British Cowardice in Iraq
British Cowardice in Iraq
this post makes me so angry i cannot even speak. you are dead wrong. ever hear of SAS? Black Watch are heroic.
British Cowardice in Iraq
posted by sarasara
From that moment on The Black Watch Regiment, which defeated Napoleon at Waterloo,
There are a few british regiments that might take issue with that one, some of them were allegedly english regiments not to mention the prussian, dutch, belgian regiments that were there as well.
sarasara:were treated by the British TV News media like a bunch of schoolgirls on a holiday trip to France. Everytime one of them got injured or sadly killed their wives, kids, grandmothers and uncles were displayed and exploited on the television (something which the Geneva Convention failed to cover) in order to give the anti-US journalists an opportunity to spit on the Ministry of Defence and the PM.
There are regiments that are close to their communities it would be odd if they didn't report on any casualties. Why should they not? Would you rather pretend that war is without casualties? How about the 7,000 plus US wounded do you hear about them or do you turn your back and pretend they don't exist
British Politicians live in fear of the TV News which, under the cloak of delivering news in fact delivers the same liberal agenda as its compatriots like CBS or 'The New York Times' do on the other side of the Atlantic.
So they damn well should. the function of a free press is to hold government to account for its actions. The BBC in particular is more trusted than the average politician.
From the beginning of the war the British liberal media treated British Troops like scum. They never cared to report the many kindnesses they did to the Iraqi people and the hard work they performed in Southern Iraq. All they were interested in was every allegation of abuse or unlawful killing they could find to aim at our troops.
Bollocks, stop reading the daily mail it's a tory rag anyway and the editor got fired. Both facets were reported equally, why would they not be? A good free press reports the good and the bad they are not government mouthpieces.
In this country we freely criticise our government as and when we feel like it if we want to call them lying two faced hypocritical bastards that is our prerogative and we expect our press and other media to be constantly critical rather than supporting them blindly.
From your use of the word liberal you are obviously american else you would not use the word in that context. From a UK perpective you don't have a liberal press it's predominantly right wing. If you are from the UK and used liberal in the sense you did you are an ignorant pillock.
UK meaning from the oxford english dictionary
liberal // adj. & n.
adj.
1 given freely; ample, abundant.
2 (often foll. by of) giving freely; generous, not sparing.
3 open-minded, not prejudiced.
4 not strict or rigorous; (of interpretation) not literal.
5 for general broadening of the mind, not professional or technical (liberal studies).
6 a favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform. b (Liberal) Polit. of or characteristic of Liberals or a Liberal Party.
7 Theol. regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change (liberal Protestant; liberal Judaism).
n.
1 a person of liberal views.
2 (Liberal) Polit. a supporter or member of a Liberal Party.
Have a look at these, one is a liberal paper the other two are not. Can you tell which is which. I suggest you look a bit deeper than the two articles I highlighted obviousy i picked ones that are controversial.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm ... _page.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections20 ... 94,00.html
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/
Also have a look at bbc.co.uk
Take a look at question time or newsnight if you want to see politicians squirm.
sarasara:We should have fought shoulder to shoulder with our greatest allies and friends....who saved us from Hitler. This after all was our war as much as that of the American
Bollocks and bollocks again.
From that moment on The Black Watch Regiment, which defeated Napoleon at Waterloo,
There are a few british regiments that might take issue with that one, some of them were allegedly english regiments not to mention the prussian, dutch, belgian regiments that were there as well.
sarasara:were treated by the British TV News media like a bunch of schoolgirls on a holiday trip to France. Everytime one of them got injured or sadly killed their wives, kids, grandmothers and uncles were displayed and exploited on the television (something which the Geneva Convention failed to cover) in order to give the anti-US journalists an opportunity to spit on the Ministry of Defence and the PM.
There are regiments that are close to their communities it would be odd if they didn't report on any casualties. Why should they not? Would you rather pretend that war is without casualties? How about the 7,000 plus US wounded do you hear about them or do you turn your back and pretend they don't exist
British Politicians live in fear of the TV News which, under the cloak of delivering news in fact delivers the same liberal agenda as its compatriots like CBS or 'The New York Times' do on the other side of the Atlantic.
