From: Ryan Gill (rmgill@mindspring.com)
Date: Fri Jul 01 2005 - 08:28:51 PDT
At 10:13 AM -0400 7/1/05, Stephen Grammont wrote:
>
>Oh, I know this. Definitely planned well ahead of our invasion. I was just using the same example. The looting was, however, very widespread and even without the Museum in the mix it was obvious that we did not plan for the situation that unfolded. HOW we could have prepared for that is a question that is open to debate, but that we didn't plan for it is plainly obvious.
>
>>We haven't occupied and rebuilt a large country in 60 years, give the pentagon some slack.
>
>I'm giving the Pentagon a TON of slack since they aren't masters of policy.
>
>The people who planned the invasion and aftermath didn't expect a lot of things, including a long and drawn out insurgency.
Lack of understanding of human nature is a pretty general failing anyone can make. Overall, I feel things are going pretty damn well. Just as well given the Baathist are still kicking if mostly ineffectually. The whole quagmire argument from the Democrats when we're still in the Balkans is pretty nonsensical. At most they should be making a "nya nya nya" to the Republicans. However any "quagmire" claims from them should fall on utterly deaf ears.
The "not greeted as liberators" claims fall seriously short of raw feeds, claims from people I know that have been to the sand box or are there now, and from blogs by the Iraqi's themselves.
>Depends on if we knew it was a bluff or not. If you believe that the Administration knew damned well it was a bluff, then no... it doesn't make for a valid reason.
For me the Bluff was only part of it. 12 Years of screwing around with the cease fire agreement, firing on our aircraft and the higher threat environment after 9/11 justified it to me with out a NBC weapons threat.
>If, on the other hand, the Administration honestly believed that Saddam was serious, despite the heap of contradictory information and lack of international support, then yes... it does excuse (to some degree) invading for a reason that turned out to be invalid. However, the latter calls into question other things such as competency.
The international community doesn't want to invade half the time when there is a confirmed threat. German Intelligence services firmly stated there was a Nuke threat that no-one else saw evidence of, yet they were touchy on their support.
Need I point to the clear and confirmed issue in Rwanda where French and Belgian troops were on the ground, yet they stayed out of it?
-- -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- - Data Center Operations Group - - http://web.turner.com/data_center/ - ---------------------------------------------------------------- - Ryan Montieth Gill One CNN Center SE0813 E - - Internet Technologies -- Data Center Operations Manager - - Hours 11am - 7pm Mon - Fri (8Sdc, 10Sdc IT@3Ndc) - - Cellular: 404-545-6205 e-mail: Ryan.Gill@cnn.com - - Office: 404-588-6191 - ---------------------------------------------------------------- - Emergency Power-off != Door release! - ----------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 28 2005 - 23:22:15 PDT