Corpson

QUOTE

Increasingly, it’s becoming a popular rebellion. A resistance group I recently read about, is composed of a doctor, a teacher and numerous other profesionals. They don’t want an American brand of democracy, they want true democracy.

What they want is not ‘true democracy’; but a political system with themselves in leadership. In these nations, this sort of continuing usurping and mutiny will go on, and only those who can exhibit tyrannical dictatorship can survive.

What fuels a ‘popular rebellion’? Is it a real cause? Then they should have rebelled during Saddam Hussein’s rule. What fuels it are demagogues who constantly strive for power, and an atmosphere of irresponsible security. Along with a first-time-liberation tasting population.

What I would suggest is use demagogues, and all the other finer arts to capture the hearts. There is a way and manner to penetrate the hearts of the non-English minds, and it is a very different art from that understood in English. It has been used (with much cunning) by many including a person called M. K. Gandhi, with stinging effect.

Create images of heroes and liberators that can give sweet thoughts to the population. And make them worshippers. They wont understand professionalism.

The worst vice of a fanatic is his sincerity-Oscar Wilde

Corpson

QUOTE

After the fall of Baghdad, during the looting and riots, one of the only buildings the American’s protected was the Oil Ministry...

Is there anything wrong in this? More or less, the most important revenue resource of this nation. Protecting it, was right.

Continued

A divided English front is the last thing the English nations can afford, especially at this juncture in history. And, possibly in the future also. May I borrow from the famous words that came from across the Atlantic in a more entangled scenario: either you all should hang together, or else, assuredly you shall all hang separately. (I changed we to you)

For, as I see the world mood, English nations need to increasingly fend for themselves. And, displaying dissension amongst yourselves is the last thing you can afford. A resounding reputation of a turncoat, easily intimidated, betrayer etc. can have severe repercussion on the security of each English citizen, anywhere in the world.

A historic record of having left the US in the lurch, in its hour of need, can be a very bad thing, when future enemies start stalking Britain. For the European Union itself, in years to come, can bring in enough grief to Britain.

LibDemUK.tk

QUOTE

judging on US abuse of prisoners so far it doesn’t seem right to have them in Iraq alone.

The so-called abuse of prisoners in US prisons, as far as I see is actually a very small thing, blown to sky heights. Not because it is not wrong. But, in the larger context of the war, for god’s sake, let the national media take proper care of national interests first. And, believe me, what has happened is nothing to compare with what can happen to prisoners of war in many other nations. And no nation, with some sense, allows rights to seek judicial intervention to enemy prisoners.

nikachu

QUOTE

We depend on a stable Middle East for oil..

No one can sit on an oil barrel forever. They have to sell.

Sue

QUOTE

as long as the americans are there and they will be for a very very very long time, unfortunately, we will be forced to stay there with them

Oldfred

QUOTE

Is another Vietnam waiting at the end of a long dark tunnel? It is certainly looking more and more likely as far as I can see.

It can be a long road, and a cul de sac at that, if a war is conducted on the lines of a demonstration of a laboratory experiment in front of school students. What should be aimed at should be results, not display of the practise of the theories of jurisprudence. And a nation, which goes on debating (and bickering) on the various moral and ethical aspects of each and every action, won’t be able to make much headway. And a soldiery that has to fend for itself at home after the war, for fighting actions done during the heat of war, is to be pitied.

If victory is achieved, one can fend off the accusations; if it is lost, what you have done can remain as a piece of villainy and rascality of the highest order.

What is required is to achieve a level of endearment of the local natives. For, even though they may have lived in thralldom for years, and years, they still in their simple minds can very easily succumb to the stirring words of a local demagogue. So that liberators shall turn into oppressors.

The English have displayed historic weakness in consolidating the support of the sections who really remain mute in their understandings, intimidated by the sound and fury of the vocal opposition, which may actually be a minority. If any Englishman is asked of what is the positive benefit he and his countrymen have brought in, most probably the answer would be of a very confused nature; and also of a level, which is very much uninteresting to the local man. The Englishman himself would be seen to have a very guilty feeling of existing in sharp contrast to the social levels of the natives. He possibly comes to think that the plight of the natives is his doing, and not something, which was inherent to that society.

nikachu

QUOTE

we could get some other EU/NATO/UN countries involved to share the burden

Blairite

QUOTE

The French and Germans will never go for it, they’re still holding a grudge. :thumbsdown: They’re ones to say i told you so

It is the historic mistake of the British to have, in many places, handed over the reins to persons who inherently carry anti-British feelings. If the place is handed over to the UN, the Germans, or the French, in years to come, British soldiers would have to face grievous accusations in international courts. You, yourself have been giving credence to such nonsense, which in a few years time would be the breeding ground of anti-English nation propaganda.

oldfred.

QUOTE

We started the job and should stay until it’s finished

Sue

QUOTE

waited over a decade before deciding to take action in iraq.

I do believe that if the leadership of the first Gulf War had been in British hands, the task would have been over at that time itself. The problem with the US is that it is increasingly becoming a nation with conflicting interests- and philosophies.

gideon2000uk

QUOTE

however if you are reffering to Al Queda’s stated mission to overthrow the rulers of Saudi Arabi and set up a muslim exremist theocracy...

If one believes that what exists now in Saudi Arabia is not a sort of extreme theocracy, I hope to differ. It brings us to the question of why the English nations do not hear the voices of the downtrodden in the various nations, and not try to achieve a direct link to them, bypassing the projections of the ruling groups. It can really bring in a lot of international support. Right from South America, through Africa, Middle East, and to such nations as India, Pakistan etc.

And no need to resort to giving unlimited asylum or immigration to these persons. They can be improved right inside their own nations.

Oldfred

QUOTE

I certainly don’t with to go down the Spanish road of giving in to terrorism.

Fred

Last, but not the least, a delineation of what constitutes the British image as different from that of many others including the French.

When madmen seek to attack, the best offensive stance is to go mad; the fury that exudes can really intimidate. Your Prime Minister really requires the national support at this point. Not bickering.