You can't take these UK royalists anywhere!

BBC: Allies 'differ' over Iraq plans (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6296273.stm)
The US ambassador to Iraq has spoken of differences between the US and Britain over future strategy for Iraq.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42492000/jpg/_42492107_khalilzadap203.jpg
Zalmay Khalilzad said the US and UK were holding talks over Iraq
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6296273.stm)
Now as Americans know, Britain is maybe America's best of friends and allies generally, and although unlike the USA, Britain is run as a Kingdom, that hasn't stopped our nation(s) being a better ally of America in Iraq than, for example, republican France, who sent nobody I think.

Now maybe France's excuse is that, because they can't understand English so well, they find it harder to understand America in quite so much detail as we Britons do.

So although the royalists in Britain (they call themselves "The United Kingdom" - the UK) are OK some of the time, as Americans are now finding out, they are not always totally reliable.

So what is the alternative? How could America possibly influence Britain, one way or another, to become more reliable - and if America can't count on Queen Elizabeth to stand by America 100% when Tony Blair is getting weaker, who can Americans count on in Britain?

Well Americans can count on me - a British Republican - I am all for INCREASING Britain's force levels in Iraq to help the coalition take on Moqtada Sadr. Not surging for the sake of surging - but to get Sadr.

I would support a British force deployment in Iraq which was in the same proportion to our different populations.

If America is 300,000,000 people and Britain is 60,000,000 people - 1/5 the size - I would support a British force 1/5 th the size of America's force in Iraq.

So if America deployed 125,000 troops in Iraq, I would support INCREASING to 25,000 British forces personnel in Iraq!

25,000 British military personnel in Iraq - that's what a truly friendly, shoulder-to-shoulder British government would send to Iraq! I would.

Not just the 7,200 we have in Iraq just now. That is too little - but now the UK, the unreliable royalists, want to cut even that modest contribution down! What an embarrassment to America's loyal friends over here!

Now I'm a Scot and a Briton - a Scottish republican and a British republican. And I understand the issues about the war on terror. That's why I am America's real friend.

Now, how can America, how can the U.S. President help America's true friends in Britain, like me, politically speaking? How can America help me, to help America, in other words?

Well what about an inviting me (and other British republicans too I guess) to the White House? Or to the State Department in Washington, to meet Condi? Or even if I just got an invite to the American consulate in Edinburgh that would be a start!

At the very least, America needs to balance up all the favouritism America has been showing to the royalists when it invited Prince Charles to the White House, in November 2005 - remember?

Attention Americans! Who are your true friends? Not the Windsors!
I complained about that at the time - but did anybody listen? No! So please listen now. (http://snsb.byethost31.com/objection.htm)

Although Briton may have a fifth of the US population, our armies are not so propotional: Britsh Army = 100,000 + 42,000 TA, while US Army = 500,000 + 700,000 National Guard.

Stationing over a sixth of our (total) land forces in one hostile country is not a wise decision (in my opinion) while we have other commitments (Afghanistan, Balkans etc).

Why should Britain follow America's lead into a quagmire?

welll who gives a shit what brits think. We work unilaterially and thats how it should be.

I agree that the USA spends far too little of our GNP on the military. We should NEVER be spending less than 15% of GNP on the military.

Although Briton may have a fifth of the US population, our armies are not so propotional: Britsh Army = 100,000 + 42,000 TA, while US Army = 500,000 + 700,000 National Guard.

Stationing over a sixth of our (total) land forces in one hostile country is not a wise decision (in my opinion) while we have other commitments (Afghanistan, Balkans etc).

I agree well said.

Nice picture Peter:D

http://snsb.byethost31.com/scottishnationalstandardbearer_files/image004.jpg

I agree that the USA spends far too little of our GNP on the military. We should NEVER be spending less than 15% of GNP on the military.
the USA spends approximately 50% of the rest of the world, combined.

you are particularly radical in this view.

you are particularly radical in this view.

