Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Gates accuses UK of being 'defeatist' on Afghanistan

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 08 October 2008
THE United States defence secretary, Robert Gates, has accused Britain's military commander in Afghanistan and its ambassador to the country of being "defeatist" in thinking the war cannot be won.
Comments by Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith and the ambassador, Sherard Cowper-Coles, have been echoed by the top United Nations official in Kabul, who said success was possible only through dialogue and other political efforts.

But Mr Gates, who
is trying to drum up more troops for the conflict, insisted: "While we face significant challenges in Afghanistan, there certainly is no reason to be defeatist or to underestimate the opportunities to be successful in the long run."

The US led an invasion of Afghanistan on 7 October, 2001, to oust the fundamentalist Taleban government in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. However, security has deteriorated markedly over the past two years.

Washington is reviewing its Afghan strategy in a similar way to the 2006 reappraisal of its Iraq policy that led to a "surge" of 30,000 troops and helped to pull the country back from the brink of civil war.

Mr Gates said part of the solution in Afghanistan would be negotiating with members of the Taleban willing to work with the government in Kabul. He compared that to reconciliation efforts in Iraq, where tribal leaders have switched sides to fight the insurgency and al-Qaeda.

Asked about possible peace talks with the Taleban, Mr Gates said: "What we have seen in Iraq applies in Afghanistan. Part of the solution is strengthening the Afghan security forces. Part of the solution is reconciliation with people willing to work with the Afghan government."

Talk of negotiating with the Taleban also featured in the comments by the British commander and the UN official.

Kai Eide, the UN special envoy to Afghanistan, told a news conference on Monday: "What we need most of all is a political surge, more political energy.

"We all know that we cannot win it militarily. It has to be won through political means. That means political engagement."

The Taleban has repeatedly rejected the idea of talks unless all 70,000 foreign troops leave the country. "As we said before, as long as the invader forces are in Afghanistan, we won't participate in any negotiations," Qari Mohammad Yousuf, a Taleban spokesman, said.

On Sunday, Brigadier Carleton-Smith said the war against the Taleban could not be won and the goal was to shrink the insurgency so it was no longer a strategic threat and could be dealt with by the Afghan army.

If the Taleban were willing to talk, he said, that might be "precisely the sort of progress" needed to end the insurgency.

Faced with the reluctance of some of its European allies to send more troops, Washington has asked Japan and Nato countries to help foot the $17 billion (£9.7 billion) bill to build up the Afghan army.

The Afghan defence ministry says the cost of one foreign soldier in Afghanistan is equal to more than 60 local troops.

Washington's review of its Afghanistan policy has been characterised as a serious study of current thinking. But US officials concede it will probably yield only recommendations for the next president – either John McCain or Barack Obama – who will take office in January.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 07 October 2008 9:58 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta CA for more WAR VOTE McCain 08/10/2008 01:11:41
Gates accuses UK of being 'defeatist' on Afghanistan
-----------------

Gates is like McCain they live in angry cuckoo land.

McCain in Vietnam . WAR lost

Korea WAR lost
Iraq WAR lost in time.

McCain attacks Obama because Obama never says the word Victory about IRAQ.

Obama did not vote for attacking IRAQ.. McCain did

GC
2

SCULLION1,

Canada 08/10/2008 01:36:51
I think countries such as Britain and Canada who have put many of their young men and women in harm's way should have their opinions given some respect rather than dismissed as "defeatist".
(First and last post on this thread).
3

2dogs in D.C.,

08/10/2008 01:40:32
#2-Absolutly correct.
4

,

08/10/2008 02:33:09
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
5

Dragonhead,

Dalian,China 08/10/2008 03:37:22
Cowper-Coles and Carleton-Smith, in line for a knighthood,a seat in the Lords,or perhaps promotion? Gordon Brown has dealt with Afghanistan on a bottom line cost only.He has deprived British troops of the wherewithal to do the job effectively.They were doomed to failure almost from the beginning. He would love to extract the troops under ANY circumstances,even in abject defeat.He is a white feather merchant par exellence! His stance is an insult to all those who have done "HIS" bidding and died doing it.It shows his total lack of backbone.The sooner this vaccilating glove puppet is gone the better for all concerned. Never Quit!
6

SouthernGent,

08/10/2008 04:01:51
#1
Actually, the Korean war never ended. An armistice was signed, but technically the war continues - hence the DMZ which is still patroled heavily by both sides.
7

tomi,

08/10/2008 04:45:19
Whgat if Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith and been serving during the Second World War?
He certainly would not been a Montgomery, nor even a Paton!
8

Guga II,

Rockall 08/10/2008 05:47:25
Gates may not be a "defeatist", but he is certainly deluded if he thinks that war in Afghanistan can ever be "won".

