Honestly, I can't say that I understand the war in Iraq or why we are there. But I hope all the marines will be greeted with love, respect and an overwhelming relief that they are finally home.
He also testified before Congress that in his judgement we can't add 20,000 troops without seriously straining the military and we went in initially with too few troops. This is the ultimate and latest statement on the travesty and misjudged mismanaged war that has harmed the US, Iraq, and our efforts against terrorism. I'm one voter from the left side of the middle that is disgusted w/the Bush administration. They misled the American public about reasons for getting into the war-vastly overstating the dangers and ignoring intelligence that suggested they were wrong. They mismanaged the war from the beginning. Now it is a civil war. Our troops are simply targets without the troop strength to quell the violence. They misled the American public about ongoing progress with the war never acknowledging we went in there with too few troops and that there was top level military disagreement with what we were doing. The war has probably increased the US and West as a target and a way for terrorists to increase recruitment. Iraq is a disaster for long term US health in every way possible.
Accurate summary earlpearl but the problem with making such simple analyzed summaries, is that only the folks in the street understand common sense when it is put in clear and concise terms such as your comments I am neither left or right in my political views but sure as hell I can add an opinion and these political jerks have created one almighty mess What we need are politicians with clout that can analyze clearly how to get this mess cleaned up At present nobody seems to be coming out either from the left or right camps with the nous to lead from the front and sort the situation out once and for all And that is disturbing
Here is a scary thought. Currently there is this well publicised bi-partisan study group comprised of former political leaders (including a former supreme court justice, Sandra Day O'Conner) who is dealing with the Iraq issue. The actual elected government of the executive office and the legislature can't handle this issue. They are the ones who should be dealing with the issue; hashing it out both privately and publicly before the country. But they didn't do it. The partisan nature of the American government didn't allow it. maybe we should throw out all the elected officials and just nominate judges who will hire wise men and women (non-elected) to deal with the real and tough issues before the country. Its actually scary to me how governing has gotten twisted into politicking and tough decisions aren't being handled.
Are these the people that "supposedly" misled Bush? If Clinton misled Bush, shouldn't Clinton be brought up on some charges? Help me understand the illogical liberal point of view here to come up with something reasonable.
Sure those are great points and yes they are all in one way or other responsible, but what was lacking and is lacking today Is, quite simply why did someone not do the job properly in Iraq they should have been uprooted but for any number of 1,000's of reasons nobody got the job done And because the job was not done properly, hence the mess today Maybe in hindsight Bush Snr & General Schwarzkopf were right to stop on the outskirts of Baghdad and spare Saddam Hussein, but at that time they forgot one thing they should have dismantled his weapons and armoury and closed down all his options to go to war, and left him running Iraq but they let him re-group re-arm etc etc, instead of leaving him impotent I was there throughout that period from the day of the invasion right through until we stopped outside Baghdad so I have a vivid memory of all the scuds that were rained down on Riyadh and Dahrhan etc The rest is history and brings us fast forward to the present day so we missed the opportunities we had IMHO
Who defines what a proper job is in war time? My point in posting was to show the absolute double standard and deafening silence from the liberal point of view. They are quick to stand up and proclaim defeat because that's what they do best. They are quick to offer "Bush mislead," only to find out their own party was doing the supposed misleading long before Bush was in office. From "my" perspective, I believe neither mislead anyone. One cannot, with honesty and integrity, offer that one mislead, while the previous administration did not. One cannot honestly submit that "Bush misled" without noting the words of the very party who suggests such, long before Bush was in office. To do so, makes one nothing more than a partisan hack. Speculation. Ask yourself a question: "Do you think the mainstream media would cover a positive story out of Iraq?" A simple and fair question. Now ask yourself: "When was the last time I saw anything good out of Iraq?" Another fair question. The truth is, the media (especially US media) will ensure, just like Vietnam, that this war is a failure. At any cost. I've seen time and time again, soldiers coming back from Iraq being interviewed on on TV (Fox) and the most clear and consistent message I note is when they say words to the effect of "We were surprised to see the media coverage, because what's being reported and what's actually happening are quite different." Again, I ask, who determines a good war vs a bad war? Liberals? There is no such thing as a good war. War sucks. Our military here are meeting and exceeding recruiting goals and retention goals. In other words, they believe they are fighting for something worth a cause. Someone else's freedoms. Here's another set of questions to ask, more specifically for the liberal audience: 1) Why do you want the coalition to pull out, so terrorists can take over the country? 2) You have your freedoms because men and women before you fought for them. Why deny Iraqis the same opportunities? 3) What do you have against the Iraqi people that you would deliberately choose to leave them in turmoil? By all accounts, Iraqis are a peaceful people that want the same things we want...to live a good, decent life in peace with opportunities to prosper. It is a small minority (last count I read was 12,000) that want to (and are) ripping this country apart by killing innocent Iraqis every day. Do you believe these terrorists will just stop once the coalition withdraws? We made that mistake in Vietnam. 4) While I know a few liberals really do care about our soldiers, I also know a great many could care less. So, if it's not the soldiers you care about and it's not the Iraqis you care about, I see only one option left that you really care about, but won't admit. Think about it. Often times liberals like to compare Iraq to Vietnam. Please do! Because compared to Vietnam, Iraq is highly successful. Less US soldiers have died in the first three years (combined) in Iraq, than died by accident during peace time in the last year of Jimmy Carter's presidency. Help me understand the opportunities "we've" missed? I may be able to address these, if I better understand what they are. BTW, BG, most of my post was not addressed to you specifically. Just taking the opportunity to share some thoughts that "might" spark some thought from "some." Cheers mate!
Understood fully GTech the complexities and dynamics are so varied and mixed, but neverless too important to ignore Will follow closely to see the 'spark' replies to your comments