Prof.Wizard

Blair And Bush Up For Nobel Prize

Recommended Posts

No but if not for 9-11 there would be no war in Iraq.

Exactly. The chain reaction of "war on terror" and the fake accusations (WMD) of Bush/Blair lead to the downfall of Saddam.

But don't tell me Saddam sponsored the 9-11 terrorists cause it's bull. Not every country that has wary or hostile attitude towards the USA is actively sponsoring terrorism.

Or do you search for an excuse to wipe out all your enemies (Cuba, N.Korea, Iran, etc.) at once?

Rhetoric question: you attacked Iraq because it was a nice opportunity to get rid of Saddam and possess the world's second (or third) largest oil reserves on earth, using fake excuses (WMD, safe haven for Al Qaida, etc.)

You implied "he were" when you made the following statement;
War was imposed on Churchill. When Hitler attacked Poland war was inevitable.

No I did not. Where do you see it "implied" in the above sentence. I said war was inevitable and Churchill couldn't do anything about it (when he was appointed PM).

Don't play with words. I may not be native English speaker but I can understand what I write.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I wasnt insulting Bush/Blair by comparing them to a sniveling coward like Neville Chamberlain. I was insulting the french/germans/canadians who wanted to 'give dictatorship a chance' and let peace at any cost agian ruin the world...

Chamberlain couldn't have possibly known. Actually he was worshipped like a hero when he came back from Munich. Don't use your current knowledge of history to judge him on what in his time was considered the best political manuever available.

Its when we have 'peace at any cost' do we become involved in the most ruinous of wars.

No. Peace at all costs in the 21st century can be achieved if the big powers look after the poorer ones, not if they try to possess their country's natural resources or if they sponsor an oppressing Israel.

Anywho, we will go seriously OT if we continue on this part.

Bottom line, Bush and Blair are sons of bitches and should be hung for war crimes, not given our planet's more coveted "Peace" prize. Blair will most probably lose next elections and will end his career in shame, cause what I said above was mostly in accord with the British population sentiments. Bush instead... oh well, you have your chance to vote Kerry and the Democrats. Take advantage of it! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chamberlain couldn't have possibly known. Actually he was worshipped like a hero when he came back from Munich. Don't use your current knowledge of history to judge him on what in his time was considered the best political manuever available.

Prof, substitute "Bush" for "Chamberlain" and "Baghdad" for "Munich" and I've got the beginnings of a good argument in favor of the Bush-Blair Doubleteam ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
as confirmed by the CIA and other agencies

And we can trust those and sleep well I assume?

BTW Afghanistan is still suffering from a civil war. There's a government with western sympathies in Kabul right now but it's power is close to nil. The farther away from the capital, the worse the situation is reported to be, what with warlords keeping fighting for their territory and the Taliban regrouping. The US charged in, killed threats to itself and did nothing real to rebuild the country, the only thing that would really help. Sadly enough Afghanistan isn't a "sexy" news item anymore and US media often ignore such news anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prof, substitute "Bush" for "Chamberlain" and "Baghdad" for "Munich" and I've got the beginnings of a good argument in favor of the Bush-Blair Doubleteam ;)

Don't even joke about it, Bush (or rather his council cause himself is a stupid puppet) knew exactly what he was trying to achieve by deposing Saddam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
as confirmed by the CIA and other agencies

And we can trust those and sleep well I assume?

Well we can trust them not to sleep ;)

not after the missing-WMD debacle.

BTW Afghanistan is still suffering from a civil war.  There's a government with western sympathies in Kabul right now but it's power is close to nil.  The farther away from the capital, the worse the situation is reported to be, what with warlords keeping fighting for their territory and the Taliban regrouping.  The US charged in, killed threats to itself and did nothing real to rebuild the country, the only thing that would really help.  Sadly enough Afghanistan isn't a "sexy" news item anymore and US media often ignore such news anyway.

Afghanistan has always had its little tribal wars in the mountains for the past few centuries under different invading regimes. Even in the best of times, the old Monarchy never controlled much more than the main cities, towns, and roads. The hills and valleys outside the main routes were the Wild West as far as the government in Kabul was concerned, especially the southern Pashtun tribal areas bordering Pakistan. Successive Afghan governments found it more expeditious to delegate control to the provincial "governors" and their tribal militias while keeping them somewhat in line with bribes from the national treasury and threats from the small but effective Army. And this was how the "nation" of Afghanistan stayed on the map until the later part of the 20th century. Which saw the coming of the Marxists who violently supplanted the King, and who in turn provoked Islamist resistance to their godless reign.

After the fall of the communists to various Islamic rebel groups, Afghanistan degenerated into a no-man's land, where even the more civilized people of Kabul and other cities suffered marauding rival armies which fought set-piece battles around the capital with tanks and artillery and often visited barbaric atrocities on each other in the process. From the Wild West, much of Afghanistan went into the Fire lit by Jihad. It was only the eventually victorious Taliban who imposed a semblance of peace on the city peoples and the fractious tribes in the hinterlands. But it was the medieval peace of theocratic oppression and terror as we all well know. And as we all know, the Taliban were still busy brutally suppressing their Northern Alliance rivals when US special forces came calling after the fall of The Two Towers.

With the coming of NATO and the UN (but not with the Return of the King, sad to say), the cities at least have improved to the point where things are almost back to what they were in the old Wild West days. Which in the hills and valleys nowadays means nothing much worse than tribal vendettas and the occasional battle with companies of drug lords and smugglers and remnant Taliban, instead of the seige and mountain warfare involving large units fighting as armies which was the norm during the 1990s. Which a lot of Afghans consider a remarkable improvement considering what passed before. With NATO peacemakers on indefinite subsidized watch and a few $Billion in aid every year to tide them over, the Afghans now have some hope of becoming something approaching a secular modern state, when they had none whatsoever before. The rest is up to them as usual, but they know they've been lucky to invite the attention of the one Power on Earth willing, able, and ready to intervene in their affairs for the better. IMCO they ought to consider their "country" lucky for this, as impermanent as it may turn out to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No but if not for 9-11 there would be no war in Iraq.

Exactly. The chain reaction of "war on terror" and the fake accusations (WMD) of Bush/Blair lead to the downfall of Saddam.

But don't tell me Saddam sponsored the 9-11 terrorists cause it's bull. Not every country that has wary or hostile attitude towards the USA is actively sponsoring terrorism.

Or do you search for an excuse to wipe out all your enemies (Cuba, N.Korea, Iran, etc.) at once?

Rhetoric question: you attacked Iraq because it was a nice opportunity to get rid of Saddam and possess the world's second (or third) largest oil reserves on earth, using fake excuses (WMD, safe haven for Al Qaida, etc.)

You implied "he were" when you made the following statement;
War was imposed on Churchill. When Hitler attacked Poland war was inevitable.

No I did not. Where do you see it "implied" in the above sentence. I said war was inevitable and Churchill couldn't do anything about it (when he was appointed PM).

Don't play with words. I may not be native English speaker but I can understand what I write.

Well I'm glad that you can understand what you have written. Let me take a minute to explain the difficulty I am having with what you wrote and point a few things out to you.

You composed a paragraph (see the difnition below) consisting of two sentences which establishes a relationship between the two. The first sentence introduces the "controlling idea" of the paragraph. In this case it is that "War was imposed on Churchill". In the next sentence you attempt to explain why it is that you believe the first sentence to be true. In this case you are saying that you believe that war was imposed on Churchill because - "When Hitler attacked Poland war was inevitable". Note that in this second sentence the word "when" sets the time frame of the "imposition" that you mention in the first sentence. "Impostion" implies that Churchill was personally burdened with the war. However it was Chamberlain's policy as PM to declare war on Germany should she invade Poland, not that of Winston Churchill who was but a private citizen at the time. The only way one could say that "war was imposed on Churchill" would have been if it was his policy as Prime Minister (hence your implication that he was PM) that England would go to war if Hitler invaded Poland.

A typical expository paragraph starts with a controlling idea or claim, which it then explains, develops, or supports with evidence. Paragraph sprawl occurs when digressions are introduced into an otherwise focused and unified discussion. Digressions and deviations often come in the form of irrelevant details or shifts in focus.
From - http://ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/paragraphs.htm

Had you meant that war was "imposed" on England in September of 1939 then you should have said so even though this statement too would not be accurate. England went to war of her own free will in 1939, there was no "imposition" at all. Poland was attacked by Germany - not England.

These are not word games. I understand that English is a second language to you which is why I am taking the time to explain this to you despite your poor attitude about the matter.

