Sunday Express Skeleton 24Th November...
Crosswords1 min ago
Did the General tell it like it is?
28 Answers
What is the opinion of the Daily Mail bashers now? Should the Mail have published the recent interview they had with the head of the British Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt? Or should all this have been swept under the carpet, keeping us in the dark once again to appease their critics, who somehow do not like the truth to be published.
Sir Richard stated that ' the troops are making the security situation in Iraq worse and they should be withdrawn soon, because we are turning tolerance into intolerance.'
He also said that ' we are in a Muslim country and Muslims views of foreigners in their country are quite clear. '
Back to the Daily Mail Bashers, if the Daily Mail is not fit to wrap your fish and chips in, then why did a person of Sir Richards calibre choose the Mail to interview him?
Sir Richard stated that ' the troops are making the security situation in Iraq worse and they should be withdrawn soon, because we are turning tolerance into intolerance.'
He also said that ' we are in a Muslim country and Muslims views of foreigners in their country are quite clear. '
Back to the Daily Mail Bashers, if the Daily Mail is not fit to wrap your fish and chips in, then why did a person of Sir Richards calibre choose the Mail to interview him?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Possibly because Sir Richard and I use different chip shops...
I'm not sure what your question is trying to get at. Are you seriously trying to suggest that people should entirely overhaul their dislike the Mail on the basis that it featured someone saying something they agreed with?
By that logic, racists should start buying Seachlight because it reports what Nick Griffin says.
I'm not sure what your question is trying to get at. Are you seriously trying to suggest that people should entirely overhaul their dislike the Mail on the basis that it featured someone saying something they agreed with?
By that logic, racists should start buying Seachlight because it reports what Nick Griffin says.
I don't know why he chose the Daily Mail to interview him, but I am glad that there is a man who apparently has great integrity in charge of the armed forces. Of course he should have spoken out, and his comments really are nothing but common sense ( and don't just apply to Muslims either, ask your average north of Ireland Catholic howe keen they are on the British Army in their vicinity etc etc etc). The man said what he felt he had to and you have to commend him for that. It's the Govt's problem they went wading in there in the first place, it's unrealistic for them to expect everyone else to collaberate in their lies to make the British public feel we did the right thing, when clearly at least a million of the same public that marched against the war before it happened KNEW this in advance anyway. It just beggars belief that Tony Blair and George Bush really thought we would be welcome in the first place, that's what I have honestly never got over, that they thought an occupying force would meet with little resistance and could ever actually help stabilise Iraq.
-- answer removed --
A balanced view, as usual, from noxlumos.
I believe the general is now furiously back-pedaling, trying to say that he meant the forces should leave "...when their task is complete ..."
Just who appointed their 'task' in the first place? The notion that one nation or nations can impart it's concept of 'freedom' on another simply because it possesses the milirary resources to do so is terrifying in both its arrogance, and the inability to see that maybe that nation won't be dancing in the streets weeping with gratitude.
North Korea decides to obtain a nuclear (or 'nucular' if you are George Bush) weapon, and suiddenly everyone is up in arms (literally) about it. Who made America the world's judge and jury, and in the case of a seriously large number of people - executioner?
I believe the general is now furiously back-pedaling, trying to say that he meant the forces should leave "...when their task is complete ..."
Just who appointed their 'task' in the first place? The notion that one nation or nations can impart it's concept of 'freedom' on another simply because it possesses the milirary resources to do so is terrifying in both its arrogance, and the inability to see that maybe that nation won't be dancing in the streets weeping with gratitude.
North Korea decides to obtain a nuclear (or 'nucular' if you are George Bush) weapon, and suiddenly everyone is up in arms (literally) about it. Who made America the world's judge and jury, and in the case of a seriously large number of people - executioner?
-- answer removed --
I think that the world does need a few bigger countries to keep the small (crazy) ones in check. 100 years ago this was not the case, but since the nuclear age and tin pot bannana republic can (try) get hold of some uranium and start making a bomb, with the potential to kell millions. And as fr the generals comments I like the man, and think he would make a great MP, BUT he is not an MP and therefore should not try to act like one. I think he has realised this, hence the backpeddeling.
