[N8 v2.0]

... dorks.

No, not that Mike Rogers
Lansing City Pulse | 8 Jun | ANDREW ENGEL

A protest organized June 1 by MoveOn, a liberal political action committee, drew about 20 people to the Michigan Avenue office of U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Brighton. Demonstrators protested Rogers’ ties to embattled House Majority Leader Tom Delay.

There was only one problem: They had the wrong Mike Rogers.

Whoops.

 

[Damn True]

I'm hearing John Cleese, "Sorry......so sorry."

 

[Changleen]

Funny you can't see the extremely similar idiocy of your President's incursion into Iraq after being attacked by Saudi Arabia.

 

[mack]

"It’s unfortunate that we had this inaccuracy," Alexander said. "We didn’t attempt to mislead anyone."

Right..., but your from MoveOn.org?

 

[johnnylovegod]

Yes, move on.org and Micheal Moore may do and say some pretty dumb things and make silly mistakes.

But at least their mistakes don't cost thousands of lives.

Fighting a violent reaction, with a violent reaction......Oooooh, kaaaayyeeee

Here's a little something I found in an Australian newspaper. Quite interesting I think. He was a hero bfore he'd even been into combat, now that he has, they wish he'd go away......

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Questions-for-Tim-Collins/2005/06/12/1118514914282.html

Questions for Tim Collins
June 12, 2005
The Sun-Herald


Colonel Tim Collins's powerful 2003 speech to his men before they went to war in Iraq gained international attention. Now he feels betrayed by the politicians and military leaders who sent them to war and he has quit the British army. Interview by Frank Walker.

You gave such an optimistic speech to your troops before you went into Iraq. Do you think it was all worth it?

In hindsight there was a certain naivety about it. What I was saying to the Irish contingent in our group was to reflect on all the hopes and aspirations of what we were doing, but the evidence of preparedness for putting Iraq back on its feet is scant. It was more incompetence than malice, but it is regrettable.

What went through your mind in making the speech?

I was about to lead men into battle and they would be asked to take other men's lives and possibly lose theirs. I felt they deserved an explanation. I had also heard a lot of talk about kicking the Iraqi's arses and I wanted to make it clear we were going to liberate the Iraqis not to shoot 'em up.

You finished your speech saying "let's leave Iraq a better place for us having been there". Are the Iraqis better off now than they were under Saddam?

I think they will be, but they have a difficult road to go down. We heard that Saddam had a long-established plan for destruction should he ever be removed and we are seeing that in the attacks now. The Fedayeen (Saddam's martyrs) don't even have to do the suicide bombing themselves as they get more than enough volunteers from fanatical fundamentalist foreign fighters. They used to be bitter enemies with the Ba'athists but now they are unified against the coalition. When we liberated Al Amarah the place was a smoking ruin and in chaos. When we left water was running, electricity was back on, sewers were working and policemen were directing traffic. I wish that had happened across Iraq. Removing the police and local authorities elsewhere led to disaster.

Have the Americans gone in with the wrong attitude towards Iraqis?

It is a cultural issue and the historical tradition of America is to subjugate. We saw it with the American Indians, in Germany, Japan, Afghanistan and now Iraq. The tradition in Britain and the Commonwealth nations is to work in partnerships and act in concert. That has proved to be much more successful.

A lot of the US troops are National Guard and reservists. Are they well trained for what they are asked to do in Iraq?

They are well trained and they are an effective army. But a lot of these folks have very little experience or knowledge of the world outside America. Very few have travelled the world and they are not equipped to deal with foreign places.

In your book (Rules Of Engagement) you question the reasons given by politicians for the war, but you say it was worth getting rid of Saddam. What were the real motives for the war?

Lifting the burden of oppression from the people of Iraq can only be a good thing. But the White House and the British Government procured the war on the basis of an immediate and imminent threat. They presented it as an altruistic war to protect the rest of mankind. We have seen the evidence they produced was, at least, enhanced. They did interfere with the evidence to bring the people to that conclusion. It's the same as a policeman interfering with evidence to take a known murderer off the streets. It is regretable as you bring yourself down to their level.

How long will Coalition troops be in Iraq?

I see Coalition troops being there for a minimum of five years, possibly up to 10 years. It is too late now to dwell on the invasion and why we went in. Now we have to work towards helping Iraq stabilise itself and emerge as a free and independent nation. The international community has no choice but to get behind the Coalition for the good of Iraq.

Have we walked into another Vietnam?

We could turn it into Vietnam if we are not very careful, but I am optimistic we have learned the lessons just in time. It could become another Vietnam if there is over-interference in the affairs of the new Iraqi Government. We have to let them learn themselves. In South Vietnam the government was a puppet of the US, and you can't allow that to happen in Iraq.

