ArbitraryConstant said:

A lot of eastern Europe likes the US because they see them as having saved them from the Soviets. Which, to be fair, is essentially true.

Um.... I seem to remember us sort of sitting around and not doing anything at all when the Soviets crushed the Czech uprising.

I also seem to remember us sitting around and doing nothing at all when the Polish government crushed the Solidarnosc folks and declared martial law in the 1980s.

Can someone refresh my memory as to what we did to help out the Hungarians during their anti-Soviet uprising? Oh wait... I remember it now. Nothing.

And when Romania was collapsing, and the secret police were shooting people in the streets.... what was the contribution of the United States to help liberate the Romanians? Oh, right. Nothing.

I mean , sure, we did fund a bunch of death squads in Central America to kill anyone suspected of being a leftist, and we did fund a bunch of Jihadists to fight in Afghanistan against the Soviets..... but I fail to see how any of that equates to "saving Eastern Europe from the Soviets".

So... where does this "esentially true" statement come from?

Bhruic said:

WTF? What "circumstances of defeat"? When did anyone get defeated?

The British Army initially contributed 40,000 troops to the occupation of Iraq.

The British were assigned the Southern region around the major port city of Basra, as their area of responsibility.... and they continue to be responsible for that area of operations.

The British force has been reduced drastically from the initial 40,000 troops, down to something like 6,000 troops.

The British forces recently abandoned their bases within the city of Basra, which were immediately looted by rebellious/mutinous units of the Iraqi military.... and the British troops were relocated to makeshift camps out in the swamps southeast of Basra.

The British have shipped home their expensive armored vehicles, and are using cheap off-the-shelf land rovers for transportation.... and are being resupplied by helicopter supply drops. Helicopters that return empty each evening after resupply. Helicopters that could be used to simply airlift the remaining British troops out of Iraq in case of emergency.

If this string of events doesn't allow you to read the writing on the wall, then you are deeeply in denial of the realities of what is happening in Basra,and the entire southern sector of Iraq.

Bhruic said: I agree, it'd be bad to leave under such circumstances, but they haven't happened yet.

Abandoning your base, allowing it to be looted, retreating from the city that you are responsible for maintaining order in, and hiding in the swamps after sending home any equipment that you can't abandon on a moment's notice.... these are not the actions of a military that anticipates victory.

These are the actions you take just before taking that final helicopter ride the fark out of dodge, and back home to England.

Bhruic said:

Uh, well, if the "writing on the wall" says that the British are preparing to withdraw, then I guess I can read it. If you believe that it says they are defeated, I'd have to disagree.

Well, they are involved in the occupation of a foreign nation.

The people fighting them have the avowed goal of driving the occupying forces out of Iraq.

The occupation forces have the avowed goal of defeating the people who are fighting against the occupying forces, and also the avowed goal of stabilizing the situation until the local military can exert control.

Now.... in what way does the occupying force retreating out of the major port city, leaving the CITY in control of the people who were fighting the British troops, while the British troops work to "stablize" the freaking deserted SWAMP, not spell out a defeat in your eyes?

The insurgents now control the city with a milion people in it, while the British now control the swamp with various toads and plantlife in it.... and you says that is somehow not defeat???