He is particularly radical on any view! Rabid in fact!

Why should Britain follow America's lead into a quagmire?

Well, we could start with our support lifeline in WWII, and then the expense incurred more heavily on us to keep the soviets from rolling over western Europe. Plus, I'm still a little peeved about that whole capital burning thing a few centuries back, time to pony up for that one. It's called being true to your friends and watching one anothers back.

Our Scottish Nationalist friend has got things ass backwards if he thinks the United Kingdom is in fact a "kingdom". The Queen is a Head of State, unlike (say) the President of the USA or France she does NOT lead the country politically, that function is the sole prerogative of the Prime Minister.
In theory any Parliamentary Act up to and including a declaration of War requires a Royal Assent, in practice the Sovereign has no "veto" power, what the government wants, it gets.

As for the UK becoming a Republic - do we really want a parade of retired politicians standing for "President"?
Imagine President Blair, or Brown or Straw? Oh God, give me the Royals, any time, they are harmless and the tourists love them.

I've been a tourist and didn't love em. I thought and still do believe that it's a complete waste of time to lavish so much money on silly icons. Now, a benevolent monarchy would be truly awesome form of government.

86Dude
I dont agree with having a monachy but the fact remains that those silly icons bring in much more money from tourism, than the taxpayer has to contribute to them.

Friends don't let friend drive drunk, you guys haven't been good friends..

86Dude
I dont agree with having a monachy but the fact remains that those silly icons bring in much more money from tourism, than the taxpayer has to contribute to them.

Seriously? So you're saying that the tourist money lets them live lavishly with no tax expense whatsoever?

I personally don't understand why anyone would want to see the palace when the can spend a weekend at the tower. 100 bucks to see that would still be worth the price.

Well, we could start with our support lifeline in WWII, and then the expense incurred more heavily on us to keep the soviets from rolling over western Europe. Plus, I'm still a little peeved about that whole capital burning thing a few centuries back, time to pony up for that one. It's called being true to your friends and watching one anothers back.

We have just finished paying off the WWII loans.

I'm off to Washington now with a box of matches....

Our Scottish Nationalist friend has got things ass backwards if he thinks the United Kingdom is in fact a "kingdom". The Queen is a Head of State, unlike (say) the President of the USA or France she does NOT lead the country politically, that function is the sole prerogative of the Prime Minister.
In theory any Parliamentary Act up to and including a declaration of War requires a Royal Assent, in practice the Sovereign has no "veto" power, what the government wants, it gets.

As for the UK becoming a Republic - do we really want a parade of retired politicians standing for "President"?
Imagine President Blair, or Brown or Straw? Oh God, give me the Royals, any time, they are harmless and the tourists love them.

Peter is a harmless loon. The Scots Nats mostly disown him.

But we have one thing in common, I am a Republican too. Any president would be better than a bunch of barking mad inbred Germans.

I'm off to Washington now with a box of matches....



Excellent, now that would be a REAL favor.

Seriously? So you're saying that the tourist money lets them live lavishly with no tax expense whatsoever?
I personally don't understand why anyone would want to see the palace when the can spend a weekend at the tower. 100 bucks to see that would still be worth the price.

The Queen and Prince Charles voluntarily pay income tax, in any case it is a fact that the Royals generate useful amounts of tourist income (even in their absence, foreigners gawk at Buck House and Kensington Palace).
The Tower of London is horribly overpriced, mainly because foreigners don't understand Sterling currency ("Stg100 - oh, that's like $100, right? - er, no it's actually more like $190...).
Since the Head of State in a Republican Britain would only have ceremonial duties, what 's the point of giving some fat cat politician $300,000 a year to lord it over us when the Royals have been trained for it since childhood?

I suspect that the Royalty in Britian is very much a money making enterprise for the Brits. I am a royalist. I like tradition and as a Canadian I am quite happy to have the Queen as our head of state. Britian will probably pull out the majority of its troops this year and its probably the right thing to do. However, a simple withdrawl in my mind is not the solution. Negotiation with Arab states is the only way out.

