I love it how people who have neither served or have never been to combat talk on and on about how "they" would fight such and such conflict. Gotta love them armchair quarterbacks.
Vietnam Vietnam was one of the first examples of why you do NOT allow politicians to fight wars. Best leave these things to the Generals who have a bit more experience in these matters. Gen. Westmorland tried to fight this "police action" blindfolded and both hands tied behind his back. The politicians would not let him fight it on his terms, which was simple. Carpet bomb the shit out of North Vietnam until they give up. He got to do this twice with operations Linebacker I and II (each only lasted a few days). But of course the politicians caught wind of this and put a stop to it. Also they were not legally allowed to enter Laos or Cambodia, although we know now that rule was violated covertly numerous times, meanwhile the North Vietnamese Army wandered freely through these countries. And how did the problem solve itself? Last time I checked there was no longer a Communist North and Democratic South Vietnam. In fact, according to Wikipidia it is still being ruled by the communists, and if the several dozen books I have read on the subject are correct, the original problem was to keep North Vietnam and specifically communism OUT of South Vietnam. Unless you are referring to the North Vietnam problem solved, then yes, you are right, they got what they wanted and we only lost 10,000 service members in the process. Desert Storm Define Time-bound, because if it means what I think it does, then Desert Storm was NOT time bound. There was no specific time to send us home. The only reason that we were sent home so quickly in the first place is because again, politicians stepped in and put a stop to it when video of the carnage on Highway 1 was shown on TV. Trust me, we were poised and ready to go to Baghdad and were sorely disappointed when they ordered us to turn South instead and prepare to come home. Iraq 2 Although there have yet to be any WMD's to be found (and I doubt there ever will be), I believe that regime change was necessary. Saddam was a constant thorn in our side and he needed to be taken out. And I believe that we have defined some goals. Remove Saddam from power and create a safe and democratic Iraq with a LEGALLY elected government.(oh wait, that's right, Saddam's elections were legal, his was usually the only name on the ballot, noting illegal about that). That seems specific enough to me. Help Iraq be able to govern itself, help create a strong and capable military, help create a strong and reliable police force. If these are not specific goals, then please tell me what is. So since we have specific goals, we can measure our progress on these goals. Progress is slow, sure, the none the less, progress is being made. Check out today's NY Times. There are a couple of stories on this progress. Here, I will help you out: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2007/11/19/world/middleeast/20071120_BUILDUP_OVERVIEW.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/world/middleeast/20surge.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin And I specifically pointed you to the NYT because we all know that if I were to steer you to the only fair and balanced news service you would not believe it, so I point you to the liberal darling of news papers. So now that we have specific goals, and they are measurable, I believe that these goals can be attained, no? Again refer to the two stories above to see that we are slowly attaining these goals. And once these goals are attained, then of course we can start to go home, so now this is also releasable, no? But since none of us are clairvoyant, we cannot predict when it is going to be over, so no, it cannot be time-bound (unless you are a liberal or one of those liberals in conservatives clothing bent on surrendering). And you forgot about Somalia, or are skirmishes lost by the liberal darlings of the day taboo for these conversations? What say you? Bruce Gruss Gott wrote: > Hey, cool challenge. Well, of course it's a case-by-case basis but > here's a good starting point for me: Any direct attack of US > civilians or unprovoked attack of the US military anywhere in the > World. Now it gets complicated: who, what, when, where, and how to > attack? > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Enterprise web applications, build robust, secure scalable apps today - Try it now ColdFusion Today ColdFusion 8 beta - Build next generation apps Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:246860 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
