It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Britain Blamed for Iraq War

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2006 @ 11:14 PM
link   
Britain 'not tough' enough with US




A former US assistant defence secretary has blamed Britain for failing to "raise the alarm" with Washington over failings in the administration of Iraq following the war.

Mr Adelman, who was deputy ambassador to the United Nations under Ronald Reagan, was one of the loudest cheerleaders for the Iraq War in the months before the 2003 invasion. He famously predicted that toppling Saddam Hussein and liberating Iraq would be "a cakewalk" for the US military.



Of course, he's right, but this is hilarous. I say old chap, about dismantling the Iraqi army...

[edit on 10-11-2006 by rizla]




posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 12:00 AM
link   
All of these guys Adelman, Perle, Rumsfeld are all from the same mold, all part of the same groups and all with ME ties and interests. Nothing to do with American interests. Look up Adelman on sourcewatch. His wife was involved in ME diplomacy and also ran a large organisation that managed Foreign Aid (USAid). Lots of money went to Egypt and Israel through that agency. It really is becoming more and more apparent the past several years were definitely not for the American publics interests. Why are all these rats now jumping ship and trying to push the blame elsewhere? These are the people who raped our national treasury, allowed our men and women to die on foreign soil unneccessarily, brought about the deaths of 150,00 innocent Iraqis and are now going to place the blame on someone elses shoulders and walk away with all the loot. Just watch and see.



posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 06:29 AM
link   
Well this man backed the war and was involved in planning it so he has some cheek. But i must agree that us Brits tend to just blame the American government for this we were fully involved without actually being consulted on anything, we just got swept along and told what to do, pathetic really, from a country that pretends to be a world player.



posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 06:36 AM
link   
Peruvian-we were just swept along without having any say in the matter.
It was our lying government who talked it over and agreed with bush,while at the same time saying to us that no war was planned.
Remember the protests?
Not right and proper to say we supported this war.

I agree with what you said about the UK "pretending to be a world power,"though.
Look where that has got us...



posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 06:45 AM
link   
Youve got to laugh at that comment..so the people telling Donald Rumsfeld that things were going pearshaped were not enough then ? Sounds like excuses to me..looks like the finger pointing is starting already..
Anyone know whos decison it was to dismantle the Iraqi Army ? That must rate as one of the biggest mistakes of this whole mess...



posted on Nov, 11 2006 @ 08:12 AM
link   
Of course its the english's fault the USA went to war.
I mean, it cant be the united states fault can it...

How dare the british, allow another country to wage war...

IF the british had voices agasint the war, voices enough for them to pursuade the americans NOT to go in... they wouldnt of JOINED THE WAR EFFORT.

Britan and America are so widely inter-connected , that in todays world what one does the other will blindly follow.

Britan has enough clout in the international world to have there own intellegence, there own assets.. so they are on the same page as the Americans.

now AUSTRALIA...

We didnt have ANY intel at all.
We only followed beause america took advantage of our petty prime minister.
All they had to do was put him up in the ranch, have him photographed nxt to bush on the whitehouse lawn, and the australian army would then be condemend to follow them into this corporate adventure.

Again none of this makes sense.

Exactly what evidence could they of possibly had, to conclude saddam had WMD's?
For there to be evidence, there has to be substance....
being there's no substance, there's no EVIDENCE.

so what exactly were we looking at that made us believe he was develouping wmd's?



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join