Quote:
Originally posted by ironweed
Don't know the numbers, but my impression was that public opinion in Britain was never behind the invasion in the first place (except maybe for that window where Blair was saying Iraq posessed the capability to strike with bio/chem WMD in under an hour). Blair has stayed in office despite his terrible numbers on this issue simply because the Tories are more ineffectual than the Democratic party right now, if that can be believed.
But be that as it may --
War in Iraq/London bombings: Correlation or causation? If you think they would have happened anyway then Galloway is an ass and an appeaser. I for one would find it hard to look anyone over there in the eye and tell them that the war in Iraq has made the world a safer place. Maybe GWB should tell them that all he has to offer is blood, sweat and tears (their later albums) and see how that goes over?
|
Galloway's speech was, at the best, very poorly timed. Saying "I told you so" so quickly is offensive.*
But, if the war and occupation of Iraq were supposed to make the west safer from terrorism (the "flypaper" theory, etc.), and it turns out not to do so, then at some point do we start questioning whether we should continue the occupation? And at what point?
Or do we just keep saying "stay the course."?
*As is saying "don't you go stabbing Blair in the back now, you liberals, it's your fault anyway." And so forth.
Threaded Mode