[twinzplus3]

This was a very interesting article I thought. So I decided to share. And I put it here becuase I'm sure with such a controversial topic--debate would ensue.

[PennySteed]

As many of you already know, I am active-duty military, currently in Iraq. What Gen Davis said was pretty much on point. I can totally see the martial law part of it as well. As for us not being able to pull out without risking the oil future, is also a good point. Did we originally start this war over oil? No, but regardless of who is going to replace Bush in office, we are going to be here for a while to come. We were in Saudi Arabia for 10 years, and we are still in Korea. If we pull out now, like Clinton wants us to do, then why did so many die for their country? Continue to honor those who paid the ultimate sacrifice and really look into why we are here and what we are doing. That is pretty much what the General was asking us to do in the first place.

[Samual]

If the war was not started for oil, how come Bush lied about weapons of mass distruction and instead of looking for those first, instead he had all oil supplies handed over to america. Nevermind that the american soldiers seem to love shooting the British dead and shooting down British aircrafts and then changing laws so america cannot be charged for war crimes so they can carry on murdering the British and Iraqis.. I find it rather amusing though that America and Pakistan are allies, then again the American government is the biggest terrorist organisation in the world.

[twinzplus3]

Samual--please read the article and comment on that. This is what the thread is for.

[Samual]

You should note my response is to me article, especially as the comments in my responce relate to aspects stated in the article.

[twinzplus3]

Originally Posted by Samual

Nevermind that the american soldiers seem to love shooting the British dead and shooting down British aircrafts and then changing laws so america cannot be charged for war crimes so they can carry on murdering the British and Iraqis.. I find it rather amusing though that America and Pakistan are allies, then again the American government is the biggest terrorist organisation in the world.

These statements have nothing to do with the article and that is what I was responding to. There was nothing about shooting British soldiers in the article. Your pot shot at America at the end was just disrespectful. The comment on lying about WMD and the war for oil was appropriate. . . I'm politely warning you as a moderator to stick to the article and the points that can be found in the article.

[Samual]

Originally Posted by twinzplus3

These statements have nothing to do with the article and that is what I was responding to. There was nothing about shooting British soldiers in the article. Your pot shot at America at the end was just disrespectful. The comment on lying about WMD and the war for oil was appropriate. . . I'm politely warning you as a moderator to stick to the article and the points that can be found in the article.

The article is why the person is in agreement, so the only way to respond is why you are in agreement or disagreement, if you are not able to do this, there is no point in showing an article when people are not allowed to form their own comments just because someone may or may not like their views on something that has happened.

[twinzplus3]

Samual--you are allowed to form your own comments but I'm asking you not to state them in an inflammatory way. If you're not sure what inflammatory means, this might not be the topic for you. Again--talking about Bush lying about WMD--appropriate. Talking about how Americans love to kill Britains--inappropriate. Talking about alliance with Pakistan--appropriate. Accusing the United States of being a terrorist organization--inappropriate. End of discussion. Please continue respectfully stating your reasons why you disagree with the article.

[mcmama]

OK, back to the article.

I like the way that the position is stated. And I believe we get bogged down in the discussion of Iraq, which is just a part of the total problem.

During Vietnam, there were retired generals who spoke against the war. But they did not do so irresponsibly. They did so after careful consideration, and often within the context of continuing careers they had with the state department. But there were only three broadcast networks and PBS was "Educational Television" then, there was no internet, and Huntley-Brinkley expanding to an hour was radical. When the Pentagon Papers were leaked to the NY Times, the information hit the newsstands that morning and was reported on TV - That morning. If such a story were leaked to the NY Times today, it would hit the website and global networks instantly. Today there is so much opportunity for chatter, and information, and involvement.

Regardless of the issue of WMD and Saddam, "shock and awe" cannot be sustained for the duration - and that is the flaw in Bush's strategy. And the politicians mentioned in the article know this and will belittle everything for personal gain, while the overall strategy and flaw in the totality of planning is overlooked. Rather than pretending it is Vietnam all over again, I think the writer would rather see more dissent from these political enemies of Bush focus on actually prevailing in the global war on terror, rather than picking apart the flawed strategy in Iraq and limiting their views to that. The current discussion in the USA is so full of Vietnam era rhetoric, and we need to be having a different discussion entirely.

Hello. Afghanistan is still an active front, and the Brits are taking it hard there right now. What happens there this year is going to be decisive.

[PennySteed]

McM - If I understood you correctly, you are correct, more and more people are trying to compare this war to Vietnam. Only difference is, this time around military members are not being spit on when they return home.

Currently the military is fighting two wars. The first in Iraq is more of a civil war between the two religious groups. And as the General stated, as long as one has the backing of Iran, it is not going to stop any time soon. Our second war is in Afghanistan and that is against terrorist and the terrorist cells. Both American and British soliders are coming under fire every day. As are those in Iraq. This is not a Desert Storm kind of war, it is a down and dirty ground war with tactics that we have not had to use in our recent past.

The general is also correct that if we allow Iran to continue, the oil prices are going to continue to rise. Most of us over here see a future with us still being in Iraq and moving onto Iran next. Democrat or Republican, doesn't make a difference. We can go back through all of the political parties and see what each President has taken us into.

Samual - I am sorry that you feel that we are against your country. I can tell you that everyone over here LOVES your service members. Personally, they are a lot of fun to work with and around.