With regards to Saddam not having sponsored 9-11, please show me where I have stated or implied that he was responsible for the attack. My statement that 9-11 led to the war in Iraq is a reflection of the reality of the events which took place and was not intended as an attempt to justify the war even though I do believe it to be just and righteous war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This doesn't make any sense. If it is awarded between the two of them or a single, then the committee should redefine their meaning of the word 'peace'.

Peace(n.):

1.) The state prevailing during the absence of war

2.) Harmonious relations; freedom from disputes

3.) The absence of mental stress or anxiety

4.) The general security of public places

5.) A treaty to cease hostilities

Antonyms (just one): War

1.) The waging of armed conflict against an enemy

2.) A legal state created by a declaration of war and ended by official declaration

during which the international rules of war apply

3.) An active struggle between competing entities

4.) A concerted campaign to end something that is injurious

According to the official site of the Nobel Peace Prize (http://www.nobel.no)

This is the The Nomination Process

most pertinent excerpt:

"To decide who has done the most to promote peace is a highly political matter, and scarcely a matter of cool scholarly judgement. The task requires an ability and a will to view conflicts in the world community as objectively as possible while keeping a strong commitment to certain common moral and political principles. Should the members of the Nobel Committee be expected to have such qualifications? Is it possible for five individuals from a small country on the northern periphery of Europe to make decisions on the basis of some universal interpretation of peace? Isn't it more likely that their judgements would either be in accordance with the national interest of their country or divided along the same ideological lines which distinguish Norway's political parties from one another? Critical questions and protests against the decisions of the Norwegian Nobel Committee have been raised on a number of occasions since 1901. As a matter of fact, some people strongly objected to the whole idea that a Norwegian body should be given the task of awarding the peace prize. Until 1905, Norway and Sweden were in a union under a common Swedish-Norwegian king. The Norwegian parliament was increasingly dominated by national liberals who worked to further Norwegian self-governance within the union, and eventually to dissolve the union altogether. Swedish conservatives feared that the Norwegians would abuse the peace prize in their struggle for nationalistic ends. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prof, substitute "Bush" for "Chamberlain" and "Baghdad" for "Munich" and I've got the beginnings of a good argument in favor of the Bush-Blair Doubleteam ;)

Don't even joke about it, Bush (or rather his council cause himself is a stupid puppet) knew exactly what he was trying to achieve by deposing Saddam.

And Chamberlain did not know exactly what he was going to achieve by giving in to Hitler?

Chamberlain couldn't have possibly known. Actually he was worshipped like a hero when he came back from Munich. We can't use our current knowledge of history to judge him on what in his time was considered the best political manuever available. His actions were very popular, while the anti-enemy actions of others like the alarmist Churchill were less so and many times subject to ridicule.

His decision to support the "peace in our time" initiative must have been based on weak pre-war intelligence and analysis on the threat posed by the enemy's military build-up and past actions. An enemy Who after all had been defeated decades ago, and who had been contained by the Allies via successful disarmament and economic regimes which crippled Germany's economy for many years.

Knowing that other great Powers of the day such as the USA and the USSR were opposed to direct intervention against the dictator, he believed that peaceful cooperation to resolve the UK's mutual differences with Germany would be worth it versus the risk of the surprise emergence of an unmanageable future threat which sudden escalation could no longer be easily met by preemptive action. In the end, Chamberlain's trust in the possibility that there was a rational limit to the dictator's ambition and courage mislaid his nation's best interests in a direction towards the very War he tried to prevent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I'm glad that you can understand what you have written. Let me take a minute to explain the difficulty I am having with what you wrote and point a few things out to you.

You composed a paragraph (see the difnition below) consisting of two sentences which establishes a relationship between the two. The first sentence introduces the "controlling idea" of the paragraph. In this case it is that "War was imposed on Churchill". In the next sentence you attempt to explain why it is that you believe the first sentence to be true. In this case you are saying that you believe that war was imposed on Churchill because - "When Hitler attacked Poland war was inevitable". Note that in this second sentence the word "when" sets the time frame of the "imposition" that you mention in the first sentence. "Impostion" implies that Churchill was personally burdened with the war. However it was Chamberlain's policy as PM to declare war on Germany should she invade Poland, not that of Winston Churchill who was but a private citizen at the time. The only way one could say that "war was imposed on Churchill" would have been if it was his policy as Prime Minister (hence your implication that he was PM) that England would go to war if Hitler invaded Poland.

