Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
I was waiting for this.....
While comparing the two is a bit difficult being they were far different types of conflicts, I must assume you haven't heard of Gulf War Syndrome, friendly fire, 'excessive' use of force on the 'highway of death', and we of course should bring up DU.
Also Bush's reasoning, which he was HIGHLY criticized for was that he thought there was no way Saddam's regime would survive after such a defeat, so going into Baghdad wasn't needed. He was wrong, and that mistake cost a lot of Iraqis their lives after failed attempts at rebellion.
Iraq is going far better at far less a cost in life than ANY previous war of its kind to date.
|
You should never assume too much Ustwo.
The instances you mention,ie: Gulf War Syndrome, Friendly Fire, Depleted Uranium....etc. Have little to do with the issues brought up in the topic, and nothing to rebut the success of Gulf War 1.
It is interesting to me, that you consider Desert Storm a relative failure and consider Enduring Freedom a success. As for Bush Sr. and his "incorrect" choices following the routing, and virtual elimination of Iraqi military forces, I suppose you could interpret such descisions as flawed.
If however, you seriously believe that the descision was based stricktly on thoughts of Saddams regime going away....I will accept this for what it is.
As far as this conflict going " far better at far less a cost in life than ANY previous war of its kind to date." I will reflect on your openingstatement.
"While comparing the two is a bit difficult being they were far different types of conflicts"
Obviously....with no basis for comparison....one could easily accept your statement as truth. We have never allowed ourselves to become involved in a war of this type....unless you wish to make the dreaded Viet Nam comparison.
Do You?