From: Adam <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near
the bridge">

John Cuccia wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:46:53 +0100, Adam 
> wrote:
>
>> John Cuccia wrote:
>>> On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 12:16:02 +0100, Adam

>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I object to people talking about "taking out"
entire cities. Maybe it's
>>>> just me & visions of Grozny.
>>> I gave up on the not-fully-human GaryB shortly after Katrina.  While
>>> he is best ignored, I do occasionally hurl insults at him.
>>>
>>> Phil, on the other hand, who I always considered to be quite
>>> reasonable (though annoyingly pedantic), seems recently to have become
>>> as frantic as GaryB, as evidenced by the recent epiphany re Saddam
>>> being a really "nice guy" and his incessant bashing
of all Americans
>>> as murderers and animals because of the actions of our politicians.
>>>
>>> If he were rational, he'd realize that if all Americans fit that
>>> description, then so do all Englishmen, because your government has
>>> played an integral role in the overthrow of Saddam and the resulting
>>> cockup in Iraq.  Hell, without your PM's support, Bush would have had
>>> to go it alone.  You people provided the political cover needed to
>>> launch the invasion in the first place and have been willing
>>> participants since the beginning.  What's the matter with you
>>> war-mongering animals?  First you leave a house of cards in place when
>>> deserting the remains of your erstwhile empire and then you support
>>> the overthrow of one of the few reasonably stable secular states left
>>> in the region?
>>>
>>> And you, Adam, seem recently to be blaming the US for putting British
>>> boys in harm's way in Iraq.  That is quite irrational.  The US doesn't
>>> deploy British troops, your own government does.   The US didn't put
>>> those troops in harm's way, your own government did so voluntarily.
>>>
>> Hummmmm. Technically yes but the UK gov have been lent on repeatedly as
>> a UK withdrawal would leave the US completely exposed.
>
> So, leave us exposed.  If Blair hadn't helped legitimized the invasion
> Bush would have been exposed years ago.
>

Oh true but frankly that would be a punishment for the Iraqis. We are making progress

"Sir Jock Stirrup, chief of Britain's defense staff, said coalition
forces were making good progress in stabilizing the region - despite the
death of a British soldier in Basra on Tuesday and concerns that Iraq's
security has worsened since the U.S.-led 2003 invasion.

"We are now on a good path to hand over provincial control of Basra
some time in the first part of next year," Stirrup told British
Broadcasting Corp. "But these are difficult issues we are grappling
with and I can't forecast what will happen over the next several
months."

For now, Iraqi troops provide security on their own in only one province,
Muthana, a relatively quiet area in the south. Local forces support U.S.
and other foreign troops in the other 17 provinces."

Great name....somehow a name like that befits having red collar tags 

We're about to hand over another province which will make 2.

The imponderable is Sadr & Badr's links with Hezbollah & wether
that might spread.

>> What s worse, they've been lent on to take on even more missions e.g. in
>> Afghanistan
>>
>> The result is the PBI are completely overstretched & something has got
>> to give
>
> True with respect to US armed forces also.
>

Vastly more so with the UK. Blair has been all interventionist from Kosovo
to Sierra Leone to Iraqi to Afghanistan & yet.....the defence budget
has been steadily cut.

The equivalent would probably be if the US committed near enough 1/2 a million men.

>> A good example right now is we don't have enough troops in Afghanistan &
>> already the rotation schedules are causing real friction in the army
>> (even soldiers have families).
>>
>> So where are the troops going to come from? People suggested "declaring
>> sucess" in Iraq & moving the PBI over to Baluchistan
but.....your gov
>> nixed that
>
> That's where you lose me.  You are a sovereign state.  Quite simply if
> your government wanted to redeploy its troops, it could.
>

Ah that's where the "blair factor" comes into play. However this
has rebounded on him for possibly the last time (inshallah).

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,1833542,00.html

"Tony Blair was facing a full-scale cabinet rebellion last night over
the Middle East crisis after his former Foreign Secretary warned that
Israel's actions risked destabilising all of Lebanon.

Jack Straw, now Leader of the Commons, said in a statement released after
meeting Muslim residents of his Blackburn constituency that while he
grieved for the innocent Israelis killed, he also mourned the '10 times as
many innocent Lebanese men, women and children killed by Israeli
fire'."

"The critics included close Blair allies. One, the International
Development Secretary, Hilary Benn, was revealed yesterday to have told a
Commons committee that he did not view Israel's strikes on power stations
as a 'proportionate response' to Hizbollah attacks.

Another Blairite minister among the cabinet critics said: 'It was clear
that Tony knows the situation, and didn't have to be told about the outrage
felt by so many over the disproportionate suffering. He also completely
understands the effect on the Muslim community - both in terms of losing
Muslim voters hand over fist and the wider issue of community
cohesion.'"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5237452.stm

"Former minister Joan Ruddock said there was "despair"
within the Labour ranks at Mr Blair's stance on Lebanon which, she warned,
could spill over into the party conference in September.

"I have not met any member of the Labour Party myself who actually
agrees with our strategy," she told BBC Radio 4's The World At One.

Merthyr Tydfil Labour MP Dai Havard has written to Mr Blair calling for an
immediate ceasefire in Lebanon.

In a scathing attack on the prime minister, he accuses Mr Blair of being
"deluded" if he thinks he has any influence over US President
George Bush.

And he attacks Mr Blair's "misdirected obsession" with being a
mouthpiece for the Bush administration.

'Not helpful'

Ann Clwyd, chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party, said the "vast
majority" of backbench Labour MPs wanted a ceasefire between Israel
and Lebanon and were critical of Israeli policy. "

>> coz then what with the Italians, Poles, Spanish, Japanese etc
>> all having faired le bugger off that would leave the US alone (chances
>> are if we pulled out so would the ozzies) & that's bad politically.
>
> Bad politically for the US, not for the UK.  All your boy needs is
> balls.  You cannot blame the US because he doesn't have any.
>

Hum. If you ask for others to join you in an adventure such as the Iraqi
one then you owe them some duty of care that you don't f*ck things up so
badly (or allow others to) that the UK PBI pay the price with no thought
 for the UK PBI.

>> Now wrt actually putting UK troops at risk, the current US total support
>> for Israel in their attack on a fellow (though Arab) democracy is
>> actively putting UK forces at risk esp as we are holding the area of
>> Iraq most closely allied to Hezbollah.
>>
>>> FWIW (and that's very little at this stage)  I agree that the US
>>> invasion was a mistake of incalculable proportions and has made things
>>> infinitely more dangerous in Iraq than during Saddam's day.
>>>
>> Ditto Israel wrt Lebanon but that ain't my problem. My problem is if
>> this spills over into Southern iraq etc & UK troops are killed as a
>> direct result.
>>
>> How much do captured Israeli soldiers cost in UK soldier's lives?
>
> That's no calculus I ever studied, so I can't answer.

It is one worth considering. Were it to inflame Iraq & were the UK
& US to be seen as in alliance with Israel & Israel was blowing the
shit out of Lebanese (esp Lebanese Shia) then one might start wondering how
many dead GI's it might cost per captured Israeli soldier.

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5