11/06/2006 08:56:00 AM
The INVASION of Europe included 176,000 soldier--and this a CONTINENT. In regard to land mass Iraq is smaller than-- Morocco. FRANCE is larger than Iraq! Oh, and did you actually READ the article you linked to? Thomas Blanton, the archive's director, said. "But the Desert Crossing war game in 1999 suggests we would have ended up with a FAILED STATE EVEN WITH 400,000 troops on the ground."What you support 250,000 MORE troops? Make up your mind!Now remember from that article: “A change in regimes does not guarantee stability," so the Democrats better get a PLAN of some kind because bitching and complaining isn’t a plan.
No, I don't support 250,000 more troops and opposed the invasion in the first place.The invasion of Europe in WWII isn't an apt comparison, as that truly was a liberation of people from an occupying foreign force.I don't have high hopes for the Democrats coming up with a good plan for Iraq--I'm not sure it's possible at this point to have a good plan. But you're quite right that a plan is necessary, as the Bush administration has so clearly demonstrated through its incompetence. Rumsfeld threatened to fire anyone who said a plan for occupation was necessary.BTW, if you're going to be a comment troll on my blog, it would be appreciated if you would put a little more thought into your arguments.
Also, William, you're making the same mistake with your WWII comparison that others have made with a comparison of Iraq to the U.S. Civil War--both the U.S. Civil War and WWII were military vs. military battles, not guerilla warfare.You might find better comparisons in history if you look at occupational governments and guerilla warfare involving empires and colonies.
Post a Comment