Fated to be misunderstood in my own time. Genius is pain.
Of course, those two events were separated by a war that ultimately drove the occupying nation from America’s shores in defeat. The Founding Fathers had to kill off the British forces before they could make any real progress.
Meanwhile, no doubt lots of people back in London continued to argue that the insurgency was in its last throes, the colonists all really love the British army, we need to stay to protect them from the horrible French and Indians, etc. etc.
Romney’s doing his level best too, gotta admit:
“I do not want to see those prisoners transferred to United States soil. . . . I do not want to see the legal system in this country potentially opened up to terrorists . . . and if we need additional space, why, we should be expanding Guantanamo.”
and
"We love what [the troops have] done for us, and we also love a president who has kept us safe these last six years.”
Love? :dubious:
And then there’s Huck:
“I love the president. I’ve been with him on the war. I’ve been with him on the surge when Mitt Romney wasn’t. So it’s absurd to say that I’m against the president.”
That’s not going to be easy to back away from in the general election, especially against Obama. But if the ship is sinking, it doesn’t actually matter if the rats jump or not.
:dubious:
Wouldn’t he need to switch from shotgun to rifle, maybe even pistol, for such a small target?
As is always the case Juan Cole is the oracle on all things Iraq war: He provides this link
I don’t see how Romney somehow keeps polling less than 100% under “Shares my beliefs”. He shares everybody’s beliefs. 
-
Why is the war in Iraq part of the ‘alliance against global terrorism’?
The British Parliament voted for the war on the grounds that Saddam had WMD’s and was preparing to use them. There was no question of overthrowing a brutal regime (since there was no UN mandate to do so). -
The British army is overstretched and depressed anyway:
General Sir Richard Dannatt, the head of the army, has warned that his soldiers are “devalued, angry, and suffering from Iraq fatigue”, that the army is undermanned, and that operations in Iraq and Afghanistan risk “mortgaging the goodwill of our people”
- The situation in South Iraq is not ‘stable’:
In August this year the British base in the provincial capital, al-Amara, was handed over to the Iraqi army, with flag ceremonies and bands playing (and was promptly looted by local people). The hope was that this would allow 3,000 British troops to be withdrawn from theatre, but after complaints from the US and the Iraqi government that Maysan’s border with Iraq would be exposed, the forces were simply redeployed to the border.
Many of the troops on the ground in Iraq, and their commanders back home, believe that they are remaining there almost exclusively for political reasons. Their main role, in this view, is face-saving for the Iraqi government as well as their own, not to mention relations between London and Washington. This opinion was reinforced by news that the British army chief’s comments had prompted a flurry of calls from the White House to Downing Street.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article1873841.ece
- The British Government does have a long term friendship with the US. However Bush is viewed as a fool who lied about Iraq and has imprisoned British citizens without trial (or access to lawyers) in Guantanamo. Despite years of torture, most of them have now been released (since there was no evidence against them).
There are no masks. The satire is a lengthy drama production which is being repeated due to popular demand. It depicts Blair facing trial for war crimes.
The poll you question was of course scientific. Why do you question it? What is your evidence that the British think otherwise?
It interviewed 5000 people and produced a staggering 43% who think Blair should be tried for war crimes over Iraq.
The British public are perfectly capable of understanding that there were no WMDs in Iraq, that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, that Iraq has been a disaster for the Iraqi civilians and that the true criminal (Bin Laden) is in Afghanistan where the US has little interest in committing money or troops.
And of course Pakistan (a nuclear state) is fast becoming a worrying situation. Still Bush has sent more troops to Iraq, so everything will be fine. :rolleyes:
But if you need an insider’s view, here is the British Foreign Secretary resigning before the Iraq war even started. (He of course had access to all the information):
The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading partner - not NATO, not the European Union and, now, not the Security Council.
…
Only a year ago, we and the United States were part of a coalition against terrorism that was wider and more diverse than I would ever have imagined possible.
…
History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition.
…
Our difficulty in getting support this time is that neither the international community nor the British public is persuaded that there is an urgent and compelling reason for this military action in Iraq.
