Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GST who wrote (27481)	8/30/2006 5:41:39 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541851

Is that supposed to be support for an argument that the campaign in Iraq is the worst planned and/or executed military campaign/war in history? Its rather pathetic as such an argument if it was intended as one. 66 dead? Very bad, but from the worst campaigns in history it would be thousands dead, or maybe tens or hundreds of thousands or millions. One doesn't have to think things are going swimmingly to see how over the top and ridiculous the "worst plan in history" claim is. it would be hard to find a more dismal failure than Iraq No it would be trivially easy. I've mentioned a few but with work you could fill volumes with nothing small text listings of wars and military campaigns that were planned and executed worse than Iraq. Campaigns that led to the destruction of the armies that executed them or even the nations that sent the armies. And not "the world thinks we are bad", or "our leader has thirty something percent approval rates", but mass slaughter, and total devastation of the whole country. When enemy tanks are rolling up Pennsylvania Avenue because of our invasion in Iraq, I might just start to entertain the worst in history claim, but even than it would have a lot of competition. The lack of perspective shown by those making these arguments about Iraq being the worst in history is staggering.