Being Soaked By Water Companies
Business & Finance0 min ago
So Who Does The Buck Stop With Then ?
33 Answers
http://
Absolute joke if true....looks like a load of smokescreens and mirrors to divert the buck from Phony B Liar.....
Absolute joke if true....looks like a load of smokescreens and mirrors to divert the buck from Phony B Liar.....
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by bazwillrun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
youngmafbog - "Andy, public opinion is based on the thinking that it would be all dandy if we had not gone in. It may well have been, or it may not."
I disagree - I think public opinion is based on the very obvious truth that all that loss of life has done nothing to actually achieve any of the various, and always uncertain aims that were offered as the reason for going to war.
In no particular order -
WOMD - not found
Opiium Fields - growing nicely
Regime Change - chaos, bloodshed and puppet governments
Removal of terrorists - insignificant
Change of threat to the UK - increased .
So although as you rightly point out, we can only guess at the outcomes had we not gone to war, the outcomes from going stare us in the face on a daily basis.
"The majority of the public are either thick or too lazy to work anything else out for themselves so public opinion does not show whether is was worth it or not. Like I say we have no clue as to the outcome of inaction."
As you say, we do not know what inaction would have brought, only what action did.
As far as public opinion - I believe it is largely shaped by a media that increasingly gets its steer from its American counterparts - the constant scare-mongering that racks up tension and suspicion, but does sell papers.
I disagree - I think public opinion is based on the very obvious truth that all that loss of life has done nothing to actually achieve any of the various, and always uncertain aims that were offered as the reason for going to war.
In no particular order -
WOMD - not found
Opiium Fields - growing nicely
Regime Change - chaos, bloodshed and puppet governments
Removal of terrorists - insignificant
Change of threat to the UK - increased .
So although as you rightly point out, we can only guess at the outcomes had we not gone to war, the outcomes from going stare us in the face on a daily basis.
"The majority of the public are either thick or too lazy to work anything else out for themselves so public opinion does not show whether is was worth it or not. Like I say we have no clue as to the outcome of inaction."
As you say, we do not know what inaction would have brought, only what action did.
As far as public opinion - I believe it is largely shaped by a media that increasingly gets its steer from its American counterparts - the constant scare-mongering that racks up tension and suspicion, but does sell papers.
Talbot, are you unaware of Galtieri's plan to invade the UK? With the Labour party's help. of course.
Just kidding. It was Thatcher who was ready to make a deal
http://
Just kidding. It was Thatcher who was ready to make a deal
http://
For the record Andy, I personally would not have supported the war given the facts we now have today.
But hindsight is a wonderful thing. Should he have had WMD as we were led to believe (he had used chemical weapons on the Kurds before) and used them then Public opinion may well have been different.
But hindsight is a wonderful thing. Should he have had WMD as we were led to believe (he had used chemical weapons on the Kurds before) and used them then Public opinion may well have been different.
YMB - "For the record Andy, I personally would not have supported the war given the facts we now have today.
But hindsight is a wonderful thing. Should he have had WMD as we were led to believe (he had used chemical weapons on the Kurds before) and used them then Public opinion may well have been different."
I entirely agree - hindsight is a wonderful thing but it does not excuse the tragic haste with which Blair was willing to sign up to conflict.
Weapons inspectors were never allowed to complete their investigations - and it does appear that intelligence regarding the WOMD's was inaccurate.
An interesting difference between Blair going to war and Thatcher going to war was the advice they had from their respective cabinets.
Thatcher's cabinet - with the exception of her - had all seen war first hand, and were well aware of just how quickly things can get out of hand - and the advised her against going in hard and fast.
Blair, by contrast, had no-one with battle experience, and the wave of gung-ho patriotism mixed with the 'special relationship' he and Bush inherited from Reagan and Thatcher sent him rushing in to a war with no beginning plan - much less an end plan.
We all know what happened next.
But hindsight is a wonderful thing. Should he have had WMD as we were led to believe (he had used chemical weapons on the Kurds before) and used them then Public opinion may well have been different."
I entirely agree - hindsight is a wonderful thing but it does not excuse the tragic haste with which Blair was willing to sign up to conflict.
Weapons inspectors were never allowed to complete their investigations - and it does appear that intelligence regarding the WOMD's was inaccurate.
An interesting difference between Blair going to war and Thatcher going to war was the advice they had from their respective cabinets.
Thatcher's cabinet - with the exception of her - had all seen war first hand, and were well aware of just how quickly things can get out of hand - and the advised her against going in hard and fast.
Blair, by contrast, had no-one with battle experience, and the wave of gung-ho patriotism mixed with the 'special relationship' he and Bush inherited from Reagan and Thatcher sent him rushing in to a war with no beginning plan - much less an end plan.
We all know what happened next.
-- answer removed --
It is worth reminding that there was public support for the Iraq War.
The Gulf War was deemed a great success and we took part in that. That war was won in 100 hours. Bush Senior went in with clear objectives and an exit strategy. Bush Junior went in as part of the vague War on Terror(ism) despite Saddam having nowt to do with 9/11. And no exit strategy.
The Gulf War was deemed a great success and we took part in that. That war was won in 100 hours. Bush Senior went in with clear objectives and an exit strategy. Bush Junior went in as part of the vague War on Terror(ism) despite Saddam having nowt to do with 9/11. And no exit strategy.
-- answer removed --
andy-hughes, bear in mind that after taking the country to war, Blair offered himself up for re-election, and won. That's democracy. Voters ultimately voted Labour out not for a war they began but for a recession they didn't. So the Iraq war was validated by the electorate. I thought it was madness from the start, but my views have been democratically voted down.
quite so. Nonetheless, the people who voted him into power had the opportunity to punish him for his actions, and declined to take it. I'm uncomfortable with the notion of judges coming along afterwards to tell the electorate they were all wrong. It brings back memories of special prosecutors hounding Clinton - and his electorate promptly voting him back too.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.