That New Bush Strategy For Baghdad In Full

Shit, wires crossed here , I just thought this was a Blair hating site, didnt realise it was an extreme left site, what you would put inplace would be much worse than your socialist wanker Blair.

Nurse! The screens!

Is this a quote? From whom? Or is it an opinion? Based on what? This is quite possibly the worst entry I've ever seen on Blairwatch.

Yes its a correct statement, I posted this comment yesterday with the link to source in it

Thanks, legion, should have tipped you really. Sorry.

It's not a quote, but it's, I think, a rather accurate paraphrase of what Bush said. There's been continual talk from the US far right about how restrictive ROE have been hampering the troops in getting after the Bad Guys, so I take what Bush says as meaning that he's taking the gloves off. More lax ROE means violence is used where formerly it wasn't, therefore there will be more US troops (17,000) and they'll be using more violence. QED.

>Shit, wires crossed here , I just thought this was a Blair hating site, didnt realise it was an extreme left site, what you would put inplace would be much worse than your socialist wanker Blair.

There's a great story in today's Independent about the all-singing all-dancing adventure capitalist American outfit BearingPoint Co with annual revenues of $3.4 billion who started up from squat-diddly in 2003, rustled up multi-billion dollar contracts in the first few weeks of the American invasion to "marketise" the Iraqi economy and prepare it for the full and bracing rigours of the world market and build the biggest stock exchange between London and Singapore, who by 2004 was pouring millions of dollars into Bush and Republican re-election coffers, and is now falling to pieces and has not posted trading figures for eighteen months due to the extreme incompetence (or corruption) of its top managers who, apparently, know squat-diddly about the mechanics or disciplines of the bracing free market environment in which their company is presently adrift and soon to smash onto the rocks.

Ah - the superiority of capitalism over socialism!

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2152438.ece

Quite rightly your look at the BLair speech homes in on the increasingly tenuous take on reality our beloved leader now possesses.What struck me was the remoteness from the national pulse he now exhibits.

Fanon77

To return from a fruitless pre-Xmas Middle East visit,and the freeloading at Robin Gibb's mansion to berate the great unwashed multitudes at home for not yet having signed up to the "war on terror" betrays a complete loss of touch on is part.THis coming from the man who was once was sold to us as the Teflon-coated icon who could be counted on to say the right thing at the right time("she was the people's Princss etc").Now the PM hits the airport tarmac sounding like he's reached the drug-fuelled nadir of one his jaded rock star idols.

Still blathering on about a "new and different" security threat and now evidently enunciating on lessons in sucking up to the US we should have taken from the Suez crisis.His wholly fallacious reading of history should come as no surprise but it does explain how a man who came to office without any experience whatever in foreign affairs became the one who's led this country into more foreign wars than any PM previously!

The more lies the more denials and justifications proffered. really though if Tone was doing the right thing then he wouldn't ever need to justify his stance would he?

Perhaps we need to adopt this sort of philosophy, it speaks for itself and it is actually viable:

Dennis_Kucinich

"His wholly fallacious reading of history..."

Come on, surely you don't think Blair ever reads history, do you? That would merely undermine his whole world-view, based as it is on the belief that everyone who ever ran the UK before him was wrong, and that nothing worthwhile was done by any previous generation.

Hence his constant jibes at everything "Victorian", which reveal his stunning ignorance. It turns out the Victorian era was far more innovative than the present day, with people like Edison, Bell, Faraday, Maxwell, Brunel, Stephenson, Babbage, and the many less remembered names who brought us modern sewage, anaesthesia, and antisepsis.

Blair and his like start from the assumption that they are the most wonderful people who ever lived, and they can do better in a few years than all previous generations put together. In due ncourse, they will learn that this is not ture - but how much dam,age will they do in the meantime?

Yes,further to Blair's Victorian sewerage and flatulent dyspepsia mentioned above,it now seems timely to acknowledge the sources of the Blair worldview.His mentor in imperialism(in Blairspeak this is termed "humanitarian intervention")was one Sir Robert Cooper, who counselled that postmodern states should employ a delightful cocktail of deceit and pre-emptive force when dealing with old-fashioned (in Blairspeak:"failed")states.Cooper was prime mover in the installation of the Karzai regime in Kabul.

What is less well known is the role played by our arch enemy:Iran in bringing the narco-trafficking Northern Alliance on side.Without these pro-Western proxies Karzai would likely still be modelling underwear!

The notion cited in Blair's speech that airpower played a decisive role in defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan is based on the specious musings of another in-house historian,namely Niall(or is it,Sir?)Niall Ferguson whose ludicrous account of that conflict is contained his Liberal Empire book which exhorts the US to take up the role of global policeman unabashedly.Most of us might recall that the USAF had run out of targets before the end of the first week,and that any self-respecting and forewarned Taliban fighter had melted away into the Hindu Kush long before the first B52 was airborne!

Blair's description of muslim susceptibility to terrorism is based on the same crackpot Islamophobic "clash of civilisations" propaganda that saturates the mainstream media.Likewise the necessity for eternal vigilance is thoroughly bogus given that all the so-called instigators of the "terror plot" of last August have been quietly released without charge,and the growing realisation that domestic security services were likely to have been involved in both the 9/11 and 7/7 atrocities.

The final exhortation to his subjects is that we cease witholding our consent to the Bush/Blair agenda of permanent war and allow our sons and daughters to be shoved into the charnel house of future failed wars.That there is astir a current of anti-war opinion internationally that would sweep aside the pair of them forthwith or that the inexorable march to defeat in Afghanistan and Iraq to which he would have us succumb is irreversible appears to have passed him by.

Something is stirring- which try as they would-Blair's reason nor his imagination can apprehend.The writing is on the wall in Iraq Bush's "surge" just a pathetic attempt to save face.Nothing our leader can say in hhe coming year will disguise what we all sense.
FANON 77

"The notion cited in Blair's speech that airpower played a decisive role in defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan is based on the specious musings of another in-house historian..."

You're dead right; air power has never yielded the results its advocates have boasted, except in a handful of special cases such as Pearl Harbor and the US naval campaign against Japan, when it was exercised in a totally one-sided way against the ideal targets - large warships stranded in the middle of calm seas under blue, cloudless skies. Oh, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki of course.

In spite of the crushing weight of bombs dumped on Germany in 1942-5, military production went on rising steadily until late 1944. The bombers created picturesque scenes of ruin and destruction, but - apart from killing hundreds of thousands of civilians - they failed to further the war effort much. This was largely because their vaunted "pinpoint" bombing techniques usually missed the targets by up to 3 or 4 miles - and that was in good conditions in daylight. Not as much has changed in this respect as they would have you believe.

So there is little prospect of winning a war in a country like Afghanistan by turning over bits of desert while your enemies calmly drink tea in caves miles away. As any real military expert will tell you, wars are won only by sending in the infantry.