It has been tried before, many times, from Alexander the Great through to the English and the Russians, and nobody has managed to "win" a war against the Afghanis.

In any event, why should our troops be there, purely to protect an oil pipeline for the war criminal Bush and his business buddies?
9

Pilrig,

Livingston 08/10/2008 06:00:49
7 thank God he aint a Haig
10

Leftie,

England 08/10/2008 06:08:11
Robert Gates is desperately trying to prop up the Republicans while in election mode and hold Afghanistan together with duct tape.
11

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta CA for more WAR VOTE McCain 08/10/2008 06:16:41
5 Dragonhead,Dalian,China

Hey Dude , Got those answers yet. on forced abortions and executions in your country CHINA.

GC

12

Rob Bennett,

Point Piper Australia 08/10/2008 06:51:33
Brigadier Carleton-Smith's comments have now been supported by the Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper on CNN. "I don't believe -- and I've said many times I don't believe -- that we can pacify every corner of Afghanistan as foreign troops," "I don't think it's viable, knowing the history of Afghanistan, what we know about it, to believe that foreigners are going to be able to run Afghanistan or Afghan security on an ongoing basis."

The opinion polls in Canadia show the majority of people oppose the Afghanistan mission.

Perhaps the only hope is to negotiate a deal with the Taliban.

13

drunken proffet,

Tassy 08/10/2008 07:29:10
Scullion, how the heck can you describe the English as cowards. Pompous, arrogant, live in the past, old school tie, and unusual sexual deviations. But that is the London establishment, the rest of England is a land fit for heroes and has plenty of them. However I am a Scot, live in Tassy, and voted for the SNP so my attitudes are maybe biased.
14

James Donald,

Newbridge 08/10/2008 08:21:58
It took 12 years for the British to subdue the Communist insurgency in Malaya and this may be the time span we are looking at before there is anything like a "success" in Afghanistan.
Robert Gates does not exactly have a wealth of military experience (staff job in the USAF in Vietnam) so he should listen to Brigadier Carleton-Smith's message that "the British public should not expect a “decisive military victory” but should be prepared for a possible deal with the Taliban". Same goes for the American public - expect a long war with an outcome that may be a compromise, not a decisive victory then home for tea and medals.
15

Boy Wonder,

08/10/2008 08:22:01
Gates has clearly no sense of military history regarding Afghanistan.

So, what does he propose to actually win this unwinnable war??? Bomb it off the face the Earth??
16

Mikey,

08/10/2008 08:56:48
Yep, that's the American Way! They have no tactics, no strategy and their only way forward is to commit more and more troops to try and win by force of numbers. Again!

We should be listening to the troops on the ground, not some armchair general in Washington that really doesn't have a clue.

The word is not 'defeatist,' Mr Gates, it's 'realist,' a word you are obviously not familiar with!
17

57Nomad,

california 08/10/2008 10:03:36
#16 BW

BW said:

"So, what does he propose to actually win this unwinnable war?"

"unwinnable war," ?!?!?!? Would you say that if the coalition left Afghanistan to the tender mercies of the Taleban, that that would constitute a loss for us? Of course you would and so would everyone else. But, doesn't this mean somebody won? Yes, if you don't have a winner then you can't have a loser, can you? Consequently, there is an internal inconsistency in your analysis.

If, when we eventually leave, the common opinion is that we left because the mission was completed that would constitute a win. You have called the war unwinnable, but that's just a rhetorical device, right? You don't really mean that. You mean, "in order to win this war one must resign oneself to years of unpleasant campaigning." Obviously, you aren't in the mood for unpleasant campaigning of even very short durations are you?

Here is something that might interest you.

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/southasia/features/article_1435038.php/Uprising_against_Taliban_spreads_in_Pakistans_tribal_region__News_Feature__

One more thing. If you can say categorically that this is an unwinnable war you are implying that you can see the future. You don't have a clue as to how the war in Afghanistan is going to play out and neither does anyone else. If it was any other way, they wouldn't be fighting, would they? Both sides believe they can win, if they didn't they wouldn't fight at all. But this brings us to the final point. The same scenario that came to pass in Iraq has happened in Pakistan.

