll find that Anglos have given the world nothing positive.The things your hinting at,were more than likely inventions to either make their own lives easier,or to make their subjects more efficent.

I'd say that the Orientals come close to matching that number, if they don't surpass it.

PS. The Romans called the northern peoples "Angles" because they were fair, tall, and god-like-looking--like "angels".


The Orientals,thats a possibility,I dont know that much about the last 500 years in Asia.

Sounds like the Romans ran into some nazis.

I think youll find that Anglos have given the world nothing positive.
Okaaaaay. I think you're outta your freaking gourd, but...

Apparently you dislike your lifestyle.
The things your hinting at,were more than likely inventions to either make their own lives easier,or to make their subjects more efficent.
Yeah, like who needs what we've provided for the world? Good point. As a matter of fact, I think I'll go firebomb my computer right now.

Who WOULDN'T do what you alluded to above!? Can you name me a "positive" contribution that made peoples lives more difficult?

I'm waiting....

Of course we are not all the same - nor did I claim that we are. I'm simply saying that "character, morals and ethics" are not linked to race, but more so to cultural heritage.
That's what I was trying to say. We were talking about a region. Sorry I used the word "race", but we were talking about the west in general, weren't we?

The list of Anglo accomplishments is almost endless. I can't begin to even list them all---it boggles the mind.

The very language we are speaking now, and its finest wordsmith--Shakespeare, comes to mind.

Or how about the man who held over 10, 000 patents ( that is, him and his lab)--Edison?

He was ranked number one on Life magazine's "Men of the Millenium" list.

The list of Anglo accomplishments is almost endless. I can't begin to even list them all---it boggles the mind.

The very language we are speaking now, and its finest wordsmith--Shakespeare, comes to mind.

Or how about the man who held over 10, 000 patents ( that is, him and his lab)--Edison?

He was ranked number one on Life magazine's "Men of the Millenium" list.
According to Paul, Mr. Edison meant shit; just another stooge of the imperialist Euro-American government to keep us in check.

I mean, think about it...

Light bulb = work, work = money, money = government, government = total domination of it's subjects.

Or how about THIS one--the Magna Carta?

Now paul, you have to admit that's quite a jump there.

Or this one--"A Man's home is his castle."

Side note:

Churchill, in his great "blood, sweat, and tears" speech, deliberately used as many Saxon words as he could.

Churchill, in his great "blood, sweat, and tears" speech, deliberately used as many Saxon words as he could.
Argh!!!

But he's an Englishman, Ren. Sorry.

Nothing positive there.

Funny to think what Edsion would do with these contraptions we call computers.

He'd take one look at say, "You're using THAT?
Here, let me work on that a bit....."

An absolute genius--admit it, paul!!!!!!!!!

i wish britain and blair would stop being america's toddies and just give bush the fingers.

no pun intended.

A good example of what Anglos would call,something positive,would be virtually weapon invented in the last 50-100 years,unfortunatly most of the people they were used against propably didnt find it a positive experience.

For every bloodthirsty, barbaric Anglo, both past and present, there were probably 100 more who wanted to be left alone and either work their farm and pick nits off themselves, or watch the boob tube.

Speaking of BARBARIC, how'd you like to be one of the 90, 000 hapless sods a YEAR who had their hearts literally ripped out of their bods and then eaten ?
(Aztecs)

I believe,tho I may be wrong,the hapless sods were still consciese when this ripping exercise was being done.

You think we're indiscriminate? Reference Fallujah.

A good example of what Anglos would call,something positive,would be virtually weapon invented in the last 50-100 years,unfortunatly most of the people they were used against propably didnt find it a positive experience.
Weapons, check. Got anything else those evil Anglos did to fuck humanity out of a peaceful and prosperous life? By the way, utopian ideals aside, our inventing them WAS positive, and I bet you're glad we did because you'd probably be speaking German if we hadn't.

Do you honestly believe that if we (the west) didn't develop the nuclear bomb, no one else would've??? Granted, it probably would've taken them an additional century, but either way - my point still stands.

Same sort of thing only on a different scale to other atrocities.
Britain,as we know,had the biggest and most successful Empire in modern history.Sixty years ago,Germany tried to do the same sort of thing,unsuccessfully.
The majority of the early settlers in North America were either English or German,and many would say,their ancestors are still the power behind America.
The U.S. is seen in many countries,especially the mid East as trying to build itself an Empire Globally.
Canyou see any connections here.

Just got your last while posting.
Yes I agree,without the Americans and Ruskies,I would probably be speaking German today, but then again,my own native language was brought back from the brink only 100 years ago.

What about the Mongol empire?
Alexander's?
the Romans?
The Spaniards?
Napoleon's?

None of these were Anglo-Saxon.

This kind of empire-building has gone on for millenia.

I say, if it weren't the Anglos spreading their empire, it'd be someone else--and most likely one a LOT more cruel.

The majority of the early settlers in North America were either English or German,and many would say,their ancestors are still the power behind America.
Without doubt, they are. The Jews are quite powerful as well.
The U.S. is seen in many countries,especially the mid East as trying to build itself an Empire Globally.
Then I'd say they're not paying very close attention to the facts, and they've already made their mind up. We've not appropriated any lands and we've not stolen any oil.