More of the same... here, these figures are from May 25 and do not include the weekends mayhem. And here in microchosm is some of the fall-out.
There never was a strategy was there?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(243)
-
▼
May
(45)
- The $9Billion Damp Squib
- Playing The Tart...
- Econ 101
- Life's A Beach
- Shock & Awe II
- Fred Flinstone
- Scandal
- Myth-Busting
- Resurgitation
- Grubby - Update
- GWOT
- The Smiffs!
- Axis of The Willing...
- Bush Whacked
- Whaa?
- Walls Come Tumblin' Down...
- They'll Be Home By Christmas... Probably Not.
- With Gusto!
- Classical Music Friday
- OWWOOOOOOOOO!
- The Three R's
- The 'Boys
- It's Just Not Cricket!
- Still Not Getting It
- It's Uncanny
- D D D D D D David
- Desperate Times
- Knowing When To Leave
- Classical Music Friday
- Speaking of Ignorance
- Pop On
- Fear, Ignorance & Vengeance
- This Is Not An Irish Rebel Song...
- American Exceptionalism
- Stranglers
- Plan F
- Executive Decisions
- Name That Paper...
- Rock On
- Syriaously
- Old Con
- We Pay These People?
- What Glenn Sez!
- Rock On
- Mission Accomplished
-
▼
May
(45)
Links
About Me
- righterscramp
- In my mid forties, two kids, nuff said.
2 comments:
If by strategy you mean some sort of magical way to conduct war without casualties or human suffering, then--yes, there was no strategy.
All war is great tragedy. People like myself who support this war do so not because we're unaware that people are dying and suffering, but because we believe that this was the best way to minimize the losses in the long run, short of submission.
The removal of Saddam was a giant gift to the Iraqi people. If we ever hope to defeat bin Laden's radicalism, doesn't it make sense to offer something better?
If it works, the War on Terror is over, and history will rightly judge that OIF was a brilliant gambit.
Sometimes I think that's what really bugs the left. God forbid that Chimpie get any credit!
It's all rubbish AR, there will be no victory, the alternative is not submission, history will not vindicate your boy. Truth is, Republicans like war, any war and will use any means possible to justify it. War creates wealth for their sponsors and long wars represent the best return on their investments. The intellectual dishonesty on the right has been exposed and this is where the debate centers, as a last stand, a few more months were bought but that really is it. All the strawmen will be burned and the mess will be left for someone else to clean up, it's a pattern in the Shrubs life.
As Bill Maher said "Only George Bush could go to war for oil and not find any."
I really have listened to all the arguments for this war - none of them has convinced me.
I think you often forget that pretty much the entire country was behind Bush after 9/11, he squandered the opportunities presented at that time on a half assed, ill-conceived, since rebuked doctrine of 'pre-emptive war' that has since proven half assed and ill-conceived. The authors of this stupidity, with the exception of the Kagan clan, have half-heartedly accepted that it was perhaps a bad idea, that they did not take into consideration a more broad approach, when will you come to that realization? All the left wants is good policy, we want to beat bin Laden as badly as you but firmly believe that no leader or policy is infallable. What's so extreme about that?
Post a Comment