Would Churchill ?

Question

Do you think Churchill and FDR could have handled the Iraqi situation more efficiently than Blair and Bush ?

Answer 1

Churchill and FDR controlled their media, and political opposition was more interested in the safety of the nation than regaining political power.

Bush and Blair were attacked on both fronts by the enemy. Big difference.

Answer 2

The Iraqi situation was created by Bush (possibly with some help from Blair but more-so by Cheney and Rumsfeld). We wouldn't be at war there if anyone else were president.

So, I would say that FDR and Churchill would have handled it better by not engaging in military action. Thus, it would be easy to imagine a much simpler (and better) situation now (4 years later).

Answer 3

Duh!

Is the Pope a Catholic?

Of course they would have handled it better. They were real leaders who will be remembered throughout history! Churchill would have told Bush exactly where to go, that man did not suffer fools gladly.

Why can't we have leaders like that these days? Blair and Bush are little more than a couple of very unfunny jokes.

Answer 4

If you read the history of Churchill he was a man of his time (a Victorian) and believed in Empire and was called a war monger.
During his lifetime the British were in Iraq and occupied Iraq (and most of the Middle East, partitioned Syria and Palestine (and left after many years of fighting Iraqi militias) (freedom fighters or terrorists?) it depends on who writes the history for who to read.
The British also were occupiers of Afghanistan, it is quite amazing that politicians never learn their lesson and go back for more humiliation.

Answer 5

Churchill and FDR were good tacticians and diplomats. Thus, they could had been better in the Iraqi situation than the present leaders.

Answer 6

Britishers have long experience of handling complex issues. Mr. Blair himself is an intelligent politician. In his country he handled the terrorism issue with great skill. It appears that report of existence of WMD or some other causes compelled Bush to act quickly instead of using diplomacy. Mr. Blair has supported Bush who is still bent on defeating insurgency by use of force.

Answer 7

Most assuredly. Churchill responded to a tyranny attacking foreign soil, Blair aided in attacking foreign soil.

Answer 8

With public support anything can be achieved.

Unfortunately,as in the vietnam war,the ignorant,lacking vision,liberal left,force the USA to fight with one arm tied behind their backs.Meaning the fight goes on longer and more troops are killed and the argument rages higher.

During ww2 there was much public support for war against those who would harm us even when pitted against well equipped and highly trained armies.

Im afraid that in modern times,the western public in in general
lack vision and dont recognise the threat that islamic control of oil resources means to our futures and childrens futures.

The world will be held to ransom ,either by crazed arabs ,or if we dont get their first, communist china in the middle east.

I dont take blair seriously,but i would say bush is a greater leader than roosevelt but his public are too content and well fed to appreciate the dangers.

Answer 9

Churchills decisions during world war two were worse than idiotic.

He also used mustard gas against the kurds in 1920, and was hailed a hero back home.
.

Answer 10

Churchill did not suffer fools gladly, so I think we can say for certain he would have treated Bush with the contempt he deserves.