Withdrawal Syndrome?

Richard says...

The war of words between Congress and the White House continue as the war in Iraq begins it’s fourth year. As this “necessary war” drags on, two questions must be asked; “Is it really necessary to continue this escalation?” and “Has the conflict in Iraq become a battle to save face rather than a war against terror?”
This administration, who’s policies have always been dictated by political polling rather than prudent judgment, surely is aware of the consequences it faces by leaving as it’s legacy an unpopular and unfinished war. With the increasing un-likeliness that there will be any signs of clear accomplishment to point to as he takes that one way trip to Crawford, Texas less than 2 years from now, George W. Bush has only one choice to make; justify and defend this war at all costs.
We have seen this pattern before. Thousands of innocent lives lost, thousands of families torn apart, all because one man can’t garner up the courage to face the truth.
Talks will soon begin behind closed doors to try and determine a compromise between the Democratic leadership in the Congress and Karl Rove’s top client when it comes to troop withdrawal. As these people gather to discuss policy over chilled wine and in the peace and comfort of the Oval Office, bombs will detonate, hatred will intensify, civil war will escalate and people will continue to die.
George Bush has a specific date of withdrawal. January 20, 2009. His war needs a deadline, because too many victims of his ego-driven policy have already been declared dead.

Archie says...

The question is: deadline or no deadline?

Let’s get a couple of things on the table.
A. It does not matter anymore whether or not this war is or was “justified”. It’s kind of like two guys fussing over how they came to be waist deep in quick sand and not trying to figure a way out.
B. We (The United States) are in a damn mess.

A deadline is not the best idea. Let’s face the facts that if we withdraw all our troops without handing control into capable security forces, Iraq will irrupt into full scale civil war. The solution lies with breaking apart Iraq into separate countries. Those countries will then find neighboring allies that will help them annihilate each other. Presto! The Middle East is back to normal.

Now, tell us what you think, and ask your friends to visit this site and share their thoughts as well.


Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, … Don’t Buy It?

Richard Says…
When over 70% of soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan say that they wouldn’t care if the person serving beside them on the frontlines was gay or lesbian, and when former Joint Chief of Staff John M Shalikashvili says that the policy is outdated and is no longer applicable, and finally, when tours of duty continue to be extended and our armed forces continue to be stretched beyond acceptable levels, is it not time for this hideous policy to be destroyed?
The only thread still holding it in place is one of self-righteous bigotry, empty rhetoric and outdated perceptions. The recent comments by current Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace are typical of the weak foundation that gave birth to and sustains this policy.
Any willing and able person who has the desire to serve their country in the armed services should have the freedom to do so without secrecy or fear of retribution.

Archie Says…
I question the accuracy of the poll taken. MOST of the straight men that I know, and more importantly ALL of the straight military personnel I know, believe that having openly gay men serve will lower troop cohesion. Simply put; the soldiers do not trust a gay man. For the greater good of the (what I believe to be) vast majority, the ban on openly gay men should continue. This is not a debate of who is right or who is wrong. This debate is about whether or not we should place our brave MEN in danger by allowing an open display of something so contrary to most of the male psyche.

Let’s hear what you have to say…