"The most foolish war in 2,000 years"

[techweenie]

I don't know, Grenada was pretty dumb, but this guy says it's Iraq:

Nowhere to run

After what has been described as the most foolish war in over 2,000 years, is there a way out of Iraq for President Bush, asks Brian Whitaker

Tuesday November 29, 2005

There is a remarkable article in the latest issue of the American Jewish weekly, Forward. It calls for President Bush to be impeached and put on trial "for misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 BC sent his legions into Germany and lost them".
To describe Iraq as the most foolish war of the last 2,014 years is a sweeping statement, but the writer is well qualified to know.

He is Martin van Creveld, a professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and one of the world's foremost military historians. Several of his books have influenced modern military theory and he is the only non-American author on the US Army's list of required reading for officers.

Professor van Creveld has previously drawn parallels between Iraq and Vietnam, and pointed out that almost all countries that have tried to fight similar wars during the last 60 years or so have ended up losing. Why President Bush "nevertheless decided to go to war escapes me and will no doubt preoccupy historians to come," he told one interviewer.

The professor's puzzlement is understandable. More than two years after the war began, and despite the huge financial and human cost, it is difficult to see any real benefits.

Full story link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1653454,00.html

[Nathans_Dad]

Toady.

[red-beard]

Hmmmm. What about Napoleon? He took 600,000 men to Russia and arrived back in Paris with 4,000.

Clueless.

[ed martin]

This notion strikes me as being an absurdism to an exponential degree especially if you consider the source. I mean a Hebrew professor epousing such a view? It is the very existence of Isreal that the Moslem world is up in arms about. We are basically fighting this war because we are allies of Isreal. Yes, the battle is about terrorism but it is this issue that is at the root. As far as being the most foolish war- like any of the wars throughout history were not? Like Hitler doesn't get the award for the most foolish war if you consider the loss of over 40,000,000 lives? Forty million! Or even the first world war. I mean what was that all about? Some Austrian dandy was shot and millions upon millions suffered. I think you better check the math before making absurd statements.

[pwd72s]

You may not understand, Ed. Making absurd statements is what liberals DO. They are incapable of logical debate, their positions defenseless in the face of logic. So, nothing left for them to do but attack-attack-attack. (BTW, Bush is BAD ...and it could be he's drinking again. That might be true, since he's certainly spending like a drunken Democrat!)

[techweenie]

Originally posted by pwd72s
...he's certainly spending like a drunken Democrat

Well, actually, he's spending like a drunken Reagan.

I don't think there's a Democratic president in the 'top 10 spender' category until you get to #3 or 4.

That 'fiscally responsible Republican' concept was just a PR fantasy.

[pwd72s]

Originally posted by techweenie
Well, actually, he's spending like a drunken Reagan.

Reagan's "military build up" spending served it's purpose. The USSR collapsed. He simply, and brilliantly, outspent them into their collapse. But then, I suppose you'd support the rebuilding of the Berlin wall. (edit) Keep in mind that the USSR collapsed without thousands of our troops being killed. Are you sure you wish to slam Reagan? Today? I'm wishing we could have a LEADER...someone like Harry Truman, Ike, or yes...even the dreaded Reagan. Gee, I have to confess now...Clinton is not one of those I wish we had back, Neither is Carter. All I'm saying is, that for fiscal reasons, I'm not overjoyed about either Bush.

[ed martin]

I have to say, I don't really consider myself a Democrat or Republican, though most times I tend to lean on the conservative side. Most of the Liberal posts are so anti Bush just for the sake of being anti Bush without any substance. Because of this I think they tend to do more damage to their cause than good. I mean there are never any rational ideas to promote any sensable solution to the worlds problems, aside from establishing do nothing bureacracies. In fairness though, there seemed to be enough Republican gadflies when Clinton was in power.

[Tervuren]

Reagon also I eleive increased overall income, even if he did large military spendings. He is probably the only president that I have respect for in perhaps hundreds of years of US history.

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by red-beard
Hmmmm. What about Napoleon? He took 600,000 men to Russia and arrived back in Paris with 4,000. Clueless.

Agreed and what about Hitler? Took 3-4 million to Russia and 5% returned. For the record the Russians lost 27 million people in this war.

Those German solders that returned were never the same. My ex-wife's uncle was one of them and he was just a shell of a man after spending 9 years in Siberia under Stalin.

As usual Tech finds some obscure information and runs it up the flagpole to see who will salute. Not many it seems...

JoeA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(WWII)

[aap1966]

Originally posted by Joeaksa
Agreed and what about Hitler? Took 3-4 million to Russia and 5% returned. For the record the Russians lost 27 million people in this war.

How about Japan? "Let's destroy the US Fleet at Pearl Harbour...they won't be able to fight back"...

Or for that matter "Let's destroy the WTC, those infidel dogs will be crushed!"



(Just for the record, lack of an easy victory does not equal defeat.)

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by aap1966
How about Japan? "Let's destroy the US Fleet at Pearl Harbour...they won't be able to fight back"...

Or for that matter "Let's destroy the WTC, those infidel dogs will be crushed!"

(Just for the record, lack of an easy victory does not equal defeat.)

Actually the Japanese had fairly sound strategy at first. Had they had good intel and done the strike when the three aircraft carriers were in harbor the whole situation would have been different.

The fact that the carriers were out on maneuvers on the morning of the air strike saved our rear end, and possibly that of NZ and Australia as well. Believe that Yamamoto, who planned the Pearl Harbor strike, said that if we do not score an overwhelming defeat here that I am afraid that we have done nothing but awakened a sleeping giant. Thanks God it was the second.

If we had paid attention to the intel that we had we would have mobilized our forces a few months earlier and possibly the Philippines would not have fallen. America was asleep during this time when the majority of the rest of the world knew what was going on and was already in the war.

Having those three carriers to use on 8 December 1941 gave us an offensive position to start the war, while losing them the Japanese would have had full run of the entire Pacific for several years unhindered. The other thing that screwed the Japanese was the fact that we broke their military code early on in the game and we knew their moves as they made them. It allowed us to know that they were going to strike Midway and we kicked their rear in this battle. They never came back after losing three of their carriers in this event.

At this time the WTC strike nor war in Iraq are mere blips in the radar screen compared to WW2 or Vietnam. Hope that they stay that way.

JoeA

[1911Guy]

when did being a Liberal or Democrat become a bad thing?

[red-beard]

Originally posted by techweenie
Well, actually, he's spending like a drunken Reagan.

I don't think there's a Democratic president in the 'top 10 spender' category until you get to #3 or 4.

That 'fiscally responsible Republican' concept was just a PR fantasy.

Uh, who holds the "Power of the Purse?"

What I'm pissed at Bush about is that he hasn't veto'd any budget items from Congress, put in front of him. And there is way way too much Pork in the budget. "To the victor goes the spoils", but this is ridicules. Where's AJ when you need him?

[TerryBPP]

Strickin from the record.

[gaijindabe]

What about the grand old Duke of York and his 10,000 men?

[1967 R50/2]

The Guardian is not exactly what I would call an un-impeachable new source. They always seemed to be a cross between a tabloid and the leftist UK version of Fox news.

Nor are they apparently good students of recent history. WW1 was a horrible military mistake by all sides as was any move by the Wehrmacht after the fall of France. Either of which wer vastly larger debacles than Iraq.

With that said, the war is pretty stupid...but like we need to be reminded of that. Bush should stop farting around and commit enough troops to close the borders.

[techweenie]

Originally posted by 1911Guy
when did being a Liberal or Democrat become a bad thing?

Shhhh. It hasn't, despite strident efforts by radio entertainers to make it so. About 1/2 the population that votes -- tends to vote democrat. And more, next time around. :-)

[kach22i]

Originally posted by ed martin
We are basically fighting this war because we are allies of Isreal.

True, oh so true.

From the article:

Contrary to American intentions, the war has also greatly increased the influence of Iran - a founder-member of Bush's "Axis of Evil" - and opened up long-suppressed rivalries between Sunni and Shia Muslims.

And who could not see this coming from a mile away? No foresight what-so-ever in the White House.

[Tobra]

How about Saddam's 10 year war against Iran? He wiped out a generation of men from two countries and accomplished little else with this one.

I have always thought it strange that Jews in the US are so far to the Left, when most of their interests and values are better represented by the Right.