Prince Andrew attacks Bush on Iraq

[0iD]

Outspoken royal makes senses shocker!
Prince Andrew attacks Bush on Iraq | Top News | Reuters

LONDON (Reuters) - Prince Andrew launched a forceful attack on Tuesday against President George W. Bush, accusing his administration of failing to listen and learn from Britain during the conflict in Iraq.

In a rare newspaper interview ahead of a scheduled 10-day visit to America to support British business, the prince said the aftermath of the Iraq war had left Britons with a "healthy scepticism" towards what is said in Washington.

[[GSV]Trig]

Of course america didnt listen to us, there arrogant and think they can do what they want where and when they want, I can see at some point the US and the UK falling out, well, I hope we do because there getting too big for there boots, there are a lot of toes the US is treading on and were getting in trouble by association...

[G4Z]

Can't understand why he isn't also criticising HM's Govt as well...

Thing that gets me is, after WW2 at Nuremberg the Nazis tried for war crimes were in fact tried for waging an aggressive war. I see a direct comparison there between what Bush and B.liar did and what the Nazis were tried for and imo both should be tried with the same charge.

I also found Prince Andrews comment ""The fact is there is quite a lot of experience over here which is valid and should be listened to," he told the International Herald Tribune." interesting. The US should have listened to us when our last involvement in Iraq apart from Gulf war I was in the 1920's when we bombed Iraqi villages using chemical weapons? I would provide a link for that but I am at work so research beyond wiki is tricky and for some reason there is zero mention of it.

[Salazaar]

Originally Posted by G4Z

Thing that gets me is, after WW2 at Nuremberg the Nazis tried for war crimes were in fact tried for waging an aggressive war. I see a direct comparison there between what Bush and B.liar did and what the Nazis were tried for and imo both should be tried with the same charge.

The thing is of course, only the losers ever get put on trial. What we've got at the moment is a sort of extended no-score draw. It would be interesting to see them on trial for it though!

[IBM]

"didn't", "their", "we're" & the correct usage of the full stop.

[Reapsy]

Originally Posted by G4Z

The US should have listened to us when our last involvement in Iraq apart from Gulf war I was in the 1920's when we bombed Iraqi villages using chemical weapons? I would provide a link for that but I am at work so research beyond wiki is tricky and for some reason there is zero mention of it.

We bombed villages with chemical weapons?

[G4Z]

Well Saddam had to learn it from somebody, are you really surprised it was the British empire?

You do realise that the British empire was responsible for a few genocides during its existence don't you?

I will dig out some linkage when I get home.

[iranu]

Originally Posted by Reapsy

We bombed villages with chemical weapons?

Churchill certainly thought it a good idea but I don't think that bombing from aircraft with poison gas was ever done. It may have been released in another way. Also look at WW1 where poison gas was used.

Churchill was particularly keen on chemical weapons, suggesting they be used "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment". He dismissed objections as "unreasonable". "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes _ [to] spread a lively terror _" In today's terms, "the Arab" needed to be shocked and awed. A good gassing might well do the job.

Our last occupation: Gas, chemicals, bombs: Britain has used them all before in Iraq


Also see this memo with regard to Churchill's potential use of the gas in WW2.
Winston Churchill's Secret Poison Gas Memo

[scruffy]

Err, why is this being mentioned NOW instead of when the decision was made in March 2003 when it might have actually made the slightest bit of difference. Absolutely pointless in my opinion, rhetoric from a useless drain on public money.

The paranoid conspiracy theorist in me thinks that this might be being mentioned for a wee reason, perhaps to reignite thought on which party sent troops off to war back then? Funny that the leading Republican candidate is also Pro-Iraq War... it's a trap! Prince Andrew is on the Democrats payroll.

[nvening]

Just a question, why is chemical warfare wrong when blowing them up and shooting them fine?

Just wondered what the reasons were.

[Andy3536]

Originally Posted by nvening

Just a question, why is chemical warfare wrong when blowing them up and shooting them fine?

Just wondered what the reasons were.

You need to look at the effects of chemical warfare for that, horrific!
What would you rather be on the recieving end from?

It is also complete nonsence to compare somthing that was done in iraq 90 years ago, it was a completly different world then and we have at least moved on.
I'm not saying it was right just that it's history that we've learned from.

[nvening]

Surely it would depend on the chemical?

[Andy3536]

Originally Posted by nvening

Surely it would depend on the chemical?

Most chemicals used in chemical warfare are not nice, nicer chemicals arn't normally considered.
There was the terrorist siege in russia where the russians belive the gas would send them to sleep.
But it actually ended up killing most of them aswell as some of those they were trying to rescue.

[pumpman]

would have been a funnier headline with
"Prince Andrew attacks a bush in Iraq"

Ni

[santa claus]

The Grand Old Duke of York should stick to what he knows best: marching his 10, 000 men to the top of the hill and marching them down again.

[pollaxe]

Originally Posted by pumpman

would have been a funnier headline with
"Prince Andrew attacks a bush in Iraq"

Ni

Oh he's attacked plenty of bushes in his time.