The Road Home
 

This is a rather lengthy editorial from the NY Times. I think it's worth the little time it takes to read.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/op...nted=1&_r=3&hp

This a better,more truthful piece than the Times blather! (no offense DTS)
http://frontpagemag.com/blog/printable.asp?ID=834

The Generals post is from one who lived it......the Times is the usual drivel they put out!

Jay....honestly, we both know that will never happen.

You can get away from the pundits to check for yourself, but the facts are clearly laid out. The Times is the same group that has leaked Govt. stuff and filmed a soldiers' execution by a terrorist! Maybe that's just me....but those actions don't speak to their character.

IMO....the days of the "career politician" need to come to an end. The sooner the better.

I am a conservative actually! If the Repubs had any backbone/character then we wouldn't be in the current calamity we face now! They suck too! But the ideas(and ways to achieve goals)brought forth from Dems are ludicrous and shortsighted,imho!

It may seem a bit silly to some, but it almost seems to me that the whole idea of "accountablity" has been taken out of politics.

Its a sad state of affairs...and at the risk of sounding like an old man, its not getting any better with the younger generation. The example that has been set forth in front of them, leads them to believe they don't need to be concerned or take responsibilty for their actions.

Im the furthest thing from perfect, but one thing about me stands true. When I screw up, im the first one to stand up and admit it.

Me??...liberal issues???? I'm not a neo-con, but damn..A liberal??? Talk to me!

DaHoss: biased doesn't mean brainwashed! I know what right/wrong is and what compromise is and does in Society! But..don't tell GR...she thinks I'm a "dittohead":D

Timm,
If you go back and scroll down to the bottom of the link you posted, you might be surprised to find that Pendry wasn't a general, he's a retired sargent.
And, if you take the time to analyse his "arguements", you'll see a tactic that is repeatedly used by those that refuse to address facts, such as "name calling" and fabrications. Labeling those that object to the occupation of a country that was invaded by choice as "axis of idiots" only shows the level of thinking of this 28 percenter.
Reminds me of a dog I once had. He was a very nice dog, dumb as a box of rocks, but boy oh boy, was he loyal.
Woof, woof.

Timm,
Here is what a real general has to say.
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index....groundid=00192

I wonder what Sgt Pendry would have to say to Gen Odom.

Tim, that was a good blog from the military guy, It was sad though.


I've said time and time again (not on DT, i rarely post politics) that the US media is just giving the terrorists more reason to fight by exposing and then totally focusing on whatever error our military creates.

Instead they should be focusing on supporting the troops and keeping things confidential when it comes to military secrets.

I wrote CNN emails telling them they are supporting the beheadings of captured US workers in Iraq by broadcasting nonstop on the Abu Ghraib Prison scandal.

The media doesnt care who dies, they just want their headlines.


I also totally agree with Hossy and Kev regarding career politicians and the corruption of the government / the dem vs repub thing.

Politicians today are the most disgusting people out there, all they care about is getting re-elected and campaign funding. Its gross, they should all be ashamed.

This country was founded by men who were career Farmers, or Military, or another occupation. Politics was not their career, it was their way of giving the people a voice and doing what is right for a nation.

Today, Politics is just a money driven career. I dont think they really care about the people.

I am conservative with my politics, but I cannot stand this current (and past 6 years) adminstration. They have caused me to become 'independent', because Bush is not a real republican, he is more about 'big government' than anyone and I am very disappointed in the republicans when they controlled washington.

I wish Republicans and Democrats did not argue about EVERYTHING. Dont you think most issues should be agreed upon through common sense?? Why must it always be about two sides fighting, instead of doing what is right for our country.

It is all pathetic.

Wisdom requires that one consider both sides of a debate.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/2920101.html

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/...d_vietnam.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1308349,00.html

Ok Sham,
I read the links you put up.
The first one, dated Sept 4, 2005, is no longer current. Circumstances have changed during the interim.
The second one, May 2006, spells out a rationale for the invasion and occupation, "a resource rich region". Why not just say oil? Oh, and it also trots out the "domino theory"...'nuf said.
The third one, Sept 20, 2004...ummm, can we stick to "current events"?
Blair has been replaced by Brown.
Old PR and justifications don't seem to be effective given the circumstances of July 8, 2007.

Question...how can the US military gain "victory" in a civil war, and what will be necessary to sustain that "victory"?

This is now a RELIGIOUS WAR, not a civil war...and NOBODY wins in a religious war...it's been going on since the Crusades (or longer). Our US Army can not stop this Muslim religious war. IMO

That's an interesting point.
Actually, some no longer call it a "war" as it's an occupation involved in "peace keeping".
Back to the question of "victory"...how many more military lives will be taken to gain "it", and what will it look like?

