in Blackpool, BBC News Online featured a few pre-conference puff-pieces, including one with millionaire* Lib Dem MP Lynne Featherstone, Liberal gets tough on pub hours, by Justin Parkinson, BBC News political** reporter, focusing on Ms. Featherstone’s “biggest hit so far”, her “querying of the impending liberalisation of pub licensing laws in England and Wales”.
Curiously, amongst all of Featherstone’s ‘tough’ words, Justin omits to mention the Lib Dems policy to legalise drinking at the age of 16! Just the sort of typical two-faced Lib Dem hypocrisy that any journalist worth his or her salt ought to be probing.
From Hansard, Jan 25th, 2005:
Kevin Brennan: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is Lib Dem policy to legalise drinking at the age of 16? Does he think that that will contribute to a reduction in binge drinking?
Mr. Foster: The answer is yes. I do not think that I could explain the position more clearly.
Link courtesy of the excellent, if currently somewhat sporadic, LibDem Watch.
* Not mentioned by Justin either. ** And here was me thinking they were all political reporters at the BBC – just like criminal lawyers: “why? aren’t they all criminals?” 🙂
I am not bothered enough by this woman (or any other LD) to do a full fisking but here are a few points.
“As a middle-aged woman I have a very useful skill for being in parliament: nagging”.
Just imagine the fuss which would ensue if a male had put forward such a stereotypical view of a woman.
“A written question about the number of drink-related deaths resulted in what the tabloid press would call a “bombshell”.
They had risen by from 5,525 in 2000 to 6,544 in 2004 – an 18.4% increase.”
The annual rate of rise over that 4 year period is about 4%. Not very nice but hardly a bombshell.
“Just look at how prison numbers have grown. There is no point to that unless it improves society, which it often does not.”
The meaning of this is somewhat obscured. Does she really mean that a growth in prison numbers sometimes improves society but often it doesn’t?
Even Charles Clarke now agrees with Michael Howard that “prison works”.
so the bbc won a famous victory.the corrupt kofi anan stays on at the even more corrupt united nations.
what did the bbc gain?
the reputation of the united nations is now even deeper in the sewers where it belongs.
the bbc takes our money to finance and push forward a world-view the majority of britons do not share.the end is nigh for this organisation.
not much chance i would have thought that ill-wishers like matt frei and alistair leithead would be refused visas to the united states on the grounds that they spread hatred of america.tony blair certainly seems to think that the bbc has a hatred for the united states.
perhaps biased -bbc could contact homeland security and inform them of this dangerous tendency at the bbc?
brian hanrahan has obviously been reading this site.for a few seconds he seemed to be in control of himself but soon it was all over.his dislike of the united states was there for all to witness.
brian hanrahan made a vigorous attempt to remind us of his days in the falklands (rather indulgently together with a picture of a youthful hanrahan)but all to no avail.
O/T
On 5Live this morning Sheila Fogerty asked a nice asian chap…
“So whats it like living in a ghetto – all be it a nice one”
LOL!!! hahaha!
Anyway, I almost crashed! You should listen to the interview anyway, roughly between 8:10 – 8:20 as our Sheila gets most annoyed by the very respectable chap who articulately makes her look stupid for asking dumb questions.
Blood pressure improved.
rob white
“blood pressure improved” is marvellous.
Don’t the Lib Dems also support 16 year-olds being able to enter sex shops?
Oh, Tunbridge Wells shakes with collective disgust!
Mind you, can anyone else see a Labour/Lib Dem coalition in the not so distant future?
Hank, you’ve reminded me about a news story from a few years ago.
An 18 year old guy married a 16 year old girl (with parental permission). Obviously, husband and wife had sex. They also videoed a few kinky tapes of them in action. Somehow (can’t remember how) these tapes came to the attention of the authorities. The husband got charged with possesion of child porn, even though it was his wife.
All a bit crazy: She was old enough to have sex, but not old enough to watch it on TV or make a video of herself.
Not too sure what happened in the end. I’d try to find out, but I’m at work and am a bit wary of googling “child”, “sex”, “offence”, “video”.
House of Dumb’s take on the loony Libs
But What If It Was A Terrorist Holding The Chicken McNuggets ?
http://houseofdumb.blogspot.com/
While they quail at the thought of legislation restricting the right to talk about the wonders of Jihad, they positively salivate at the thought of clamping down on people talking about tasty burgers.
what makes you think lowering the drinking age to 16 (like in eg. France) would increase binge drinking?
