Victory in Iraq, apparently.

[sasguru]

To be fair, I dunno what else he could have done - we were all over them, they score on the one chance they get and then put 11 men behind the half way line.

We had a few chances, they just defended well.
.

Quite a good precis on the Iraq war I thought

[shaunbhoy]

Yeah I know what you mean. Regardless of whether or not it is his fault though, if we do not fare well in the upcoming OF triple header he will likely be punted in the summer as I think his coat is on a shoogly peg already. Not so concerned at his passing if it happens, more worried about who his replacement might be. I can already hear the Roy Keane Brigade sharpening their knives!!

[snaw]

To be fair, I dunno what else he could have done - we were all over them, they score on the one chance they get and then put 11 men behind the half way line.

We had a few chances, they just defended well.

I dunno, not just saying this now - I've just never been convinced by Strachan. Though that may not be his fault, we're playing in a sh!t league, we can't get the quality of player we need and even our good ones go south at some point now cause the money and standard is better.

[shaunbhoy]

Perhaps he has Gordon Strachan advising him on tactics?

[snaw]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7305023.stm

Bush speech hails Iraq 'victory'
President Bush 19/3/08
Mr Bush's Iraq policy has proved deeply unpopular at home
President George W Bush has delivered a speech to mark the fifth anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq.

Speaking at the Pentagon, Mr Bush said "removing Saddam Hussein from power was the right decision".

And he went on to say that the recent "surge" of US troops to Iraq has brought about "a major strategic victory in the broader war on terror".

The speech comes amid criticism in the US of the war, with some critics pointing to its high cost.

"Necessary costs"

In his speech, Mr Bush dismissed what he called the "exaggerated estimates" of the cost.

And he added: "The costs are necessary when we consider the cost of a strategic victory for our enemies in Iraq."

The BBC's Richard Lister in Washington said that the speech conspicuously lacked any references to Iraqi weapons of mass destruction - the removal of which had been the stated aim of the war.

President Bush appeared to be attempting to redefine the invasion as a mission to remove Saddam Hussein, our correspondent said.

Not quite sure what criteria he's using to define victory. Unless he means it not as bad as it was before, cause we finally put enough troops in to stop the wholesale massacre that was going on, down to a more manageable 60 a day or so (Compared to 180 before the surge).

Result.