Quote:
Originally Posted by August
Obviously you didn't read the article that I linked so...
|
Do you know the meaning of the word "obviously"?
I am seriously struggling to see your point.
It strikes me that you will just condemn your president regardless of the actions he took or the outcome.
Is it perhaps a party political issue you have? As in he is simply of the wrong party for you.
Your article states that the problems with the military capabilities available date from the era of the Vietnam fiasco. That puts the problem back to a decade before that President took office,
So how is he to blame for the long running problem stemming from a failed adventure launched on false information?
But I do like the soviet comparrison in your article. Not really relevant though is it, as firstly there were already soviet troops on the ground, they also had local allies on the ground in large numbers, and most importantly there was no evacuation or rescue planned with the airborne assault element of the invasion.
So in essence it is an entirely irrelevant attempt at a comparrison.
But as a bonus it was written before the Soviet adventure ended in the forgone conclusion of a humiliating military and poltical defeat.
So in conclusion it remains as, does your initial post have any validity at all?
or is just ya boo party political posturing?