« The Democrats once supported the Iraq war... | Main | America's changing religious right »

Comments

Simon

Are you offering an alternative to anti-americanism, or an alternative to anti-Republican attitudes?

Editor

Lieberman is not a Republican Simon.

This site is first and foremost dedicated to the interests that our two countries share - including the defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The interests are summarised here.

Steevo

"This makes no moral sense at all.

"It also makes no strategic or military sense either."

The alternative is hope over death.

JF

Tim, thanks for this post. I realize that this site is primarily aimed at a British audience, but for the sake of the Americans who visit this site, can you please also post on the British equivalent of Senator Lieberman? I don't see much defense of the war along these lines coming from the British political class, with discussion seeming to focus more on how well the British armed forces are equipped than on the merits of continuing participation in Iraq. It's my hope that I am simply not looking in the right places, as opposed to the serious possibility that there is no British equivalent of Sen. Lieberman. Thus, any insight you can provide would be much appreciated.

Editor

The nearest UK equivalent of Lieberman is Iain Duncan Smith, JF. Click here for an account of how British Conservatives contributed to the recent Commons debate on Iraq. IDS was almost alone in backing the surge and he backed an increase in troops and change of strategy from 2004.

I'm not sure the site is "primarily aimed at a British audience" although the previous masthead suggested that - and was partly replaced for that reason.

I'll keep remembering to put analysis of the UK scene on here for US readers. Thanks for the prompt.

JF

Many thanks, Tim.

John Hayward, The Difference

I'd be interested to know what you think of Tenet's book and interview, Tim: At the Center of the Storm

Teddy Bear

This Tenet? Seems like he's trying to 'wash his hands' of his complicity by pushing the blame elsewhere.

From Wikipedia:
Tenet and Iraq WMD controversy
According to a report by veteran investigative journalist Bob Woodward in his book Plan of Attack, Tenet privately lent his personal authority to the intelligence reports about weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq. At a meeting on December 12, 2002, he assured the President that the evidence against Saddam Hussein amounted to a "slam dunk case." After several months of refusing to confirm this statement, Tenet later stated that this remark was taken out of context. [10] The search following the 2003 invasion of Iraq by U.S., British and international forces has proved unproductive and no stockpiles of WMD were found following the occupation of the country. The case of the invading governments for a legitimate war against Iraq had been based largely on the threat of WMDs in the hands of Saddam Hussein, supposedly on the strength of reliable intelligence assessments, including evidence that could not itself be made public. Thus a failure subsequently to find any banned weapons or programs became a considerable embarrassment for Tenet and the CIA.

TomTom

The nearest UK equivalent of Lieberman is Iain Duncan Smith,

I disagree. Duncan Smith has not been ejected from his party nor had to run against Conservatives in his seat. He is not an Orthodox Jew nor has he been a candidate for presidency, and he certainly cannot be classed at odds with his own party as he was over Maastricht.

There is no analogy unless you consider the behaviour of Churchill over India in 1935.

IF Bush wants to play hardball with the Democrats he can go on TV and state he will veto any such Bill and while he is President US soldiers will not run short of ammunition, food, equipment - and if Congress tries to do this he will take funds from elsewhere rather than leave US soldiers naked in the face of the enemy.

That should destroy Democrats nicely

Steevo

I think the basic analogy with regards to JF's specific question was concerning a stance on the war.

Also, Bush will not destroy the Dems by going on TV. Many of the major broadcasters who are on the Left may not even show him. But if they did it could be totally edited with Dems and liberal journos using it as an opportunity for propaganda. That's how it is here. He will veto the bill but the Democrats are surrendercrats and our troops and the terrorists know that: the damage is done; the consequences remain to be seen.

Dennis

I love the new reality being created by the political establishments of US/UK.
If you listened to or believed anything Republicans/Democrats or Labour/Conservative politicians say then:
a) The problems in Iraq are the fault of Iraqi's, as opposed to our illegal invasion.
b)It is possible to distinguish between Al-qaeda and Iraqi freedom fighters(insurgents).
c) The US/UK have the moral authority to direct Iraq to a democratic future.
d) The world is a safer place due to our continued involvement in Iraq

Al-qaeda's operatives in Iraq are mostly Iraqi's. It's power is not in insurgency or sectarian conflict.
Al-qaeda's strength lies in it's teachings, message and the ideas it implants in the Iraqi conciousness.
The view of us as ruthless invaders determined to destroy their Muslim ways of life and pillage their natural resources.
We could land a further 100,000 troops in Iraq and it would make no difference to the outcome.
How can you possibly fight an idea, so attractive to an occupied,brutalised people?
Iraqi's have died in numbers so great, yet we do not even bother to count their dead.
They can see us display our un-ashamed hypocracy with our professions of 'democracy and freedom while continuing to deny them exactly that commodity.
Shock and Awe, Abu-Ghraib, Falluja, Haditha, etc have all etched themselves on the Iraqi conscience and cannot be overcome with a 'troop surge'
Our polticians patronise the Iraqi's with decisions made in our governments and our troops pay with their lives for all the worng decisions.



