| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Falluja a "horror" After US Led Offensive | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 1 2004, 12:38 PM (656 Views) | |
| Dandandat | Dec 1 2004, 01:48 PM Post #16 |
|
Time to put something here
|
How so - the size and equipment of the initial invasion force was adequate for the initial invasion that went off well. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Dec 1 2004, 01:52 PM Post #17 |
|
Unregistered
|
It was not adequate to contain the looting and the resistence that followed. The Army War College told the Administration that a larger forces was necessary. And based on the aftermath I'd say they were right. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Wichita | Dec 1 2004, 01:52 PM Post #18 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Personal Response I know, Gvok, that you sometimes get concerned when people don't answer your questions. (Something about "fear" as I recall.) You also have asked me several times when I have asked you questions.
^^^^^ Here's a question I asked you: End of Personal Response |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | Dec 1 2004, 01:53 PM Post #19 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
To me it seemed that Bush delivered the message that he wouldn't not do something in the war on terrorism because it was more difficult or costly than might seem palatable. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Dec 1 2004, 01:54 PM Post #20 |
|
Unregistered
|
No. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| gvok | Dec 1 2004, 01:56 PM Post #21 |
|
Unregistered
|
The real question is, was it necessary? Surely you don't think we should fight battles in the "war on terror" simply because they are difficult, right? Shouldn't we wisely choose our battles? |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Wichita | Dec 1 2004, 01:59 PM Post #22 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Personal Response Are you saying that fighting attempted genocide may not be necessary? End of Personal Response |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Dec 1 2004, 02:05 PM Post #23 |
|
Unregistered
|
No. Are you saying that the primary reason the Bush Administration invaded Iraq was the mass killings perpetrated by Saddam's government? |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Dandandat | Dec 1 2004, 02:08 PM Post #24 |
|
Time to put something here
|
Their was no primary reason, but the mass killings perpetrated by Saddam's government was defiantly a big one. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Dec 1 2004, 02:12 PM Post #25 |
|
Unregistered
|
So the reasons the Bush Administration offered (i.e., WMD and Saddam's terrorist connections) were not the primary reasons? |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Dec 1 2004, 02:13 PM Post #26 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Gee, too bad I missed it... |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Dec 1 2004, 02:14 PM Post #27 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
How do you know we aren't choosing our battles wisely? Can I guess that "wisely" to some means not at all? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Dec 1 2004, 02:15 PM Post #28 |
|
Unregistered
|
You didn't miss anything. He deleted posts you were involved in. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| gvok | Dec 1 2004, 02:16 PM Post #29 |
|
Unregistered
|
Well no actually. Afghanistan is a good example of a battle I thought was chosen wisely. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Dec 1 2004, 02:23 PM Post #30 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Why? Because they were a pushover? This nation does things because they are right, not because they are easy (paraphasing JFK). |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |




3:19 AM Jul 11