The brutality of the Taleban shocked the tribes and they didn't appreciate the fact that the guests they had been giving refuge to were saying 'thanks' was by imposing harsh Taleban rule and ruthlessly punishing any one they felt had strayed the path.

It turns out that your average sheik is a guy who is pretty well set in his ways and having the Arabs sashaying all over the place, heavily a
18

57Nomad,

08/10/2008 10:07:00
#28 contd.

It turns out that your average sheik is a guy who is pretty well set in his ways and having Arabs sashaying all over the place, heavily armed, not the kind of guys you wanna start telling Mohammed jokes to, started to get under their skin.

So, the locals are turning on the Taleban in Pakistan. But the most telling conclusion is this. After being in the war with us for six years Pakistan has signaled who it believes is winning. If they believed that we were going to run, Pakistan would be distance itself from us. So would everyone else.

They think we are going to win and they are going to help us round up all the baddies in the same fashion as the Iraqi Sunnis are doing with great success.
19

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 08/10/2008 10:22:46
3 2 dogs in D.C.

Canada has lost almost 100 brave and loyal Canadian soldiers - men AND women - and our opinions DO count.

Who is this idiot Gates to bandy about the word "defeatist".

Just shows you that the power structure in Washington is dysfunctional, out of touch with reality, and self-serving.

And their Commander-in-Chief is that spineless wimp called George W. Bush.
20

Electric Hermit,

08/10/2008 11:27:50
18 57Nomad, california 08/10/2008 10:03:36
"unwinnable war," ?!?!?!? Would you say that if the coalition left Afghanistan to the tender mercies of the Taleban, that that would constitute a loss for us?

I note that, while you are readily able to define what constitutes victory for the Taliban, you are quite unable to say what would similarly represent victory for the invaders. The best you can manage is some vague reference to some unidentified parties believing that some unspecified "mission" has been "completed" - without saying what constitutes this "completion".

It falls to those who insist that the war of aggression against Afghanistan is "winnable" to stipulate PRECISELY what the military and political objectives are and the criteria by which the achievement of those objectives is to be assessed.

America's aim, in Afghanistan as elsewhere, is to establish a controlling regime which puts the interests of the US before the interests of its own people and which can be maintained at a cost which, if not acceptable to US taxpayers, can at least be concealed from them. If this regime can be painted to look something like a democracy, that's a bonus.

Setting aside all the gung-ho rhetoric and taking a realistic view, it is plain to see that this is simply not going to happen. Which is not to say that it is a practical impossibility. Merely that the cost would be massively prohibitive.
21

Scythia,

08/10/2008 12:08:16
I seemed to remember the same views being expressed before the (now successful) Irag surge , which leads me to agree with Gates. What sort of message does this send out to his OWN troops.This guy is defeatist.
22

,

08/10/2008 12:26:13
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
23

donald,

glasgow 08/10/2008 12:34:01
"Gates accuses UK of being 'defeatist' on Afghanistan".

That's cos they are losing.
24

,

08/10/2008 12:39:57
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
25

Lianachan,

Highlands 08/10/2008 12:52:05
#17 Hey! American's won nearly half of the wars it's been involved in!
26

,

08/10/2008 13:02:40
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
27

Lianachan,

HIghlands 08/10/2008 13:12:09
#28 Not at all. The more countries free themselves from the shackles of Britain the better. Hopefully my own country will manage that pretty soon.

I was mainly referring to lesser known conflicts the US has been involved in, like the Russian Civil War, for example.
28

,

08/10/2008 13:13:50
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
29

,

08/10/2008 13:15:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
30

Let's have the truth,

Queensland 08/10/2008 13:22:43
Gates is typical of the "shoot from the lip" mentality of so many of his cohorts in the Bush administration.

Britain's commander in Afghanistan said that the war was unwinnable given the current level of coalition forces. In fact, an identical point of view as Gates himself had before the "surge" in Iraq.

It makes you wonder if some of these people who make the decisions in Washington and shoot their mouths off before putting their brains in gear are washed up and past it.
31

Lock,

08/10/2008 13:38:26
Send in Stallone.