…
None of us can predict the death toll of civilians from the forthcoming bombardment of Iraq, but the US warning of a bombing campaign that will “shock and awe” makes it likely that casualties will be numbered at least in the thousands.
…
For four years as foreign secretary I was partly responsible for the western strategy of containment.
Over the past decade that strategy destroyed more weapons than in the Gulf war, dismantled Iraq’s nuclear weapons programme and halted Saddam’s medium and long-range missiles programmes.
Iraq’s military strength is now less than half its size than at the time of the last Gulf war.
…
Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target.
…
Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create?
Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam’s ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors?
…
Nor is our credibility helped by the appearance that our partners in Washington are less interested in disarmament than they are in regime change in Iraq.
That explains why any evidence that inspections may be showing progress is greeted in Washington not with satisfaction but with consternation: it reduces the case for war.
…
What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected, we would not now be about to commit British troops.
…
On Iraq, I believe that the prevailing mood of the British people is sound. They do not doubt that Saddam is a brutal dictator, but they are not persuaded that he is a clear and present danger to Britain.
They want inspections to be given a chance, and they suspect that they are being pushed too quickly into conflict by a US Administration with an agenda of its own.
Above all, they are uneasy at Britain going out on a limb on a military adventure without a broader international coalition and against the hostility of many of our traditional allies.
…
Oh look. In March 2003, the British Government knew all this. Events since then have merely demonstrated that the situation has became even worse than Cook predicted.
He, I and even Bush share many points of common ground. The President’s unequivocal stance opposing research into human animal hybrids, for instance. Well, that’s one right there, and I’m sure I could come up with another, were I not so pressed for time…
A few years, my ass. Have you visited the Did the press give Fallujah to insurgents? thread? Blaming the media for military tactical failures has already begun. Apparently, our military leaders are such huge pussies that a little bad press is enough to make them toss decades of tactical lessons out the windows. And, by the way, it’s all the fault of the blame-America-first liberals.
That’s okay, you’ll just threaten to cut off everybody’s access to tie-dyed shirts and hand-dipped candles; then they’ll back down.
I think I agree . . . ermmm . . . Recreational displays of affection don’t count as “research,” do they?
With regard to the body count it really does seem inflated to me. I looked up some statistics about the Bosnian war, and I remember hearing about all the ethnic cleansing, and other atrocities committed and for some reason I thought the number was around 10-million…and I believed that number in my own little head because of what I heard and read through various news outlets. However, I go on just now to wikipedia and look up that war and there the information is presented in such a way that it lends the various estimates more credibility. For example:
That sounds much more credible to me than:
So since I feel that the Iraqi death toll estimate is flawed, and I am a conservative, of course I am gonna chime in and say that I feel the estimate is flawed because it actually DOES to me! Therefore, I WILL use it as a point of contention to defend my political party until I change my mind. Until I see something more credible I will continue to defend various attacks that I perceive as un-verifiable as long as libs/dems continue to use whatever is convient to prop themselves up.
I refuse to even contemplate the question. * Ewwwwwe*.
Let’s take this to another thread.
Didn’t they? No doubt you are right.
By the way, what I want to see is the Order from On High that gave the job of “reshaping the New Middle East” to Mr. Bush.
Further, I don’t wish to descend to ‘personalities’ but I must point out that your posts *appear to me * to be taken directly from the current play book provided by the Ministry of Truth. Generally, when operatives use the play book they rephrase the pronouncements to give them a more spontaneous feel. Were you not at that workshop?
Perhaps about the whole middle east, but Ken Adelman did tell us we’d have a Cakewalk in Iraq.
Sadly, the Washington Post has disappeared most of the article, but the New Yorker supplies analysis, and “money quotes”
I think everyone at the time believed that nuking Mecca could cause us more trouble than ‘taking out’ Saddam. Some still agued that it was the thing to do, but some are totally unreasonable people.
Perhaps your unsettled stomach could be ameliorated by an orgy film with James Carville, Madeleine Albright, Janet Reno, and Dick Cheney.
Nah. Got a vampire movie starring Ayn Rand? That would be awesome!
Wouldn’t that be any movie starring Ayn Rand?