ChatterBank0 min ago
Birds Of A Feather?
19 Answers
http://
(Please understand that I accessed the website of the Daily Express solely in order that I could not be accused of “leftyism” had I chosen the same information from more reliable sources elsewhere!)
So, Bush, Blair, dodgy intelligence information, regime change, bombing, no post-invasion plans, rise of militant organisations, refugees, Iraq...as opposed to Sarkozy, Cameron, dodgy intelligence information, regime change, bombing, no post-invasion plans, rise of militant organisations, refugees, Libya.
And the difference is?
(Please understand that I accessed the website of the Daily Express solely in order that I could not be accused of “leftyism” had I chosen the same information from more reliable sources elsewhere!)
So, Bush, Blair, dodgy intelligence information, regime change, bombing, no post-invasion plans, rise of militant organisations, refugees, Iraq...as opposed to Sarkozy, Cameron, dodgy intelligence information, regime change, bombing, no post-invasion plans, rise of militant organisations, refugees, Libya.
And the difference is?
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Quizmonster. 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.
Is anyone saying there is a major difference ? (I'll check the link in a mo but this was on morning TV earlier.)
This is the issue with the world's trouble spots. Sometimes it's damned if you do something and still damned if you don't. That stated one needs to consider 'what if' scenarios and have good plans for each eventuality. Know what is needed. And not lie to the people nor parliament to gets things decided.
This is the issue with the world's trouble spots. Sometimes it's damned if you do something and still damned if you don't. That stated one needs to consider 'what if' scenarios and have good plans for each eventuality. Know what is needed. And not lie to the people nor parliament to gets things decided.
None - tragically.
The similarities though, are glaringly obvious.
I remember travelling on a cruise a few years ago, and one of the guest speakers was Martin Bell, who was riveting, and caused a few people to walk out with his trenchant - but superbly argued views.
The point he made that stuck in my mind was the time of the Falklands, when the Tory cabinet were firmly against military engagement with Argentina for one very god reason - with the exception of Margaret Thatcher, they had all had direct experience of warfare, and for them it was a reality, not a historical concept or a vague idea.
Fast forward to Blair/Bush/Cameron, and you get power-mad egotists determined to create their 'legacy' by interfering in foreign countries' activities with no proper plan or strategy, the results of which rumble on today and for the foreseeable future.
The similarities though, are glaringly obvious.
I remember travelling on a cruise a few years ago, and one of the guest speakers was Martin Bell, who was riveting, and caused a few people to walk out with his trenchant - but superbly argued views.
The point he made that stuck in my mind was the time of the Falklands, when the Tory cabinet were firmly against military engagement with Argentina for one very god reason - with the exception of Margaret Thatcher, they had all had direct experience of warfare, and for them it was a reality, not a historical concept or a vague idea.
Fast forward to Blair/Bush/Cameron, and you get power-mad egotists determined to create their 'legacy' by interfering in foreign countries' activities with no proper plan or strategy, the results of which rumble on today and for the foreseeable future.
Old_Geezer - //That stated one needs to consider 'what if' scenarios and have good plans for each eventuality. Know what is needed. And not lie to the people nor parliament to gets things decided. //
That is the root of the problem right there.
There are politicians, and leaders, who are so set on their own dreams of historical immortality that they wilfully ignore advice and more importantly evidence, that the path they are embarking on will end in death and destruction, and their stated aims will not be realised.
Hopefully, Mrs May seems not only to be willing to dismantle the egotistical cronyist dreams of her predecessor, but she appears mindful not to rush into things because she wants to have her name writ large in history when her career is over.
That is the root of the problem right there.
There are politicians, and leaders, who are so set on their own dreams of historical immortality that they wilfully ignore advice and more importantly evidence, that the path they are embarking on will end in death and destruction, and their stated aims will not be realised.
Hopefully, Mrs May seems not only to be willing to dismantle the egotistical cronyist dreams of her predecessor, but she appears mindful not to rush into things because she wants to have her name writ large in history when her career is over.