No all my posts went and I couldn't post, but Miss ED says im not banned ?!?!?!
Anyways,
The countries and/or organisations (like the UN) will always be self appointed. On the face of it this doesn't sound very fair, but look at it this way..Germany tried to be this power in the 1930's , it didn't work. The Roman empire did, and it was decided that the British empire wasn't a good thing (in my opinion wrongly) and that to went away. So I see it as a self regulating system.
Anyways,
The countries and/or organisations (like the UN) will always be self appointed. On the face of it this doesn't sound very fair, but look at it this way..Germany tried to be this power in the 1930's , it didn't work. The Roman empire did, and it was decided that the British empire wasn't a good thing (in my opinion wrongly) and that to went away. So I see it as a self regulating system.
First, I think he was a little naive to say what he did, having said that, he has a point, because whenever 'Peace Keeping Troops' are deployed, they become a focal point, and as long as they are out there, there will never be a peace.
Take Northern Ireland, for example, in the end, it was the politicians who have agreed a soert of peace, although the tensions will never die, and the likelihood of of the troubles restarting, is quite high, (sorry Nox), thats my view.
Back to Iraq, I don't know what the solution is, probably no-one does, but we can't now come out, after the mess we've made of it, if we come out, we'll leave behind a country that in all probability, once, and if, the internal fighting stops, a country that will become a base to attack us from.
Take Northern Ireland, for example, in the end, it was the politicians who have agreed a soert of peace, although the tensions will never die, and the likelihood of of the troubles restarting, is quite high, (sorry Nox), thats my view.
Back to Iraq, I don't know what the solution is, probably no-one does, but we can't now come out, after the mess we've made of it, if we come out, we'll leave behind a country that in all probability, once, and if, the internal fighting stops, a country that will become a base to attack us from.
I have to agree that leaving Iraq unstable would be very stupid.
However the south of the country seems a lot more stable than Baghdad and an early hand over here would allow us to focus more resources on Afghanistan.
The temptation will be for the US to want us to redeploy any freed up British forces in Baghdad.
I'd say we owe it to those in Afghanistan to resist that
However the south of the country seems a lot more stable than Baghdad and an early hand over here would allow us to focus more resources on Afghanistan.
The temptation will be for the US to want us to redeploy any freed up British forces in Baghdad.
I'd say we owe it to those in Afghanistan to resist that
Oh dear Mr. general...say bye bye to your knighthood. opps sorry you did not have enough money to loan to this corrupt government so what the heck have a good and proper dig at them. Shame it took you so long to tell us what was plain obvious to millions of us. hey nedflanders give up you probably wont understand a wrod of it.
This is fantastic....our joker of a prime minister has stated that he agrees with what the general has said. How is he spinning this one????. So he agrees that when the general says that we are exacerbating the situation, that we are in a muslim country where they dont want us, that we should get out soon, so blair agrees with all that. Next he will tell us that he never said that there were WMDs but we were just dreaming it.
oh by the way ned flanders dont bother this is really going to be too much for you.
oh by the way ned flanders dont bother this is really going to be too much for you.
I'm always wary when serving military officers make political statements and think they have the answers to our woes. He should have made his comments in private to the Prime Minister and not spoken out like an elected official until he had retired or resigned. Pakistan, Burma and Thailand all had military leaders who thought they knew better than the elected representatives of the people. I hope Blair sacks him, even though I am totally against the war in Iraq.
I agree with suffragette. It is the job of the military to obey orders from the elected government. Thailand is an excellent recent example of what happens when they think they know better. They are entitled (in fact required) not to obey illegal orders - which covers war crimes - and retired soldiers should be able to say what they like; but when serving soldiers stand up and start arguing in public with their bosses over policy matters, you're on the start of a slippery slope. And I say this though I agree with everything Dannatt said about management of the war.
