- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What should the USA have done after 11 September 2001?
Posted on 9/12/14 at 11:48 am to asurob1
Posted on 9/12/14 at 11:48 am to asurob1
I look at facts and derive logical conclusions therefrom.
The notion that Saddam Hussein would NEVER develop WMDs and NEVER help an AQ like organization is quite naive and not supported by the pattern of his prior behavior.
BUT, we can agree that the costs/benefits of invading Iraq demonstrate that it was no worth it. The costs were always going to be way more than what the US electorate was willing to spend.
As I have said previously, it would take a 20 to 30 year US military presence in Iraq to stabilize it. That is WAY more than what Bush and his planners calculated.
The notion that Saddam Hussein would NEVER develop WMDs and NEVER help an AQ like organization is quite naive and not supported by the pattern of his prior behavior.
BUT, we can agree that the costs/benefits of invading Iraq demonstrate that it was no worth it. The costs were always going to be way more than what the US electorate was willing to spend.
As I have said previously, it would take a 20 to 30 year US military presence in Iraq to stabilize it. That is WAY more than what Bush and his planners calculated.
2
Posted on 9/12/14 at 11:57 am to Champagne
quote:
BUT, we can agree that the costs/benefits of invading Iraq demonstrate that it was no worth it. The costs were always going to be way more than what the US electorate was willing to spend.
As I have said previously, it would take a 20 to 30 year US military presence in Iraq to stabilize it. That is WAY more than what Bush and his planners calculated.
We can certainly agree on that. What frustrates me with W beyond everything else is people in his circle never considered planning past the war stage. And it directly led to what we are seeing now.
To me, the biggest foreign policy error we have made since Vietnam was the invasion of Iraq. It completely knocked the middle east off kilter and we will continue to pay for that in blood and treasure for years to come.
Posted on 9/12/14 at 3:04 pm to Champagne
quote:
As I have said previously, it would take a 20 to 30 year US military presence in Iraq to stabilize it. That is WAY more than what Bush and his planners calculated.
I think some of their planners knew it would take that long but that the Neo-con true believers and the PR people who needed to sell the war overruled all those people because it would have been way, way, way harder to get congress and the public behind it. Look how the Generals who argued it would take 100s of thousands of troops to secure the country got forced out.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News