So they damn well should. the function of a free press is to hold government to account for its actions. The BBC in particular is more trusted than the average politician.
From the beginning of the war the British liberal media treated British Troops like scum. They never cared to report the many kindnesses they did to the Iraqi people and the hard work they performed in Southern Iraq. All they were interested in was every allegation of abuse or unlawful killing they could find to aim at our troops.
Bollocks, stop reading the daily mail it's a tory rag anyway and the editor got fired. Both facets were reported equally, why would they not be? A good free press reports the good and the bad they are not government mouthpieces.
In this country we freely criticise our government as and when we feel like it if we want to call them lying two faced hypocritical bastards that is our prerogative and we expect our press and other media to be constantly critical rather than supporting them blindly.
From your use of the word liberal you are obviously american else you would not use the word in that context. From a UK perpective you don't have a liberal press it's predominantly right wing. If you are from the UK and used liberal in the sense you did you are an ignorant pillock.
UK meaning from the oxford english dictionary
liberal // adj. & n.
adj.
1 given freely; ample, abundant.
2 (often foll. by of) giving freely; generous, not sparing.
3 open-minded, not prejudiced.
4 not strict or rigorous; (of interpretation) not literal.
5 for general broadening of the mind, not professional or technical (liberal studies).
6 a favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform. b (Liberal) Polit. of or characteristic of Liberals or a Liberal Party.
7 Theol. regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change (liberal Protestant; liberal Judaism).
n.
1 a person of liberal views.
2 (Liberal) Polit. a supporter or member of a Liberal Party.
Have a look at these, one is a liberal paper the other two are not. Can you tell which is which. I suggest you look a bit deeper than the two articles I highlighted obviousy i picked ones that are controversial.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm ... _page.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections20 ... 94,00.html
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/
Also have a look at bbc.co.uk
Take a look at question time or newsnight if you want to see politicians squirm.
sarasara:We should have fought shoulder to shoulder with our greatest allies and friends....who saved us from Hitler. This after all was our war as much as that of the American
Bollocks and bollocks again.
-
capt_buzzard
- Posts: 5557
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 12:00 pm
British Cowardice in Iraq
And Bollocks again.
British Cowardice in Iraq
sarasara wrote: Thats what the post said. Our troops were brave.....but a huge number of the British public, our leaders and the cowardly generals who command British Forces are not.
.
after re-reading your post and also discussing it with my British friend, i see you were not slamming the troops. my friend agreed with your assessment and i defer to him. i have nothing but admiration for the British soldiers i think it was the thread title which gave me offense initially.
.
after re-reading your post and also discussing it with my British friend, i see you were not slamming the troops. my friend agreed with your assessment and i defer to him. i have nothing but admiration for the British soldiers i think it was the thread title which gave me offense initially.
British Cowardice in Iraq
posted by sarasara
I posted this thread on a similar major British forum and it was removed by the moderator immediatly, this is because liberal censorship in the UK has filtered down to anyone in the media,
For goodness sake get a dictionary, liberal and censorship do not belong together in the same sentence.
posred by sarasara
The British media sells this as 'Bush's War' when we all know that this is as much Britains war.
What they point out is that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with a war on terrorism and that TB changed the wording in intelligence dossier to get the vote in parliament that he wanted. You can't impose democracy by force.
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/co ... 12.htm#a90
From the report
v) Mr Alastair Campbell made it clear to Mr Scarlett on behalf of the Prime Minister that 10 Downing Street wanted the dossier to be worded to make as strong a case as possible in relation to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's WMD, and 10 Downing Street made written suggestions to Mr Scarlett as to changes in the wording of the draft dossier which would strengthen it. But Mr Campbell recognised, and told Mr Scarlett that 10 Downing Street recognised, that nothing should be stated in the dossier with which the intelligence community were not entirely happy.