A typical expository paragraph starts with a controlling idea or claim, which it then explains, develops, or supports with evidence. Paragraph sprawl occurs when digressions are introduced into an otherwise focused and unified discussion. Digressions and deviations often come in the form of irrelevant details or shifts in focus.
From - http://ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/paragraphs.htm

Had you meant that war was "imposed" on England in September of 1939 then you should have said so even though this statement too would not be accurate. England went to war of her own free will in 1939, there was no "imposition" at all. Poland was attacked by Germany - not England.

These are not word games. I understand that English is a second language to you which is why I am taking the time to explain this to you despite your poor attitude about the matter.

With regards to Saddam not having sponsored 9-11, please show me where I have stated or implied that he was responsible for the attack. My statement that 9-11 led to the war in Iraq is a reflection of the reality of the events which took place and was not intended as an attempt to justify the war even though I do believe it to be just and righteous war.

First of all, hello Tannin. :)

I could swear this writing and this obsession with grammatical perfection is Tannin or Grammar Police or one of his other incarnations. I still remember the prank you did to me with "Mai Ikaf" the Muslim student who studied art in Madrid... :rolleyes:

You composed a paragraph

The problem we have starts at your very first sentence. I never tried to build a paragraph. If I had, your explanation would have been correct. But I just presented two sentences side by side (and you can't prove the opposite, sir ;) ) that:

-War was imposed on Churchill.

-When Hitler attacked Poland war was inevitable.

Now considering these sentences unique in time and space I never implied that Churchill was PM at the time war was imposed on Great Britain. :)

--------------

PS. I'm just a poor lad from sunny Greece, it's unfair you try to kick my ass in English. But logic doesn't have language boundaries, mate. B)

PPS. Come more often with your primary handle at these forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And Chamberlain did not know exactly what he was going to achieve by giving in to Hitler?

No he didn't. Furthermore, he was congratulated by his peers (heads of other governments) for winning peace for the day! For Chamberlain it was the only option, even if it had slight chances of avoiding the war altogether rather than postponing it.

Instead Bush was opposed by many other leaders in the world, but he didn't really give a damn. He proceded with his "coalition of the willing" even if he had fierce opposition for such a move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And Chamberlain did not know exactly what he was going to achieve by giving in to Hitler?

No he didn't. Furthermore, he was congratulated by his peers (heads of other governments) for winning peace for the day! For Chamberlain it was the only option, even if it had slight chances of avoiding the war altogether rather than postponing it.

Instead Bush was opposed by many other leaders in the world, but he didn't really give a damn. He proceded with his "coalition of the willing" even if he had fierce opposition for such a move.

Chamberlain knew exactly what he wanted to achieve. He wanted to reach a deal in Munich giving Germany the Sudentenland and de facto control over the rest of Czechoslovakia, but on the condition that Hitler go no further in his ambitions to create a larger German homeland. On September 29, 1938, he got just that, while Hitler essentially received Czechoslovkia. All achieved absent any approval from the Czechs themselves, of course. Adolf Hitler, Neville Chamberlain, Edouard Daladier and Benito Mussolini signed the Munich Agreement. Hitler was furious, because at the time he had far exaggerated German strength and had come to believe he was ready to survive and win a contest with the UK and France. But he was prevailed on by both fellow tyrants and opposing democratic leaders who felt they each lacked either justification or preparation for an early war.

The irony is that at the time, through a shared intelligence and policy failures, the West had overestimated Germany's uniformed strength and stockpiles of destructive weaponry. But in actuality, both the UK and France then enjoyed collective superiority over both rearming Germany and unprepared Italy, especially in naval and air power. France's ground military alone was demonstrably larger and better equipped than that of its German rival. As the British, French, and Americans chose to preclude preemptive war against Germany before the latter established its full military strength, they lost the chance to end Hitler's and Mussolini's joint ambitions at probably much lesser cost and effort.

Instead, Chamberlain was supported and hailed by other world leaders (including the US President) for allowing a smaller ally and a future enemy to be pieced together in the interest of "Peace for our time". They had their reasons, all seemingly good ones given their lack of realization that they faced Hitler, a miscalculating, megalomaniac tyrant with a known bent for aggressing other countries but a less well-known bent for genociding people he didn't like. One great reason for appeasement was the appearance of the League of Nations, which raised hopes that there were now other ways of legally resolving international disputes than with military mght. For another, apparent progress in the democratisation of Europe had convinced many that war could no longer be waged without the will of the people, and that the will would no longer be there since so many civilians had been lulled into thinking that their security could be best attained by a strategy of appeasement. Then there were the recent economic collapses which had forced Western governments to consider heavily funded militaries and Wars as neither politically nor financially viable. And in the case of the West, many acquired guilt over the heavy-handed economic and military sanctions imposed over Germany after WWI, which were felt to have unfairly punished Germany and its people.