He managed to cooperate with the Afghan warlords in Rambo III and kicked some commie ass while he was at it. Surely that is better military experience than any listed in the thread so far?
32

JG,

Fife 08/10/2008 14:50:52
It's never been the same for the US military since John Wayne died. Aye, remember how he used to take down two enemy fighters with one bullet with only a drink of dirty water and a cigar to chew on? Oh, those were the days, eh guys???
33

Postmark-55,

China, 08/10/2008 14:54:54
I'll say it yet again.This is especially for 57Nomad's thick skull. No war can be won. War only produces loss and losers, it's as simple as that. Only the arrogant and narrow minded fools will believe that wars are necessary and that there's something to be gained, wherein reality all is lost. And America seems to be leading the pack with its arrogant and brutal slaughter of anybody that doesn't want this twisted form of Democracy.
34

Venachar,

08/10/2008 15:39:34
I would just like to ask Mr Gates if he understands the English language. He obviously does not! The Brigadier said that the Taliban would not be defeated by set piece battles. Tactical battles will be won by the UN forces, it is the strategic battles that the US do not have a clue about.

Just how many insurgency/terrorist wars have the US ever won?

How many have Britain won? I think I know where the experience and knowledge lies.
35

Ian Hendry,

Boston USA 08/10/2008 15:51:23
This nonsense about "the surge" being successful is just so much bunkum which suits the American military bozos right now, the real reason for the "relative" reduction in violence was the deal struck up with the Sunnis and has nothing to do with any militiary action whasoever...
36

,

08/10/2008 16:00:33
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
37

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta CA for more WAR VOTE McCain 08/10/2008 17:41:41
Gates suffers from a Napoleonic syndrome or a Duck's condition....SAS...

GC
38

Boy Wonder II,

08/10/2008 18:33:56
29 Lianachan

Aye, the wars they really don't fight in but are kind of involved in? You must really have issues.
39

Lianachan,

Highlands 08/10/2008 18:43:25
#40 No, I mean wars they fought in - actual, real US soldiers on the ground. The kind of thing you're talking about (I presume) is something else altogether.
40

SouthernGent,

08/10/2008 20:47:44
#37
And your connection to that information would be what? Are you saying you have been there and studied the situation, or are you saying you heard it on the radio and it fit your agenda so it must be true.
41

The Guga is hung like a midge,

Rockall 08/10/2008 21:03:42
#41 Lianachan

You mean like a war they might send in a handfull of troops to help out as advisors and then you claim that a loss for the Yanks?
42

Lianachan,

Highlands 08/10/2008 21:05:56
#43 I don't know how I can make it any clearer. Please actually read the first sentence of #41.
43

57Nomad,

08/10/2008 21:21:53
#21 eh

eh said:

"I note that, while you are readily able to define what constitutes victory for the Taliban, you are quite unable to say what would similarly represent victory for the invaders."

Your lack of knowledge is showing. What ever gave you the idea that the Taleban of 2008 are Afghanis? Are you catching on yet? The TALEBAN are the invaders. The Taleban are now a patchwork quilt of fragments of other groups and freelancers. Many are Arabs, many are Pakistani. That's why the tribes in the lawless part of Pakistan are now mobilizing against the Taleban. The Taleban have worn out their welcome in Pakistan just like they did in Iraq. They did it the same way too.

The villages that gave them shelter soon found themselves tyrannized by their guests. Torture, random executions, etc., plus they usurped the local chiefs lawgiving prerogatives. That didn't sit well either. They have a nice advantage. They know exactly where every single one of the Taleban live. Beginning of the end here.

You like the Taleban. Why don't you invite a bunch of them to your house to spend the weekend.
44

57Nomad,

08/10/2008 21:58:04
#21 eh

eh said:

"America's aim, in Afghanistan as elsewhere, is to establish a controlling regime which puts the interests of the US before the interests of its own people."

Well, that's an imaginative outlook. Here's the deal, Sparky. When the Taleban ruled Afghanistan they hosted and supported the numerous terrorist training camps run by OBL. On 9/11 terrorists from those camps hijacked 4 American domestic flights and crashed three of them into occupied building while the forth, during an assault on the terrorists by the passengers, crashed and killed everyone on board.

We requested that the Taleban arrest bin Laden and hand him over to the US to be tried for mass murder. They Taleban refused to do so. This makes them complicit in the atrocity. OBL and the Taleban perpetrated and act of war on the US. We have every right to retaliate and times and places of our choosing. They invaded us first!!!! Not many of the invaders survived but that's their lookout. Nonetheless they attacked us. Unprovoked, pre meditated, cold blooded murder.

Do you expect us to sit back and take it? Sorry, wrong guys. They sent their bad boys to the US to hit us and they accomplished what they set out to do. We lost about 2400 people at Pearl Harbor, 9/11 cost over 6,000 lives. Because we are not a sophisticated people and prone to fits of adolescent sentimentality, instead of trying civilized conversation with the guys who were having teen aged girls stoned to death at the local soccer stadium, we attacked them back.

