VoyForums

Thu, November 12 2009, 10:13:33 [ VoyUser Login optional ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, [7] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Tue, February 15 2005, 3:32:54
Author: Larry Lusk
Author Host/IP: 66.214.54.209
Subject: Re: Realism at War?
In reply to: Wayne 's message, "Re: Realism at War?" on Mon, February 14 2005, 21:27:53

In a sense that’s true Wayne, however if I had found this site prior to our invasion then you would know that I felt the same way then as now. I sat down with a friend and spelled out exactly how I thought things were going to go. With only a few exceptions I have been right. I think Powell knew this also and that’s why he was never allowed to be a functioning part of the Bush Administration from the moment Iraq was mentioned. I have thought for some time that a fight with the hard core fundamentalist elements of Islam was inevitable. Iraq was just flat the wrong place. Both Germany and Japan lost WWII not because they were “evil” but because they made some very bad decisions. Japan’s high command didn’t want to hear what Admiral Yamamoto had to say about attacking the U. S. so he was forced to make a “bold” plan that he thought at the time had a high chance of back-firing on Japan. Some of Germany’s Generals started talking about assassinating Hitler when they found out he planned to attack Russia.

Part of “War Gaming”, the global strategy part, is looking at what is the current biggest threat or potential threat is and planning how to confront it. I have heard enough that I feel that when the truth comes out the Brass at the Pentagon had a much different target in mind after Afghanistan than Iraq. I am very sure they had plans about how and where fundamentalist Islam should be fought and Iraq was near the bottom of the list. They would not and still will not admit it now because their careers would be lost and reputations ruined by a vindictive government and a “majority” of our country’s population that for some reason doesn’t want to hear the truth. As it has so many times in the past, amateur planning and stupidity triumphed over solid thinking and planning.

We have lost sight of what we needed to do after we were attacked. We gave our enemy a “bloody nose” in Afghanistan then instead of going after their real base of operations we attacked Iraq and decided that giving the Iraqis Democracy was more important than going after the people who attacked us and who are going to attack us again. The rest of the Western world knew this but we had to back our President, right or wrong. History tells us where “wrong” often leads to. If there had been no other threat to us then getting rid of Saddam and a Democratic Iraq is a great idea. Trouble is we have shot a large portion of our “wad” and the real and active threat is still there. I thought that after you are attacked you go after and destroy the people who attacked you, not make an attempt to “stabilize” a region of the world when you have limited resources available. That may be realism but it is also good sound thinking, something that seems to have been in short supply lately.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 2.94, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2008 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.