It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iraqi minister rejects UK defeatism

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 10:14 AM
link   

The Iraqi deputy prime minister has warned against defeatism and panic as his US and British allies come under growing pressure to change their Iraq strategy.

Barham Salih, in London for talks with Tony Blair, the prime minister, made clear his anxiety about the change in tone from London and Washington, where senior figures are questioning whether the current strategy in Iraq is viable.

Salih told BBC radio on Monday: "I'm obviously concerned about the debate both in the US and Europe, I have to say."

"There is too much of a pessimistic tone to this debate - even I would say in certain circles a defeatist tone.

"We need to be realist but not defeatist. We need to understand that there is a need of utmost urgency to deal with many of the problems of Iraq, but we must not give in to panic," he said.

Source


The current way Western officials and leaders are expressing their opinions only stimulates insurgents to push the violence to a higher level and their morale to fight coalition troops. I wonder how long will be able to withstand the pressure, as he's in a very difficult position. Leaving would definitely mean a defeat and would lead to an even greater chance of future terrorist attacks, while staying would mean more deaths on both the Iraqi civilian side and coalition side and perhaps to unpleasant consequences for Bush.

To be honest I personally don't know what options are left on the table, fortunately I don't have to make decisions.




posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Well he would be worried wouldn’t he? When we pull out of Iraq the queue for bits of the current governments leaders will be so long he’ll be lucky if even his teeth are left.
The Iraqi government is hated by most of the Iraqi people; some see it as it totally incompetent (which it is) others see it as pro-Iranian (which it is) others like the fact its pro-Iranian (and therefore going to be quite back stabbing) but hate the fact its incompetent and responsible for occupation (after all the occupation is “there at the invitation of the Iraqi government” even though the majority of Iraqis have long wanted us out, see this leaked British Ministry of Defence Iraqi opinion poll…
www.telegraph.co.uk.../news/2005/10/23/wirq23.xml
(Note how this poll was conducted over a year ago, when things weren’t quite so bad).

Of course why not stay the course?
Pysops units may have been somewhat effective in planning the poling stations locations and manipulating our own opinions at home…
www.spinwatch.org...

And ok the last Iraqi elections may have been rigged…
(U.S Commander predicted they would be flawed) www.newsmax.com...
They were flawed: Canadian team reports…
list.nowar-paix.ca...
Iraqi elections were rigged by Shiites: www.newyorker.com...
Sunnis React: www.highbeam.com...
news.bbc.co.uk...
www.debka.com... Well it did fuel the civil war
Some key problems:
www.teeth.com.pk...

And did the Bush Administration interfere? www.findarticles.com...

BUT…
The next election is almost sure to produce an anti western government. Then pro western, anti war people like me will be 100% vindicated.

In fact the people who currently run Iraq are news.bbc.co.uk... not exactly what you would call pro-western ether.
See how they are pro Iranian: www.washingtonpost.com...
See how Iraqi PM met with the president of Iran: www.npr.org...
Happy Ending: The guy who hopes to wipe Israel of the map, and sell uranium to America’s enemies at half price within five years has promised to help stabilise Iraq (well they control most of the terrorists)
www.rferl.org... Question: Is he doing it for us, or for them? Why might he be doing it for them? What does this mean for our influence on Iraq and our long-term relationship with them?
In fact what does this mean for usefulness-greatness of what we are currently doing in Iraq? Never mind perhaps we should just close our eyes.

Staying in Iraq under the current policy isn’t so much defeatist but useless for all the long term interests of the West (apart from the political interest of the White House).
So let Bush support a Iran loving, anti western electing democracy. Who really cares if another 78 U.S troops die next month, if its twice that many or 4 times that many? Sure families might not like husbands with missing limbs, or psychiatric problems; but then that’s what they get paid for. Presides America has suffered much worse in Vietnam.
And at the end of the day the longer we “stay the course” the quicker disaster will come, the sooner the day will arrive when historians say that Iraq was a disaster not just to the interests of the West but also the political interests of the White House. This is what they deserve for being so apeish, for getting rid of a principally pro-western secular government, one which worked, and that though killed people to bring stability killed less than de-stability is killing now.

So yes let the troops stay, let us be vindicated. And when people like me are vindicated the troops will still need to stay…

The Solution Will Be…
Ether to re-invade the place to stamp down on the trouble the territory will be causing us (after we’ve first fled).
Or we can continue to occupy it but to put in place a principally pro-western secular dictator (Iraq calls that “Ba’thist”). In fact we could call such a dictator Saddam the 2nd.
Democracy will not work in religiously fundamentalist society like Iraq; and we had learnt anything from colonial history we would not have even attempted it (certainly at least not in Iraq).
Hypothetically we could conceivably have an “apartheid democracy” were only secular peoples-areas can vote; trouble is the last 15 years has meant few are pro-western. Then again being secular (and therefore (principally) rational) that can change. But for the fast majority of Iraq’s population only a dictatorship (of some description) will do; (so why not stick to the traditional model?) and if we don’t do it then they will elect a dictator that hates us, or simply enjoy a democracy (a democracy given by us) that hates us just as much (if not perhaps more). The (scheduled) next Iraqi elections cannot fail to show that.
Basically say what you like about our treatment of Iraqis and Iraq; but even without that; our blind-strong support for places like Israel guarantees the hate that fuels the war on terror will continue.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 05:07 AM
link   
"OH GOD PLEASE, PLEASE DON"T LEAVE ME HERE! MY people are going to hang me from the lamp post, OOOOH GOOOOD HELP ME , HEEEELP ME!"




A United Press wirepicture of an American punching a South Vietnamese "ally" squarely in the face as the Vietnamese tried to climb on board the last American flight from Nha Trang to Saigon held a certain symbolism of what had gone before.

-John Pilger, during the fall(rise) of Saigon .

www.antiwar.com...

When will they learn, they is no honour among thieves.

---------------------

Anyone else notice the Irony that collaborators, who are traditionally defeatists "we can't fight back so let's collaborate with the occupier", are calling other people defeatists?

just a thought.

[edit on 24-10-2006 by Syrian Sister]



new topics
 
0

log in

join