Comments on: The Best News in a While… http://informedspeculation.com/2005/10/11/the-best-news-in-a-while/ Refunds Cheerfully Given To All Who Disagree Sat, 07 Apr 2012 09:00:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: mark, the lesser http://informedspeculation.com/2005/10/11/the-best-news-in-a-while/comment-page-1/#comment-6744 mark, the lesser Wed, 12 Oct 2005 22:21:57 +0000 http://decision08.net/2005/10/11/the-best-news-in-a-while/#comment-6744 Gore would have dumped 100,000 into Afghanistan. He would have had to invest 500 billion to revamp the Country to start, and he would never have had an exit strategy. The terrian is not suitable for classic warfare. Sending mass troops to Afghanistan would have drawn every Jihadi in the ME. Special Forces and skilled soldiers are not easy targets. Regular army soldiers, because of their size, would have caused our casuaties to explode. There are a lot of pundits out there who questioned troop levels in Afghanistan, but also decry the casualties in Iraq. Had we sent the troops they wanted, we would have three times the casulties in Iraq. Iraq has a source of revenue that will not force a continuuing financial commitment, afghanistan would have bankrupted us. It was Vietnam that never was. The quagmire would have been on... Rummy has never gotten the credit for saving this Country the fate that befell the Soviets, by keeping troop levels below 25,000. By not sending 100,000, Rummy saved 5-15 thousand soldiers. Saved us from the disgrace of fighting a battle we just could never win. Outsourcing, through bribes was the key...troop levels were not. Pure genius. thank you Secretary rumsfeld. Gore would have dumped 100,000 into Afghanistan. He would have had to invest 500 billion to revamp the Country to start, and he would never have had an exit strategy. The terrian is not suitable for classic warfare. Sending mass troops to Afghanistan would have drawn every Jihadi in the ME. Special Forces and skilled soldiers are not easy targets. Regular army soldiers, because of their size, would have caused our casuaties to explode.

There are a lot of pundits out there who questioned troop levels in Afghanistan, but also decry the casualties in Iraq. Had we sent the troops they wanted, we would have three times the casulties in Iraq. Iraq has a source of revenue that will not force a continuuing financial commitment, afghanistan would have bankrupted us. It was Vietnam that never was.

The quagmire would have been on…

Rummy has never gotten the credit for saving this Country the fate that befell the Soviets, by keeping troop levels below 25,000.

By not sending 100,000, Rummy saved 5-15 thousand soldiers. Saved us from the disgrace of fighting a battle we just could never win.

Outsourcing, through bribes was the key…troop levels were not. Pure genius. thank you Secretary rumsfeld.

]]> By: Mark http://informedspeculation.com/2005/10/11/the-best-news-in-a-while/comment-page-1/#comment-6686 Mark Wed, 12 Oct 2005 02:36:18 +0000 http://decision08.net/2005/10/11/the-best-news-in-a-while/#comment-6686 No, indeed, I don't think it would be possible... No, indeed, I don’t think it would be possible…

]]> By: AcademicElephant http://informedspeculation.com/2005/10/11/the-best-news-in-a-while/comment-page-1/#comment-6680 AcademicElephant Wed, 12 Oct 2005 02:23:23 +0000 http://decision08.net/2005/10/11/the-best-news-in-a-while/#comment-6680 Would such a scenario even be possible if the subject of your previous post had become president in 2000? Food for thought. Would such a scenario even be possible if the subject of your previous post had become president in 2000? Food for thought.

]]>