| Submit your comments on this article | ||||
| Britain | ||||
| Duke of York criticises BushÂ’s failure to heed UK warning on Iraq | ||||
| 2008-02-05 | ||||
In a rare departure from Royal Family protocol, the Duke said that the post-invasion chaos in Iraq could have been avoided if George BushÂ’s Government had paid heed to British advice.
| ||||
| Posted by:lotp |
| #23 ION TOPIX > TOKYO: REBUILD REGIME WHICH WILL ENCIRCLE NORTH KOREA. Circle to comprise, Japan, SK, USA, and possib other nations. Also from TOPIX > US INTELLIGENCE REPORT SAYS NORTH KOREA THREATENED TO TRANSFER NUKES TO TERRORISTS. Islamist, that is??? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2008-02-05 23:30 |
| #22 Oh. I thought it was the Duke of NEW York...A Number One. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2008-02-05 21:39 |
| #21 Lessee, the Brits were behind Musa Qala in Afghanistan, which turned into a disaster, and in charge in Basra, where the Iraqi Army is just now getting a handhold (though tenuous) on the graft and corruption created by Britain's "go soft" policy. Andy, I think it's wise for you to remember the words of my father: it's better to sit quietly in a corner and THOUGHT a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2008-02-05 21:28 |
| #20 #19 OK - Darrell wins the thread. :-D Posted by Barbara Skolaut IMHO - in honor of tonight: wayyyy too early to call. Some of our rural precints haven't been heard from, and the western comments haven't been closed yet, but with <1% reporting so far, we've gotta wait til 3% reports before bestowing that honor /MSM asshole |
| Posted by: Frank G 2008-02-05 20:17 |
| #19 OK - Darrell wins the thread. :-D |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2008-02-05 19:51 |
| #18 The Duke is entitled to his opinion and I, praise be to Thomas Jefferson and associates, am entitled to not give a rat's... |
| Posted by: Darrell 2008-02-05 19:44 |
| #17 Agree: as far as the next-gen AF bomber, what is wrong with a 'Lot II' buy of B-2s, or to save some money, some B-2 Lites (less stealth, still killing). And ask the AF why the EFA-18 Growler isn't a good enough Jammer platform for them, since they have had to rely on the Prowler since the Aardvarks were retired? Jammer envy, perhaps?? I also think the USN has their entire aviation future pinned to the Lawn Dart and will force it to fill all the roles that until recently specialized aircraft were developed and excelled at. I will call it quits when they figure out how to replace the Grumman E-2D with a Hornet. THe recent shredding of the Tomcats was as much about ensuring Iran couldn't get the spare parts as it was to ensure they would not be brought out of mothballs and put back in service (IMHO), and all the potential spots for man made reefs were taken ( and already done w/ Intruders). |
| Posted by: USN,Ret. 2008-02-05 17:57 |
| #16 I hope the Navy keeps the full F-35C. We need to stop bleeding our equipment buys with a 1000 cuts. The R&D is already spent. If we don't buy enough F-35Cs, then in a few years we will have the spend the R&D all over again to develop something to defeat a threat that the F-18 can't handle or don't have the numbers in the first place. Witness the $40B spent on the B2 and only $7B spent on procuring 21 bombers. Now the Air Force wants more money to develop another bomber. That's criminal. I think the US spends too much on too many R&D programs. We need to focus on fewer programs and then buy equipment in quantity so that it can have a decisive effect. The Russians were forced to concede this. We should have figured it out on our own. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-02-05 16:29 |
| #15 ed: not to stray from the main topic, but Boeing is lobbying the Navy hard to rethink the F-35C ( the carrier version) in favor of more Super Hornets. Using the cost angle, proven platform, etc., etc. If this gains traction, expect the toatl JSF buy to go down, but unit cost to go up, which then drives reduced procurement totals, increased unit costs, etc. Mixed emotions on this; I have no lost love for the Lawn Dart, and i am also drawing a paycheck, based in part on F-35 related work. But then there is the taxpayer side of me. |
| Posted by: USN,Ret. 2008-02-05 15:48 |
| #14 the duck of |
| Posted by: Frank G 2008-02-05 15:14 |
| #13 'The duck I says.' |
| Posted by: little Bill 2008-02-05 14:57 |
