Reply to: tony blair : the latest war criminal ?

[Fungus]

What was foolish about that?

Weren't the Romans a bunch of short arses and the Germanic tribes a bunch of big arses? Some things don't change.

[threaded]

That the legions never came back?

Yes, but there are many examples of that in Roman history.

Consider that after the civil war Augustus had all these troops, he managed to get many of them pensioned off, but a hard core remained. He sent them off to the furthest corners, but they were still troublesome so tried giving them something to do, and they nearly all died. Result! I bet he was really upset about it...

[zeitghost]

Ah.

Of course.

The reason they never came back is that they were time warped to 2358... and he's been there & seen them.

[sasguru]

That the legions never came back?

Ah but in Threaded's fantasy world, he knows something we don't.

[zeitghost]

What was foolish about that?

That the legions never came back?

[AlfredJPruffock]

Interesting critique there Alf.

Especially as most political historians are putting the war in Iraq down to the Israel lobby in the US. Certainly it hasn't helped the war on terror, it never could have done anything but made matters a lot worse, and that's exactly what it has done.

The trouble is that even Israelis now concede that it would have been better if Saddam had been left in power on the principle of better then Devil you know than the Devil you dont know.

Perhaps the Israel Washinton lobby had some influence, but there were several factors at play here I think also the interests of the Oil industy and the millitary industrial complex eg Harliburton should also be taken into account.

Also the need for the US administration to be seen to be responding to the 9 11 attacks, while Saudis were left untouched due to the Bushs business interests there.

Seems that Galloway was correct in predicting that Iraq would become a quagmire.

For his part Blair should resign , that is if he had any integrity,which I doubt, as he is not the historical christian figure he would like to present but rather a petty vainglorious reckless Bannister hoping for future lucrative tours of the US college circuit.

[TwoWolves]

Interesting critique there Alf.

Especially as most political historians are putting the war in Iraq down to the Israel lobby in the US. Certainly it hasn't helped the war on terror, it never could have done anything but made matters a lot worse, and that's exactly what it has done.

[AlfredJPruffock]

Obviously this person has been caught up in the "we hate america" hype...there is no other reason for it

Mailman

These problems may in no small part be due to the fact that in invading Iraq, Bush fulfilled only half of Crowe's criteria for a great presidency. Despite efforts to convince the world otherwise, the war for which he will be remembered - Iraq - had nothing to do with why the US was attacked on September 11. On its own, that would be a moral issue of lying to the public.

What has transformed it into a political problem is the dire situation on the ground in Iraq. The most important single factor that shapes Americans' attitudes to any war is whether they think America will win, explains Christopher Gelpi, an associate professor of political science at Duke University who specialises in public attitudes to foreign policy. Over the past year, the percentage of Americans who believe the US is "certain to win" has plummeted from 79% to 22%; those who are either certain it will not win or believe this to be unlikely have risen from 1% to 41%.

"They are in big trouble," explains Gelpi. "Bush's speeches, even as late as December, managed to shore up public opinion a little bit. But what you can do with speeches at this point is pretty limited. It's not even clear who's listening."

Wrong war.
Wrong strategy.
Wrong president.
Just plain wrong.

[threaded]

launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 BC sent his legions into Germany

What was foolish about that?

[sasguru]

Obviously this person has been caught up in the "we hate america" hype...there is no other reason for it

Mailman

Not terribly bright, are you?

[Mailman]

Obviously this person has been caught up in the "we hate america" hype...there is no other reason for it

Mailman

[AlfredJPruffock]

70% of Americans dont oppose the war, merely 70% of those who responded to the survey

One mans stats is another mans lie!

Mailman

None so blind Mailman ... but if this will not convince you then I guess nothing will.


From the America Jewish weekly an appeal for Bush to be impeached for conducting, in the words of no less a figure than Martin van Creveld, a professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and one of the world's foremost military historians who describes the Iraq War,as I quote,no less than the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 BC sent his legions into Germany and lost them".

To describe Iraq as the most foolish war of the last 2,014 years is a sweeping statement, but the writer is well qualified to know.


Read this Mailman and eat your heart out ....


There is a remarkable article in the latest issue of the American Jewish weekly, Forward. It calls for President Bush to be impeached and put on trial "for misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 BC sent his legions into Germany and lost them".

To describe Iraq as the most foolish war of the last 2,014 years is a sweeping statement, but the writer is well qualified to know.

He is Martin van Creveld, a professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and one of the world's foremost military historians. Several of his books have influenced modern military theory and he is the only non-American author on the US Army's list of required reading for officers.

