| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 11:00 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| What is the purpose of such questions? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| What is the purpose of such questions? |
What is the purpose of such a question? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Orientation. Coordinates. Bearings. I want to locate this question and discussion in space and time. Where is it headed and will we see vistas yet unseen?
Or is this just another antiwar, antiBush piece saying "he did it wrong/they lie/or some other variant?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri May 30, 2008 11:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
It has little to do with Bush, and has hardly anything to do with our reasons for invading Iraq; it is solely focused on that one decision by Bremer. At least a couple of those interviewed in the video come across as supportive of the war in Iraq but felt Bremer's decision to disband the entire army was the most significant reason why Iraq had as many problems as it did.
Apparently Paul Bremer wrote an op-ed back in September explaining his side of the argument. The video is an attempt to disprove his assertions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I think its understood that the decision to disband the army was disastrous. It was perhaps the largest single unforced mistake made by the Allied occupation. Interestingly, although Bush is ultimately accountable, it was not actually his decision. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| I think its understood that the decision to disband the army was disastrous. It was perhaps the largest single unforced mistake made by the Allied occupation. Interestingly, although Bush is ultimately accountable, it was not actually his decision. |
Allied occupation? The British Army strongly advised against it but the Bush admin took no bloody notice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| I think its understood that the decision to disband the army was disastrous. It was perhaps the largest single unforced mistake made by the Allied occupation. Interestingly, although Bush is ultimately accountable, it was not actually his decision. |
Allied occupation? The British Army strongly advised against it but the Bush admin took no bloody notice. |
I'm sorry, I thought Coalition Provisional Authority implied that it was an Allied government. Ah, British resentment over the Iraq War: the most ironic kind of resentment.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| The video is an attempt to disprove his assertions. |
I guess I am simply burned out on this impulse: the impulse to expose the lie. And, underlying it, the assumption that everything anyone connected to the American govt has ever said is not merely wrong, or in conflict with commentator X, Y, or Z's perspective, but must be a lie. It strikes me as an adolescent impulse, "justified" by democratic accountability -- but we know there is more to it than just that. As former Ambassador to Chile Nathaniel Davis once commented: such critics only have ears to hear about egregious, indeed murderous, American wrongdoing. Anything less must be a lie.
This stupidity and intransigence notwithstanding, based on what I have so far seen, I think most historians, today, would probably conclude that the W. Bush Administration mismanaged an unjust war, a war of choice, a war that it promoted for complex reasons, and from its inception; and that this includes multiple ill-considered, perhaps rash, decisions, such as disbanding the Iraqi Army, among many others. And advisors such as Rumsfeld should never have been in govt.
But what is the story here? What is the new information? That Bremer's recollection and report of his take on events does not gel with this filmmaker's "investigative journalism?" Or that this filmmaker wants to take up our time to tell us what he thinks Bremer should have done? So what? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| I think its understood that the decision to disband the army was disastrous. It was perhaps the largest single unforced mistake made by the Allied occupation. Interestingly, although Bush is ultimately accountable, it was not actually his decision. |
Allied occupation? The British Army strongly advised against it but the Bush admin took no bloody notice. |
I'm sorry, I thought Coalition Provisional Authority implied that it was an Allied government. Ah, British resentment over the Iraq War: the most ironic kind of resentment. |
Why wouldn't there be resentment? There was resentment all along. For a short time, the lies and the enormous propaganda campaign did serve to create a majority (a very slim majority) support for the war. But there was a feeling that we had no choice anyway. That we were being dragged into it whether we liked it or not. And throughout the whole debacle (which is far from over) we felt taken for granted, especially when our concerns were ignored and our Prime Minister publically humiliated by Bush. So come again Kuros, why wouldn't there be resentment? There was never close to the support in the UK for this war that there was in the USA. The feeling always was that this was your war, and we'd been pulled into it reluctantly. Dragged into it by the foolishness of a Prime Minister who trampled all over the wishes of his people, lying and decieving to drum up our (lacklustre) support.
And here from that hated rag The Guardian on April 7 2004 :
Violence blamed on US decision to disband Iraq army
| Quote: |
Just before the war a year ago, Britain's top military officer at the time, Admiral Sir Michael [now Lord] Boyce, issued a directive to his commanders in the field to negotiate with senior Iraqi officers, the Guardian has learned. The idea was for senior officers in the Iraqi army and Republican Guard to help maintain law and order under the supervision of senior British officers.
"The last thing we wanted was to take thousands of prisoners of war," said a source.
British sources described the move to disband the Iraqi army as a huge error.
The decision was taken by Donald Rumsfeld, the American defence secretary, under pressure from rightwing "neo-cons" in the Bush administration, they say.
It is clear that British policy-makers are still seething at the American decision.
The British plan was based on the assumption, encouraged by intelligence reports, that many Iraqi commanders would switch sides immediately British and American troops entered the country.
Though the Iraqi army crumbled and fled before the invading troops, it was not too late, British sources insist, for the Iraqi units to regroup and help maintain order. However, any chance of success Lord Boyce's directive might have had was shattered by Washington's decision shortly after the war to disband the Iraqi army and to refuse to employ any member of the Ba'athist party.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
General Jackson was still mad about it fairly recently:
| Quote: |
General Sir Mike Jackson, the head of the British Army during the invasion of Iraq, has launched a scathing attack on the United States for the way it handled the post-war administration of the country.
General Sir Mike Jackson: 'All the planning carried out by the State Department went to waste'
The former chief of the general staff said the approach taken by Donald Rumsfeld, the then US defence secretary, was "intellectually bankrupt", describing his claim that US forces "don't do nation-building" as "nonsensical".
Sir Mike's comments - made in his forthcoming autobiography Soldier, serialised exclusively in The Daily Telegraph - represent the most outspoken criticism of American military policy in Iraq to come from a senior British officer.
His attack - the first time he has revealed the depth of his anger towards the US administration - highlights the deep-seated tension between the British command and the Pentagon during the build-up to and the aftermath of the Iraq campaign in 2003.
Sir Mike, who took command of the British Army one month before US-led forces invaded Iraq, said Mr Rumsfeld was "one of those most responsible for the current situation in Iraq".
Crucially, the general writes, he refused to deploy enough troops to maintain law and order after the collapse of Saddam's regime, and discarded detailed plans for the post-conflict administration of Iraq that had been drawn up by the US State Department.
|
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1561891/Gen-Sir-Mike-Jackson-attacks-US-over-Iraq.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Well, it is truly a hated rag, that paper. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 8:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Well, it is truly a hated rag, that paper. |
One day, just to make you hate it more, I shall roll it up and spank your bottom with it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It is kind of interesting that this was discussed. I was talking about this on Sunday with a friend of mine, and I brought it up. As far as I understand, the person who was before Bremer was against the idea of disbanding the Iraqi Army, because it would mean you would have all these ex-soldiers running around, and he didn't find that idea attractive, and who would be maintaining the security. Obviously, Bremer was very liberal with what he thought the US Army could or could not do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