Here is a more recent article that does a nice job of pointing out the reasons to remain engaged in Iraq by those that consider such as the proper course of action. I personally have no predominant opinion and concede insufficient wisdom to know the best path for our nation. To me, it looks like "damned if you don't...damned if you do". I think it's inevitable that the US will be forced to take a major stand against radical Islam in some place at some point in time.

http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/publica...e&item_id=1711

Sham,
Of the three options presented, the one that makes the most sense is tainted with hypotheticals. 3 "may"s and one possibly.
Perhaps the author needs a consult with Madame Zelda and her magical cards.

"If the U.S. withdraws without achieving even this minimalist definition of "success", Iraq will deteriorate into ever worsening violence and may splinter into its component parts. Turkey may then invade Kurdistan, whose possible independence it views as a threat to its own territorial integrity. Iran will become not only a primary player in Iraq, but the primary one, possibly even annexing Shiite areas outright. The Saudis, already threatened by rising Shiite influence in the region, petrified by a possible Iranian presence right on their border, may similarly choose to preempt this by grabbing parts of Iraq. Jordan, with an Iranian controlled Iraq on its border, might collapse. For Israel, the consequences will be severe."

Oh, I wonder why the author is looking out for the interests of Israel?
hmmm.....

i don't think the u.s. remains at this point to help in any civil, religious, culture war. i think bush et al have finally understood why we didn't take saddam out in gulf one, and it's kinda late to worry now, since they chose to ignore this particular issue in gulf 2--iran. if we leave, the power vacuum will most certainly exist, it probably does already. this leaves iran as the predominant power in the region. all the years that saddam the thug and murderer was there, he kept his enemy in check. bush and congress chose to ignore the wider view, the wider picture when they invaded to take saddam out--and now iran is making itself heard. there is far more at stake then just iraq.

the problem remains who is going to put this right? not bush--and i'm not so sure that anyone who is running to succeed him will be able to take on this issue either. certainly all the finger pointing won't fix the problem. bush led the call, and congress so willingly followed. just to leave will NOT solve the problem.

I've stayed out of this thread but I read this and I start looking for my time machine...did I just travel back to the 60's? This is the same crap Henry K and the boys used to justify Nam...in fact it was the mindset that led to Korea...use to call it the domino theory...names no doubt changed to protect the guilty but still...the more things change, the more they stay the same! I'm not an isolationist but I'd rather see our troops in the Sudan stopping genocide than trying to create something in Iraq that goes against everything the folks there believe!

Somer,
I called attention to the "domino theory" in post #25.
Same old, same old.
It was a lie then, and it's still a lie.
If the Bushco junta really wished for this to end (and I don't think they do, cause Halliburton, BKR, Blackwater, and major GOP corporate contributors are continuing to cash in on the blood expended by our troops), Condi would be arranging a "Moslem Summit" involving many of the nations in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, where moderate Moslems might be enlisted to find a diplomatic solution.
Let's face it. This really is a quagmire. Old arguements will be trotted out to justify it. History is a circle that runs on blood.

I have no intention of defending the Iraq war. Just pointing out views some have ragarding consequences of a quick withdrawal of troops from Iraq. One has to wonder what is gonna happen to those Iraqi citizens that bought in and supported the concept of a free and democratic nation. Upon a US pull-out, many of them are as good as dead I suspect.

Sham,
I see what you're trying to say, and yes, things could get worse. No debate on that.
Do you think that what's been happening to "those Iraqi citizens that bought in and supported the concept of a free and democratic nation" during the past three years, and especially during the past year, isn't already happening?
Two million Iraqis have fled their country to escape the horror.
So, could it get worse, yes. But it appears to be bad enough already.
"Stay the course" isn't making the situation any better, despite the delusional dreams of the "Decider" and his vice-emporer.

The same argument was used in Nam...and yes, people suffered after we left as they were unable to defend themselves. South Korea was a better result...it will depend on the Iraqi government I suspect.

Without the support of moderate Muslim nations Iraq will find itself in the same situation as South Viet Nam.
This quagmire will not end militarily. No way, despite the best efforts to train an Iraqi military (remember ARVN's?) or an Iraqi police force. Pipe dream, that.

I agree...maybe a radical suggestion? Give the opportunity to relocate to all Iraqis willing...then pull out!

Maybe, but I'd go with a United Islamic (moderate) peace keeping force.
It would be a tough job to bring consensus, and the US shouldn't take the lead, maybe Jordan and the Saudis, and Indonesia.
The Secretary of State needs to get off her bunzollas and start talking to some people. It wouldn't hurt if she used her buttocks for more than brain storage and sitting while she watches from the sidelines.
Fact: Condi has no balls.

A "real" General that's 22 yrs removed from active service? Isn't that like a generation? The media is biased to the left in case you haven't seen the latest polls. Pendry would probably tell Odom that he's a cowardly POS,imo!
My mistake...Pendry was a Sgt. Major.

Well, Condi takes her orders from GWB...I doubt he's had an original thought since he became President. I agree that we need a multi-national Islamic presence...but that takes statesmanship from the US...an oxymoron! Geez...the spelling police are out!