“what makes you think lowering the drinking age to 16 (like in eg. France) would increase binge drinking?”
Err, because this isn’t France? Because… why not look at actual examples of Brit-Yobs drinking themselves into violent beligerance in Greece, Spain, et al.
Any TV show about real cops policing real places.
Living in the UK.
Apart from that, nothing.
France has a real problem with under age drinking now. Kids of 13 and 14 walk around carrying a bottle of hard liquor. The preferred drink of boys is an unbelievable (can’t remember its name) mixture of half beer and half tequila. I can’t remember what the girls drink, but they all walk around with bottles of liquor, smoking. And this is in “good” villages. God knows what they’re doing in the ghettoes.
On the BBC.
This:
“This topic was suggested by John Farmer, UK:
Is the refusal of Basra Police to hand the two imprisoned UK soldiers over to coalition forces a sign that the Iraqi interim government has no control over its people?”
Turns into the following (D)HYS:
Should Britain apologise to Basra?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4263092.stm
Eh? We’re apologising to a whole town now?
Actually this is a good discussion:
“As the wife of a soldier currently serving a third tour of duty in 2 1/2 years I think those of you who are criticising our troops as beneath contempt. The soldiers in Iraq are doing a job that most “civilians” could not ever contemplate. The government are at fault not the guys on the ground. Does anyone in their right mind think that the lads want to be there? Do they think it’s easy for the wives and families?
Most of you are quick to criticise but not one of you would get off of your high horses and do something constructive. You all supported the troops in N Ireland and you were all grateful to them during the firemen’s strike. Can I suggest that you go back to leading your boring little lives and, if you feel you must express an opinion, make sure it’s about something you are qualified to talk about? I am very, very proud of my husband and believe that he, and his colleagues, are making a difference. Just read the comments from the people in Iraq.
Gill, Bellshill, Scotland”
Where do these absolute moonbats get their info from?? From the above (D)HYS
“What on earth were SAS personnel doing shooting at policemen in the first place? Was this an attempt to provoke insurgency? We will never know. But the speed at which the men were rescued hints at preventing the cat from leaving the bag.
Andrew, Liverpool”
BBC News site braces itself for more open user comments system
http://www.journalism.co.uk/news/story1526.shtml
I give the new system about 48 hours before the BBC realises it isn’t getting the PC discussion it desired.
If you read the article, it still states it will moderate “contentious debates” – ie anything involving Islam, race, multi-culturalism, Iraq, BBC bias or immigration.
(D)HYS will stay exactly the same. Bilal Patel will continue to get his views posted and the rest of us “not on message” will be ignored
since the iraq problem is the topic:
1 i was an earlier supporter of the war and thought we would be welcomed.
2 i was not misled by anyone on any subject.i thought that if we could help we should do so.
3 now all has changed.i think the iraqis are ungrateful and instead of being thankful are attacking western soldiers.
4 the daily deaths of young soldiers is a terrible price to pay.the loss of limbs is terrible to behold.
5 there is no sign of the war ending.it could carry on at this level of hostilities for a long while.
6 what is the best possible ending? what are we looking to achieve? i can find no encouraging answers.
7 so what should the west do.set a date by which the iraqis must look after their own problems and then leave.perhaps a year?
8 i have not mentioned the funding of this war.it is important.the united states can no longer bear this burden.
9 the hands of the united states are tied.america cannot respond to iranian nuclear threats for fear that iran may attack the soldiers in iraq.
10 i think the west went to iraq with the best of intentions.the situation has changed and it is time to leave.
New (D)HYS:
Is Britain becoming more segregated?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4259764.stm
“This topic was suggested by Tim Dennell, UK
Are we becoming a more divided country like America and will we end up with similar inner city ghettoes?”
USS Neverdock demolishes the US/New Orleans “nightmare” raised by Phillips
http://ussneverdock.blogspot.com/2005/09/uk-sleepwalking-to-segregation.html
Phillips has got is badly wrong. The UK doesn’t compare with the US in terms of non-whites reaching the top, take London: Chief of Police..white, Mayor….white, top of BBC….”hideously white” was how Greg Dyke called it. If anything we (in the UK) should look at the US in admiration as a country where you can reach the top whatever your skin colour.
r(R)ichard
3 now all has changed.i think the iraqis are ungrateful and instead of being thankful are attacking western soldiers.
