Name:   phil - Subject:   Dems finally turn on hillary Date:   12/12/2016 5:27:29 PM

Depending on the General I do not have a problem with it.  I would rather someone in the military who has a clue what can and can not be done in terms of killing and breaking things based on what we have in inventory both weapons and soldiers.  We have seen what happens when politicans micromanage wars and conflicts such as Vietnam, Bosnia, Iraq etc.  We need a clear goal for a soldiers and let them do what they do best.

Oh we know where the enemy is at, we know where they stockpile their weapons but nothing can be done because it might hurt someone feelings, or cause an incident.  Sorry when you are at war - you play to win, you kill them and break their stuff to the point where they can not wage war anymore and quit.  Dont tell them 2 weeks before hand that you are going to drone stike the tent three camels to the left - you just do it and then you might get the person you are trying to actually take care of, instead of seeing convoys of trucks leaving the city right before you told them you would attack.

oh but Bush lied about WMD's, well when you tell someone you are planning to go to war with them for weeks or months dont be suprised it stuff gets moved around, not the smartest plan.

https://spectator.org/60689_new-york-times-rediscovers-weapons-mass-destruction-iraq/

It is widely believed that Saddam Hussein maintained no Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) after the 1991 Gulf War.

Indeed, those who had long followed the issue knew that the ISG’s conclusion couldn’t possibly be true—because the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) destroyed tons of proscribed Iraqi material in the years after the war.

Indeed, senior officials in the U.S. and other governments, with no less access to critical information than the ISG, reached a very different conclusion about Iraq’s proscribed weapons: they were moved to Syria, on the eve of the war.