Got an example? I'm prepared to back up any comment I actually made with some evidence. My quote cited the Official History from the US Army, don't take my word for it. I surely don't take yours.
Nobody can fault Red for wishing we had an exit plan, IMO. Whether we agree with the war or not, we all would prefer low American casualties with a minimum amount of time to get the job done. I would have to agree with Craig that Red's philosophy does seem to rely too much on 20/20 vision. Theoretically, not going to war when we can't decisevely win sounds great - but in reality, it's not as easy to tell when things are going to work out in our favor or not.
I presume you mean to say 20/20 hindsight, but I think 20/20 vision is actually the case here. Predicting the problems in this war was not as hard as you might expect. There were many voices that cautioned us against invading Iraq. 1. George Bush #1 warned explicitly in his memoirs about the dangers of Occupying Iraq with predictions that are eerie considering what actually happened when Bush #2 did it anyway. The son did not have the wisdom of the father. 2. Colin Powell resisted the Iraqi misadventure vigorously within the administration--"we break it, we buy it", he said. No one knew more about actually invading Iraq than the former Chairman of the JCS. But he was marginalised and eventually dropped. 3. General Shenseki, the Army Chief of Staff insisted on a 500,000 man force to get the job done right. It took that many to take tiny Kuwait. But Rumsfelds policy is small and light, not heavy and over whelming. So Shenseki was retired early. All of the active generals learned to not ask for more troops if they wanted an Army career. 4. The retired generals (Norman Swartzkoptf, Wesley Clark, Barry McCaffery, etc.) were almost in unison that conquering Iraq would be relatively easy but that occupying it would be extremely difficult. They proved to be correct. 5. The CIA was not big on this war and immediately began to chafe the administration who eventually replaced its director. But the intelligence professionals feel very strongly that the administration fouled up their pre-war reccommendations. 6. Most of the western allies resisted this war with good reasons, even the British had to be dragged into it. No proper coalition was assembled as we did in Korea and Kuwait. Damage to our relations with our important NATO allies was done. Even the Brits may not follow us next time.
I did indeed mean hindsight vision. Certainly, I think a certain level of risk was forseeable with Iraq, and yes with this war in particular we probably knew in advance more so what we were getting into. That's not exactly what I'm referring to. I mean your historical references to other wars & what we should have done in those situations. In retrospect it's easy to say that we should have expected this or that & thus should have acted this way, but the cases aren't always obvious while they are actually happening. Would I have chosen to persue this war? Probably not. I wasn't & still am not sure whether the President made the right decision. The end result will be what the President is ultimately judged upon. The war can still be won, but it requires support.
To be honest with you CParso, at the time Bush announced that this was a war against all of terrorism, I wondered if he was not making a mistake in not just going after those responsible for 9/11. That would not have been so open-ended as a war on terrorism, and would not have lasted nearly as long. But he addressed the nation and said that was what he wanted to do, and the nation agreed with him. He told the nation at that time that the war would not be limited to Afghanistan, but would involved other theaters of operation. But I really do believe that if we had not gone after Saddam now, we would have had to do it later because the Dulfer (s?) report stated that the reason Saddam had gotten rid of his WMD was to end the UN sanctions, and the reason he wanted to end the sanctions was so he could re-develope his program of WMD without interference. That was the kind of person we were dealing with. He was a danger to the Mid-East and had to be taken out.
One of the problems i have with Liberals is they are two faced when it comes to human rights. They plead for the people that are dying of hunger in Africa, They cry for the people dying of aids, they scream about how China'treats their citizens, etc , etc , etc. But when it comes to the people of Iraq being gassed by their leader, when terrorist kill thousands at a time and we are supposed to let them live in other parts of the world with no reprisal , when people who start gangs that kill thousands are not suppose to be executed they cant justify their belief. What about the human rights of the people of Iraq whose families were gassed, What about the families of the people killed in terrorist attacks, and what about the families of the people killed by the gangs. Do they deserve rights and justice. You either defend all human rights or you defend none. These liberals want us to pull all our troops from the world and never do anything to anyone unless they come to America. What they dont realize is sooner or later the bad people come knocking on your door and then you have to deal with them anyway. If history has taught us anything it is that their are bad people and they must be stopped. To forget this to not realize we could all be speaking German right about now if we had let Hitler keep going unchecked. And the people of the WWII generation realize we could have lost that war.
you make a good point. because i am a wonderful person that is stunningly honest, i like to admit that i dont really care at all about human rights. peeps can kill each other all they want for all i care. i only care when it starts to affect (possibly "effect" i am still working on understanding that one) me. also i generally think that people who claim to care about others* are either girls who dont know anything, guys trying to look nice to get girls, idiots, retards, liars or some combination of the above. *= by "others" i mean people whose lives have no bearing on your own, like kurds or serbs or tutsis or some other groups that enjoys getting slaughtered on a semi-regular basis.
:rofl: I agree. There are circumstances when I can not justify getting involved. I made 4 separate trips to africa and to be honest with you, I don't know why. We accomplished nothing significant to the American people or anyone else for that matter. The little bastards were killing each other before we got there and after we leave they just start killing each other again. I say let em go at it. Everyone is always complaining how the world is getting over populated anyway. Call it natural selection with an AK-47. You feel for the children, no one wants to see any child suffer. But, damn, when someone goes over there and saves them they grow up and start killing each other again. It's an endless cycle with them. And it's not just the africans. It happens all over Europe also. Let the EU take care of their own when what is taking place has absolutely no impact on US security or financial well being. Clinton was the worse. He kept us deployed to every little hole in the wall country on some stupid peace keeping mission for eight years. It made you almost forget that your main job was to kill the enemy, not hand out MRE's. I think that I've seen every third world country not in South America. And I've seen a couple of them also. :dis:
Give me a break. Conservatives are just as two-faced on "Life" issues. They are stridently anti-abortion, but they promote the death penalty. If life is sacred, then terminating a life in its 112th trimester is just as heinous as terminating it in the first trimester. These were NOT the reasons we were told we were going to war over. We are NOT the world's policeman. OK, then why haven't we felt a need to attack the other 41 dictatorships, monachies, and one-party-states in the world? Bush told us why Iraq was invaded, "Saddam tried to kill my dad". Must I point out that Japan attacked us and Germany declared war upon us. Iraq did neither. As I have pointed out above, some wars are important, necessary, and unavoidable. Other wars are foolish, entirely avoidable, and mismanaged. Wisdom is deciding wisely which wars should be waged and which wars must be avoided. And if war must be waged we must go all out and use overwhelming force, if neccessary, to win it quickly and decisively (as we did in WWII and the last Iraq War). Going to war with a too-small force, a too-optimistic plan, and endlessly dicking around patrolling for three years is not how to do it. This is not an issue of being liberal or conservative. It's a matter of being pragmatic or idealistic.
i dont agree with it, wbut i think conservatives can make a cogent argument that they mean "innocent" life is sacred. i dont really see any hypocrisy there.
