 Quote:
Originally Posted by Antithesis  1. It's not legitimate because there's no plan for victory. We just see situations cropping up at random and deal with them. It generally doesn't work, and even if it did, terrorism is accepted. It's been around since ancient times, and despite our hatred of it, the US uses it regularly.
2. With WWII and the Civil War we knew who was the enemy and how to stop them. Even guerrilla wars can be stopped with special tactics, but we don't use them too well. That's why we're failing in Iraq. 3. First, we never considered the implications of "freedom" for the Iraqis, and second we didn't know how to deal with the inevitability of post-Saddam resistance and lawlesness.
4. Any military commander with half a brain will tell you that in order to succeed, you have to stop the problem at it's source, not rely on the enemy's first strike to dictate your actions. | 1. No plan for victory? How do you know? Is it possible that "Plan A" and "Plan B" simply didn't work?
2. We KNOW who the enemy is in this war too - it's just that it's not Politically Correct to talk about it and go after them.
3. Partially true. The problem with the Bush Admins. idea of a "Marshall Plan II" in Iraq is that everything is different than during WWII. PLUS (and this is the non-politically correct thing we can't admit), these Middle-Easterners have NEVER known peace, prosperity, civility and progress.
4. Again, this COULD happen were this war not being run by opinion polls. Any war that is run by public opinion polls will NEVER be won. |