Revealingly, the Soviets were upset with this display of Western perfidy. Stalin was forced to wonder if the West would be as ready to abandon his Russia just to further Peace through Appeasement. Stalin was eventually influenced to switch Russian allegiance from a nascent anti-fascist alliance with the West to one with Germany. Chamberlain and his cabinet did not care much about what the Russians thought, much less the hapless Czechs. He proceeded with the plan to preempt a future War with a popular peace initiative, and the strength of support for his Appeasment policies apparently encouraged him to ignore homegrown opponents like Churchill, not to mention the dissident opinion of foreign Powers like the Russians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing all these details. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for sharing all these details. :)

My pleasure.

I sometimes fancy that the "purposes of World Peace" would have been better served if Bush had been President and Blair Prime Minister back in 1938, but would have been only better "lip-served" if Roosevelt had been President and Chamberlain Prime Minister today.

Then Blair would probably have intimidated Hitler into delaying further German aggression in Eastern Europe and thus would have avoided War in 1939-40, possibly even until the US suffers a preemptive Japanese sneak attack. At which point Bush would probably have enjoyed the support of a nation far more open to military intervention, and would have therefore immediately entered into a Coalition with the UK, France and Russia to resist and perhaps even preempt the Axis in Europe.

Roosevelt in today's world would have been somewhat hesistant to invade Iraq without definitive intelligence, just as he hesitated to take measures against Japan almost until Pearl Harbor. And Chamberlain today would not have obliged a Coalition attack on Iraq so readily. Just imagine what a field day Chamberlain would have had in today's peachy-peacy UN. He would have probably helped lift the economic and arms inspection sanctions on Iraq in the 1990s and convinced Clinton not to bomb research facilities every time UN Inspectors were forced out, thus allowing Saddam's hidden NBC WMD programs to eventually produce weapons. Chamberlain would have probably convinced the US to let Saddam's regime remain in power even after 9/11. France and Russia would be on the side of the British in the UNSC, and their combined influence on an already hesistant Roosevelt would have led him to content himself with pacifying Afghanistan. He would have had few if any easy choices anyway, as Iraq may have possessed useable long-range nuclear missiles by then.

And the small countries of the world would be shivering in fright at the perfidy of the Powers, and separately seek alliances with them for protection, and eventually consign the UN to history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for sharing all these details. :)

if Bush had been President and Blair Prime Minister back in 1938

:blink:

Es ist sehr gut hier in Italien, Herr Hauptmann.

(that would have been my response if your "what-if" scenario were true)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for sharing all these details. :)

if Bush had been President and Blair Prime Minister back in 1938

:blink:

Es ist sehr gut hier in Italien, Herr Hauptmann.

(that would have been my response if your "what-if" scenario were true)

Italy can be a very nice place from what I've seen of it, but I still don't get what you were referring to :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My statement that 9-11 led to the war in Iraq is a reflection of the reality of the events which took place and was not intended as an attempt to justify the war even though I do believe it to be just and righteous war.

well, you do not know whether Bush was predetermined to "finish off daddy's business" years ago. All-in-all he uses the "9-11" carte blanche quite frequently (a little too frequently for my taste) to justify his actions... "we need to [insert action here] in order to prevent another 9-11."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Italy can be a very nice place from what I've seen of it, but I still don't get what you were referring to :unsure:

If these two lame cowards were presidents/prime ministers at that time, we would all speak German now... <_<

(because of the lost WWII)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If these two lame cowards were presidents/prime ministers at that time, we would all speak German now...

That's rather unlikely Prof, not given their demonstrated historical behavior. Both Bush and Blair have been labelled many things, but the words "lame" and "coward" never really caught on for obvious reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe more or less modern politicians are less capable than those in the past, relying all too much to their cabinets/councils for decisions. That makes them coward in a certain way, cause you need to step up and have a voice on your own (even against your counselors) in times of need.

To my eyes, Bush is a robot and Blair relied on college student papers' for his WMD case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If these two lame cowards were presidents/prime ministers at that time, we would all speak German now... "

[/i]I have it very difficult with your words, Wizard...

