Ok ok ok, I know, they're a threat, they're bad, terrorists, 9/11, WMDs, regime, Axis of Evil, Al Queda, 11/4/1979, blah blah blah.
But here's what I'm wondering (if it happens);
1. How are we going to pay for this?
2. One of the reports listed very little troop involvement, but if occupation is neccassary, who do we send, and do we pull troops from inactive duty or Iraq or Afghanistan?
3. I suppose it will just be "us" and the nations we can bully
4. Will it happen before or after the elections? A mass failure could push whoever is a voice of dissent while a victory could be a, "see we told you so!"
Ok ok ok, I know, they're a threat, they're bad, terrorists, 9/11, WMDs, regime, Axis of Evil, Al Queda, 11/4/1979, blah blah blah.
But here's what I'm wondering (if it happens);
1. How are we going to pay for this?
2. One of the reports listed very little troop involvement, but if occupation is neccassary, who do we send, and do we pull troops from inactive duty or Iraq or Afghanistan?
3. I suppose it will just be "us" and the nations we can bully
4. Will it happen before or after the elections? A mass failure could push whoever is a voice of dissent while a victory could be a, "see we told you so!"
1. To me never a question to be asked before fighting a war. Cost shouldn't be a factor. "Hey America, are you going to go to war?, Not yet we don't have enough money but we are saving up so maybe we can in September". Maybe we could start marketing these wars and selling ad time. This war is being brought to you by Haliburton and Mobil 1" Hell why not let the military start a "War Channel" on cable and broadcast it 24-7.
2. If you want it done right do it yourself, but in this case we can't do it individually we have to let congress be involved.
3. If your really doing this for the right reasons you probably shouldn't schedule your war around elections or public sentiment. Do it because it's right........like Iraq.
3. If your really doing this for the right reasons you probably shouldn't schedule your war around elections or public sentiment. Do it because it's right........like Iraq.
And to kill point 1 and 3 at the same time, I hear the Pentagon is going to sell photos of the Iraq WMD caches autographed by Bush to raise funds for the war effort. The have Industrial Light and Magic working on the photos as we speak.
I think it's naive to be surprized at contingency planning by the military complex. Also naive to assume that the level of urgency drives events rather than the reverse.
Seems that there was much criticizing of how the military waged the war in Iraq. Not enough this, too much that etc., depending upon who you cite. One must assume that the lesson learned is that MORE planning is better.
The thinking behind this thread seems to be "How can we best position ourselves to bitch". An example would be this quote taken from the 3rd link above;
"But, given that the mission as described is militarily feasible, we need to ask ourselves whether, as citizens, we're for it or against it, and, as Democrats, what we plan to say and do if (1) the President asks for another Congressional Use of Force Resolution or (2) he just orders an attack without waiting for a resolution. Alternatively, if the New York Times has it right and the Administration really intends to let Iran go ahead and nuke up, we need to decide whether to criticize that inaction."
This guy is prepared to bitch no matter what.
I'd rather be fishing.
Read: "Ripping lips" for u PETAns
Semper ubi sub ubi, for the Romans out there.
1. To me never a question to be asked before fighting a war. Cost shouldn't be a factor.
Yet, along with casualties, is the deciding factor - just ask the Soviets. Think where they would be now if they'd decided to get along instead of wage a cold war that bankrupted them.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
