DELETED

[2RHPZ]

EDIT

[Freibier]

not ... :roll:

[2RHPZ]

not ... :roll:

yes ... ;)

[Roktiken]

I refuse to think someone like Bush can even be called similair to the likes of Churchill. Sir Churchill was an honourable man and Bush is anything but.

I spit on this article

[Ichhabe]

When I saw the topic; I started to laugh.

When reading the first 1/3 of the article I first laughed, then almost started to cry. What a lot of bollocks. What would be like Curchill was if George W. Bush had warned against International terrorism at the beginning of 1990. But he did not do it. He was bizzy doing other stuff.

BURN THE ARTICLE!!! It is an insult to every British on this planet, those who lives, those who is dead and the next seven generations to come.

[Elmo]

Yesh! Both were known to do da boozah! Cheers!

[Knutsen]

Oh please!!!!
Come on, it's just stupid. Appart from comparing Bush with Churchill, comparing the terrorist threat with what Nazi Germany represented it's just stupid. You just can't compare such organisation with a country with the manpower, the technology and the resources of Germany in the 1930's.

[[SAB]Grey]

Yeah the guy that wrote this article is from the land of not so smart.

[achilles]

i would say that bush is more like Napoleon Bonaparte in the sense that he is trying to spread liberalism and democracy...and since he is trying to do that on a global scale he can be thought of as a more significant figure than Napoleon whose view was pan-european. I guess history will show that :roll:


Bush...Churchill....give me a break :lol:

[2RHPZ]

EDIT

[California Joe]

Honestly it's just a piss poor comparison.

[2RHPZ]

EDIT

[KB]

Churchill rallied his people and the rest of the world; the same can't be said of the US current leadership.

[ezhuang]

"You are either with us or you are with terrorists" Quote from Bush
How many terrorists is he gonna go after? There are billions of them.

[budanski]

"You are either with us or you are with terrorists" Quote from Bush
How many terrorists is he gonna go after? There are billions of them.Notice the ones who took offense to that statement. There had been speculation that some of america's 'allies' were pretty anti-american prior to 9/11. They were upset not because it was a foolish remark but because it made them take sides.

[Gordon]

Yesh! Both were known to do da boozah! Cheers!

Yeh, but the difference is Churchill continued to booze throughout his life whereas Bush don't any more ..... sad for him i guess .. ;)

[American Patriot]

I'd be pissed off if I was compared to a limey.

[Knutsen]

I'd be pissed off if I was compared to a limey
The situation with Churchill and Bush is similar.

[Phil642]

:lol: This topic must be in "Off topic and humor" no?

rofl rofl

[Lazy Lob]

I'd be pissed off if I was compared to a limey. :lol:

its mutual mate

[moughoun]

I'd be pissed off if I was compared to a limey.
Better tell that to the US navy USS Churchill and all ;)

[achilles]

Honestly it's just a piss poor comparison.

just in you are talking about the Bush vs Napoleon comparison...it was just sarcastic for napoleon's sake p-)

[Loco]

Winston Churchill was a talented writer, GWBusn not. And I´d just ask one question to those people who seem to adore GWBush: Do you think GWBush is more qualiefied than his father is?

[big_les]

I'd be pissed off if I was compared to a limey.

There's no need for that you reactionary little ****.

[California Joe]

Churchill's Mom was an American.

[Dennis G]

Thanks for the PM CAG.

I don't think it's a stretch at all. I've told many friends this year to mark my words. That in 10-15 years Bush will be judged on to be on the level of Churchill or Reagan. All the more because of his steadfastness against all odds and attacks. The book The War Against the Terror Masters by Michael Ledeen will I think convince you if current events don't.

[big_les]

in 10-15 years Bush will be judged on to be on the level of Churchill or Reagan.

*cough* *splutter*

Oh, he's on the level of Reagan alright.

[fantassin]

Leave Napoleon alone please.

[Dennis G]

Churchill's Mom was an American.

So that's where the man got his big, brass ones.





The President and Churchill share the same can do attitude, however Churchill was not as tied to his staff and had better people around him.

1)Would Churchill allow Muqtada Al Sadr to constantly escape only to return again and again?

2)Would Churchill have allowed Fallujah to remain standing?

3)Would Churchill allow Syria to become even more of a terrorist haven?


I believe Churchill would have "set Iraq/Syria ablaze" if faced with these situations.

The President is a good, decent man. I firmly believe that.
If he had his druthers, all these problems would be solved in a week.

However,President Bush is handicapped by the same thing that handicapped President Reagan. They know what is right and what they want to do, but those around them undercut their efforts. Pres. Reagan wanted to wage war on terror, but was limited to airstrikes and failed covert action by his policy people.Same thing with President Bush. 3 years after 9/11,we've won two wars, but our security apparatus still lumbers, CIA is crippled by hand wringing and the best efforts of a President who wants to go after these savages with all force are hampered by turf battles and personal agendas.


I also firmly believe that he was not given the full brief on Iraq/GWOT, and now, like it or not, we have a big problem . We can't retreat and staying may become politically untenable.

So what is the plan? I have not heard one from EITHER candidate. Certainly not from Sen. Kerry, whose understanding of terrorism is paltry, and unfortunately not from the President.

[2RHPZ]

EDIT

[Knutsen]

So what is the plan? I have not heard one from EITHER candidate. Certainly not from Sen. Kerry, whose understanding of terrorism is paltry, and unfortunately not from the President.

Invading Iraq shows anything but understanding of terrorism.