Professor van Creveld has previously drawn parallels between Iraq and Vietnam, and pointed out that almost all countries that have tried to fight similar wars during the last 60 years or so have ended up losing. Why President Bush "nevertheless decided to go to war escapes me and will no doubt preoccupy historians to come," he told one interviewer.

The professor's puzzlement is understandable. More than two years after the war began, and despite the huge financial and human cost, it is difficult to see any real benefits.

The weapons of mass destruction that provided the excuse for the invasion turned out not to exist and the idea that Iraq could become a beacon of democracy for the Middle East has proved equally far-fetched.

True, there is now a multi-party electoral system, but it has institutionalised and consolidated the country's ethnic, sectarian and tribal divisions - exactly the sort of thing that should be avoided when attempting to democratise.

In the absence of anything more positive, Tony Blair has fallen back on the claim that at least we're better off now without Saddam Hussein. That, too, sounds increasingly hollow.

The fall of Saddam has brought the rise of Zarqawi and his ilk, levels of corruption in Iraq seem as bad as ever, and at the weekend former prime minister Iyad Allawi caused a stir by asserting that the human rights are no better protected now than under the rule of Saddam.

Noting that some two-thirds of Americans believe the war was a mistake, van Creveld says in his article that the US should forget about saving face and pull its troops out: "What had to come, has come. The question is no longer if American forces will be withdrawn, but how soon - and at what cost."

Welcome as a pullout might be to many Americans, it would be a hugely complex operation. Van Creveld says it would probably take several months and result in sizeable casualties. More significantly, though, it would not end the conflict.

"As the pullout proceeds," he warns, "Iraq almost certainly will sink into an all-out civil war from which it will take the country a long time to emerge - if, indeed, it can do so at all. All this is inevitable and will take place whether George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice like it or not."

This is one of the major differences between Iraq and the withdrawal from Vietnam. In Vietnam, it took place under a smokescreen of "Vietnamisation" in which US troops handed control to local forces in the south.

Of course, it was a fairly thin smokescreen; many people were aware at the time that these southern forces could not hold out and in due course the North Vietnamese overran the south, finally bringing the war to an end.

Officially, a similar process is under way in Iraq, with the Americans saying they will eventually hand over to the new Iraqi army - though the chances of that succeeding look even bleaker than they did in Vietnam.

"The new Iraqi army is by all accounts much weaker, less skilled, less cohesive and less loyal to its government than even the South Vietnamese army was," van Creveld writes.

Worse still, in Iraq there is no equivalent of the North Vietnamese regime poised to take power. What will happen once the Americans have gone is anyone's guess, but a sudden outbreak of peace seems the remotest of all the possibilities.

Not surprisingly, many who in principle would argue that the Americans had no right to invade Iraq in the first place are apprehensive about what might happen once they leave. The conference organised by the Arab League in Cairo last week was one example: it called for "the withdrawal of foreign forces according to a timetable" but didn't venture to suggest what that timetable might be.

With or without American troops, the war in Iraq has acquired a momentum of its own and threatens to spill over into other parts of the region.

There are four major issues: terrorism, Sunni-Shia rivalries, Kurdish aspirations, and the question of Iraq's territorial integrity - all of which pose dangers internationally.

Back in July 2003, terrorism in Iraq seemed a manageable problem and President Bush boldly challenged the militants to "bring 'em on". American forces, he said, were "plenty tough" and would deal with anyone who attacked them.

There were others in the US who talked of the "flypaper theory" - an idea that terrorists from around the world could be attracted to Iraq and then eliminated. Well, the first part of the flypaper theory seems to work, but not the second.

As with the Afghan war in the 1980s that spawned al-Qaida, there is every reason to suppose that the Iraq war will create a new generation of terrorists with expertise that can be used to plague other parts of the world for decades to come. The recent hotel bombings in Jordan are one indication of the way it's heading.

Contrary to American intentions, the war has also greatly increased the influence of Iran - a founder-member of Bush's "Axis of Evil" - and opened up long-suppressed rivalries between Sunni and Shia Muslims.

[sasguru]

70% of Americans dont oppose the war, merely 70% of those who responded to the survey

One mans stats is another mans lie!

Mailman

Not terribly bright, are you?

[Mailman]

70% of Americans dont oppose the war, merely 70% of those who responded to the survey

One mans stats is another mans lie!

Mailman

[AlfredJPruffock]

Only an absolute ******* moron would compare Teflon Tony to Milo...oh thats right...thats what these anti-war goons are, ******* morons!

Mailman

70 per cent of Americans oppose this insane War and reject the Bush adminstration are they goons too, wake up Mailman.