Gates Says U.S. Is Not Winning Iraq War

mkpdavies · 06-12-2006, 06:03 PM

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/12/05/D8LQPI680.html

Quote:

Robert Gates, the White House choice to be the next defense secretary, conceded Tuesday that the United States is not winning the war in Iraq and warned that if that country is not stabilized in the next year or two it could lead to a "regional conflagration."

So it's basically confirmed that this whole thing is the biggest disaster since who knows when.

When am I going to see some sackings and accountabilty for creating a more dangerous, volatile planet, all on the basis of lies?

Hartlepool · 06-12-2006, 06:23 PM

A"Regional conflagration." :roll: =(A Regional destructive fire/blaze.)

So,whith that statement,what exactly, does he think we have at the moment in Iraq?

A freakin' heathfire???? :roll:

conan · 31-12-2006, 07:43 PM

It is important to remember that the media only reports the bad news from Iraq.
"Let’s start 2007 with some good news from Iraq. It’s boom time, in the nicest sense of the word, in Baghdad and Basra, not to mention Kurdistan and Najaf. Newsweek has just described Iraq’s economic surge as ‘the mother of all surprises’. The 2003 invasion unleashed not only a vast market in the free media, which persists, but also a massive amount of economic activity which the sectarian bloodshed has not crushed. According to Iraqthemodel.com, one of the best unofficial blogsites, there were just 8,000 officially registered companies in Iraq under Saddam. Now there are over 34,000 and another 286 were created in November alone. " - William Shawcross

Hereward77 · 31-12-2006, 11:04 PM

Ah yes, William Shawcross, another lying socialist one-worlder. Why not post Christopher Hitchens's drunken neo-Trotskyist ramblings while you're at it.

conan · 01-01-2007, 08:01 PM

Look through http://www.williamshawcross.com/ and you will find that WS is a "progressive" but also a royalist. In any case, there seems no doubt that Iraq's economy is doing rather well.
I don't have any axe to grind on this issue. I think a war between Sunni and Shia would be in our interest; if the muslims are busy slaughtering each other, they are less of a threat to us.
What the Iraq war has proved beyond reasonable doubt is that Britain's mass-media is dominated by "Guardianistas" - people who are well to the Left of Blair. Tony benn is routinely wheeled on Sky News as an elder statesman, and interviewed by people who obviously agree with every word he says. Yet Benn was on the far-Left of the Labour party before Kinnock and Blair led it to the right.
That being so, it is unwise to believe anything the mass media says; the Guardianistas opposed the Iraq war from the beginning, and the media is therefore far from neutral.
It is generally believed that there were no WMD in Iraq, but hundreds of artillery shells containing nerve gas have turned up over the last two years - something the media never reports.

Hereward77 · 01-01-2007, 08:45 PM

The fact that Shawcross claims to be a royalist means nothing, so does Bliar and co. The human rights of foreign citizens are not worth the bones of one British soldier. Saddam was never going to be a threat to Britain, and we have handed Iraq to the Iranians.

conan · 04-01-2007, 07:37 PM

I certainly agree that Britain should not be trying to protect the Yuman Rites of the whole world.
There was a more pragmatic case for the war. Saddam had spent 12 years playing cat and mouse with the US after Gulf war 1, to boost his standing among anti-Americans everywhere. After 911, it made sense to "whack" him, to discourage other anti-American (and anti-British) nutters. However, the mass media's reporting and general attitude has only served to reinforce the view that the western democracies will not fight for their own survival.

Hereward77 · 04-01-2007, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Saddam had spent 12 years playing cat and mouse with the US after Gulf war 1, to boost his standing among anti-Americans everywhere. After 911, it made sense to "whack" him, to discourage other anti-American (and anti-British) nutters.

That is a pathetically laughable casus belli. This war has created far more anti-Americanism and anti-Britishism than existed before, and anyone with a bit of intelligence knew it would.

31-12-2006, 11:04 PM	#4 (permalink)
Hereward77 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 1,159	Ah yes, William Shawcross, another lying socialist one-worlder. Why not post Christopher Hitchens's drunken neo-Trotskyist ramblings while you're at it. __________________ "The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in history." David Rockefeller, New York Times, August 10, 1973

01-01-2007, 08:45 PM	#6 (permalink)
Hereward77 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 1,159	The fact that Shawcross claims to be a royalist means nothing, so does Bliar and co. The human rights of foreign citizens are not worth the bones of one British soldier. Saddam was never going to be a threat to Britain, and we have handed Iraq to the Iranians. __________________ "The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in history." David Rockefeller, New York Times, August 10, 1973

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

06-12-2006, 06:23 PM	#2 (permalink)
Hartlepool Uber Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: North East England Posts: 6,785 Party: Free England Party	A"Regional conflagration." :roll: =(A Regional destructive fire/blaze.) So,whith that statement,what exactly, does he think we have at the moment in Iraq? A freakin' heathfire???? :roll:

31-12-2006, 07:43 PM	#3 (permalink)
conan Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 36	It is important to remember that the media only reports the bad news from Iraq. "Let’s start 2007 with some good news from Iraq. It’s boom time, in the nicest sense of the word, in Baghdad and Basra, not to mention Kurdistan and Najaf. Newsweek has just described Iraq’s economic surge as ‘the mother of all surprises’. The 2003 invasion unleashed not only a vast market in the free media, which persists, but also a massive amount of economic activity which the sectarian bloodshed has not crushed. According to Iraqthemodel.com, one of the best unofficial blogsites, there were just 8,000 officially registered companies in Iraq under Saddam. Now there are over 34,000 and another 286 were created in November alone. " - William Shawcross

01-01-2007, 08:01 PM	#5 (permalink)
conan Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 36	Look through http://www.williamshawcross.com/ and you will find that WS is a "progressive" but also a royalist. In any case, there seems no doubt that Iraq's economy is doing rather well. I don't have any axe to grind on this issue. I think a war between Sunni and Shia would be in our interest; if the muslims are busy slaughtering each other, they are less of a threat to us. What the Iraq war has proved beyond reasonable doubt is that Britain's mass-media is dominated by "Guardianistas" - people who are well to the Left of Blair. Tony benn is routinely wheeled on Sky News as an elder statesman, and interviewed by people who obviously agree with every word he says. Yet Benn was on the far-Left of the Labour party before Kinnock and Blair led it to the right. That being so, it is unwise to believe anything the mass media says; the Guardianistas opposed the Iraq war from the beginning, and the media is therefore far from neutral. It is generally believed that there were no WMD in Iraq, but hundreds of artillery shells containing nerve gas have turned up over the last two years - something the media never reports.

04-01-2007, 07:37 PM	#7 (permalink)
conan Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 36	I certainly agree that Britain should not be trying to protect the Yuman Rites of the whole world. There was a more pragmatic case for the war. Saddam had spent 12 years playing cat and mouse with the US after Gulf war 1, to boost his standing among anti-Americans everywhere. After 911, it made sense to "whack" him, to discourage other anti-American (and anti-British) nutters. However, the mass media's reporting and general attitude has only served to reinforce the view that the western democracies will not fight for their own survival.