Although Briton may have a fifth of the US population, our armies are not so propotional: Britsh Army = 100,000 + 42,000 TA, while US Army = 500,000 + 700,000 National Guard.

Stationing over a sixth of our (total) land forces in one hostile country is not a wise decision (in my opinion) while we have other commitments (Afghanistan, Balkans etc).
Well from the numbers you’ve given, it looks like our regular, standing armies are pretty much in proportion to our population.
100,000 British Army = 1/5 of 500,000 US Army.

Whereas the part-time week-end warrior, reserve armies are way out of proportion -
42,000 Territorial Army = only 6% of the 700,000 National Guard.

So to be in proportion to the US National Guard of 700,000 our British Territorial Army should number 1/5 of 700,000 = 140,000.

So some idiot (New Labour) has allowed the British Territorial Army to dwindle to 30% of what it should be! We need to train up and add about 100,000 soldiers to our deployable forces. Now!

If we do that, we could deploy 25,000 Britons total in Iraq and still have loads left over for other commitments.

But Britain doesn't deploy forces that way, we dont just throw thousands of troops at a problem. We have a smaller force so have to go for a quality (I am not saying that the british forces are better than the americans, or anyone else here), rather than a quantity approach. Make the best use of what you have.

Hugs

lilnymph

Why should Britain follow America's lead into a quagmire?
We shouldn’t, go into a quagmire I mean. Though the general lead of going into Iraq to help bring democracy and freedom to Iraq is the right one - it is in everyone's interests for the American-led mission to succeed.

However, it would be much better if Britain would lead America out of the quagmire and onto the firm ground of the straight and narrow to victory in Iraq.

I’ve previously posted on forums pointing out when British generals give good leadership and what the quagmire is, and how to get out of it.

Here's one such thread on DiscussAnything, from October last year -

Iraq: Let Maliki die. Take out Moqtada Sadr (http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97151)

Although I have been busy on that since then, I note from searching here that I have neglected to posted my latest Iraq thoughts here. (Sorry) So what I'll do is quote a couple of my posts from early January (not posted on DiscussAnything before) here now before continuing with my answer to this post.


Iraq: a substantial and sustained surge in kissing up to Condi is required
ABC World News, January 5, 2006

Members of Congress meeting with the President to discuss Iraq Strategy.

So do they feel as they meet (because the President is meeting with them today) do they feel in any way they may be moving him, getting him to have second thoughts?

I don’t think so Charlie. …
they also say Charlie that there is a lot less kissing up in these meetings than usual.
Well it seems that some members of Congress are unwilling to admit that, thanks to the President’s administration and to Condi in particular, the Iraq situation is essentially strategically won for freedom and democracy in the long term and in the short term Iraq is merely a case of playing out the end game.

Whether we surge more troops in or re-deploy some troops out, so long as we play out the endgame with basic competence, we and the people of Iraq should win through to a just peace, sooner or later.

I prefer sooner and there the key is using the right political and military strategy and tactics rather than the total number of troops deployed.

I am very pleased to report exceptional success by British forces in the south of Iraq under Major General Richard Shirreff, which American generals would do well to note.

BBC: Back troops, says UK Iraq general (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6211949.stm)
Maj Gen Shirreff also referred to the demolition of an Iraqi police station as a turning point in the battle with Basra's death squads.
He made it clear that he remained "completely unrepentant" about the Christmas Day operation, despite some criticism from provincial council leaders.

BBC: UK troops storm Iraqi police HQ (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6208535.stm)
More than 1,000 UK troops have stormed the headquarters of an Iraqi police unit to rescue 127 prisoners, dozens of whom they had feared would be killed.
The forces demolished the Jamiat police station, which was the Serious Crimes Unit's base in Basra.
So I guess if there is less kissing up between members of Congress and the President at these meetings than usual it is a case of partisan rivalry more than anything else?