The conclusions of the report..... if anyone is interested in the facts:
http://
http://
Mikey > but I can't summon up much enthusiasm for Gaddafi.
Me neither or Saddam,etc but the damage caused by the destabilising effects are sadly being seen on a massive scale.Removing these dictators was somehow seen as 'job done' but far from it.
Ours and international leaders have created a set of circumstances that threaten world peace far more than the people they helped to remove from power could have done.
Me neither or Saddam,etc but the damage caused by the destabilising effects are sadly being seen on a massive scale.Removing these dictators was somehow seen as 'job done' but far from it.
Ours and international leaders have created a set of circumstances that threaten world peace far more than the people they helped to remove from power could have done.
mikey - //Why are we getting upset over the removal of yet another blood-thirsty dictator, one that supplied the IRA with guns ? //
There is a phrase that neatly sums up the removal of any regime head - 'power vacuum'.
Nothing exists in islolation - and in unstable countries like Libya, there was no guarantee, and more importantly no plan thought out, to prevent a 'Dictator mark 2' simply stepping in.
History shows that when Russia pulled its army out of Afghanistan, the people were desperate for someone to come in and organise things and give them a sense of being looked after. Someone did - they are called The Taliban.
The sooner politicians stop treating international politics like a power game and understand the consequences of their egotistical nonsense, the safer the world will be.
There is a phrase that neatly sums up the removal of any regime head - 'power vacuum'.
Nothing exists in islolation - and in unstable countries like Libya, there was no guarantee, and more importantly no plan thought out, to prevent a 'Dictator mark 2' simply stepping in.
History shows that when Russia pulled its army out of Afghanistan, the people were desperate for someone to come in and organise things and give them a sense of being looked after. Someone did - they are called The Taliban.
The sooner politicians stop treating international politics like a power game and understand the consequences of their egotistical nonsense, the safer the world will be.
I've not read the report in full, but what I don't see there is an admission that Libya was already in the grip of a civil war, unlike Iraq, when we intervened with, unlike Iraq, UN backing, even tacit Russian support. Unlike Iraq, Libya already had no functioning governmental infrastructure, and therefore was always likely to need careful attention post Gaddafi.
So there are grounds for severe criticism, but it seems highly contentious to suggest that the situation in Libya is solely the result of outside intervention, or even partly. After all, we didn't - and not should we have -intervene in Syria, and that worked out ok :-)
So there are grounds for severe criticism, but it seems highly contentious to suggest that the situation in Libya is solely the result of outside intervention, or even partly. After all, we didn't - and not should we have -intervene in Syria, and that worked out ok :-)
When you really think about it some of our politicians past and present are bloody dangerous,moreso than some of those they are meant to be taking out of commission.
It's one thing to be articulate but it's another to be a great orator.
It's one thing to be intelligent but it's another to be a strategic thinker.
It all smacks of short-termism.Take out a supposed immediate threat and ignore the aftershocks.It's somebody else's problem.I've been seen to do my bit kind of attitude.
We can discuss any amount of tyrants and the misery that they have heaped on their peoples but the overriding question has to be:
Is the world a safer place following my/our intervention?
I think we all know the answer to that.
It's one thing to be articulate but it's another to be a great orator.
It's one thing to be intelligent but it's another to be a strategic thinker.
It all smacks of short-termism.Take out a supposed immediate threat and ignore the aftershocks.It's somebody else's problem.I've been seen to do my bit kind of attitude.
We can discuss any amount of tyrants and the misery that they have heaped on their peoples but the overriding question has to be:
Is the world a safer place following my/our intervention?
I think we all know the answer to that.
1 to 19 of 19
Latest Posts
Jobs & Education6 mins ago
Film, Media & TV9 mins ago
Trump's Cabinet Picks. What Do We Think?
News14 mins ago
News35 mins ago
