Re: Top General: Bush administration "led America into a strategic blunder of historic proportions."...


"El Castor" <No_One@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:cjpi441dfttftn522pt1e6ao0aaj7i0c3f@xxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 06:09:19 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"El Castor" <No_One@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:oblh445mcaoig5feo66jb9aco5oigb1opo@xxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 07:05:23 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"El Castor" <No_One@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:j01f441dmfqh1km6val59990musntspucg@xxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 15:32:47 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"El Castor" <No_One@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:cqkd44hv5mq8oiha3824nfu4nu7ailmcfg@xxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 07:25:54 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
<okamuraj005@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"mg" <mgkelson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:bbb9fef3-f4b9-442a-a1f8-4f651c4edf0c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jun 3, 11:12 am, "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Perhaps the book told us what he thought the strategic blunder was,
but
I
did not find in your posting what he thought was the strategic
blunder.
Could you perhaps tell us, what the startegic blunder was?

Strategic basically means "strategy" and strategy means "plan of
action" to achieve a goal.So, for instance, say there was a
president
of a hypothetical country who's goal was to make his country safer
and
an optional, preemptive war was his plan for achieving that goal.
But
suppose this war actually made that country less safe and resulted
in
the death of a lot of innocent people and cost that president and
his
country a lot of respect and blood and treasure. That would be an
example of a strategic blunder of historic proportions.

Okay, then the question is, are we less safe as a result? When you
are
king
of the hill and no one can challenge your being at the top, what does
it
really matter, what other people think of you?

Hard to answer your question, Jerry. I think it's safe to say that we
are less wealthy by a few hundred billion dollars, and 4,000+ families
have suffered personal tragedies, parents have lost sons and
daughters, wives have lost husbands, and children have lost parents.
And that doesn't begin to count the amputated limbs, severed spines,
and damaged brains. So what have we given up in exchange for what?

The same question can be asked about why we fought WWII, and in that
war,
a
whole lot more soliders died and a whole lot more families of soldiers
who
died, lost husband and children lost fathers (well mostly fathers) and
we
spent a whole lot more money. Would you say that was a war that should
not
have been fought?

Our involvement in WWII was entirely appropriate -- and I'd be glad to
explain exactly why in exquisite detail anytime you want.

Go ahead, and I will go into an equally exquiste detail why fighting Iraq
was approproprate, and why success in Iraq now is not only important, but
may be very important.

Go ahead. Tell us why invading Iraq was important -- why it was the
right thing to do, but please do it in your own words.

I am waiting for your "exquisite detail", then I will be more than happy to
respond in kind.

My problem
(in retrospect) with invading Iraq is that on the one hand Saddam
presented a threat, but it was a pretty amorphous ill defined threat.
He could have given terrorists nuclear material, nerve gas, etc, which
might have been used against the United States. That's a given. But to
prevent that we threw Iraq into chaos, sacrificed thousands of our own
soldiers, spent hundreds of billions, caused a million refugees to
flee the country, and risked pushing Iraq into the Iranian orbit. On
top of that, if Obama wins in November, you can thank the Iraq war.
Bush should have known the can of worms he was opening, but he didn't.
Anyone doing a cost/benefit analysis of the Iraq war would have to
conclude that we were nuts.

And if Obama does not win, then what?

If he doesn't win, then invading Iraq was still a huge mistake --
certainly one of the biggest blunders in US history.

Why?

Because thousands of American soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis
will still be dead, a million refugees will still have lost their
homes, hundreds of billions of our dollars will still have been poured
down a rat hole, the Iraqi people will still hate the United States
with an intensity they never knew before we invaded, and Iran will
still exert an influence in Iraq that they have not enjoyed in 800
years. That's why.

So, then you think the Israelis were wrong when they took over territory that belongs to the Palestinians?

.

Relevant Pages
Loading