We rounded up our tough guys and returned the favor. That is why we are in Afghanistan. They attacked us. They started it. Now we're going to fight it out. Not much more to it than that.
45

James Donald,

Newbridge 08/10/2008 23:01:52
#46 57Nomad - "we are not a sophisticated people" - You got that right, old boy, and no mistake.
46

57Nomad,

california 08/10/2008 23:40:19
# 17 mikey

mikey said:

"Yep, that's the American Way! They have no tactics, no strategy and their only way forward is to commit more and more troops to try and win by force of numbers. Again!"

I keep hearing the 'force of numbers' term flung about. Normally it is stated in such a way that one gets the impression that the US armed forces though numerous weren't particularly good soldiers.

Another poster on here echoed the same sentiments. So, I will post this analysis of the Great War by Erich Ludendorff and notes from the The Marne-Drama of July 15, 1918, seen from the angle of a German grenadier and the Commander of the French 6th Army.

From the grenadier:

"Suddenly from the right there are sounds of sharp firing and screams. In the morning mist, in the high grain field, one can see storm columns advance, dressed in brown - Americans!"

and this:

"One only had to descend the northern slopes of the Marne: never have I seen so many dead, nor such frightful sights in battle. The Americans on the other shore had completely shot to pieces in a close combat two of our companies.

They had lain in the grain, in semicircular formation, had let us approach, and then from 30 to 50 feet had shot almost all of us down.

"The Americans kill everything!" That was the cry of horror of July 15th, which long took hold of our men. At home meanwhile they were sarcastic about the imperfect training of this enemy, about the American "bluff" and the like. The fact that on July 15th more than 60 per cent of our troops led to battle were left dead or wounded upon the battlefield may substantially be charged to his credit.

From the French:


"General Degoutte's Address to French and U.S. Troops, 9 August 1918

Before the great offensive of July 18th, the American troops, forming part of the Sixth French Army, distinguished themselves by clearing the "Brigade de Marine" Woods and the village of Vaux from the enemy and arresting his offensive on th
47

Electric Hermit,

08/10/2008 23:44:16
45 57Nomad, 08/10/2008 21:21:53
The Taleban have worn out their welcome in Pakistan just like they did in Iraq.

The Taleban!? In Iraq!? And you have the audacity to accuse me of showing a "lack of knowledge"! With a little more effort you may achieve the rank of buffoon.
48

57Nomad,

california 08/10/2008 23:45:04
#48 contd.

"General Degoutte's Address to French and U.S. Troops, 9 August 1918

Before the great offensive of July 18th, the American troops, forming part of the Sixth French Army, distinguished themselves by clearing the "Brigade de Marine" Woods and the village of Vaux from the enemy and arresting his offensive on the Marne and at Fossoy.

The magnificent results obtained are due to the energy and the skill of the commanders; to the bravery of the soldiers.

I am proud to have commanded such troops."

And from the German commander, Erich Ludendorff:

"...All [German] divisions [along the Marne] achieved brilliant successes, with the exception of the one division on our right wing. This encountered American units! Here only did the Seventh Army, In the course of the first day of the offensive, confront serious difficulties. It met with the unexpectedly stubborn and active resistance of fresh American troops.

While the rest of the divisions of the Seventh Army succeeded in gaining ground and gaining tremendous booty, it proved impossible for us to move the right apex of our line, to the south of the Marne, into a position advantageous for the development of the ensuing fight. The check we thus received was one result of the stupendous fighting between our 10th Division of infantry and American troops...

Erich Ludendorff

Maybe you know more about the relative fighting skills of various armies than Erich Ludendorff, but it's quite unlikely.



49

Electric Hermit,

09/10/2008 00:05:26
46 57Nomad, 08/10/2008 21:58:04Here's the deal, Sparky. When the Taleban ruled Afghanistan...

Here's the real deal, Sparkless. When the Taleban ruled Afghanistan they were being funded by the CIA and feted by the US government.

The Taleban had nothing whatever to do with 9/11. Any more than Saddam Hussein did. Everybody else on the planet knows who perpetrated that atrocity. How come you are the only one still in the dark?

And the Taleban government of Afghanistan offered to hand over bin Laden. All the US had to do was go through the normal extradition procedure instead of acting like a bunch of drunken, drug-crazed cowboys.

People like you are the reason the world regards Americans as bug-dumb, beer-swilling, burger-guzzling, gun-toting, lard-arsed, slope-browed, slack-jawed, nose-breathing, knuckle-dragging simpletons.

