Originally posted by: apoppin
As I said, none of those thoughts are "original" and were in answer to direct questions . . . are you completely disagreeing with the 4 points ! regurgitated from military analysists . . . i.e. DO YOU THINK we committed sufficient troops . . . Didn't we think the Iraqi people WOULD revolt? . . . You like seeing the images of "US caused civilain casualties and our POWs being paraded - was it wise to allow this? . . . And are we NOT "paused"?Originally posted by: andreasl
Originally posted by: apoppin
Where? I don't remember posting anything original on coalition strategy - ALL my posts are regarding combatting Saddam's suicide-murder strategy of devastating Baghdad and the unwillingness of most people to even consider this as a valid - if evil - way to start jihad.Originally posted by: andreasl
Originally posted by: apoppin
No - CO during the Vietnam war. What does that have to do with anything?Originally posted by: andreasl
apoppin,
I'm curious, have you ever served in the military?
Have you?
Yes, I have. I was just curious since you are making grandiose predictions about the coalition strategy.
I am sorry apoppin, I must have misred this statement of yours:
HOW?
1) We committed far less troops that is necessary.
2) We thought the Iraqi people would rise up against Saddam
3) We didn't realize the power of Saddam's Propaganda and worked to shut off Iraqi TV TOO LATE
4) We are "paused" - a step short of retreat and getting attacked in AmBush Alley.
EDIT: And lots others in this thread and others.
Nitpick all you want on my repetition of military analysys - my entire point is, WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO TO PREVENT SADDAM FROM UNLEASHING WMD and the total destruction of Baghdad AT HIS "END"? Well?
And you are regurgitating topics from people that are outside the loop and you are treating them as fact.