liberals....

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

With the exception of Pearl Harbor (Which was an entirely different situation), when have we ever conducted a military invasion in less than two months?

With the advance of technology, it's not really a fair comparison.

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

With the advance of technology, it's not really a fair comparison.

We waited for the Gulf War.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

We waited for the Gulf War.

Because we knew Saddam wasn't about to go anywhere.

al-Qaeda was a new kind of enemy and needed to be dealt with much quicker, plain and simple. There's no getting around it.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

We waited for the Gulf War.

And? I don't really understand.

Our military technology made huge advances in the post Gulf War era. We went from having smart bombs that could strike within a reasonable distance to those that could strike within inches. This is just one example. There are many, many others. The Clinton administration invested a lot of effort in developing long range missiles so that they wouldn't have to put troops on the ground unless absolutely necessary.

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

And? I don't really understand.

I'm just saying that the US waited to invade Iraq the first time. I'm trying to find instances where the US performed large military operations in haste, like Dissention was advocating.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

I'm just saying that the US waited to invade Iraq the first time. I'm trying to find instances where the US performed large military operations in haste, like Dissention was advocating.

There are no examples because a situation like 9/11 never arose. But don't you think that we had the technology and the means to invade Afghan in two weeks?

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally Posted by dissention

There are no examples because a situation like 9/11 never arose. But don't you think that we had the technology and the means to invade Afghan in two weeks?

Of course we had the technology and means to do it. But that doesn't make the decision process any less difficult. And the fact that we hadn't faced a situation like 9/11 made what Bush was facing all the more difficult.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

Of course we had the technology and means to do it. But that doesn't make the decision process any less difficult. And the fact that we hadn't faced a situation like 9/11 made what Bush was facing all the more difficult.

I actually cannot believe Dissention is advocating the war in Afganistan. Dissention, at the time, did you advocate it. Would you have supported an immediate solo US invasion of Afgnaistan on 9/12? Because that is what you are implying tonight. So, I want to clear that up. A "yes I was for it" or a "no I was not" will do

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

There are no examples because a situation like 9/11 never arose. But don't you think that we had the technology and the means to invade Afghan in two weeks?

No, there was the first WTC bombing. It was a bust, but they nonetheless attacked us on our soil and if that car had been in a diff. location the results could have been MUCh worse. Then they atacked our ships and our bases. So, while over 3,000 people never died, on a much smaller scale we had been attacked both on our shores and on out foreign properties and military installations

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

No, there was the first WTC bombing. It was a bust, but they nonetheless attacked us on our soil and if that car had been in a diff. location the results could have been MUCh worse. Then they atacked our ships and our bases. So, while over 3,000 people never died, on a much smaller scale we had been attacked both on our shores and on out foreign properties and military installations

Yep. And Condi and company still couldn't figure out where Bin Laden might strike-after one of his distant cousins already tried, failed and told them "They will try again." Hmmmm.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

I'm just saying that the US waited to invade Iraq the first time. I'm trying to find instances where the US performed large military operations in haste, like Dissention was advocating.

I edited my post for further explanantion.
As far as the military performing with haste, that's what they're trained to do- meaning they are supposed to be ready to go when called and quickly.
I don't know, you could be right though. Why did it take so long for the fighter jets to scramble on 9/11? Unless they were told to stand down.