More British troops head to Iraq, Rumsfeld admits US failed over Saddam

[NNN0LHI]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030906/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_worldwrap&cid=1514&ncid=1480

<snip>Rumsfeld acknowledged that the US had failed to see off Saddam loyalists in the north, leaving the door open for attacks on its troops.

"One of the things that took place in this country that I think contributed to the circumstance we are in today -- the security circumstance -- was that the war was never finished," Rumsfeld said before leaving for Afghanistan.

"Most of the battles that took place were south. As Baghdad was approached, the forces north of Baghdad fought for a period but at some point melted into the countryside. snip

Former British environment minister Michael Meacher accused the US of using the fight against terrorism as a "bogus cover" for its real aim of dominating the world and controlling its energy supplies.

Meacher, one of the longest-serving members of the House of Commons, said in a BBC interview that the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States gave Washington a "comfortable excuse" to seize control of Afghanistan and Iraq.

more

[Nottingham]

1. Oh I love to see Rummsfeld admit he is Wrong!

This is just too good! Saddam must be smiling right now!

Rumsy should of all times not admitted this one

:crazy:

[Flying_Pig]

2. The thing that most confuses me, ...

is why, given the high percentage of people who are against the war in Britain, the citizens are allowing their government to ship still more troops out? Why isn't there huge demonstrations, like they had just before the war? Sending more troops out, is simply compounding the fraud that was perpetrated upon them, and lending support to the Bush/Neocon plan for the ME.

We're still marching here, albeit, in smaller numbers, but again, with so many Brits against the war, there should be millions on the streets! Why isn't there? Can a Brit answer please?

[htuttle]

7. I've thought about that in terms of both the US and UK

I think the reason the demonstrations tapered down to much smaller ones since last April is that a lot of people were quite frankly surprised that their government didn't give a crap what they thought.

Sure, those of us who've been activists a while were hardly surprised that Bush would disregard a few million demonstrators as 'focus groups'. However, the demonstrations in both the US and UK this last winter were full of 'regular people' who didn't normally get out into the streets. I think they expected to be listened to.

Not just regarding the demonstrations, but about the millions of letters and calls, faxes and telegrams we all sent to Congress over the last year. I think some were surprised to be ignored like that. I remember a lot of people talking about this idea of 'informational demonstrations' as opposed to civil disobedience, as if we only had to show government how we felt and they would listen (never mind that this has never worked -- it's CD that gets their attention, since it threatens their profits).

I think the internet helped us organize demonstrations of unprecedented size before the war, but at that early stage, people just weren't angry enough yet to scare the government into listening. They still thought we had a semblance of representative government.

Now the next step in the normal escalation of things, is that once you realize the government isn't listening to you, you proceed to shut it down via civil disobedience. Moving to this stage requires a lot of anger, however. I don't think the anger has been at that boiling point yet -- but it's getting there. Sure, I'm angry, you're angry -- but I'm talking about all those 'regular people' who marched last year. They are only now realizing how disenfranchised they actually are.

The more kids die, the more Bush and Blair tell us to 'fock off', the angrier people will get and you'll start to see some real demonstrations soon. The ones where you DON'T stand in the first amendment zone, you DON'T get a permit, and you try to SHUT DOWN the city -- SHUT IT DOWN!

At least that's been my read of the situation.

[Malva Zebrina]

3. Oh come on

rumsfeld is playing a game. HE doe not care what he says, when he says it, or what it is about, because he is running this show--he is running Bush and the media. He says anything that comes to the top of his head. It makes no difference what he says--he knows he will not be called on it and if he is--well, we know about the Bush compulsion to punish those who displease them.

[MoonAndSun]

4. Is this Yahoo article the first one in the US press to mention the

Meacher article? If it is, then even if it is denounced as extremism, at least it is out there for the sheeple to read, and to maybe have another little bit of information out there for them to digest and think about. Every little bit of bad info concerning bush* is a good thing.

[Paschall]

5. Rumsfeld: "The war was never finished..."

And whose responsibility is that, Mr. Secretary of Defense?

By the way, why does Rumsfeld use the past tense and the passive voice? He's just using Rumspeak to say, "The war is still on (but those who could have 'finished' it--that wouldn't be me!--didn't). Subtext: It's not my fault."

That's admitting a mistake?!?

Well, anyway, Shrub said "Mission Accomplished." :eyes:

[underpants]

9. So it turns out we didn't plan for postwar AND didn't finish the job

in the first place.

[Kool Kitty]

6. "...the war was never finished."

Yeah, well, no duh, Rummy. You should have thought of that before you sent Pretzel Boy out to the aircraft carrier with the wrong sign.

[bvar22]

8. Rummy says we made a mistake.

Rummy says the USA should have killed a bunch more Iraqis. Rummy & bush*/republican party were just waaayyyyy tooooo compassionate and christian.

rummy/bush*/republican party says :"we made a mistake and left too many Iraqis alive. Should have killed em all."

bush*/republican party final soulution for Iraq!

[leesa]

10. Still pretending that we are fighting 'Saddam's troops'

But...but...."Mission Accomplished"