The Democrats - now that they’ve seen Condi liberate a country like Iraq from a dictator like Saddam - well maybe the Democrats are inflating their own egos by thinking along the lines of
Oh, so that’s how you do it! Oh, that’s easy! We could have done that! Now we know, so we don’t need Condi any more. We can take it from here. ...
As for the Democrats who are NOT thinking, because they are too stupid or something, they say that
The whole liberation of Iraq was a mistake and we should never have removed Saddam in the first place.
Well maybe such sentiments are popular with the mourners at Saddam's graveside but that is not a relevant or a significant constituency for an American political party to found its political strategy on.

I guess it is much the same as Britain after World War 2, when we Britons voted Winston Churchill out to bring in a Labour government. There’s gratitude for you, although Churchill’s war-time government was an all-party government of national unity (including Labour) and not a Conservative Party government alone.

Crisis over? War over? Don’t need a war leader any more?

Yes, the Democrats (or previous US administrations) COULD have defeated Saddam before now. But they didn’t. Yes, the Democrats COULD deal with the next crisis in good time, but I guess they won’t and then they’ll need to get down on their knees and come begging to Condi for help.

Well look folks, someone like Condi only comes along now and then in history. The world is not exactly over-supplied with messiahs now is it?

(Music Video - Messiah Condi, Executioner of the tyrant Saddam) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IglG_S_cIqM)

Video celebrating Condoleezza Rice's leadership role in the liberation of Iraq and bringing the dictator and mass-murderer Saddam Hussein to justice and his death by hanging.
Video shows Saddam's final moments cycled with video of Condi's victory smile seen in her first transatlantic live broadcast after Saddam's hanging.
Added subtitles - "Condoleezza Rice. Messiah of Iraq! Light of the North! Warrior Princess! Empress of Democracy! World Leader! Secretary of State! Future President! We LOVE you! We PRAISE you! Con-di shall reign for ever and ever! ... Queen of Kings! And Love of Loves! ... Hallelujah!"
So the world should make the most of Condi while she is still relatively young and at her best.

There are a lot of potential crises out there which could blow up any time. As well as the end game in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is Iran , North Korea , Israel/Palestine to worry about. Not to mention the festering problems of the other undemocratic regimes of the world.

The point is - it is not going to be plain sailing all the time and we need someone like Condi leading us well as much of the time as possible - and 2009 is a bad time to stop being led by Condi.

That means that far from kissing up to Condi less, we should be kissing up to her MORE, much more - a substantial and sustained surge in kissing up to Condi is required, so to speak.

Maybe, just maybe, if the American nation, figuratively speaking, puts its head between Condi’s legs and kisses up to her long and lovingly, maybe, just maybe, she’ll run for President (http://draftcondi.org/), get elected and keep America and the world safe, through to 2012 anyway.
Condi defeats Saddam. She wins again! MUSIC VIDEO.
Saddam's execution. Edited news video: After a generation of slaughter, Allah answers Iraqis' prayers and a saviour delivers them from the evil of Saddam. The saviour is our leader, who has led us to victory. Then Condi photographs synchronised to music - "You Win Again" by the BeeGees.
View Video on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDtGioyfVlU)

Download from DraftCondi.org (for Windows PCs. Right-click, Save Target As...) (http://draftcondi.org/media/CondiDefeatsSaddam.wmv)

Condi gave the green light for Saddam's execution!


U.S. Struggled To Delay Execution Of Saddam (http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=855a196b-4575-49d6-8b93-34e45fa0e72b)
Senior Bush administration officials in Washington said that said that Khalilzad's principal contact in Washington was
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and that she gave the green light for Saddam to be turned over to Iraqis, despite the reservations of the military commanders in Baghdad.