You were congratulated by Prince Charles for your speech to the troops and President Bush is said to have pinned it to his wall. You should have returned from the war with honours, but instead you were accused of war crimes and your name dragged through the mud. What was behind that?

I still don't know. I was accused of things that were so minor and slight they should have gone away within days. But the army system with a lasting suspicion of the Irish launched an investigation which turned up all sorts of nonsense. It all became very petty and in the end there was nothing to answer to, but it all left a very bad taste in my mouth.

Is that why you left the army?

I was struggling to be promoted but I knew that the bond of trust had been broken. I felt it was time to pursue a new career as it was like a bad marriage. We ended on mutual agreement.

What have you done since you left the army?

I have worked with private military companies. I've written the book and I have returned to Iraq as a journalist for the Mail On Sunday to cover the election last January. I am now a professional heckler.

The battle group was mainly Irish but included Australians, Americans, Canadians, Nepalese Gurkhas, Fijians, South Africans and Zimbabwean soldiers.

This is an edited extract of Colonel Collins's speech to his men on March 19, 2003.

"We are going to Iraq to liberate and not to conquer. We will not fly our flags in their country. We are entering Iraq to free a people, and the only flag that will be flown in that ancient land will be their own. Show respect for them.

The enemy knows this moment is coming too. Some have resolved to fight and others wish to survive. Be sure to distinguish between them . . . if you are ferocious in battle, remember to be magnanimous in victory.

Iraq is steeped in history. It is the site of the Garden of Eden, of the Great Flood and the birthplace of Abraham. Tread lightly there.

In the near future you will see things that no man could pay to see, and you will have to go a long way to meet a more decent, generous and upright people than the Iraqis. You will be embarrassed by the hospitality they will offer you, even though they have nothing. Don't treat them as refugees in their own country.

Their children will be poor. In years to come they will know that the light of liberation in their lives was brought by you.

If there are casualties of war then remember that when they got up this morning and got dressed they did not plan to die this day.

Allow them dignity in death. Bury them with due reverence and properly mark their graves.

As for ourselves let's bring everyone home safely and leave Iraq a better place for us having been there. Our business now is north. Good luck."

 

[Damn True]

Translation:
The guy screwed up in the course of his duties while in Iraq, it damaged his career. He is blaming others for his own foulups. He is using his noteriety to exact a small measure of revenge.

All very childish Colonel. Be a man, learn from your mistakes, move on.

 

[johnnylovegod]

You've had a crack at the man, now try a crack at his argument.

but the evidence of preparedness for putting Iraq back on its feet is scant. It was more incompetence than malice, but it is regrettable.

When we left water was running, electricity was back on, sewers were working and policemen were directing traffic. I wish that had happened across Iraq. Removing the police and local authorities elsewhere led to disaster.

the historical tradition of America is to subjugate. We saw it with the American Indians, in Germany, Japan, Afghanistan and now Iraq. The tradition in Britain and the Commonwealth nations is to work in partnerships and act in concert. That has proved to be much more successful.

the White House and the British Government procured the war on the basis of an immediate and imminent threat. They presented it as an altruistic war to protect the rest of mankind. We have seen the evidence they produced was, at least, enhanced. They did interfere with the evidence to bring the people to that conclusion. It's the same as a policeman interfering with evidence to take a known murderer off the streets. It is regretable as you bring yourself down to their level.

There's a lot of material there for you to work with, I'm not sure why you're avoiding it?

Mistakes are made, but this one has killed far more people than necessary. If a proper amount of troops were in place to ensure the post-invasion/liberation security, the latent civil war we see now would have had far less of a chance to emerge.

Move On.org didn't make that mistake........

 

[Damn True]

You've had a crack at the man, now try a crack at his argument.

Well I stand by my assertion that this is more a case of sour grapes than anything else. He is doing this for his benefit, not out of some sort of sense of altruism toward Iraqis.

That said, I agree with some of what he had to say, and disagree with much. I'll be the first to say that the operation in Iraq has been mishandled on many levels.

When we left water was running, electricity was back on, sewers were working and policemen were directing traffic. I wish that had happened across Iraq. Removing the police and local authorities elsewhere led to disaster. When said police and local authorities were loyal to the old regime or to the "insurgents" the populace was best served by their removal. Counterinsurgency operations are improving daily.

the historical tradition of America is to subjugate. We saw it with the American Indians, in Germany, Japan, Afghanistan and now Iraq. The tradition in Britain and the Commonwealth nations is to work in partnerships and act in concert. That has proved to be much more successful.
I'll give him the Native American part, but the rest is laughable.
Germany - We kept the USSR at bay for over 40 years, rebuilt the portions of Germany not under USSR rule, and saw to the reunification of Germany.
Japan - Ask an 80 year old Japanese if they prefer self determination or Empirical rule.
Afghanistan - Ask an Afghani woman how things are going today vs in saaaaaayyyyy 2001?

