No... Mores the pity. He was happily followed by that idiot Blair. Another statesman who should be dragged from office... Christ, Bush cant even open his mouth without crap falling out. What on earth possessed him to call his Iraq adventure a Crusade? Does the White House not have a history book? Cos Arab culture still has not forgotten the crusades...

No... But he is responsible for invading them and thereby causing them to act in the manner that they are now doing. They are fighting back against an invader. He invaded. Thus he caused them to act out of resistance... so he is partly responsible.

Yes there is. There is hundreds of years of history everywhere but that doesnt automatically cause wars and unrest. What european and russian help should be considered? Apart from the spineless lapdogs of Mein Bush...

Er... Perhaps cos the bloody idiot invaded Iraq? When it wasnt needed. When it was illegal. When it will just cost alot of lives to make some fatcats richer. He hasnt made the world safer... just alot worse. He probably thought it was gonna be a nice walk in the sand, the Iraqis would all suddenly become westernised and the US would be the 'saviours' of the Middle East. I cant help but think that someone else has been using the Bush family braincell for a while...

Bush is a popular target. If I could get within half a mile of him with a Barret .50 he would be very popular with me...

You might like to think Im just a quaint little euro jumping on a bandwagon but I think the opposite is correct. A large proportion of the US people have still failed to wake up and smell the coffee... Judging by your quaint description of where you are from, Id imagine you may be one of the Bush brigade. And thats fine its your choice, but dont try and pass my comments off as just acting like a sheep. My opinion is Bush is a madman... Im entitled to it. It was for the freedom of opinion and expression that my Grandfather went to France in 1940 and was face to face with the Boche a few years before any GI...

Bush invaded a soveriegn state on flimsy evidence, if not plain lies. To gain oil control and perhaps finish off the work his idoit father should have done the first time. Regardless of how I feel about Saddam, there is no doubt that the US led 'intervention' has caused one big feckin mess.

They cant win. More soldiers will die to save yet another dumb politician face.

The situation will get worse. The US govt. will decide to take the light away from the lack of results to start on someone else, as after Afganistan. They will be in for a rude shock when they meet the Iranians.

Bush has the potential not just to cause problems in the Middle East but to be the numb-nut who starts WW3.

Anyway thats all just my opinion.

I think he is a murdering idiot who is happily sending young men to die for dubious morals and monetary gain.

I hope history and the American people will eventually see him for the charlatan that he is and he takes down his 'allies' with him...

Im no supporter of Islamic Fundamentalism, having seen its hatred first hand, but then I cant stand the far right Christian fundamentals who are springing up in the US. Personally, I would happily see most religions banned. There are too many who have perverted them for evil over the years.

Anyway... its all pointless. Politicians are dumb creatures of habit. Always have been.

Its the occasional one that comes along with a brain that scares me.

There is one with a brain in Russia...

I think there may be another in Iran.

__________________
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

Well said TheRedBaron,

Both Bush and Blair have made a right mess in the Middle East, which has become more unstable due their actions. Both are war criminals and both should get life sentences for wagging an aggressive war based on lies.

[ 11. February 2006, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: Richard42 ]

__________________
Regards, Richard

As I suspected, this is probably not the best venue for this subject. Let it suffice to say that though I feel your argument has much more emotion than logic, I respect your opinion.

__________________
“It’s the unconquerable soul of man, not the nature of the weapon he uses, that insures victory.”

Well rather than posts with vague suspicions and little relevance, why not point out those matters on which you disagree?

If my arguement has no logic then please enlighten me. Rather than make comments which add nothing to the discussion.

__________________
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

W.M.D was the case for going in to Iraq this was based on a lie.

Just one question where are the weapons of mass destruction?

__________________
Regards, Richard

Apparently Richard the WMDs were in Iraq, but they were smuggled out into Syria, Iran, (insert arab state of your choice here) just before the Coalition went into Iraq...

What a bugger... Still suppose someone had best go and ask the Syrians what they have and I can just see Saddam giving stuff to the Iranians... I mean those two countries were so close... Even closer than the US was with Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War.


I think US Foreign Policy will aquire the following epitaph...

"You reap what you sow"

They sent arms to the Viet Minh... Ooops.

They sent arms to Saddam... Oooops.

They sent arms to Osama... Doh!

__________________
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

Thanks TheRedBaron,

Well it's now a waiting game for Iran if Bush goes in I think that's going to be a real bloody fight.

Hey what about North Korea?

__________________
Regards, Richard

Iran is a different proposition to Iraq. Their recent arms purchases will show that. Add in the size of Iran, the number of people, a far better military than Iraq and the serious lack of US troops and things aint looking all that hot... Unless of course the US decides to 'bomb Iran back to the stone-age' and cause civilan casualties and outrage accross the Middle East and galvanise Iranian morale and push the country firmly behind their leader.

The real danger with attacking Iran is the fact that it will alienate the more moderate Arab states and force them into acting against the US/Coalition out of fear that they would be next. Add the chance of an Isreali intervention and the whole mix is very volatile.

If I was a little more cynical, I may think that a man in Iran has carefully thought through this dangerous game of one-upmanship and knows he is on a winner whatever happens.

If the US back down, he wins and can flaunt that victory accross the Middle East... If the US attack then it will likely allow him to form some sort of Arab coalition around Iran and allow him full backing from his people and many other Arab states.

As usual, I think the US has underestimated their opponent. This chap aint stupid, I have listened to a few of his speeches/debates and he knows not just what to say, but how to say it. He may just have nothing to lose from going head to head with the US and, in Iranian tradition, is happy to scarifice his people on the altar of war.