One official said that Rice was supported in that view by Stephen J. Hadley, Bush's national security adviser.
http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/7316/condienemiesdie670ol2.th.jpg (http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/7316/condienemiesdie670ol2.jpg)
Thanks to ImageShack for Free Image Hosting (http://imageshack.us/)



President Bush's new Iraq plan - strengths and weaknesses

Well of course there is a lot in President Bush’s new Iraq strategy but some points look strong to me and other points look weak.

Firstly, the plan's strong point, briefly.

The strong point of the new plan of course is that finally we might be taking unto ourselves the right to go after Sadr's militia and Moqtada Sadr himself.

While the Mahdi army in Sadr city are of course in Baghdad - Moqtada Sadr himself won't be - I guess he is in Najaf mostly - but if Maliki is serious (which I doubt) he'll help us arrest or assassinate Moqtada Sadr - give his exact location, time and place and so on.

In any case, we'd be better beating Maliki's brains out than allowing him to call a halt to military action against Moqtada Sadr and his militia commanders - that was the quagmire we were in.

http://eur.news1.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/xp/afpji/20070113/070113162941.g8a0uwcb2_us-secretary-of-state-condoleezza-riceb.jpg
MUSIC VIDEO
Tigress Condi - Should we beat Maliki's brains out?

View Video on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSeAdkhtZCQ)

Download video (for Windows PCs, Right-click Save Target As ...) (http://draftcondi.org/media/tigresscondi.wmv)


My analysis of Maliki's quagmire can be found here -



Iraq: Maliki is the wrong man in charge. ABC News report & comment (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rice-for-president/message/1239)

Iraq Study Group Report - wrong about al-Sadr (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rice-for-president/message/1296)

Secondly, what is the plan’s weak point?

Well the military have got to know this already - if you set up 27 small bases in Baghdad that is 27 significant targets for the sort of truck bomb that defeated the political resolve of the US to stay in Beirut in 1983.

Remember this?



The 1983 Beirut barracks bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing) was a major incident during the Lebanese Civil War. Two truck bombs struck buildings in Beirut housing U.S. and French members of the Multinational Force in Lebanon, killing hundreds of soldiers, the majority being U.S. Marines. The October 23, 1983, blasts led to the withdrawal of the international peacekeeping force from Lebanon, where they had been stationed since the Israeli invasion in 1982.
Remember Beirut well.

Because if our military commanders have forgotten …

(I think it was retired army General Jack Keane (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/26/AR2006122600773.html) whom I heard on the TV recently boasting that "the US, the only super-power, could certainly hold any city in the world" etc.),

... certainly Moqtada Sadr and Izzat Ibrahim ad-Douri, Saddam's Baathist replacement - our most-wanted "King of Clubs" (remember?) HAVE NOT FORGOTTEN BEIRUT and what our enemies need above all to drive out the American-led coalition is one or more bombings in the style of the 1983 Beirut barracks bombings to break the political will of the US to stay in Iraq.

Remember the Congress is already losing the will to fight on. Although the US military is tough enough to take a severe hit like that, the politicians are NOT - so we need to avoid such an outrage at almost all costs.

Now what our enemies need to hit us so hard is easy targets. So why on earth has General Keane recommended that we provide 27 such targets in Baghdad which will need 27 different supply routes to be defended too which all makes it much more difficult to defend our forces?

Better sticking to the green zone or having strong bases outside Baghdad pretty much miles away from civilians so you can spot your enemies coming a mile away etc.

So we are setting our own army up to be hit hard and I recommend against these 27 localized bases, well right now I do.

You see it might be different if we had much stronger political support in Iraq - such as we could have after we remove Moqtada Sadr and the Baathist insurgency.

We'd know if we had such strong support now if the Iraqis had been cheering Condi during Saddam's execution rather than Moqtada Sadr and if the citizens of Iraq were cheering our forces as they passed and were waving US flags - but they are not - their politicians are still bad-mouthing us to their supporters.

