Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
Hindsight is 20/20... except for tw.
|
Obviously an interview with some low level former advisor who has no grasp of military concepts is not what Obama and his former senior staff think. Looking for something to support a naive belief is how extremists protect their beliefs.
We know this. Military is a last option; used when all other options are no longer available or have failed. Military must be implemented at real targets. Not irrelevant airplanes. Responsible use of military power would have taken out all known and suspected Sarin sites. And targeted top people responsible for its use. A responsible military response attacked Syria's presidential palace and Asad. If that is unacceptable, then a military response is unacceptable.
Idiots spent massively ($100million) to destroy some mostly old and easily replaced airplanes. A massive military response did virtually nothing useful. And destroyed most every other viable option.
When Reagan attacked Libya, did he only destroy some airplanes that might have threatened an aircraft carrier? Of course not. That would be counter-productive and only made things worse. Reagan went right after everything including the reason for confrontation - including Gaddafi and his tents. Reagan attacked everything relevant to the problem.
Only fools want big bombs to solve anything. All saw that bogus reasoning even in Vietnam. What happened? Only bad things. Actual problem was completely ignored. Problem was not targeted by a massive military response.
An attack on Syria did little useful. And destroyed everything accomplished by Obama's red line. Only reason to believe that military attack did something useful: emotions. Knowledge says otherwise.
No person cites a single fact that says a $100 million attack solved anything. That makes the stupidity of that attack obvious. What was accomplished. Even that airbase was operational in less than 24 hours. Nothing was accomplished. Even Sarin was untouched and ready for deployment.