(vi) Mr Scarlett accepted some of the drafting suggestions made to him by 10 Downing Street but he only accepted those suggestions which were consistent with the intelligence known to the JIC and he rejected those suggestions which were not consistent with such intelligence and the dossier issued by the Government was approved by the JIC.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/hutton/story/ ... 29,00.html
The former BBC chairman Gavyn Davies today writes about the events that led to his departure from the corporation, denouncing Lord Hutton's judgment as myopic.
"Inspector Clouseau would have been a more forensic sleuth," he says in a review for the Guardian of Greg Dyke's memoirs, Inside Story.
Mr Davies says Mr Dyke is right to lay the blame for the row at the door of Alastair Campbell, then director of communications at Downing Street - sparked after Andrew Gilligan reported that No 10 had "sexed up" the dossier that made the case for war on Iraq.
"Greg thought that Campbell was behaving like a 'deranged, vindictive bastard', on a verge of losing a set of marbles. In my view, Alastair has many admirable qualities, but was undoubtedly going through a bad patch which made life for the rest of us almost impossible," Mr Davies writes.
I particularly like the deranged vindictive bastard. Alastair campbell was elected by no one in this country yet he has more influence than any MP. Tony Blair is bad for our democracy.
posted by sarasara
I am ashamed of Britains half-hearted military effort in Iraq, but what would you expect when we are led by a French general and our Prime Minister lives in daily threat of political assasination by the media, his traditionally anti-American Labour Party and the unprincipled leadership of Michael Howard of the Conservative Party; the once great party of Churchill and Thatcher.
I presume you mean de builliere (not sure of the spelling) The name is norman, it means one of his ancestors came across with william the conqueror, most of our aristocracy have norman bloodlines. The labour party is not Tony Blair's he is only the current leader. Maggie did a good job of emasculating the tories didn't she? Pity we need a good opposition party to stop tony liar.
I'm ashamed of our military effots as well because we are there under false pretences. However, I do have more faith in the common sense of the british people than you seem to.
I posted this thread on a similar major British forum and it was removed by the moderator immediatly, this is because liberal censorship in the UK has filtered down to anyone in the media,
For goodness sake get a dictionary, liberal and censorship do not belong together in the same sentence.
posred by sarasara
The British media sells this as 'Bush's War' when we all know that this is as much Britains war.
What they point out is that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with a war on terrorism and that TB changed the wording in intelligence dossier to get the vote in parliament that he wanted. You can't impose democracy by force.
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/co ... 12.htm#a90
From the report
v) Mr Alastair Campbell made it clear to Mr Scarlett on behalf of the Prime Minister that 10 Downing Street wanted the dossier to be worded to make as strong a case as possible in relation to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's WMD, and 10 Downing Street made written suggestions to Mr Scarlett as to changes in the wording of the draft dossier which would strengthen it. But Mr Campbell recognised, and told Mr Scarlett that 10 Downing Street recognised, that nothing should be stated in the dossier with which the intelligence community were not entirely happy.
(vi) Mr Scarlett accepted some of the drafting suggestions made to him by 10 Downing Street but he only accepted those suggestions which were consistent with the intelligence known to the JIC and he rejected those suggestions which were not consistent with such intelligence and the dossier issued by the Government was approved by the JIC.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/hutton/story/ ... 29,00.html
The former BBC chairman Gavyn Davies today writes about the events that led to his departure from the corporation, denouncing Lord Hutton's judgment as myopic.
"Inspector Clouseau would have been a more forensic sleuth," he says in a review for the Guardian of Greg Dyke's memoirs, Inside Story.
Mr Davies says Mr Dyke is right to lay the blame for the row at the door of Alastair Campbell, then director of communications at Downing Street - sparked after Andrew Gilligan reported that No 10 had "sexed up" the dossier that made the case for war on Iraq.
"Greg thought that Campbell was behaving like a 'deranged, vindictive bastard', on a verge of losing a set of marbles. In my view, Alastair has many admirable qualities, but was undoubtedly going through a bad patch which made life for the rest of us almost impossible," Mr Davies writes.
