Skip to comments.Soldiers salute General's comments on web forum [British deserting Iraq.]
Posted on 10/13/2006 2:49:42 PM PDT by familyop
The call from General Sir Richard Dannatt that British forces should leave Iraq "sometime soon" has met with overwhelming support on the unofficial Army Rumour Service website, which includes forums where officers can air their views anonymously.
Many express shock about the frankness of his words and there are several references to Sir Richards "moral" courage in speaking his mind, as well as calls for the Prime Minister to take heed of his remarks.
"...I am thoroughly heartened by this and have the beginings [sic] of a thaw in the cynicism which has dogged my service thinking since 2003," admits Jim_P_Pulfrew.
"I hope Blair is listening," says user Nigegilb. "Sir Richard has made the call and said it how it is. Good on him. Stand by for incoming. Getting out of Iraq is essential if [Afghanistan] is going to work in the long run. God knows what will happen to Iraq, not sure it will be any worse though. He made the point that we were never invited in we kicked the door in.
Nigegilb asks: "Can someone close to Sir Richard tell him that if he gets sacked he should run for office against whoever is the PM at the time. He will win by a landslide."
"Sir Richard, I'm saluting you right now!," says Purple_Flash. "It's about time someone of your standing actually lived up the Values & Standards that we so often pay lip service to. They are what should make us a breed apart; thank you for walking the walk rather than talking the talk."
Some are less diplomatic in their praise for Sir Richard and criticism of the Government. "He's [Sir Richard] got a hell of a pair of moral b***s on him, I'll give him that! I imagine B'liar is in a bit of a cold sweat/hot rage now," says 303SMLE.
"Politicians can't grasp the idea of someone telling the truth, they'll all just assume he is chasing some kind of agenda. (Arguably, pursuing the truth and bringing the boys home is his agenda!) This might turn out to be one of those moments when the world turns and Governments fall; I certainly hope so!"
Brewmeister adds: "I think even Teflon Tony is going to find it difficult to weasel his way out of this. If Sir Richard goes it's time for a coup."
Stooge notes: "I don't think his comments will 'fall on deaf ears'. I'm pretty sure there are hundreds of people in Whitehall who have by now heard about his comments and panicing [sic]. At the very least some of them will have a sleepless night trying to make this seem less bad.
"Also, this isn't someone with a political agenda. He's looking out for his own men. Even the public will see that."
It is not just the Government which comes under criticism over Iraq. Hereward says: "A real leader of men has spoken for once. Forget the feeble Mr Cameron and the non-existent Mr Campbell, the general is indeed the true moral voice of opposition in this country."
Many say the comments were long overdue and call for the Army to gather in support of Sir Richard should his position come under threat. "After years and years, AT LAST someone at the top, who makes the headline on the news, has had the b***s to stand up and be counted," says Brandt. "If he gets the sack, watch out for fireworks- If he has had the balls to stand up for us, we should do the same."
DigitalGeek adds: "The General has laid down the gauntlet to the Government. It is now time that we stood behind him." Drop_Short adds: "It is about time that our senior generalship actually stopped being part of the government and stood up for what is in the best interests of the Service. Bring on the revolution"
Even the few users critical of Sir Richard are keen to acknowledge that they agree with his apparent stance on Iraq. PassingBells writes: "Accurate and welcome though these comments are, they are not the sort of remarks that should be made publically [sic]. They are exactly what the CGS [Chief of the General Staff] should be saying privately
I fear that this smacks of naivity [sic] of his behalf and a serious lapse on behalf of his minder(s)."
Most users though, are wholly supportive of the Generals comments. At the time of writing, an ongoing poll on the site claimed that of 126 users, 78 per cent think he is "absolutely right", while only three per cent voted "he had to resign first before making such a statement".
Does anyone in the British military piss standing up anymore?
The Times, BTW, is one of the more conservative and pro-American papers over there.
I have heard more and more stories of how Politically Correct the British are becoming. I can see it with the French, Scandanavians, etc., but not the British. It's a shame.
We'll be bleeding again for Europe in the near future...
Imagine joining the limey army and getting sent to a war! Jeeze! No wonder they're pissing their pants.
The British "Army" has ALWAYS been an elitest POS.
No... not this time. Never again. If I could send the last two years worth of information back in time to a pre-WWII US Congress I would.
All this time the US protected Europe from Communism and they all want to go "Communist Lite". Let Europe rot in its socialist malaise. I could care less.
And me and you will be called all kinds of names by the Liberals calling for our intervention in Europe's demise.
Well, everyone has to make the choice of where they want to stand in this war on terror. The Brits are about to make theirs. We shouldn't be too hard on them. After all we, too, have about 50% of our population who are traitors. I just pray that we have the will and courage to deal with ours and not allow them make the wrong decision for us, as it appears poor England will with theirs.
Socialism breeds mediocrity and nihilism.
But I doubt this is an accurate picture.
Blair will be leaving soon. I wonder whether General Sir Richard cleared this with Gordon Brown before making his statement? If so, I would have thought they would at least have waited for Blair to leave office.
If anyone cares to read what he says - he wants more people in Afghanistan to destroy Al Qaeda, rather than prop up a three sided civil war with our own dead.