You must be so proud.
50

57Nomad,

california 09/10/2008 00:08:03
#49 EH

EH said:

"The Taleban!? In Iraq!? And you have the audacity to accuse me of showing a "lack of knowledge"! With a little more effort you may achieve the rank of buffoon."

You are quite right, my post was short a few words and I appreciate the heads up. What I was comparing was the similarities between the Talibs and AQ in Iraq in their relations with the sheltering tribes. Also, even though the names are different, AQ in Iraq and the Taleban in Afghanistan in reality, the same men are in both organizations. The Taleban of today are not the same guys that hauled ass in 2002, those men have been killed, captured, or are pursuing other career opportunities. They were all indigenous Afghanis. They aren't any more. Taleban, AQ in Iraq, it's the same group of knuckleheads.

Consequently, when they cross the border into Afghanistan, and they, not being Afghanis, are foreigners. Foreigners are generally eyed with suspicion especially when having crossed, they set about ironing out the final plans for burning down a girl's school. The names of the groups are inconsequential. It's the same bunch of Islamofascist jihadis, doesn't make a bit of difference which jersey they are wearing.

Oh, and thanks for the buffoon encouragement. However, I must demure. You, EH, from the distant past to the present and on into the future, are the Heavyweight Sumo Wrestling World Champion of All Things Buffoon, and I wouldn't dare intrude on your territory.
51

Electric Hermit,

09/10/2008 00:23:47
52 57Nomad, california 09/10/2008 00:08:03
You are quite right...

It all went seriously awry after that.
52

57Nomad,

09/10/2008 00:28:43
#51 eh

eh said:

"And the Taleban government of Afghanistan offered to hand over bin Laden."

Oh really? Who did they offer to hand him over to, the Uzbeks? They refused to hand over bin Laden. They refused to shut down the terrorist training camps. Maybe you want to keep talking after a guy has burned your house down and killed your family. We're not that kind of people.

And where did you come up with this:

"The Taleban had nothing whatever to do with 9/11"

Are you saying that the Taleban hosting of OBL's terrorist training camps, giving him shelter and support, is "nothing whatever"? The Taleban were indispensable allies to OBL. And, the destruction of those camps is one of the reasons that we have not been attacked again.
53

Electric Hermit,

09/10/2008 00:36:35
54 57Nomad, 09/10/2008 00:28:43

I'm sure the Bush regime and its accomplices are delighted that at least one moron has swallowed their propaganda lies so completely. It is actually rather quaint to find someone still peddling this long-since discredited BS. A bit like unearthing a time-capsule. Comfort yourself with the fact that you may be an archaeological curiosity.
54

Let's have the truth,

Queensland 09/10/2008 01:32:45
#54

"Maybe you want to keep talking after a guy has burned your house down and killed your family. We're not that kind of people"

Neither are they! How many innocent civilians have YOU killed today?

But you support and arm THAT kind of people. I don't think I need to announce who.
55

57Nomad,

california 09/10/2008 20:18:12
#56 lhtt

lhtt said:

""Maybe you want to keep talking after a guy has burned your house down and killed your family. We're not that kind of people"
Neither are they! How many innocent civilians have YOU killed today?"

Maybe you didn't read the entire thread. In 1993 they tried to blow up the Towers with a car bomb, they bombed two of our embassies in Africa, the bombed a navy ship anchored off Yemen. All this took place before W was elected. Then, 9/11.

You see what I'm saying here, sport? They attacked us, not once but repeatedly and those missions were planned at training camps in Afghanistan hosted by the
Taleban. THEY STARTED THE GODDAM WAR, THEY INVADED US!! Do you understand the difference between the aggressor (the guy who threw the first punch) and the victims of that aggression?

When one party is assaulted, any damage to innocents that takes place while the victim is fighting back is the fault of the aggressor, not the guy who got sucker punched and is fighting back. How many innocent women and children died as a result of the carpet bombing campaign of the civilian population of Germany? Who do you blame that on, Harris or the vile Nazis.

When one is attacked one is perfectly entitled to fight back. The responding party, furthermore, has no obligation to play by one set of rules while the enemy is not similarly constrained. We can do to them whatever they have done to our guys.
56

Let's have the truth,

Queensland 10/10/2008 00:04:37
#57

"We can do to them whatever they have done to our guys".

....you are intentionally doing it to innocent women and children which makes YOU as guilty as them!

By the way, it is debateable as to who attacked who FIRST. Look at Viet Nam as an example.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.