Disliked{quote} Thanks. Assume you mean George W. Actually he is a really good man, good father, ect.Ignored
Without wishing to tread on anybody's sensitivities, he was buddies with Tony Blair and I believe the pair conspired (or were manipulated by their advisors) to create a justification for going into Iraq "to finish what George HW Bush started", and of course the disaster at the World Trade Centre remains an extremely unpleasant thorn in the memories of the public. At the time I was aware that preparations had begun before the propaganda machine started buttering-up the public for the subsequent invasion.
As the truth struck-home with Saddam Hussein he began to insist more and more loudly that he had none of the weaponry that he was accused of amassing. Lo he was telling the truth! How inconvenient. It is testimony to <something> that no weapons were ever found. I guess that under different circumstances, and I really believed and expected this to happen, some investigators would have 'found' a stash of SS20s or similar under a pile of sand in an obscure location.
Saddam Hussein was the 'lid of the Iraqi kettle' which was keeping the various factions under control. His removal has precipitated the mess in which Europe finds itself today. Therefore I have a deal of trouble bearing any fond thoughts for either GWB or Tony FW Blair.
[ FW = Fuck-Wit ]
QuoteDisliked....was a pretty good Air Force fighter pilot and does a lot of work with wounded vets.
QuoteDislikedBush is a moral individual -- Clinton a totally immoral multiply accused rapist. ( also a draft dodger) Bill, however, doesn't hold a candle to his wife in the lying crook dept.
A number of their sons, on the other hand, seemed to forget that their example will be followed by a great many people.
I will never forgive Charles for his behaviour whilst his wife was alive.
I just hope that his children take after their grandparents first.
Carbon-Dioxide: the gas of life! https://youtu.be/ttJBdr6eBuo
2
Agree with all you are saying. I do believe there were weapons of mass destruction that were moved when it became evident we were going to attack the second time -- possibly Syria -- maybe some of the gas they been using -- I don't know. I do believe we were correct in driving Saddam out of Kuwait. Bush 41 and his generals were of the WWII generation and, I think, had a much better grasp of strategy and the idea of unintended consequences. They did not completely take out Saddam because they realized it would leave a power vacuum and, as you correctly stated, he was a counterbalance to Iran. I remember many not understanding Bush 41's decision at the time. That being said, almost every military action taken by all country's since WWII has been a total screw up IMO.