Steevo

a) Illegal yeah if you wanna side with Russia, China and France. They had no illegal ulterior motives now did they? A mute point anyway. Its irrelevent. We are dealing with the present. No no-WMD mantras at this point.

b) Iraqis who truly want freedom from terror (the majority) don't call the terrorists "freedom fighters." They call them murderers of men, women and children. The terrorists don't call themselves freedom fighters. YOU on the other side of this world call them freedom fighters, Dennis.

c) The majority of Iraqi people who truly want freedom from genocide and beheaded hell have their fate in our hands. Moral "authority." Call it what you will in your shallow hardness, Leftist. I call it moral obligation.

d) The world was getting unsafe damn fast. We lost 2500 of our citizens and we weren't there, but they were coming here. Right now... right now if we don't stay this course and beat them there then this world will end a much unsafer place in our own back yards. They are coming there because they know that's where they have to win. You Dennis would allow that to happen by withdrawal.

It appears most but not all of al-Qaeda's members in positions of authority are not from Iraq. It can be hard to tell with the typical low-rung suicider if you know what I mean. Their power is in brutal mass murder and igniting sectarian conflict. Why do you think they do it? The overwhelming majority of Iraqis are against them because of that. They want peace and the freedom to pursue their aspirations and... without Sharia law!

The view of us as invaders there to destroy and take is YOUR view Dennis and that of the beheaders. Just like the insurgents are "freedom fighters." Most Iraqis know we are there to fight and hopefully destroy those who are trying to destroy their nation. They do not want us to leave because they know what will happen. You've got it so totally backwards in your Leftist spite.

"We could land a further 100,000 troops in Iraq and it would make no difference to the outcome." Don't you wish!

You are the hypocrite blaming those putting their lives on the line to fight evil in a nation dying to be free. YOU would forsake them.

People have to question why you are here. You're so resentful at the possibilities to unite in efforts and ideology for cause you hate. Do you think you're convincing anyone who is here for its intent? You are the BBC; you are the Guardian, Independent, Mirror... ad nauseum.

Try going over there and convince the good Iraqis. You do believe they do exist and want the terroists killed, don't you? Do you think they would be in agreement with you to have our troops leave? They'd spit, in, your, face.

JF

Dennis, I'm not sure what propaganda the BBC is broadcasting these days, but nothing you've stated is the position of the Republicans in the US.

a) The problems in Iraq are the fault of Iraqi's, as opposed to our illegal invasion.

No, the problems in Iraq are your fault. Had the Left been more loyal to the US, we could have conducted this war as we intended. Instead, the Left aids and abets the terrorists.

b)It is possible to distinguish between Al-qaeda and Iraqi freedom fighters(insurgents).

Actually, we make no effort to distinguish. Both are disruptive forces. Only a Leftists is interested in parsing out "freedom fighters" who bomb civilians. The rest of us see them for what they are: terrorists.

c) The US/UK have the moral authority to direct Iraq to a democratic future.

No, the people of Iraq have the moral authority after having suffered for decades under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. Only you believe you have moral authority, and ironically, you have the least of any party. Your calls for genocide of the Iraqi people are an abomination.

d) The world is a safer place due to our continued involvement in Iraq

No one claimed that the world was. The US certainly is.

Dennis, when can we look forward to you joining up with the "freedom fighters" to do something about the oppression of the evil US?

