You know what? I read your earlier post as saying that “this is a particularly gutless message board”, so that’s why I was asking for examples. I bet I read that sentence four or five times each time inserting “board”. Sorry. I’m must be losing my mind. Carry on.
Stop revising history! This war was about Whacking saddaM, Dude! (oh, wait, that didn’t happen, either…hmmmmm…)
But is it the case that Bush (and, I guess Blair) made a “mistake”?
Right now that looks to me like an overly generous interpretation.
Let me talk about recent British history:
Once upon a time there was an insignificant island quite a long way away from the British Isles, yet ever so close to Argentina (also, it is worth noting close to Antartica, where I believe there is currently a global moratorium on mineral mining et al).
Anyway, this led to what we Brits euphemistically call the “Falklands Conflict” – a pointless war that might have been resolved if the international community had shown any guts at all when Argentina invaded.
(France happily supplied technological expertise to the Argentinians for the Exocet missiles that they’d sold just earlier. Meanwhile, the USA didn’t even see fit to introduce trade sanctions (plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose) )
No matter, it worked a treat for our (then Conservative) government, who it seemed were destined to flounder at the next General Election. In the event they were returned with an increased majority.
Never mind the various scandals, not least the War Crime that was the sinking of a retreating ship, the Belgrano.
Why was this? It really was a needless war – no-one could seriously believe that diplomatic pressure would not have ultimately sufficed, but there was talk of “self-determination” (compare and contrast this stance with the stance towards Northern Island) and truly the Falkland Sheep, I mean Islanders, did indeed prefer to stay part of the UK.
But an enemy was identified. And vanquished. Go UK! Go! We won. Yah-boo sucks to you!
An infuriatingly and obscenely partisan press thought this to be Britain’s finest hour. The best-selling “newspaper” The Sun led with headlines such as GOTCHA! (and Ooh! What A Scorcher (though I might be mixing up my wars)). The people bought the whole jingoistic, we-defeated-nasty-johnny-foreigner spin hook, line and sinker.
Then there was the Gulf War Conflict I, which followed very much the same pattern.
I do not think that I noticed this and Blair and Bush didn’t, colour me cynical, our soldiers didn’t die for nothing, they died so that these truly cynical fuckers could get re-elected.
The only consolation I see is that it might not work this time.
Didn’t I see the headline Ooh! What A Scorcher on Page 3? 
Probably, the headline is multi-purpose.
And in my post Northern Island should, of course, be Northern Ireland
It wouldn’t surprise me. When you have a readership with a 200-word vocabulary, some repetition is inevitable.
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2003/s883885.htm]Johnny’s our PM, by the way.
BTW, I have very little hope of the mooted independent investigation into the British Intelligence returning anything that will implicate anyone. There is a long history of that happening.
I just gotta wonder how Tony Blair feels. After all, he’s been standing by Bush all this time, giving some credibility to his crud (“crudability,” as Dogbert would put it), and now Blair’s career is going down in flames while Bush is spinning his way clear. I can only guess it’s akin to taking a bullet for Adam Sandler…
Great Unwashed
Whilst I agree with your sentiments about the Falklands, and can tell you very much more than you want to know about it, I just wonder how this has any bearing on the WMD war with Iraq.
Blair is not about to fall, unlike the Conservatives during the Falklands, Saddam Hussain had no interest in declaring war, unlike Gen Galtieri of Argentina.Bush’s position is secure in the immediate future.
As for the French selling Exocets to Argentina, you do know that the UK sold Argentina an aircraft carrier, two type 42 destroyers same as HMS Sheffield, that the UK sold Argentina a couple of subs, that the UK sold weapons systems and trained the Argentine pilots who were to destroy British ships.
I don’t think you can make any kind of condemnation of France in this regard.
Certainly the Falklands war could have been prevented at minimal cost, but the issues here were nothing like similar to GW2.
GW2 is necessary for US control of the area, and possibly in a wider sense as an example, it was not necessary for the US leadership to remain in place though it could be useful in the next presidential race.
My point was that (at least some) modern wars have been fought for political expedience.
I was questioning whether speculation as to whether Bush made a mistake in trusting intelligence was too generous an interpretaion of events.
(I mentioned the French because they continued to provide expertise after the start of hostilities, we (the UK) have been tooling up despots since tools were invented.)
The Limies have some distinct advantages. Tony has to, by law, stand up and take questions once a week. Fearless Misleader is at liberty to give all his speeches before crowds already screened and vetted to be appropriately adoring.
There’s also the simple fact that Argentina’s grand total of six Exocet missiles were sold to them when nobody thought there was going to be a war between Argentina and the UK, and when the war did start, the previously planned shipment of Exocets were serendipitously held up by a truly amazing number of administrative problems on the French end of things.
I would also point out that while the timing of the war WAS conveinet for Thatcher, the fact of the matter is that the UK didn’t start that war, the evidence overwhelmingly indicates the British intelligence structure failed entirely to see it coming, and the UK is quite justified in using force to defend its overseas colonies. I wouldn’t say the UK was blameless for the ongoing diplomatic fiasco that started the war, but let’s not pretend they started it.