I particularly like the deranged vindictive bastard. Alastair campbell was elected by no one in this country yet he has more influence than any MP. Tony Blair is bad for our democracy.
posted by sarasara
I am ashamed of Britains half-hearted military effort in Iraq, but what would you expect when we are led by a French general and our Prime Minister lives in daily threat of political assasination by the media, his traditionally anti-American Labour Party and the unprincipled leadership of Michael Howard of the Conservative Party; the once great party of Churchill and Thatcher.
I presume you mean de builliere (not sure of the spelling) The name is norman, it means one of his ancestors came across with william the conqueror, most of our aristocracy have norman bloodlines. The labour party is not Tony Blair's he is only the current leader. Maggie did a good job of emasculating the tories didn't she? Pity we need a good opposition party to stop tony liar.
I'm ashamed of our military effots as well because we are there under false pretences. However, I do have more faith in the common sense of the british people than you seem to.
British Cowardice in Iraq
here it is...why post it again?? 
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
British Cowardice in Iraq
lady cop wrote: here it is...why post it again??
He's simply a stirring drittsek. Just look at the remarks he makes, without getting fired up about which country you live in, and what he's saying. He's putting forth points of view that are patently rather twisted trolling. Not really worth consideration IMO, let alone reply (sorry, gmc!).
He's simply a stirring drittsek. Just look at the remarks he makes, without getting fired up about which country you live in, and what he's saying. He's putting forth points of view that are patently rather twisted trolling. Not really worth consideration IMO, let alone reply (sorry, gmc!).
British Cowardice in Iraq
posted by sarasara
Even though the US Forces have subdued the rest of Sh'ia and Kurdish Iraq the British have failed to move into those areas to free US troops up for the Sunni triangle.
This is the essence of cowardice. Compare that to the performance of US forces in the second world war when they saved our skins from Hitler.
Clearly you know very little of your own country's history. We saved our own skins from hitler the US only got involved later in the war. Yes the americans helped but don't kid yourself that we just sat around waiting on them. It's irritating enough when americans come out with that, you can make allowances, but if you are british as you claim to be you should know better. You've been watching too many american war films, naturally enough they don't mention anybody else.
posted by Bill Sikes
He's simply a stirring drittsek. Just look at the remarks he makes, without getting fired up about which country you live in, and what he's saying. He's putting forth points of view that are patently rather twisted trolling. Not really worth consideration IMO, let alone reply (sorry, gmc!)
I agree but I like a good arguement and if he starts thinking a bit more then that is all to the good. You find many getting interested in politics that start out arguing in a kind of "Brochure Speak" regurgitating arguements without really thinking about them. Why does he bother posting? Hopefully it's because he like s discussion. If he doesn't ah well his loss
Even though the US Forces have subdued the rest of Sh'ia and Kurdish Iraq the British have failed to move into those areas to free US troops up for the Sunni triangle.
This is the essence of cowardice. Compare that to the performance of US forces in the second world war when they saved our skins from Hitler.
Clearly you know very little of your own country's history. We saved our own skins from hitler the US only got involved later in the war. Yes the americans helped but don't kid yourself that we just sat around waiting on them. It's irritating enough when americans come out with that, you can make allowances, but if you are british as you claim to be you should know better. You've been watching too many american war films, naturally enough they don't mention anybody else.
posted by Bill Sikes
He's simply a stirring drittsek. Just look at the remarks he makes, without getting fired up about which country you live in, and what he's saying. He's putting forth points of view that are patently rather twisted trolling. Not really worth consideration IMO, let alone reply (sorry, gmc!)
I agree but I like a good arguement and if he starts thinking a bit more then that is all to the good. You find many getting interested in politics that start out arguing in a kind of "Brochure Speak" regurgitating arguements without really thinking about them. Why does he bother posting? Hopefully it's because he like s discussion. If he doesn't ah well his loss
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
British Cowardice in Iraq
gmc wrote: Why does he bother posting? Hopefully it's because he like s discussion. If he doesn't ah well his loss
Trolls can't *stand* being ignored.
Trolls can't *stand* being ignored.