You need to stop getting your news from the BBC. Sure, some Iraqi Baathists are having some problems coming to terms with the new order, but the attacks are very much sustained with money, arms and fresh canon fodder from Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran. THIS is what currently pisses me off about Bush and has done since the attacks began; that Riyadh, Damascus and Tehran need to be reminded of the awesome firepower of the US and of the folly of meddling in Iraq. I can’t remember Bush saying anything about this and he damn well needs to.
pete i just read a headline in the new york times
“basra residents angry with british troops.”
angry ? why? because we saved their hides? i cannot see any good from this mayhem.the sheer lack of gratitude is amazing.
the bbc is a joke.i have never ever taking anything they say seriously.
above all the fact that western hands are now tied and we cannot give the iranians the reply they deserve.they would attack our troops in iraq.
iran is the more serious problem.it needs our full attention now.
pete
you are right about the source of the funds.what can be done ?
any move in the direction of giving them what they truly deserve will send oil to usd 100.
OT:
The Spectator’s latest issue includes this snapshot life in our favourtie broadcaster:
Ethnic favouritism is also rife at the BBC, where cultural diversity has become a corporate fixation. One BBC manager admits, ‘I had a guy write to me the other day asking for advice on how to start a career at the BBC; he had studied at a red-brick university and done a postgraduate course at City University. I told him to forget about trying the BBC; as a middle-class Anglo-Saxon male you’ve got no chance.’ Even some of the ethnic minorities can feel aggrieved by this approach. Anvar Khan, a freelance presenter, has said, ‘No self-respecting black or Asian person wants to be pushed ahead because of their colour. It’s patronising. If anything, I think the BBC’s push to recruit and promote ethnic minorities will mean that the really bright black and Asian people will leave the BBC to go and work for companies where people don’t assume they’ve made it because of their colour.’
http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php?id=6657&page=2
Richard
The US needed to get rid of Hussein and the Taliban in order to surround Iran. Iraq is one battle in a wider military and ideological war, which started in 1979 in Tehran. We will see the ending of this war in our lifetimes, probably in the next 2 years.
This idea that the Americans have their hands tied and are running out of money is 100% crap. You’ll never hear it on the BBC but the US is now far more powerful militarily than it was in 2001 and has barely touched the iceberg when it comes to its ability to fund and fight multiple wars. Go to blogs such as Winds of Change and learn – you’ll see that the US have more men than ever before, have been arming non-stop since 2001 and could fight 5 Iraqs without being stretched.
As for Iran having the hands of the Americans tied, well some BBC hack may have led you to believe that but nothing is further from the truth. The mullahs are dead men walking, only they dont know it yet. History is littered with the stories of foolish kings and queens who mistakenly decide to take on superpowers. It’s going to be brutal, it’s going to be ugly – possibly using nuclear weapons – but you can be assured that the Americans are going to take down the mullahs. GW Bush is a tough, wily and ruthless President who is continually underestimated. The administration is setting the scene as we speak, so dont believe the trash the BBC feeds you.
It is ugly in about 3 Iraqi provinces, but that’s about it. However the coalition has a duty to stay and help Iraq reach stability, much like the allies did in Germany and France post WW2. Leaving them to the likes of Al-Qaeda would be a terrible, tragic mistake.
richard “4 the daily deaths of young soldiers is a terrible price to pay.the loss of limbs is terrible to behold.
I have sympathy for your view – i.e. is the effort in Iraq worth the candle?
However regretable as our losses are, they are miniscule for wartime casualties.
In general, we really must show more backbone in accepting losses when troops are deployed.
For example, even the BBC allowed a programme maker to state in yesterday’s programme on the Vietnam war that the US had defeated the Viet Cong’s Tet offensive. US dead were 4,000, the Viet Cong had lost 40,000.
But the US lost the war because Walter Cronkite’s reports from the front convinced US citizens that the price was too high.
“1 i was an earlier supporter of the war and thought we would be welcomed.”
Surely you didn’t expect Saddam et al to be welcoming??
2 i was not misled by anyone on any subject.i thought that if we could help we should do so.
Me I thought we should eliminate a terrorist training ground and friendly government.
3 now all has changed.i think the iraqis are ungrateful and instead of being thankful are attacking western soldiers.
It’s Baathist die-hards and foreign Jihadists who are doing the attacking, and their target of choice is unarmed Iraquis.
4 the daily deaths of young soldiers is a terrible price to pay.the loss of limbs is terrible to behold.
What do you expect? It’s a war.
5 there is no sign of the war ending.it could carry on at this level of hostilities for a long while.
