When is George going to visit Iraq?

[taranaki]

Simple question.

Our Prime Minister has just returned from visiting our troops in Basra,and in Afghanistan.The NewZealand contingent of military engineers in Iraq is engaged in humanitarian aid work and is minute in comparison to the U.S. or even the British presence in the Middle East.The question I would ask is this...If the leader of a small country is prepared to put her safety in the hands of less than 100 ground troops,why is it that the man with practically unlimited resources at his disposal has thus far failed to set foot in a country that he has claimed to have won?

Could it be that the war continues far more vigorously than the White House cares to admit,or could it be that George is still a draft-dodger at heart?

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by taranaki

or could it be that George is still a draft-dodger at heart?

you're confusing GWB with Clinton again

[taranaki]

You're dodging the question again.

Waaay back in May,George declared the bulk of the fighting to be over.Apart from a tightly scripted photo-opportunity on an aircraft carrier heading home,George has not made the customary 'victory visit' to the front line troops.

Is it because

A/ Contrary to what he'd like you to belive,the war is still being fought fiercely?

B/The war is over,but George is too yellow to risk leaving home?

C/ George doesn't give a damn about his troops?

Who knows ?Either way,from the tone of the White House media people,Iraq has been liberated by this wonderful man.So why has there been no victory parade,with hordes of grateful Iraqis lining the route through Bagdhad?


I say it is because there has been no liberation,and there will be no victory,and there will be no end to this war until Bush gets sent packing.

[YogsVR4]

You have some serious blinders on. Nobody in the white house is claiming that things are all cheery and rosy in Iraq.

You keep setting up straw men. Its getting pretty tedious.

[TexasF355F1]

Being such a high level politician, he has to be wary about anywhere he visits. If Iraq was already I believe he would go. But with all the things going on right now, he's smart for not going yet. I do agree that in time he does need to visit Baghdad.

[sarujin]

Well I notice Taranaki fails to mention some of the reasons our PM was out of the country.

For you overseas people who don't know the whole story, our PM refuses to be interviewed unless its a scripted interview which she can be fully prepared for. A year or two back, our best news presenter (on the non-government owned station) caught her out on an issue of genetic engineering, and she was caught off guard and basically now refuses interviews now unless they are on her terms.

At the moment she is trying to hide from the media quite alot. Since the Labour party (current government) just destroyed our ties to the Privy Council (which was our equivilant of a supreme court, it was based in Britian and totally unbiased. The only problem is it cost alot to get trials there). The Labour party then is making its own supreme court, but on polls about it a majority of the country wanted to have a referrendum about it. But since we don't have a constitution a government can do whatever it wants.

So at the moment she tries to stay out of the country, last week she announced she was going to the middle east, afghanistan and possibly elsewhere. This happens to be the week the government increases thier pay, the prime ministers going up 25%!!! inflation is 2% here.

So basically the reason of her going to Iraq was a huge publicity stunt, making our general populace forget about her ridiculous pay increase, and also not give the media a chance to interview her about it.

Plus we never really heard where she went around Basara, and how defended the areas were by BRITISH TROOPS. So basically all she did was inconvience the british who are trying to do their job there.


Plus Taranaki did Churchill go strolling down the streets of Berlin in 1945?

sarujin

[2strokebloke]

George is just afraid that if he leaves, his job won't be waiting for him when he gets back.

I hope that if I become president(when GWB leaves for Iraq), that I'll be remembered as the president who spent too much time sticking his nose in other countries business and not enough running the country he was elected to run. But I'd be up against some pretty stiff competition for that title.

[blindside.AMG]

Originally Posted by taranaki

The question I would ask is this...If the leader of a small country is prepared to put her safety in the hands of less than 100 ground troops,why is it that the man with practically unlimited resources at his disposal has thus far failed to set foot in a country that he has claimed to have won?

Probably because no one in Basra or Afghanistan gives a shit if the Prime Minister of New Zealand came to visit.

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by blindside.AMG

Probably because no one in Basra or Afghanistan gives a shit if the Prime Minister of New Zealand came to visit.

On the contrary.I think that our boys serving over there would be glad to know that their Prime Minister is willing to take a fair degree of personal risk to acknowledge their efforts to make Iraq a place fit for Iraqis to live in.

I'm sure the G.I's would welcome a visit from their leader,is nobody prepared to argue the point instead of launching petty attacks on the side issues?I personally think he's smart for not wanting to go,but his determination to remain in Iraq long after non-existant WMD's have ceased to be a threat simply leaves his troopsopen to ongoing attacks from every would-be terror group in the Middle East.The attacks are getting more frequent,more deadly,and there is no sign that the terrorists are being brought to justice.More American troops have died since Bush declared himself the winner,in a country allegedly overjoyed at being liberated,than died at the hands of Saddam's entire army.In short,Bush has stuffed up.There are no weapons of mass destruction,he's not catching the terrorists,Saddam and Osama have got away,and the locals are fighting the U.S. presence in their homeland.It's time to admit that the whole campaign is a flop,and bring the troops home.

[camiata]

Well, after how close Wolfie came to getting blown away, I'd say it's pretty obvious why Dubya won't go to Iraq. I don't seem to recall a lot of presidential visits to Saigon either. Personally, I'd like to see most of his administration visit and stay in the same hotel Wolfowitz was in. Clinto was such a bad guy because he lied about getting a little head. Bush and his pals make that seem like a fond memory.

[freakray]

Originally Posted by sarujin

Plus Taranaki did Churchill go strolling down the streets of Berlin in 1945?

sarujin

I doubt it, speak to most Americans and they will tell you America won the war in Europe, not the Allies. Based on that, there was no reason for Churchill to go to Berlin.

[BLU CIVIC]

if i was him......i'd do a video conference

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by freakray

I doubt it, speak to most Americans and they will tell you America won the war in Europe, not the Allies. Based on that, there was no reason for Churchill to go to Berlin.

You live in a bizarre place. Nobody here thinks America won the war all on our own. We do know we were on the winning side. I hear the myth that this is how most Americans think, but I submit that is not the case.

As for Bush going to Iraq, I think he’ll be one of the first visiting heads of state after Iraq holds their general elections sometime next year.

[2strokebloke]

Originally Posted by sarujin

Plus Taranaki did Churchill go strolling down the streets of Berlin in 1945?

Didn't Stalin, Churchill and even the U.S. president all meet in Berlin when the war was over? (and Stalin decided not to tell the other two that Russians had found Hitler dead?) Or did they meet somewhere else? My memory about the history of WWII is a little blurry.

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

You live in a bizarre place. Nobody here thinks America won the war all on our own. We do know we were on the winning side. I hear the myth that this is how most Americans think, but I submit that is not the case.
size][/font]

The myth is perpetuated by the large number of comments that appear in forums such as thisone,posted by Americans along the lines of,

"If America hadn't entered the war,you'd all be speaking Japanese/German."

Of course,the real reason that America abandoned its financially lucrative neutrality was that it got rolled by the Japs at Pearl Harbor,in much the same way that it got rolled by terrorists in New York.

The principal difference,of course is Pearl Harbor was the work of a nation,WTC was the work of fundamentalists of Saudi Arabian origin.Still not convinced of Iraq's role in any of this,but hey,America can do no wrong,eh Yogs?