As for North Korea... Who knows. I cant see them doing much given their locality and the response a North Korea attack would bring from its neighbours. I can see them getting stamped on hard and fast by the Chinese if they step too far out of line...

__________________
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

I have been reading some article’s about this issue over the last couple of weeks they seem to suggest the best way is a massive bombing only one article pointed that out that course of action is high risk and could result in an Arab up rising in the Middle East.

As you said TheRedBaron this is a whole new situation.

If Bush blunders in that's going to spark off a chain of events. I see in America the good old propaganda machine is gearing up at the moment 52% of Americans want a war why I ask?

At the moment we are in the war of words which may go on for a bit longer but it is clear this Iran business is a very dangerous situation all we can do is watch it unfold.

__________________
Regards, Richard

There does seem to be a portion of the US people who always want war yet never seem able to express why they want it... Maybe they just do!

Sounds like a load of propaganda that Geobbels would have been proud of!

__________________
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

First of all, Iran is not an Arab state.

Second, I read all of the U.S. bashing above. Don't tell me it wasn't, it was. I agreed with some of it and disagreed with some of it. Most of it was tainted with emotion as another poster put it.

What I keep thinking though is that all there is in these posts is criticism of Bush and Blair. Fine. But, how about backing up all of your statements with a little overview of what you all think would have been and could have been viable alternatives to whatever policies from the past or the present that you don't like?

Then we can have a real debate. Not just a bash fest.

Later

Alternative...

Dont invade Iraq.

You want alternatives, you show me proof of the reasons for invading other than some 'Axis of Evil' propaganda.

Where are the WMDs, why was Iraq targetted after 9/11? Why not Osama???

Or what about the institutionalised racism of the US Army in Iraq?

British officer condemns US army in Iraq

__________________
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

Also why is it, when a non-American has the opinion that Bush is a nutter they are 'Yank-Bashing'?

If you slagged off a Non-American premier would it be bashing? Or are we not allowed a viewpoint different from those of the Fox network?

If you read my post it was worded to avaoid condemning all Americans with the same opinions... I know plenty of American people who dislike Bush as much as I do.

So rather than accusing me of 'Yank-Bashing' why dont you debate too. Im not yank bashing...

Im Bush Bashing.

__________________
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

You are right on track Red [img]graemlins/salute.gif[/img] The people Bush has for advisors are pretty out of touch with main stream America and Americans in general are too lazy to bother to demand a change. Perhaps it will get better when Hillary is president.
I think all the money spent on the war would be better spent on getting off oil dependence but the USA will not do it until the Japanese invent something. Proactive is not something Americans do well. [img]graemlins/no.gif[/img]

__________________
Work Harder ! Millions on welfare are depending on you.

With all due respect, regardless of left, right, pro, con, whatever. Your writing suggests that you have lost all objectivity on this subject, Red. You don't seem to be able to separate the facts surrounding the issue from your political point of view, which is hearsay. It appears to me that you are on a rant.

__________________
“It’s the unconquerable soul of man, not the nature of the weapon he uses, that insures victory.”

Fury please state your case, TheRedBaron has stated his so where's yours?

What is your case I (assume) for supporting Mr Bush

I have some friends in America they all think Mr Bush is a warmonger and a loony and not to be trusted.

__________________
Regards, Richard

Richard, my case is simple. As I understand it, this forum is comprised of scholars, hobbyists, historians, and above all friends. When comments are made like the following; and they are counter productive to the discussion of the issue. My point was stated in my previous post, Red has lost his objectivity and is spouting emotion, not facts and certainly not a discussion between friends with mutual interests.
As to my position, if you are interested in discussion, I am neither for Mr. Bush nor against him all the time. Like any man, he has moments of greatness interspersed with ordinary and sometimes disappointing circumstances. I am pro America for better or worse, hopefully always striving for better.

__________________
“It’s the unconquerable soul of man, not the nature of the weapon he uses, that insures victory.”

OK so what about Iraq did you support the invasion or not?

__________________
Regards, Richard

I think my problem might be that I just can't get myself overly concerned about another country's foriegn policy.

I have my opinions about going in to Iraq. When it first happened I was deeply dissapointed because I knew it was a mistake. After the "invasion" was over I thought, well we're there we might as well stay until it's stable. Now, and I hope this doesn't sound callous, I think we should get the heck out. Let them destroy themselves and their countries. I think this for two reasons. One, it doesn't matter what we, the lone superpower, do around the world. No matter what we do, we can't please anyone. And two, plainly speaking, it's costing me and the other 200 million US taxpayers too much damn money. In my view it's not worth the grief.

Furthermore, I don't think that many Europeans and Americans really understand the scope of US foriegn policy. For Americans AND Europeans, whether you like it or not, the core of US policy is to preserve our way of life. Yes, the fat cats will get fatter, but our lifestyle has been preserved and it has vastly improved since WWII.

So, if we were to decide to turn within ourselves, become more isolated, all hell would break lose. I personally wouldn't care. We in America would be just fine. Oh there would be adjustments, but I beleive America would be much better off . I'm not so sure about those of you from the "old country".

Finally, I personally feel that the President of Iran and the President of Venezuela are typical despots who care nothing for their own people, care only about their "agenda" (hating the US), and are basically uneducated nutbars. However, I would never dream of assasinating them from a half a mile away. Yes I called the leader of Iran a nutbar. Many folks said Hitler was smart too and were very imressed by his ability to know what to say and when to say it. I'll take Bush of even HILLARY over that any day.

Later

The "pot calling the kettle black"?

Oops, I forgot the link. One too many Jack Daniels.