Not really. The ‘Insurgency’ doesn’t have popular support – for obvious reasons – meaning it will be fairly easy to uproot, though it might mean going into Syria to do it.
6 what is the best possible ending? what are we looking to achieve? i can find no encouraging answers.
A stable, democratic, non-terrorist supporting government in Iraq. You must have missed the briefing.
7 so what should the west do.set a date by which the iraqis must look after their own problems and then leave.perhaps a year?
Let me explain this in words of one sylable. A deadline tells the Terrorists when they can come back, it has no other effect. Its done when its done and not before.
8 i have not mentioned the funding of this war.it is important.the united states can no longer bear this burden.
I don’t see anybody else stepping up to the plate, do you?
9 the hands of the united states are tied.america cannot respond to iranian nuclear threats for fear that iran may attack the soldiers in iraq.
Or contrary-wise we have a strong force stationed to attack Iran.
10 i think the west went to iraq with the best of intentions.the situation has changed and it is time to leave.
Riiight. The going’s got tough so let’s pull out and waste all the blood, treasure and effort put in to date. What do we care if Iraq goes back to being a terrorist supporting state eh?
Ted
Great comment. Thank God for a breath of fresh air, a hard nosed appreciation of the facts of life and a pragmatic appraisal of Mark Steyn proportions. BBC whingers – get used to it! More please. If only you had been on Newsnight last night to stick it up the effete Simon Jenkins. And what’s with Rose? What is HIS bag?
SPIN THIS BBC:
1 US army has added 3 full divisions in 05 – they are just now coming on line.
2 US marine corp has added 4 full divisions in 05 alone.
3 Air force has added a 2 attack wings a 1 bomber wing in 04/5.
4 Navy has added 15 ships to the fleet, multiple new weapon systems.
5 The US has drawn down force protection in place over sea mainly Europe , available force projection is up 100%.
6 There are still 4 divisions in Kuwait, remember.
7 The US actually have combat experience and are a fearsome fighting machine.
8 The US have 9500 known nukes.
9 G W Bush is a master poker player.
And Iran is surrounded by sea and land.
Stealth Edit Alert, unfortuntely I can’t take a snapshot of webpages so the fox has bolted. This page:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4269994.stm
GRIDLOCK AS MASSES FLEE US STORM
an hour ago mentioned that as the Governor of Texas has already declared a state of emergency, federal authorities have been able to move equipment, personnel and other resources into place before Rita hits. Well, well I thought, so the BBC isn’t wholly ignorant of how government works in the US, they simply chose not to mention this fact in its reporting Katrina. When I pop back a little later to mention it here … it’s gone. Poof! Nothing to see here, guv.
“you’ll see that the US have more men than ever before, have been arming non-stop since 2001 and could fight 5 Iraqs without being stretched”
This is such a profoundly ignorant comment it beggars belief.
There were in 2003, in terms of military personnel:
Iraq: 150k
Afghanistan: 10k
Balkans: 5k
Korea: 25k
Elsewhere abroad: 60k
I.e. 1/4 of its total military currently engaged. The professional US military is ~500k, the reserves the same again + a little more.
Typically, a military only ever has 1/3 of its personnel on active duty at any given time. I.e. about 350k military personnel, if all reservists can be called on. Even assuming increased rotations into operational duty, it is pretty obvious that the military would be severely stretched with another combat operation of the same size and intensity as Iraq.
And that is before mentioning cost to the taxpayer.
All this in the context reservists who will not want to be rotated in and out of war zones continually and falling recruitment rates.
“We have a chronic problem on our hands, not an acute problem,” said South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, chairman of a Senate subcommittee on military personnel”
Pete,
Gov Perry (R) of Texas appears to be on top of things. He made it clear in an interview last night that he us fully in control of his National Guard and his state troopers, not Washington. What a contrast to the dopey Democratic regime next door.
Not that the Beeb will report it.
CNN showed Galveston being evacuated with schoolbuses for those who don’t have their own transportation. People of all different races + socioeconomic levels depicted .
No race angle to pump up here, so the Beeb is silent. And the contrast between Galveston calmly evacuating with schoolbuses and the photo of the unused New Oreans school buses floating in the floodwaters — it would never do to show that!
Anonymous
You’re limiting your analysis to army in 2003, applying your own – wrong – calculations and treating the troop strength as a static event rather than as a dynamic flow : common errors.
Forgive me for giving precisely zero weight to the comments of a US politician on a senate sub-committee. I happen to be ex-military and am slightly better informed than you.
