LordChaverly Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 The invasion of Iraq has been discussed many times on this forum, so there is no need for another thread on the war per se. However, the story below made me wonder how Bush can live with himself. Perhaps he is so enwrapped in a cocoon of self-righteousness that the news of even more deaths in Iraq never penetrates far enough into his conscience to trouble him very much. Perhaps behind the scenes he is wracked by anguish, guilt or self doubt; perhaps his advisors tell him only what he wants to hear; perhaps his wife Laura bolsters him with rationalisations and sweet talk. Perhaps at some point he will have a moment of moral clarity and realise that, despite hundreds of thousands of deaths, all his plans have come to nought, that the War has been a disaster and that he has been a disastrous president. I somehow doubt it - Laura, his advisors and his own stupidity will see to that. http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-10-30T085613Z_01_L29872999_RTRUKOC_0_UK-IRAQ.xml&src=rss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-Mariachi Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 The invasion of Iraq has been discussed many times on this forum, so there is no need for another thread on the war per se. However, the story below made me wonder how Bush can live with himself. Perhaps he is so enwrapped in a cocoon of self-righteousness that the news of even more deaths in Iraq never penetrates far enough into his conscience to trouble him very much. Perhaps behind the scenes he is wracked by anguish, guilt or self doubt; perhaps his advisors tell him only what he wants to hear; perhaps his wife Laura bolsters him with rationalisations and sweet talk. Perhaps at some point he will have a moment of moral clarity and realise that, despite hundreds of thousands of deaths, all his plans have come to nought, that the War has been a disaster and that he has been a disastrous president. I somehow doubt it - Laura, his advisors and his own stupidity will see to that. http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-10-30T085613Z_01_L29872999_RTRUKOC_0_UK-IRAQ.xml&src=rss The very same questions could be asked of our own PM... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordChaverly Posted October 30, 2006 Author Share Posted October 30, 2006 The very same questions could be asked of our own PM... Indeed they could, and already have been by me on this forum. Arguably, Blair is even more morally culpable than Bush, because he is supposedly bright enough to have known better (which of course is not saying much). However, in two important senses, they were both as ignorant as each other. Firstly about the ghastliness of warfare (neither of them having any military experience); and secondly of history (in particular, the history of the Middle East). I have never accepted the view that Blair is particularly intelligent. He is verbally articulate, but this does not necessarily reflect intelligence, let alone judgement (sometimes, as in his case, the reverse). His loquacity and verbal sophistry are talents perfectly suited for a career as a shyster lawyer. Instead, he chose to be a shyster politician, with appalling consequences due to his poor judgement and massive ego. I think the latter will probably always enable him to sleep soundly at night, despite the carnage and misery his decsions have wrought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-Mariachi Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Indeed they could, and already have been by me on this forum. Arguably, Blair is even more morally culpable than Bush, because he is supposedly bright enough to have known better (which of course is not saying much). However, in two important senses, they were both as ignorant as each other. Firstly about the ghastliness of warfare (neither of them having any military experience); and secondly of history (in particular, the history of the Middle East). I have never accepted the view that Blair is particularly intelligent. He is verbally articulate, but this does not necessarily reflect intelligence, let alone judgement (sometimes, as in his case, the reverse). His loquacity and verbal sophistry are talents perfectly suited for a career as a shyster lawyer. Instead, he chose to be a shyster politician, with appalling consequences due to his poor judgement and massive ego. I think the latter will probably always enable him to sleep soundly at night, despite the carnage and misery his decsions have wrought. Very true, I always find it rather amusing that when Blair's record on the "big issues" is finally reviewed, he'll be found wanting on all of them. The question now is one of what should we do... 1. Remove troops 2. Add troops 3. Remove troops and hand over to the neighbours or others. Either way the region and the world are less secure than before this whole debacle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordChaverly Posted October 30, 2006 Author Share Posted October 30, 2006 Very true, I always find it rather amusing that when Blair's record on the "big issues" is finally reviewed, he'll be found wanting on all of them. The question now is one of what should we do... 1. Remove troops 2. Add troops 3. Remove troops and hand over to the neighbours or others. Either way the region and the world are less secure than before this whole debacle. Option 1 is the least likely, although in my view it is probably the least worst. Neither Bush nor Blair will do this, because it would be tantamount to admitting that they both got everything horribly wrong. Option 2 is also unlikely, because the War is increasingly unpopular in the US. Option 3 is also unlikely, because the Bush presidency remains unwilling to deal with either Syria or Iran. This leaves Option 4 - er, what is Option 4? Probably, its more of the same, with troops still in Iraq at more or less the same levels, with more bluster and fanciful rhetoric about 'finishing the job' and 'refusing to cut and run' from Bush and Blair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinlock Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Had the figure of U.S deaths been 10 times greater, Bush still would not back down from his stance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppins Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 LC, do you think it's a coincidence that more troops have been killed in Oct or could it have something to do with the up comming elections in the US.? Can't say I blame them , I'f i were Muslim I would want the Republicans out and the Democrats in, thats their whole idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-Mariachi Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 LC, do you think it's a coincidence that more troops have been killed in Oct or could it have something to do with the up comming elections in the US.? Can't say I blame them , I'f i were Muslim I would want the Republicans out and the Democrats in, thats their whole idea. Possibly, but it could also be that the chaos is getting worse. The Militia's (esp the Iranian backed ones such as the Mehdi Army) are getting stronger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-Mariachi Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Option 1 is the least likely, although in my view it is probably the least worst. Neither Bush nor Blair will do this, because it would be tantamount to admitting that they both got everything horribly wrong. Option 2 is also unlikely, because the War is increasingly unpopular in the US. Option 3 is also unlikely, because the Bush presidency remains unwilling to deal with either Syria or Iran. This leaves Option 4 - er, what is Option 4? Probably, its more of the same, with troops still in Iraq at more or less the same levels, with more bluster and fanciful rhetoric about 'finishing the job' and 'refusing to cut and run' from Bush and Blair. I was very much in favour of option 1, but after ignoring the anger towards B ush and Blair the reality settles in that we've opened up a can of worms. By removing the troops we may end up in a defacto Iranian controlled Iraq (although it could be argued that's the case at present), but even worse. Its just a damn shame that Bush and Blair like to quote the international community but they never listen to them. Option 4 simply isn't working and is unlikely to work in the future so I'm in favour of internationalising the problem aswell as the reconstruction by possibly drawing in other Arab countries (and not the neighbours) and handing out more contracts to Iraqi's than the current so called strategy of milking the funds through numerous US companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordChaverly Posted October 30, 2006 Author Share Posted October 30, 2006 LC, do you think it's a coincidence that more troops have been killed in Oct or could it have something to do with the up comming elections in the US.? Can't say I blame them , I'f i were Muslim I would want the Republicans out and the Democrats in, thats their whole idea. poppins, I doubt if it has anything to do with the upcoming elections. It is connected to the deteriorating security situation, and the nascent civil war, between the various factions, which neither the Iraqi government forces nor the allied troops are capable of controlling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.