Mistakes might have been made

[Plane]

<<So true.  I mean, it's not like there aren't other wars that went perfectly as planned.  I can't think of any at the moment, but I'm sure some of the folks on the left side of the aisle can name a bunch of them, right off the top of their heads. >>

Mistakes are usually made at the beginnings of any war.  But.

Maybe you'd like to name a war that's been as badly fucked up as this one after almost four years of fighting.

Revolutionary War


Nip and tuck the whole time.

[Xavier_Onassis]

In the Revolutionary War, we had a home-court advantage.

[sirs]

In the Revolutionary War, we had a home-court advantage.

And that has what to do with the tea in China?

[Xavier_Onassis]

And that has what to do with the tea in China?

======================================
Duh.

Perhaps the fact that in Iraq we do NOT have any such home-court advantage?

You need a visit from Obviousman.

[Plane]

And that has what to do with the tea in China?

======================================
Duh.

Perhaps the fact that in Iraq we do NOT have any such home-court advantage?

You need a visit from Obviousman.

[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]


Pay attention Sirs , XO points out tha during the Revolution , even though we had a home court advantage , it was nip and tuck the whole time.

[Michael Tee]

<<I'm no history major on wars, but given the current military casualty count on this one after 4 years, compared to other wars after far less time, kinda blows your assumption right out of the water, of how f'd up this one supposedly is compared to other wars. >>

So the 100,000 to 600,000 civilian casualty count couldn't possibly indicate anything was fucked up?  The inability of a country of 300 million people with the most advanced military technology in the world to subdue a country of only 23 to 27 million people after almost FOUR YEARS of fighting (the U.S. entered WWII in Dec. 1941 and finished it in August 1945) doesn't indicate anything was fucked up?  100,000 of the very people you were supposed to "liberate" (if anyone but you still believes that outrageous bullshit) and possibly 600,000 of them have been killed in the "liberation" process doesn't indicate anything has been fucked up?

You're a pretty tolerant guy, sirs.  If I had to work for a boss, I'd love to work for a guy like you.  Especially if I were an incompetent schmuck.

 <<If Someone with more knowledge of war wishes to pipe in, that may shed some light on your complete lack of objectivity>>

That's hilarious.  In other words, you don't know jackshit about what's being discussed, but you're convinced anyway that my comments about it are totally unobjective.

[sirs]

<<I'm no history major on wars, but given the current military casualty count on this one after 4 years, compared to other wars after far less time, kinda blows your assumption right out of the water, of how f'd up this one supposedly is compared to other wars. >>

So the 100,000 to 600,000 civilian casualty count couldn't possibly indicate anything was fucked up?  
 

It means those civilian deaths, that are predominatly caused by insurgets & terrorists (read: NOT the american military), indicates that no war is perfect, only perfefectly planned.

[_JS]

Revolutionary War

Nip and tuck the whole time.

Not really. There were some generally brilliant decisions made by some of our best field commanders (Benedict Arnold and Nathanael Greene for example) along with some horrible decisions made by Sir William Howe.

The most brilliant move was convincing the absolute monarch of France to aid a petty republican revolution as a spite against the British. That, more than anything, as well as the amazing work of creating a real army by Baron von Steuben saved the Revolution.


The problem in Iraq is that we have no understanding of how to handle sectarian violence. We are basically using the same techniques as the Israelis (I'd say British but Sirs has a hissy fit when I mention Northern Ireland), except that we don't have a supporting population at our backs. This isn't a situation where 20,000 more soldiers and more violence will prevail.

The flat truth (and one people hate to admit to) is that sometimes there actually are unwinnable wars. Vietnam was a great example. Iraq could very well be another.

[Michael Tee]

<<It means those civilian deaths, that are predominatly caused by insurgets & terrorists (read: NOT the american military), indicates that no war is perfect, only perfefectly planned. >>

Well, who was it that prevented the insurgent and terrorists from wreaking such havoc prior to the American invasion?  And having destroyed that civil authority, what did the American invasion replace it with?

It's kind of like invading a zoo, killing all the zoo-keepers and opening all the cages and then arguing that it's not your fault any of the animals died, it was all the fault of those Goddamn wolves.

[sirs]

<<It means those civilian deaths, that are predominatly caused by insurgets & terrorists (read: NOT the american military), indicates that no war is perfect, only perfefectly planned. >>

Well, who was it that prevented the insurgent and terrorists from wreaking such havoc prior to the American invasion?....It's kind of like invading a zoo, killing all the zoo-keepers and opening all the cages and then arguing that it's not your fault any of the animals died, it was all the fault of those Goddamn wolves.

So nice of you to be on record as calling the Iraqi civilians caged animals under Saddam