Anonymouse
You’re also ignoring my factual statements about increased US military strength in 04/5.
You must work for the BBC!
Sorry, I must make an apology re: my post about Rita coverage. The Beeb does show schoolbuses being used to evacuate people in Texas in a slide show linked to their main story. Kudos to them for that — perhaps they are unaware of how badly such photos make their “genuinely heroic” Mayor Nagin look now.
dan
thank you for your informative comments.
i do have one only comment to make because there is no point in pursuing this further.
re the 4000 american dead during the tet offensive.i think but am unsure that it was lawrence freedman the british military commentator who wrote that the advanced world is unable to take casualties simply because families have too few children.as we would expect when children are few then families are unwilling to risk them in war.the result is that the western public will not support wars that can at all be avoided.
i well remember the yom kippor when israel lost 2600 dead.it almost (G-D forbid) broke the nation’s back.
the answer in the future is to stick to air power.this does not have the same efficiency as ground troops but there is perhaps no other choice.
The BBC are scratching their heads over Trevor Phillips’ latest comments. I would have thought it was blindingly obvious – if you slavishly follow a policy of Multiculturalism, you will get cultural, ethnic and religious segregation. What else can you expect?
Supporters of Multiculturalism present the dangerous notion that all cultures are equal. On a global scale one can argue that this is true, if only to avoid a tedious argument with maniacs. Within national borders, however, it ceases to become an intellectual workout and instead becomes a matter of vital public policy. If an immigrant coming to the UK is presented, through the media and from the Government, with the opinion that all cultures are equally valid, why on earth should that person integrate with the majority culture?
Once segregation occurs it will inevitably lead to ghettos if one group does not posess the skills necessary to prosper in the local economy – and in most of the UK those skills include command of English at the very least.
The mess we are currently in is a bed of nails of the left’s own making, but I doubt they will agree to lie in it. They’ll probably just lie instead.
Richard
You are spot on in your comments about the lower tolerance of first world nations to death in combat. The reasons are diverse, but from first hand experience I think that our wealth and lifestyle teaches us that life is to be preserved at all costs, whereas our enemies often believe life is cheap and that suffering is to be expected.
The Mid East is a good example of the latter. In Iraq under Hussein and in Iran and Syria now, as well as under dictatorships in general, it is just expected that relatives may just disappear, be arbitrarily shot or tortured. There is therefore a lower expectation about life itself, as well as the possibilities life can offer. This is where extremist islam steps in and has grown.
Someone mentioned the execrable (Sir) Simon Jenkins and his appearance on Newsnight last night where he did his Chamberlain/Cronkite act. He was also on Radio 4 about 3 hours earlier where he stated; “just look at some American cites in the mid-west where fundamentalist Christianity has taken over”. (What????)
He was using this as a direct comparison to Islamist states like Iran.
Dear Simple Simon,
Don’t you know that in mid-western US cities, women can pursue education and careers, criminals are not stoned to death, there are no group hangings from cranes in public etc. etc.
This is what the cultural debate is coming to, and the BBC is not on our side yet we are forced to pay for it. It’s a bit like the family of executed criminals in China having to pay for the bullet.
Allan:
That’s the best analogy I’ve heard yet.
Rob
To be fair to Trevor Phillips, he has had flashes of sense in the past; suggesting often to his Anglo-West Indian compatriots that both racism and racial tolerance are two-way streets; that the indigenous British do not owe immigrants a living and that it’s up to them to take opportunities to work hard and integrate with the local culture. And to be fair to the law abiding West Indian influx, many have done so , having come from a broadly British culture in the Windies. But West Indian criminal gangs have been in cahoots with black activists since the early 1960s and protected by a shield of applied political correctness. This has bred resenment, even among most law abiding Windians. The bigger problem however has obviously has been virtually uncontrolled immigration from MANY areas, some inimical to British culture and the mainstream religion. I wonder how he proposes to break up the ghettos? Evict every other tenant from the streets, avenues and blocks of flats and replace them with various hues of skin colour like a bag of liquorish allsorts? Then transplant the evictees into leafy Surrey, having evicted and crenellated in reverse fashion the predominately white population? This is a free country and people can live where they wish to live. If they wish to cluster with their own kind, how on earth can you stop them, once they are here. People are more comfortable among their own people but those who are legally allowed to settle in this country should accept the culture of the country (if anyone can still define it!)or go someone else. As someone said on another blog, you can’t put this genie back in the bottle, because the bottle is broken.