In a few years Western Europe will be speaking the Arab language, so where do you see any difference .... good or bad? :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe more or less modern politicians are less capable than those in the past, relying all too much to their cabinets/councils for decisions. That makes them coward in a certain way, cause you need to step up and have a voice on your own (even against your counselors) in times of need.

You're kidding, right?

Taking advice from people that know more about their job than you is cowardly?

So a leader should tell the head of her/his intelligence agency what the intelligence in a region is reporting?

Bush should have told an expert on Middle eastern politics "Hey buddy, I think you've got it all wrong. *I* know what is really going on over there."

Haven't spent much time in upper management, have you?

'Cause it doesn't work that way.

You surround yourself with the best people and *listen* to them when they talk.

Has either leader backed down from their position that war was the right thing to do?

Hardly cowardly, then, yes?

The Roosevelt topic is really interesting. Since we make judgements based on experiences (history), would a 21st-century Roosevelt have an isolationist view? Or would he react the same way? The 21st-century Roosevelt would have the knowledge of men like Hitler and Stalin, Idi Amin, etc. After all of that history, would he believe "the problem will go away?"

World War I had more to do with an unsustainable arms race and "bluff calling gone wrong" than powermongering or "world domination." So the basis for WW II was kinda unbelievable in a "modern" 20th century.

If the stage for World War III had been set aound 1960, would world leaders have been anxious to get it over with or anxious to do anything to prevent another large-scale war?

Anyway, I don't think it is fair to equate a "regional" war to a war that touched 6 out of the 7 continents on earth (no fighting in Anartica was there? :)

A *lot* more was at stake in th '40's, and the outcome was a bit uncertain.

This time around no one doubted who would come out on top.

BTW, the nobel prize should list Hussein. It was his flight and ultimate surrender that ended the war. So all three should be prize winners.

Enough rambling for now...

Dogeared

8^)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If these two lame cowards were presidents/prime ministers at that time, we would all speak German now...

That's rather unlikely Prof, not given their demonstrated historical behavior. Both Bush and Blair have been labelled many things, but the words "lame" and "coward" never really caught on for obvious reasons.

Attacking an impotent enemy isn't exactly heroic. I wouldn't call it cowardly either, more something along the lines of "realistic". I don't know any cases where a country or group of countries did heroic things.

In a few years Western Europe will be speaking the Arab language, so where do you see any difference .... good or bad?

Check the yellow pages for a good shrink. You really, desperately need one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe more or less modern politicians are less capable than those in the past, relying all too much to their cabinets/councils for decisions. That makes them coward in a certain way, cause you need to step up and have a voice on your own (even against your counselors) in times of need.

To my eyes, Bush is a robot and Blair relied on college student papers' for his WMD case.

Politicians throughout history have always relied on counsel, even the famously exceptional. IMHO what makes a politician courageous (or foolhardy) is when he decides to go against popular sentiment on critical issues. On this score, PM Blair can only be seen a exceptionally courageous (or foolhardy). How you construe his character as "lame" or "cowardly" is beyond reason accessible to me. On President Bush, his cabinet was exceptionally bold, competent, and even lucky in rallying the voters behind his foreign policies. "Lame" and "cowardly" are highly unlikely to be used by historians in describing his behavior. Apparently you have too much emotionally invested in using the "lame" and "coward" descriptives against your perceived political targets. Suggest you study the more usefully objective criticisms of the Coalition leaders.

BTW the "college student", Ibrahim al-Marashi, whose brilliant work was incorporated in the "Dodgy Dossier" is actually a postgraduate researcher doing masteral-level work highly acclaimed by Jane's and other well-known defense and intelligence authorities. As Jane's editors stated, ...It is usual working practice for the intelligence community to use open sources when they are of sufficient quality. In this way it can focus effort on gathering information that is not so readily available, thereby avoiding wasteful duplication of research. The articles by Gause, Boyne and Marishi present an accurate and comprehensive picture of Saddam’s security apparatus, and hence so does the UK dossier... http://www.janes.com/security/internationa...30207_1_n.shtml

Al-Marashi is highly respected by his peers in his specialized world of geopolitical studies, and the UK Parliamentary hearings which he attended made this plain by the respect the panelists showed to him. Which is why the "issue" has faded into a non-issue. I'm afraid you fell victim (as many did) to oppo propaganda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now