| #12 Bad deal for the US to keep Rolls Royce competitive. The American taxpayer will fork over for the F-136 more than Britain's entire F-35 R&D contribution. If the Brits want the engine, let them fund it. Same for handing over $40 billion worth of R&D for Britain's 5% contribution. As a further aside, I believe there is no US need for the F-35B. Helos and new build Harriers are fine. The Marines do not need stealth for CAS and deep strike is for the Navy and Air Force. Just as the Marines don't need their own escort carriers. They learned the wrong lesson from Guadalcanal. If the Navy fleet carriers have to leave, the LHDs won't be staying behind to get slaughtered. Instead an outsize portion of the F-35 R&D budget is spent on the B model, and of course, spent in Britain. The main beneficiaries are nations without our large deck carriers. Not the US. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-02-05 14:51 |
| #11 Maybe we should sack York again. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-02-05 14:34 |
| #10 So clever of the trade envoy to annoy his future hosts before he engages to charm them. This may be a negotiating strategy (or just pique) with regard to the fact that for the 3rd year in a row the Administration's budget omitted funding for a second engine supplier for the F-35. That engine would have come from a GE-Rolls Royce partnership (i.e. from Britain). I have no developed opinion on the merits of a second design/source for this component. Britain is one of the co-developers of the fighter and they do want to keep their defense industry alive. And they've been lobbying friends on Congress who have in turn been pressuring Bush to include this in the budget. Maybe the Duke thinks a Dem win is on the horizon and is using this announcement to generate sympathy among the anti-Bush crowd. ??? FWIW |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-02-05 14:31 |
| #9 Maybe when you can learn to take care of your own troops and not hamstring your Sailors so they become objects of ridicule, then i may listen to you, till then however: phuque off, Your Yorkness. |
| Posted by: USN,Ret. 2008-02-05 14:06 |
| #8 So clever of the trade envoy to annoy his future hosts before he engages to charm them. But then, the Windsors weren't bred for brains. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-02-05 14:04 |
| #7 Mr Hoon, who is now Chief Whip, said their advice not to dismantle the Iraqi Army or purge all members of Saddam HusseinÂ’s BaÂ’ath Party from senior positions had been overruled by Washington. That's the Prince's criticism. Weak, not thought out, unhelpful. Yeah, leave the Baathists in charge of the gov. I wonder what the Brits would have thought if the Americans suggested leaving the Nazis in charge in 1945? Same for the Army. How soon would Iraq had a coup if the Tikriti mafia were left in charge? I blame the Prince's inhaling too many helicopter fumes. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-02-05 13:25 |
| #6 Randy Andy should stick to subjects he's more familiar with, loose women. |
| Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC 2008-02-05 13:00 |
| #5 Calm folks, remember criticizing the EU members is against the law and that is what this is really about IMHO. Not saying this war has been conducted swimmingly but since Europe didn't step up with more than an obligitory handful of brave soldiers (apologies to Nations who did step up, your brave service lays in the shadow of shirker neighbors playing political office with your safety) and Turkey disallowing the use of airspace and the invasion timetable not being changed I believe this is about as good as it could have been. So sorry Duke of York. It hasn't kept one Royal from joining; perhaps your frustration is could have been spent on preparing your armed forces instead of letting the Royal Navy get gutted, developing joint weapon ssystems with the EU instead of integrating with battle tested US equipment, so on so forth. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2008-02-05 11:44 |
| #4 Oh, so we're Britain's "number one ally", huh Andy? Some might look at it the other way, since you folks can't seem to do shit without us. Budget problems, I hear. Trouble with the sticky-fingered Socialist neighbors, maybe? |
| Posted by: mojo 2008-02-05 10:47 |
| #3 In related news: Andrew Windsor can shut the hell up. Yours, A British citizen |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2008-02-05 09:57 |
| #2 Shaddup, ya Aethling, Go sell some boiled meat. |
| Posted by: Free Radical 2008-02-05 06:21 |
| #1 The Duke of York might be trying to get out of jury duty? |
| Posted by: gorb 2008-02-05 01:18 |