Dennis

Steevo, take a breath buddy
I do want a unity of purpose between the UK/US. Why do you doubt me?
I just don't believe in deluding myself that we can have constructive discussions without admitting and taking into account our misdeeds.
The world is waking up to us,countries are maturing and taking covert steps to thwart US/UK overtures, regardless of how earnestly professed. In order to counter this and move forward , we have to realign our thought processes to allow for the change.
Part of this process is the realisation that 'actions we take, guide world opinion of us for years'
Steevo writes'The view of us as invaders there to destroy and take is YOUR view Dennis and that of the beheaders.'
That makes me cringe,
Did we invade their country?
Has there been widespread destruction?
Have we passed Hydrocarbon laws to allow the exploitation of their natural resources?
The answer to all these questions is Yes

Steevo writes-b) 'Iraqis who truly want freedom from terror (the majority) don't call the terrorists "freedom fighters." They call them murderers of men, women and children.'
We too cause them terror, we too murder their men, women and children.
I suppose i should be deluding myself that they view us as liberators, in order to participate in this forum.

Steevo writes-'Most Iraqis know we are there to fight and hopefully destroy those who are trying to destroy their nation.'
Steevo with people as deluded as you in the vanguard of cross Atlantic relations, we are surely doomed to a future of 'perpetual misunderstanding'

Steevo

You can't admit reality. You can't admit who you are.

The only meaningful discussion you contribute is we pull out and they go to hell. That's it. Your answer.

You have given absolutely nothing to counter that.

Like I said try doing it in Iraq with those Iraqis who want genuine freedom and don't want their own genocide and they will spit in your face.

End of your story. Buddy.

Andrew Ian Dodge

Good to see Lieberman is speaking his mind and goine against the surrender-monkey attitude of the rest of his Democratic brood. He understands what a retreat would do to millions of Iraqis who want peace (never mind the Kurds).

I love the "illegal war" line. I wonder how many people who prattle on about that are pushing for going to into Darfur to stop genocide there. There is not strategic interest in Darfur.

The Kurds/marsh Arabs were suffering genocide. Saddam was funding people who sought to wipe Jews off the face of the earth in and around Israel.

Dennis

JF wrote..
Actually, we make no effort to distinguish. Both are disruptive forces. Only a Leftists is interested in parsing out "freedom fighters" who bomb civilians. The rest of us see them for what they are: terrorists.

I might add that the rest of the world is starting to see us as we are..with the advent of the information revolution, it could be easy to describe us as 'disruptive forces who 'bomb civillians'.

Why the clamour to designate me a leftie?
How can you possibly determine my political stance based on a few ideas exchanged on a subjective forum?

Have any of you had a chance to read about the findings of the US State Dep's Annual Terrorism report 2006 (released 30/04/07)?
A 25% increase in terrorist attacks & a 40% increase in deaths from terrorism. 45% of the attacks occured in Iraq
Have you had a chance to read the interview Ex C.I.A chief George Tenet gave yesterday and Senator Rick Durbin gave on the senate floor on 28/04/07?
The personalities involved in the creation of this debacle are still in charge.
The laws they passed in the process, continue to erode the US Constitution, Bill of Rights and the UK 'Magna Carta'

I think it is important to concentrate on the mistakes, as the only viable, long-term future of trans-atlantic relations is dependent on the US/UK being at the forefront of transforming international diplomacy and security co-operation.
We should not and can not fight the world.

The use of military posturing as a first line of conflict resolution is based on 'a retarded fundamentalist idiocy' whether it takes the form of a Republican President or Taliban Mullah.
Despite 5yrs of the 'war on terror', entrenched positions validated by the use of violence & terror are still the norm worldwide.
Regardless of whether the purveyors of the terrorism are our 'official combatants' or the 'designated terrorists' the human cost remains the 'perverse constant'.
These entrenched positions are validated by cheerleaders from the left/right of the (republican, democrat, conservative, labour, taliban or moderate muslim) divide all consumed by their individual ideological, financial, political goals.

JF, Steevo... with this in mind I find you are closer to the Taliban due to your failure to stop wearing the intellectual 'Gimp mask & costume' that attempts to pass as right wing thought & rhetoric

JF

Dennis, the UK is lucky you weren't in charge during WWI, or the UK would have lost. The UK is lucky you weren't in charge during WWII, or the UK would have lost. The Iraqi people are lucky you aren't in charge now, or they would be slaughtered until the Tigris and Euphrates ran red.

Call me Taliban if it makes you feel better. Better that you feel good and hundreds of thousands live than the alternative. I'm sorry you can't see it.

Teddy Bear

Dim
Dhimmi
or
already brainwashed Islamists pretending to be lefties.

They keep repeating the same tripe, regardless of being presented with facts which oppose. I don't trust them and believe they have an agenda. My bet is the latter.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

ExtremeTracker

  • Tracker