Bush's Last Gambit
- Thread starter Homer J
- Start date
Colin Phillips
At the Start
I can see you're a fan then, Homer!
Merlin the Magician
At the Start
whatabout his running mate T-B?????? 
A
Ardross
Guest
I tempered my posting Colin. Not a swear word in sight to describe this war-mongering, numbskull imbecile. [/b][/quote]
I think we had one of those 1979-1990
A
Ardross
Guest
Ireland may have lost its warmonger we didn't till she invented the poll tax 
Would you PLEASE keep on track, Ardross, and stop trying to divert the discussion down your well-worn Thatcher Lane? :angry:
Homer, I'm almost tempted to yell, yeah, go on, you madman, send thousands more! But that would be very wrong, because a good number of those boys aren't going to see another Easter, let alone Thanksgiving, with that idiot's hand on the tiller. I'm surprised thousands aren't taking to the streets in protest in the US.
Homer, I'm almost tempted to yell, yeah, go on, you madman, send thousands more! But that would be very wrong, because a good number of those boys aren't going to see another Easter, let alone Thanksgiving, with that idiot's hand on the tiller. I'm surprised thousands aren't taking to the streets in protest in the US.
Oh what a mess. This one is looking more and more like 'Nam by the month (although I'd conceed still not on the same scale) but it terms of its intractability and lack of exits the similarities are growing ever more ominous. Makes you wonder what the Iraq study was all about.
How to take a country where there WASN'T an Islamist foothold, alright, (there was a tiny cell in the Kurdish no fly zone) and create one. In the process of course you remove the leader and infrastructure that had prevented radical Islam establishing itself, and put in its a place a vacuum. This in turn sucks you into performing a policeman role, tying down valuable resources that could be deployed elsewhere, preventing you from fully focusing on genuine threats, whilst also serving as a rallying point and training ground for those whom you're trying stop.
Is there anyone still out there who thinks that Bush has got this right? Even the usual suspects on this forum like Clive, have been reasonably consistant in his denunciation of Bush. Suny was probably the principal cheerleader, have you not yet seen the folly of this adventure yet? It's wrong in host of areas, but the one that should concern you the most I'd have thought was the tactical errors that have been committed throughout, which ultimately drags you back to why they went in there in the first place? and as I've always maintained there was a pre-conceived obsession on the part of 43.
On the list of poorly conceived foreign policy disasters this one is right up there, unless of course you believe, (as I tend towards) that Bush does view the sacrifice as acceptable in the pursuit of his own agenda. Paul's use of the word fodder might not be very far away.
I'm seriously struggling to see what they think they can achieve and what their objective can be increasingly? I've got a theory at the back of my mind, but am left think surely not, they can't be that gung ho can they, when I run it through?
How to take a country where there WASN'T an Islamist foothold, alright, (there was a tiny cell in the Kurdish no fly zone) and create one. In the process of course you remove the leader and infrastructure that had prevented radical Islam establishing itself, and put in its a place a vacuum. This in turn sucks you into performing a policeman role, tying down valuable resources that could be deployed elsewhere, preventing you from fully focusing on genuine threats, whilst also serving as a rallying point and training ground for those whom you're trying stop.
Is there anyone still out there who thinks that Bush has got this right? Even the usual suspects on this forum like Clive, have been reasonably consistant in his denunciation of Bush. Suny was probably the principal cheerleader, have you not yet seen the folly of this adventure yet? It's wrong in host of areas, but the one that should concern you the most I'd have thought was the tactical errors that have been committed throughout, which ultimately drags you back to why they went in there in the first place? and as I've always maintained there was a pre-conceived obsession on the part of 43.
On the list of poorly conceived foreign policy disasters this one is right up there, unless of course you believe, (as I tend towards) that Bush does view the sacrifice as acceptable in the pursuit of his own agenda. Paul's use of the word fodder might not be very far away.
I'm seriously struggling to see what they think they can achieve and what their objective can be increasingly? I've got a theory at the back of my mind, but am left think surely not, they can't be that gung ho can they, when I run it through?
cricketfan
At the Start
For those of you who are familiar with Blackadder Goes Forth, the scene where Field Marshall Sir Douglas Haig sweeps away plastic soldiers with a dustpan and brush may seem an appropriate (and unfortunate) analogy in many ways.
Colin Phillips
At the Start
I'm sure the arms industry will be happy with the decision.
A
Ardross
Guest
The analogy is apt - two leaders willing to sacrifice numerous human lives for their own political advantage .
This was the real problem. They simply hadnt done their homework and completely underestimated how far from being a civilised state Iraq, under any administration, was. There were laso ludicrous practical blunders at teh time too
looking forward to reading Bob woodwards book, but its a pretty accurate guess that a lot of the mistakes here were born of the single minded arrogance and lazy thinking that afflicts bush's goverment
It wasnt as if the US were knocking over the regime that suppressed Czecholosvakia say...
Flagship uberalles
Journeyman
Me, for a given value of 'right'.
My point, Ardross, was that you always throw Mrs Thatcher into any leadership discussion and it diverts from the original topic, rather than addresses it. Mrs Thatcher is not the issue, she's history, as are any one of 100 previous leaders, royal or elected, who were far more careless with British lives - let alone the international sweep of caesars, emperors, chieftains and kings who've caused the deaths of millions. I don't see the point in hauling out Thatcher when we're discussing Bush. You might as well point to Lyndon B Johnson or Genghis Khan as 'apt' analogies, then.