As for the benevolent "partnerships" of Great Brittain.....Hmmm, India comes immediately to mind, Northern Africa, the 13 orginal US colonies, Australia, NZ all at one time ruled by a very heavy hand.

the White House and the British Government procured the war on the basis of an immediate and imminent threat. They presented it as an altruistic war to protect the rest of mankind. We have seen the evidence they produced was, at least, enhanced. They did interfere with the evidence to bring the people to that conclusion. It's the same as a policeman interfering with evidence to take a known murderer off the streets. It is regretable as you bring yourself down to their level.

Appearing to be the case. At this point I hope we can someday say that the end justified the means. What that might look like, I don't know.

 

[johnnylovegod]

Agreed and disagreed. But I guess this is what it really comes down to.

At this point I hope we can someday say that the end justified the means. What that might look like, I don't know.

I feel strange saying this, but I some how hope it doesn't work out the way the US expects it. This doesn't mean bloodshed, I don't really know what it means. My point comes from the accusation that the evidence for invasion was enahnced/manipulated (or however you wish to put it) and the claim for the war is quite the sham. Now the cause is liberation, this being a cause that would have been arguably more successful than WMD's. But the question still remains on what premise was the invasion?

Many theories ring of basic realist or RDM ideology whether it be control of resouces, whether that be for industrial strength or to control China's supply, or even if it be to spread western democracy. Some may even cling to the thought that it has something to do with terrorism/sept.11.

That is the question that needs to be answered before the long term value of the operation is weighed. For if it was for liberation's sake and democracy for "altruistic" reasoning, it may be a good but cautious policy. But if it was for strategic gain or ideological influence (kinda the same in many ways) it's not a good policy to encourage. If this action was taken on less than honest grounds a positive end may encourage further action of this type. Recent history is well marked by disasterous foreign intervention; Central and South America, Afghanistan, Vietnam and many other cold war victim states. It would be good to see an end to that sort of diplomacy.

Another threat is that it will encourage some of the conservative element in Washington that have a disdain for global organisations such as the UN, ICC etc. The idea of a strengthening unipolar world does worry me. Diversity is good. So I get this uncomfortable conflict that I don't want to see Iraq as a success. Yet I don't want to see anymore soldiers or civillians die either. I guess I hope that the ends don't justify the means from a strategic perspective, but I hope they do for everyone copping the hits right now.

I would also hope that for those who made the terrible tactical errors that allowed the insurgency to gain such strength *coughdonnaldRummsfeldcough* and too many servicemen die, that their mistakes are realised and not repeated!

End rant.

 

[N8 v2.0]

LOL @ anyone who supports moveon.org...

 

[BikeGeek]

the historical tradition of America is to subjugate. We saw it with the American Indians, in Germany, Japan, Afghanistan and now Iraq. The tradition in Britain and the Commonwealth nations is to work in partnerships and act in concert. That has proved to be much more successful.

BS! America's action against the Native people was learned from the British. It wasn't like America woke up one morning and said "let's F with the indians." They were simply continuing the course of actions started with the early settlers of this country, most of them English. Partnership? Act in concert? I'm sure India and South Africa have quite a bit to say about this.

 

[johnnylovegod]

Yeah she's a funny old statement that one, I'm sure there was a lack of reflexivity on his part concerning merry ol' britain's actions in the past. The US may not have the colonial track record that America does, but the US did play proxy politics with many a country after the second world war causing misery for many. that's pretty hard to ignore.

Not trying to America bash here, it's a symptome of power status. All great powers have many skeletons in their closets. I just fantasise that in these here (post) modern times that we could put a greater stop to this sort of diplomacy.

 

[Changleen]

the historical tradition of America is to subjugate. We saw it with the American Indians, in Germany, Japan, Afghanistan and now Iraq. The tradition in Britain and the Commonwealth nations is to work in partnerships and act in concert. That has proved to be much more successful.

BS! America's action against the Native people was learned from the British. It wasn't like America woke up one morning and said "let's F with the indians." They were simply continuing the course of actions started with the early settlers of this country, most of them English. Partnership? Act in concert? I'm sure India and South Africa have quite a bit to say about this.

I think he's talking about the British Commonwealth as it has existed for the past 60 years or so, not the time of the British Empire (100+ years ago) which was significantly different. Similarly he's talking about your modern relationship (past 60 years) with the American Indians, Japanese and so forth. In this case you can understand where he's coming from a it more.

 

[mack]

LOL @ anyone who supports moveon.org...

Take a page from your own book and... move on. Pussies.

 

[johnnylovegod]

Take a page from your own book and... move on. Pussies.

Can I ask why you think they are pussies?