Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
right. 8 years of disaster in iraq because the war was launched with a 2 week "plan" and that's supposed to be some model of strategic clarity. sure.
|
Iraq is a disaster, after 8 years?
Is it a better or worse situation today than it was 8 years ago?
Are the people of Iraq less worthy of revolutionary reform than those in Libya in your view?
Or, are you saying war is destructive, hence a disaster, and therefore in some circumstances like in Iraq, a necessary good that you feel has been a worthy endeavor?
Do you realistically believe any revolution can go according to some perfectly scripted plan that can be laid out in advance with no need for additional thought and strategy? Is that the standard that you would apply to Bush but not Obama?
Or, is the above just a throw away type comment, not to be taken seriously? I am going to assume it to be a throw away type comment. We know how you feel about Bush.
---------- Post added at 07:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:41 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
this raises some interesting questions about the no-fly zone and ways that it might--just might--not result in another debacle:
|
The key point regarding outside involvement in a civil war is will the outside involvement prolong or shorten the conflict? Your guy does not address this key question. As it stands the no fly zone will not shorten this conflict, ether more needs to be done or the UN should have not gotten involved.