View Single Post
  #26  
Old 11-21-2005, 12:36 AM
Zeno Zeno is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Spitsbergen
Posts: 1,599
Default Re: Runsfeld Clears Things Up

[ QUOTE ]
I see your 'reasons' as either borderline or outright sociopathic and reject them outright.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reject away. History, which you evoked in your post, provides conclusive proof that the reasons stated are very good reasons to go to war, and indeed have been the basis for many if not most wars. I sense some moralistic streak in you so I already know that we will simply disagree on this.

[ QUOTE ]
History will be the best judge of that.


[/ QUOTE ]

Depending of course on who writes the History. It is interesting that the 1848 war with Mexico, which the U.S. probably provoked, turned out to be a big gain for America. And most do not know or even care about the 'true history' of the how the war started.

[ QUOTE ]
It's time to move on to more important themes as - risk/reward analyses for a given war. Now that is something worth debating about.


[/ QUOTE ]

To beat the horse again - This is the real issue. The way the war was botched. The administration became too greed too fast. It they would have started the Iraq invasion during Bush's second term (he would have won easily because the Afghan war was more or less successful) then things may have gone more smoothly. Some more lead time to get ready, let the dust settle in the Afghan region and solidify your position and gains, would have been the wiser course to take. Then launch your propaganda campaign and get the throbbing masses all worked up for another go. Then your ratio of risk to reward would have been better, in my opinion.

But the most difficult risk/reward thing to calculate is the religion card. It’s the joker in the deck.

But enough of this, I already know you will disagree with all this so I suggest you put me on ignore and continue with your silly debate about the merits and justifications of the ‘Iraq War’.

-Zeno
Reply With Quote