Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Allowing bin laden to escape to pursue Iraq~ almost brought the US down and the outcome is still in doubt
Look, I agree that the Bush Admin. totally blew it in regards to Iraq and bin Laden. But to suggest that somehow that our recent military misadventures will bring down our country is blowing things WAAAYYY out of proportion. Think about it: no draft was declared, no declaration of war (no need; it;s not a war, it's a military operation), no real use of naval power, limited use of air power, no full-scale mobilization of private sector industry, etc. etc. etc.
The media still calls our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan a "war" for political reasons and sensationalism. And the outcome is not in doubt. In the end it is what was always meant to be: another excuse for the military industrial complex in the U.S. to maintain it's big budget and keep a sector of our economy alive!
I also think that if you look at many wars incluiding WWII you will see that most countires military made huge mistakes in planning and execution.I agree that we certainly are not losing how in Iraq.Bin laden also cetainly isn't winning the terrorist war by any definition nor did he come even close to defeating the US on 9-11. He mearly stunned the world as did the peral harbor attack. If true that Sudan offered to turnover Ben Laden to the US durng Clintons time that was a mistake.Misatkes have ahppened time and time again in history.
anybody heard of the horns of hattin. for sheer boneheadedness i just find that one hard to beat. the others are great. but at least you can find logical reasoning before the fact. i just can't find any sound reasoning at all for hattin
I think they realized there had to be a better way but it was very difficult to come up with one. As early as 1916 one can see the British army groping towards new methods, methods that were improved in 1917 and finally worked out in 1918. It was a process.
Regards
you being the most knowledgable historian in the forum i would like to run a theory past you. my whole theory on ww1 is that these costly offensives on the western front were meaningless in the end considering that germany couldn't break the naval blockade and they couldnt stop the british convoys. my opiniion is that the haigs , fochs etc. couldnt stand sitting tight but needed to try for that great victory that never came. to me the most important battle of ww1 was the battle of jutland which if the germans won was as pyrrhic as it gets
from my understanding ridgeway was running the u.n. forces by this time anyway so sacking him made no difference operationally anyway. nothing against macarthur but i think his last masterpiece was destined to be inchon and we are better o ff debating it.
So lets say that they were surrounded do you think that the germans could fight their way out?
they may have been able to do it as they generally knew where to put the hammer and the nail , however this assumes very heavily on not counting on the hermann goering resupply program.
now i wish to throw everybody for a loop and ask an honest question. despite all of their great generals , better soldiers, frankly everyone says they are always better at everything. why is it the only halfway major war the germans ever won was the franco-prussian war
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.