U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-21-2007, 05:17 AM
 
Location: Haddington, E. Lothian, Scotland
752 posts, read 597,906 times
Reputation: 175

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdizzle View Post
Britian's population is about 10% Muslim and growing. It is in their interest to leave Iraq in order to quell some of the angry muslim sentiment in that country regarding that war. I'm sure they'll be focusing more on home-grown terrorists and other things, especially cause they have a lot of them. If anything, this should free them up from distraction in Iraq.
This is patently false. Britain has 1.5 million muslims, just over 2% of the population.

The sentiment against the war has nothing to do with fear of muslims in this country. It has everything to do with the US and the UK going arm in arm into a war based on a bunk premise.

But MoMark is spot on that there are existential concerns in this country about the failed assimilation of Muslims. Much like the recent crop of Mexicans coming to the US, and might I say muslims have less of animpact on the overall culture here than Mexicans do there. But I part ways with him in saying that Britain's a lost cause. Many British people are quite fed up with bending over for people who insist on coming to this country and acting as if they're still in Peshawar.

Political winds are changing in Europe, and but you'd be mistaken in seeing their different approach to the problem as an indication of lack of backbone. The US hasn't got a grip on the radical Islam dynamic either, so do grant others with enough sense to see different ways to disarm it.

Last edited by FistFightingHairdresser; 02-21-2007 at 05:48 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-21-2007, 10:09 AM
 
Location: Small patch of terra firma
1,275 posts, read 2,130,207 times
Reputation: 536
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildberries61 View Post
If the Dem's had given more troops and funds in the first place we might be out of there already the Dem's suppressed Bush in the beginning by holding out they didn't want it to look like an invasion and wouldn't give money for more arms and better equipment.
Exactly when did Dems control the build-up of troops? Do you recall the following remark by Donald Rumsfeld “"The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far off the mark”. Is Donald a Dem who makes troop build up decisions?

Regarding money, here is what Donald had to say in January 2003 “Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that's something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question”.

Here is a comment from Paul Wolfowitz, another Bush advisor, regading the funding for the war and reconstruction “To assume we're going to pay for it all is just wrong”;

What is the latest figure you have for the cost of the war? Is it around $50 billion? Are we paying for some, most, all of the cost for the war and reconstruction in Iraq?

How did the Dems suppress Bush in the beginning when it was a Republican majority?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildberries61 View Post
I believe they have just as much at stake if not more they are surrounded and populated by the terrorists.
Are you implying all Muslims are terrorist?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2007, 10:42 AM
 
Location: Journey's End
10,189 posts, read 24,533,795 times
Reputation: 3826
See new thread on troop withdrawal here

Tony Blair announces withdrawal from Iraq
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2007, 12:46 PM
 
9,715 posts, read 13,000,268 times
Reputation: 3315
One of the biggest mistakes made in this war so far was not listening to General Shinseki (I think he was the head of the Army when the war started) when he testified to Congress (or the Senate) that it would take 400,000 to 500,000 troops to control Iraq after we went in. Everyone gasped when he said it, then Rumsfeld said we could do it with much less men.

So who was right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2007, 01:16 PM
 
20,396 posts, read 37,987,708 times
Reputation: 18214
Quote:
Originally Posted by UB50 View Post
One of the biggest mistakes made in this war so far was not listening to General Shinseki (I think he was the head of the Army when the war started) when he testified to Congress (or the Senate) that it would take 400,000 to 500,000 troops to control Iraq after we went in. Everyone gasped when he said it, then Rumsfeld said we could do it with much less men. So who was right?
I was still working for the Army, in the Pentagon, when this went down. Gen Shinseki was essentially fired for not going along with Rummy and for not seeing eye to eye with Secretary of the Army White. White was another of Bush's TX insiders... a former V-P of Enron... what a great credential to be Sec Army. White was sacked too by Rummy. I sat there and saw it coming, knew that Shinseki was on thin ice.

I sat at my desk and watched as Rummy, Bremer, et al, made every mistake possible... dumbfounded by such foolish things... such as what... like fully disbanding the Iraqi Army... should've kept that Sunni based Army and put them on the border with Iran... would've kept out thousands of wild fanatics now running death squads in Iraq, kept out weaponry, etc. More?... okay, they fully disbanded the Iraqi civil service, the very people who knew how to run the country... stupid mistake... left a gaping vacuum... even after WW-2 we left the German civil service alone, even though they were "card-carrying" Nazi's... they were the only ones who knew HOW to run the railroad and postal systems... their 'membership' in the Nazi party was meaningless, a pro-forma thing... the only way to have a job... most didn't care about Hitler... they carried their cards like we carry our supermarket shopper cards.

So here we are... in a real mess. There is a GREAT piece in today's Washington Post... this won't be the first time the UK failed miserably in Iraq, read the whole story, and see how our version of the Iraqi adventure sounds like a carbon copy of the British experience 80 years ago... read how the British people eventually took it away from warmongers, turned them out of office... sound familiar... read the interesting and not-too-long story at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022301746.html

Good grief.

s/Mike
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2007, 08:15 PM
 
8,581 posts, read 8,961,055 times
Reputation: 2382
Quote:
Originally Posted by madicarus2000 View Post
Exactly when did Dems control the build-up of troops? Do you recall the following remark by Donald Rumsfeld “"The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far off the mark”. Is Donald a Dem who makes troop build up decisions?

Regarding money, here is what Donald had to say in January 2003 “Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that's something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question”.

Here is a comment from Paul Wolfowitz, another Bush advisor, regading the funding for the war and reconstruction “To assume we're going to pay for it all is just wrong”;

What is the latest figure you have for the cost of the war? Is it around $50 billion? Are we paying for some, most, all of the cost for the war and reconstruction in Iraq?

How did the Dems suppress Bush in the beginning when it was a Republican majority?



Are you implying all Muslims are terrorist?
All Muslims are absolutely not terrorists! but MOST terrorist are Muslim!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-26-2007, 06:02 PM
 
1,393 posts, read 877,694 times
Reputation: 462
To the person who gave me a bad rep point stating I incited a riot with this question!!! I hardly think so since not may have replied to the debate. Some people have big push button attitudes and probably should just join the debate not, get mad over the debate question!!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top