Originally Posted By RoadTrip There has been one very positive impact of the Iraq war. I think the asinine idea of "pre-emptive war" has been permanently put to rest.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Sounds like the Donald Rumsfeld philosophy on troop deployment. We all know how successful that has been.> It worked pretty well in Afghanistan, and in taking out Saddam Hussein. Whatever problems we have had in Iraq were not the fault of Donald Rumsfeld.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I think the asinine idea of "pre-emptive war" has been permanently put to rest.> I don't think there is anything asinine in attacking a known threat before they damage you. I think sitting back and waiting until it's too late is a less wise thing to do.
Originally Posted By ecdc "Also, the number of troops we have in Iraq are only about 10% of our total military, hardly the bulk of it. And, we're years from moving against Iran or North Korea in the manner you suggest. By the time we do, our profile in Iraq will be greatly reduced." If this is true Douglas (and I'm sure it probably is) then why are troops on their 3rd tour in Iraq or Afghanistan? Why are we stretched thin if only 10% are there?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Because for every boot we have in a foreign country, we have 3 or 4 here. One preparing to go, one who just got back, and one or two supporting the others. Plus we have troops in South Korea, Okinawa, Germany, and Afghanistan. I'm also pretty sure we have some in the Balkans.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip One thing that recently occurred to me. What the hell have the massive defense expenditures over the last 25 years bought us if we find ourselves threatened by third rate nations like Iraq, Iran and Korea? Frankly, I think I'd like my money back.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <What the hell have the massive defense expenditures over the last 25 years bought us if we find ourselves threatened by third rate nations like Iraq, Iran and Korea?> A victory in the Cold War, and the ability to defend ourselves against third rate nations like Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj <<< It worked pretty well in Afghanistan >>> LOL. The entire Afghanistan war plan was written by the Clinton administration! Bush and Rumsfeld didn't have time to modify anything!
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<A victory in the Cold War, and the ability to defend ourselves against third rate nations like Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.>> Russia was going down the tubes anyway. Little if anything was accomplished by the Reagan defense expenditures. As I'm sure you will remember; the USSR did not break up over issues of inadequate defense. And how do we defend ourselves against these third rate nations? I haven't been real impressed so far in Iraq (as I wasn't real impressed with our capabilities in Viet Nam).
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <If it comes to it, we can utilize the model we used in Afghanistan to take down Iran or North Korea.> You mean we can join with an already-established guerilla group that's presently fighting the government there... oh wait, that doesn't exist in Iran or Korea. You mean we can leave before the job is done and see the group we deposed controlling as much or more of the country than the government that ostensibly took over? (Apparently, this post was excised because it referred to Doug's "mastication suggestion.")
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Whatever problems we have had in Iraq were not the fault of Donald Rumsfeld.<< Right. Only whatever successes we've had were his. Oh brother.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Whatever problems we have had in Iraq were not the fault of Donald Rumsfeld." That is so unbelievably wrong as to defy comprehension. The guy is pretty much single handedly responsible for forcing out the only reasonable voice the Bush Administration had, Colin Powell. Correction- him and Cheney. Both are more damgerous to this country than Saddam ever could have been.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 "LOL. The entire Afghanistan war plan was written by the Clinton administration! Bush and Rumsfeld didn't have time to modify anything!" So, you're saying we can blame Clinton for not catching Bin Laden in Afghanistan? After all, if it was all his plan ... Judging by his reaction over claims about his administration being soft ion terrorism, I doubt that Clinton will like that suggestion.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The entire Afghanistan war plan was written by the Clinton administration! Bush and Rumsfeld didn't have time to modify anything!> What nonsense.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <That is so unbelievably wrong as to defy comprehension. The guy is pretty much single handedly responsible for forcing out the only reasonable voice the Bush Administration had, Colin Powell.> I disagree.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj Before 9/11 (and even after 9/11), Donald Rumsfeld's top priority at DOD was to shift as many defense $$$ as possible out of the hands of the military and government and into the hands of the private sector and corporations. When your top priority is to pad the pockets of defense oriented campaign contributors and not the national security of our country, things are bound to go wrong.
Originally Posted By Capstan We don't need conscription to find victory where it matters. Victory overseas is meaningless, if we have no justice at home. What's the point of pointing fingers at foreigners, when our hands are covered in filth? Those who defrauded us must be brought to account. This call for a draft is counterproductive to our real need. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell and all the others who defrauded The United States, which is against federal law, should be tried for their crimes. Until we have justice at home, nothing we do overseas is relevant to what matters.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Donald Rumsfeld's top priority at DOD was to shift as many defense $$$ as possible out of the hands of the military and government and into the hands of the private sector and corporations. When your top priority is to pad the pockets of defense oriented campaign contributors and not the national security of our country, things are bound to go wrong.> Secretary Rumsfeld's top priority was to transform the military from one designed to meet the Cold War threat to one designed for the threats of the 21st century - one that could be more quickly deployed to trouble spots, yet still have enough firepower to overwhelm an enemy. His second priority was to do more with less. If he did shift money from government bureaucracies to private industries, it was because they could do the job more efficiently, or for less money.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>one that could be more quickly deployed to trouble spots, yet still have enough firepower to overwhelm an enemy. << So he failed, since he only got a 50% score on that one.