Does POS mean what I think it does?
We throw in the towel in Iraq, how long does anybody think we'll stand the gaff in Afghanistan?
...initial story (before newer details).
(British) General Seeks UK Iraq Withdrawal
...and politically related.
Brit foreign secretary slams terror suspects' detention
To call the British Army POS is simply disgusting and urinates on the memory of all the young men and women who have given their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Anyone can round of a bunch of malcontents and make a story about it.
If you actually read more than headlines and soundbites you would know he said we should get out any area that the job is done as soon as possible.
In his words: "when the mission is substantially done, we should leave."
Wasn't there another story going around that the gentleman's remarks were taken somewhat out of context, and that he was complaining more about the army being overextended than about the mission in general? Or did I imagine that?
I'm still shocked that a serving officer would come out and say something like that publicly.
But do try to understand, we love our British friends dearly but our plate may be rather full when you come crying to us for help this time. No hard feelings, though. We do appreciate all you've done for us in the two world wars, even if it turns out you lacked the starch to stick it out this time around.
Is there anyone willing to actually read what anyone says anymore, without coming out with tired cliches and old hatreds?
The UK has not sent a token force. In fact the UK forces are close to breaking point, there is that many around the world. (You have to take into account the proportions of the Army.)
As for the General and the rest of the British Army, they are screaming for much more troops in Afghanistan where the focus should be anyway.
Iraq's no mistake. Just take your boys and go home. We understand. Believe me, we do understand. And we hope you'll understand, too, when later we're fighting tooth and nail for our own survival and can't do much more than wish you well. At least that'll be more than Britain apparently wants to do for us at the moment. Just go home. No hard feelings.
The total military strength of the UK is about 250,000 including reserve components (Territorial Army and the like).
Once again you seem to read something not on the screen. Who said Iraq was a mistake?
As for the rest you sound a little childish.
The sun has set on the British Empire...
Yes but the Army is around 105,000 with around 20-25% on active duty in operatonal zones like Afghanistan, Iraq, Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Georgia and Ethiopia.
Did you know a guy called Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon? :)
Is the queen considered to be "in the military"?
That's because of his British roots.
No, it's because America threw those roots off twice in it's history.
Seems we're all in agreement. There's no mistaking what you sound like.
It should be easy to prove then?
America didn't pre-exist before the British people. It is great because it took the best of Britain and started afresh, without any baggage.
Why do you think you speak English and that you hear of Italian-Americans, African-Americans ad infinitum but no British-Americans?
America was not conquered - it was created by and for Britain, until those British people decided, quite rightly, to throw off the old cr@p. It was the British who beat the British. The settlers didn't come from mars.
That is why, to many American's surprise, American Independence is seen as a great part of British history and why after 9/11 it was possible for Buckingham Palace to play the star spangled banner. No other country would have that right, except maybe Canada, Australia or New Zealand. See the link?
You seem to be forgetting the French and Dutch...and by extension the Spanish. I guess you're not aware that while the first English settlers in the America's were struggling to make it through their first winter, a feat many of them did not master, there was already a well established community in St. Augustine (Florida) that featured roads and schools. But in the so-called original colonies, the English only made up a portion of the colonists.
"It is great because it took the best of Britain and started afresh, without any baggage."
LOL! Yes, we did start afresh by declaring ourselves free of the oppressive British government and monarchy and forming our own nation built on our ideals.
Agreed. There are few folks I'd rather have nearby in a fight than the British Army.
And who were those people of the thirteen colonies if not predominantly British people?
I think many Americans today think Britain conquered America and don't realise that those saw themselves as British-Americans or the British of America
Here is the flag George Washington flew in 1776. Here is how he saw himself and his people best represented.
(At the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776, this was the most commonly flown flag, and was present at the naming of the country, "the United States of America," on September 9, 1776. The flag was the official flag for the beginning of the American Revolution.)
French, Dutch and English in what is commonly referred to as the colonies, but also Spanish in what would become Amercia...England was only one element in the early days.
"I think many Americans today think Britain conquered America and don't realise that those saw themselves as British-Americans or the British of America."
Hardly. Many American's know that the English were one of four major nationalities that first came to these shores, but it was the united movement to throw off British tyranny in it's colonies that established what would later become these United States.
We liberated ourselves from England, totally. That is why America evolved into the nation it is rather then becoming a nation such as Canada or Australia...we are our own nation.
Nothing demonstrates that better then visiting a Provincial Capital in Canada and a State Capital in the U.S. The State Capital has a grand front entrance, through which all may enter. The Provincial Capital has a grand entrance...reserved for the "Royal Family"...it's own citizens must use a lesser entrance.
That is what made America great.
So George Washington and those at the birth of the USA put the British flag happily as part of their own and you can't see that significance?
But to be honest, If you personally can't even get the difference between England and Britain right, then what hope the rest of your personal pop history?
There were many individual flags in use initially, but by the time we took the Union Jack at Yorktown our armies marched under the Stars and Stripes...and I do see the significance in that.
"But to be honest, If you personally can't even get the difference between England and Britain right, then what hope the rest of your personal pop history?"
LOL! I'm sure your grasp of pop history is far superior to the grasp your nation retains over all it's many colonies.