To be honest, it is a bit of a worry when Condi says (http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2007/78603.htm)



After all, this is the Maliki government's plan. They came to the President with this plan in Amman. They said, we need to put together a plan that will help us to deal with the problem that our population doesn't believe that we can secure them.
We might be walking into Moqtada Sadr's trap - following Moqtada Sadr's plan for us to make ourselves easy targets for his militia or other suicide bombers.

Now of course, it is possible to build very strong bases inside a city but it requires a huge engineering effort - to absolutely defend a base (such as the Baghdad green zone) from attack.

I don't know how many of these super-strong bases we can afford in Iraq - but I can bet it isn't 27.

First things first - we need to prioritise eliminating Moqtada Sadr and his Mahdi army militia - and the Baathist insurgents, and the Iranian infiltrators too.

That action is intelligence led and is carried out by large mobile strike forces who go after targets and who do not sit about defending territory waiting to be bombed!

Look guys, the penny has dropped with the British in Basra - they have used the right tactics and are now winning (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rice-for-president/message/1360). The Americans need to follow that part of the plan.

Sure that means that of course Baghdad civilians are still at the mercy of death squads and suicide bombers - of course they are.

But quite frankly, better that Iraqi civilians die than our soldiers die because we cannot sustain political support in Congress if many more of our soldiers are killed.

Look I know it is tough, but Al Qaeda's plan IS to draw us in - as we seem to be being drawn in with these 27 Baghdad mini-bases/targets - draw us in so they can hit us, HARD!

Al Qaeda, Moqtada Sadr and the Baathists are sacrificing Iraqi civilians in order to draw us in to become easy targets.

So let's not be sucked in to trying to police an untenable situation - we need to eliminate the enemy political factions FIRST before THEN policing will be possible.

So as I was saying in reply to JoeyNormal's post -

I’ve previously posted on forums pointing out when British generals give good leadership and what the quagmire is, and how to get out of it.

Neither Britain nor America has a monopoly of wisdom. History is littered with examples of Great British Military Blunders so we each need to bring the best of what we have to the leadership of the coalition.

So we can’t expect the Americans to allow British generals to command American forces. So Britain must lead by example.

We should deploy a proportionate force - I’ve suggested 25,000 Britons, take on more responsibilities in Iraq, maybe taking control of more land further to the north in addition to the areas we‘ve been looking after already, maybe as far north as Najaf or somewhere.

Show what we can do and if we are particularly successful we can trust that the Americans will follow our strategy and tactics elsewhere in Iraq.

welll who gives a shit what brits think.
Stand tall USA! But you Americans only embarrass yourselves when you bizarrely suck up to UK Royalty, inviting Prince Charles to the White House for dinner. :P

Why SHOULD you give a shit what Prince Charles thinks? No reason. Yet there he was - a living insult to YOUR AMERICAN principles of republican government enshrined in the US Constitution, being toasted as a guest of honour in your royal-for-a-day White House! :rolleyes:

We work unilaterially and thats how it should be.
Of course. Though as America’s friends and brothers, we Britons would like to watch your back, if that‘s OK, however confident you are.

Maybe Vietnam would have turned out better if the best of British had been with you then? I was too young then - born in 1960, so I don’t blame myself for leaving America to try to do it all unilaterally.

So to be in proportion to the US National Guard of 700,000 our British Territorial Army should number 1/5 of 700,000 = 140,000.

Why the need to be in proportion with the Americans?
I mean no offence to territorial soldiers, but they are not the people best suited to policing Iraq - I think Iraqis would do it better.
Where do you propose to find 100,000 men for the TA?
Are you/have you been a member?

We have a smaller force so have to go for a quality

This may not (problerbly wont) seem the best way to increase troop numbers in the British Army, but I feel the selection process for recruits should be toughened. Having been through this process myself, I noticed that ALOT of recruits did not pass a VERY simple maths test, aswell as other things that do not indicate great competency.

I think increasing troop quality rather than quantity should be a priority, as (this may seem obvious) better troops are far more usefull than large quantities of cannon fodder.