While we are preoccupied with the internal terrorist threat, the demographic threat continues apace with the collusion of HM Government including HM Opposition (laughingly so-called). Prepare ye for Sharia Law.
I’m sure the BBC aleady has a course of basic instruction on DVD. Muliculturism is madness – and I’m afraid now irreversible until Islam decides that we are all Moslem.
OT
Question Time is on at the mo. My blood is already coming up to the boil, so I think I’m going to stop watching. Before I do though, can anyone confirm for me that the first question asked this evening “We should get out of Iraq now” (sic) was asked by someone from the British National Party? I must admit I did very much enjoy watching the bloke from the Lib Dems agreeing wholeheartedly from this guy saying withdraw, withdraw. Is this really the BNP party line? Not that I care tbh.
Er, or even “with this guy”
Is this really the BNP party line?
Yup. British independence from NATO, EU etc.
Of course a BNP government would see the country ostracised from all polite company.
BNP on the BBC? Oh, but the guy in question was merely a patsy for the BBC’s viewpoint on Iraq.
I’ve just visited the BNP’s website to check their view on Iraq and , although I’m none-the-wiser, there is a beautiful little ditty about a Lib Dem councillor who wanted one of the BNP’s councillors expelled from council meetings. The Lib Dem councillor said to the BNP’s man that “we don’t want nazis in this town”. But the BNP man is Jewish!
This is actually an eye-opener.
Extract from the extraordinary 54 page BNP general election maifesto
1. We will bring our troops back from Germany and withdraw from NATO, since
recent political developments make both commitments obsolete.
2. We will also withdraw all British troops with immediate effect from Iraq. We will
never again involve British troops in any more American ‘ wars for oil’ or neo-con
adventures on behalf of the Zionist government of Israel.
3. We will refuse to risk British lives in meddling ‘peace-keeping’ missions in parts
of the world where no British interests are at stake – a position of armed
neutrality.
4. We will restore the county regimental system and withdraw from the European
Union plans for an European Army.
Pete,
Regarding your comment, “…Riyadh, Damascus and Tehran need to be reminded of the awesome firepower of the US and of the folly of meddling in Iraq. I can’t remember Bush saying anything about this and he damn well needs to.”
I agree. I, too, get aggravated when Bush doesn’t say what he needs to say. This isn’t the first time.
Ted, I’m sure you are a military genius of note.
How much bigger has the US military got in actual terms since 2003?
10%? 25%?
Your statement that the US military could fight another 4-5 Iraqs is demonstrably plucked from your ass on a number of fronts.
1) A combat operation of the size of Iraq requires 150k military. 4-5 Iraqs = 600k-750k military.
2) A 10% growth in military = 105k *new* servicemen. 25% = 260k new servicemen.
3) I.e. even if the military had grown by 25%, which it hasn’t, 4 Iraqs would mean a full-time military force of 600k drawn from a pool of only 1310k servicemen. 5 Iraqs = 57% of the military engaged in conflict.
I.e. Ted is advocating
– rotating servicemen 1/2 instead of 1/3
– using reservists on an ongoing basis like professional soldiers
– fighting major conflicts with a high percentage of absolutely fresh soldiers who, due to their rotations, have limited time for training.
A recipe for success, I’m sure. But I bow to your superior military expertise, Ted.
Anonymous
YAWN
If the US wanted to fight 4-5 more Iraq’s, it could do so.
You clearly know nothing about real military planning, so let’s leave it at that, shall we?
Great answer Ted, full of rational argument. well done.
Ted/RB
How nice it would be to hear the MSM propagate your attitude a little more, rather than perpetually undermining the strength of the West by whining and self-hatred. Strength has to be explicit as well as factual and if it was explicated a little more, then our enemies and latent enemies would think twice before wasting their own resources. The allies picked on the biggest bully on the mid-eastern bloc as an example to others of what would happen to them if there were any more ambitious 9/11 type projects in the pipeline. In doing so they removed a Stalinist, nepotistic megalomaniac, cleared up UN unfinished business, corrected an historical act of cowardice and gave an oppressed region a chance of a better life (whether or not they choose to make it so remains to be seen). The cowards who want to diminish our strength and leave rational/peaceful Iraqis to the Bathist thugs and Iranian Islamic mullahs are beneath contempt. In any case most of the whingers are merely following partisan political interests not national or allied interests. Kicking at the US administration’s ankles while they are up to their asses in slime from the last natural disaster and facing one that may be equal or worse is despicable – but that’s socialism for you – utterly egregious!