Iraq war a nightmare

This is not a question of who is right or who is wrong. One would think a retired general would have enough common sense to know that making remarks against the war effort only harms our troops, regardless of how ineptly it is being run. On one hand he says it is a nightmare to be there with all the negative remarks associated with the comment, and on the other hand, says we must stay for a long period of time.

Does it make any sense to make comments to make it tougher on the troops and turn right around and say we are going to be there forever?

Not that I ever came close to retiring from the military, but isn't there some kind of limit on the remarks a retired (especially senior officer) can make against civilian leadership?

 

I suspect the general may be making an effort to cover up his own inadequacies. He will forever be associated with the Abu Graib fiasco. There is no running from the responsibilities of command.

The time to complain was when it could have done some good. Coming now, it just sounds like whining.

 

All wars are nightmares.

 

All wars are nightmares but after some of them you can look back and say the horrendous loss of life, the maiming, the post traumatic stress, the widows and orphans were all worth it. That's because the war was just and absolutely necessary. Those are the criteria Christians should use to justify a war (or not). Does anyone realize that before the Iraq war the SBC was the ONLY major Christian group that supported the war?

 

Why would I possibly care? Do any Christian groups make a habit of publishing statements supporting war? Frankly I am surprised the SBC did this.

Now the truth be told the war has opened Iraq to missionary efforts and helped spread the gospel there so Christian groups should be supporting it. But as Christian organizations I would not expect many to make statements admitting this.

 

I went and read the link. I think I agree with General Sanchez on almost every point. He is not calling for us to leave Iraq but for an increased commitment to victory.

from the article:

I won't argue with that.

 

I said this several months ago and was told that it is against the Military Code or something. I was told soldiers are not allowed to question orders.

If the President gave the order, then how could the General question them and come out against them without being arrested?

Why is it so many top military officials are coming out against all this after they leave the military? Something is wrong with the administration, and we choose to blame the generals, rather than the President.

 

'Borrowed' quote:

Every 'war' the United States has been involved with, since WWII ended, has been primarily a 'political' war, as opposed to a 'military' war. Not one President, nor Congress, during my 59 year lifetime has had the courage or the stomach for a 'military' war, with the resultant effects.

Whether or not I agree with the ideas presented, that is simply how it has been for the last 60 years. The results and after-effects of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended 'military' wars, up to now, at least, in this country!

Ed

 

Just as it is the duty of military commanders to take responsibility for mission failure...

It is the duty of general officers to state serious misgivings or reservations to their immediate superiors concerning the strategy for mission success. Failure to do so is a serious dereliction of duty.

 

Christians, followers of the Prince of Peace, should be praying for a quick consummation of any war, not its continuation.

What help to missionary efforts are you talking about? Haven't many Christians left Iraq since March 2003?

www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-03-22-christians-iraq_N.htm

 

> enough common sense to know that making remarks against the war effort only harms our troops

Exactly how does it harm the troops? Does making remarks against the "war" against drugs harm the police?

 

It emboldens the enemy and gives them courage and hope to do more. They are not only engaged in a physical battle but in a political battle with the US as well. They have proclaimed that the US has no stomach for war and because of this they will win. Which is what the dems and Ronnie wants to happen. The more emboldened they become as a result of this rhetoric the harder and longer they fight. This war as is with any war is as much psychological as it is physical. The rhetoric coming out of the lefties such as Pelosi and Ronnie is the equvivlent to giving the terrorists guns and missles.

Such questions reveals a complete lack of understanding of the nature of this war. Which could be a result of denial much like Ronnie is engaged in so as to maintain a faulty position based on poor political ideology.:BangHead:

And what the press did not cover was a much bigger criticism of the press by this general who he accuses of having a political agenda that adds to the failures in this war. Wonder why they did not cover that?

 

Silly me. And I thought terrorists hated all Americans, inlcuding Pelosi and Paul.

 

1) That is a lie.

2) That is a lie.

 

Yes, it undermines their moral and sense of purpose. If they think they aren't doing any good they why do it? It makes it harder for them to win support of communities and private citizens. Why bother helping the police, it won't do any good? In fact it drives communities to blame the police for their problems instead of the drug dealers. Yes it does harm them.

 

It is one thing to question the execution of the war or the strategy of different parts of the war. That is what General Sanchez has done here.

What he has not done is to question the motives or purpose of the war. He has not questioned the goals of peace, democracy, and freedom in this vital region. He has not questioned the conduct of American soldiers. He does not say the war is morally wrong or inconsistent with America’s goals and policies. What he says is that we are not taking it seriously and do not have the commitment to win. And he is right.

 

Your USA Today is typical of most reporting. It is talking about people and traditions that call themselves Christian but have very little to do with the gospel of Christ. I am talking about real Christians.

Here is a link to a Time story:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,443800,00.html

From the article:

Of course this missionary effort is not without cost, here is another link about modern Baptist Martyrs in Iraq:

http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/2384.article

from the article:

Here is one more link from theage complaining about the influx of missionaries:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/24/1079939714048.html

from the article: