Was Saddam's Downfall an Easy Victory for Bush and Blair?

  • News
  • Thread starter N_Quire
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses the ease of the war in Iraq and the surprise of the media and public. Some believe that the war was always going to be easy, while others credit the protesters for preventing a more intense conflict. The media is criticized for constantly changing their predictions and creating sensationalized stories. The conversation also mentions the hope that the United States will be successful in planning for peace and references the involvement of Colin Powell and Tony Blair. Overall, the conversation highlights the lack of resistance from Saddam's regime and the feeling of safety now that the war is over.
  • #1

N_Quire

Talk about an anticlimax. This war was easy. Bush and Blair were right. Saddam had to go. And he went.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Winning the war was never a question. It is winning the peace that will be a challenge.

Njorl
 
  • #3
Everyone was surprised at how easily the regime crumbled. I hope Rumsfeld and Wolfawitz are as good at planning peace, and that they start to listen to Colin Powell and Tony Blair.
 
  • #4
Originally posted by N_Quire
Everyone was surprised at how easily the regime crumbled.
Except maybe the media who a week ago was saying how everyone was surprised at how tough it was. I wonder if now they are surprised that it was so easy as well. And does that mean they are surprised that they were surprised that it was surprisingly easy? I'm surprised that everyone is so surprised that it went surprisingly easily. I'm not surprised.

I hope Rumsfeld and Wolfawitz are as good at planning peace, and that they start to listen to Colin Powell and Tony Blair.
Well Bush did put Powell (as is traditional) in charge of the reconstruction and not Rumsfeld.
 
  • #5
Thanks, Russ for pointing out the obvious about the media(not that they would EVER admit it). Anyone with half a brain knew this was going to be easy. Let's thank the protesters for their work, because I think they were instrumental in lessening the 'shock and awe' thing that never quite happened. The troops did a mostly good job, but I don't know how much actual training in this sort of thing that they actually got.
 
  • #6
The media changes its opinions as often as Katie Couric smiles. We have read of a war that would last a week, six months, years; that Baghdad would involve bloody and fierce fighting, chemical weapons, suicide bombers. It turned out that Saddam was all smoke and hot air.
 
  • #7
It is the media's business to accurately predict the future, and be suprised when it happens. Nobody wants to watch news that everyone was expecting, nor do they want to be informed by dummies who couldn't see it coming. It's a paradox. Where's Wu Li?

Njorl
 
  • #8
Obviously Saddam never had any kind of chance, though I thought the house to house fighting would have been worse. I notice from all this that there were no chemical warheads launched, no nuclear strikes, I never even heard of a scud being fired. More like a superpower steamrolling a forthrate regime that couldn't even defend itself.

I feel so much safer now that Hitler has been disposed.
 
  • #9
i heard of a few scuds being fired, but that is from idiots who didn't know what they were talking about. also yes; it is like the varsity football team had its way with the chess club; woo-frickin-who.
 
  • #10
Originally posted by Njorl
It is the media's business to accurately predict the future, and be suprised when it happens. Nobody wants to watch news that everyone was expecting, nor do they want to be informed by dummies who couldn't see it coming. It's a paradox. Where's Wu Li?

Njorl
Is that first sentence how you meant to word that? "Accurately?" You're not serious, are you? The media's job (as they see it) is to SENSATIONALIZE the possibilities for the future. They don't "predict," they speculate. And the wilder the better. That maximizes the "surprise" when the predictions don't pan out. Two stories for the price of one. Not that I'm jaded or anything... :wink:
 

1. Was Saddam's downfall solely due to the efforts of Bush and Blair?

No, Saddam's downfall was the result of a combination of factors, including military intervention by the United States and its allies, as well as internal opposition and uprisings within Iraq.

2. Did Bush and Blair accurately predict the aftermath of Saddam's downfall?

It is difficult to say for sure whether Bush and Blair accurately predicted the aftermath of Saddam's downfall. While they believed that removing Saddam from power would lead to a more stable and democratic Iraq, the country has faced ongoing challenges and conflicts since his downfall.

3. What role did the media play in shaping the perception of Saddam's downfall?

The media played a significant role in shaping the public perception of Saddam's downfall. While some media outlets portrayed it as a swift and decisive victory for Bush and Blair, others highlighted the ongoing violence and instability in Iraq.

4. Did the downfall of Saddam lead to lasting peace in the region?

No, the downfall of Saddam did not lead to lasting peace in the region. While it did remove a dictator from power, it also created a power vacuum and sparked ongoing conflicts and instability in Iraq and the surrounding region.

5. How did the international community respond to Saddam's downfall?

The international community had varying reactions to Saddam's downfall. While some countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, supported the military intervention, others, such as France and Germany, opposed it. The United Nations also had differing opinions and resolutions regarding the situation in Iraq.

Suggested for: Was Saddam's Downfall an Easy Victory for Bush and Blair?

Back
Top