Retired general: Iraq invasion was 'strategic disaster'
The Lowell Sun

WASHINGTON -- The invasion of Iraq was the “greatest strategic disaster in United States history,” a retired Army general said yesterday, strengthening an effort in Congress to force an American withdrawal beginning next year., Retired Army Lt. Gen. William Odom, a Vietnam veteran, said the invasion of Iraq alienated America's Middle East allies, making it harder to prosecute a war against terrorists.

The U.S. should withdraw from Iraq, he said, and reposition its military forces along the Afghan-Pakistani border to capture Osama bin Laden and crush al Qaeda cells.

“The invasion of Iraq I believe will turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history,” said Odom, now a scholar with the Hudson Institute.

Homeward Bound, a bipartisan resolution with 60 House co-sponsors, including Lowell Rep. Marty Meehan, requests President Bush to announce plans for a draw-down by December, and begin withdrawing troops by October 2006.

The measure has not been voted on, nor has the House Republican leadership scheduled hearings. But supporters were encouraged yesterday, pointing to growing support among moderate conservatives and the public's rising dissatisfaction with the war.

Meehan, one of the first to propose a tiered exit strategy in January, when few of his Democratic colleagues dared wade into the controversial debate, pointed to “enormous progress.”

“Talking about this issue, having hearings on this issue, getting more Americans to focus on it will result in a change of policy,” Meehan told The Sun. “The generals and commanders on the field in Iraq overwhelmingly are saying we need less in terms of occupation and more Iraqis up front, and that's the only strategy I think that will result in getting American troops back home.”
---------- EVAN LEHMANN

http://www.lowellsun.com/ci_3072005

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v112/starguard/applause.gif

wow... one guy thinks the war was a bad idea... next thread.

One question. Prior to the war, who were our middle east allies?

Here's the amazing part....


The U.S. should withdraw from Iraq, he said, and reposition its military forces along the Afghan-Pakistani border to capture Osama bin Laden and crush al Qaeda cells.


Somehow, the Muslim world is hopping mad that the U.S. invaded one Middle Eastern nation, Iraq, but they are A-Ok with the U.S. invasion of another Middle Eastern nation, Afghanistan. This one is going to have to be explained to me.



“The invasion of Iraq I believe will turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history,” said Odom, now a scholar with the Hudson Institute.

Yes, Mr Odom, and the O.J. Simpson trial truly was "the trial of the century." :rolleyes:

Anymore, these Iraq threads are just becoming redundant.

wow... one guy thinks the war was a bad idea... next thread. Yeah I mean who cares what military officers think. We didn't need any more troops, money or planning!

58% of America thinks the war was a bad idea....

58% of America thinks the war was a bad idea....

*58% of the Americans surveyed for that poll think the war was "a bad idea"

Originally posted by Evakian
*58% of the Americans surveyed for that poll think the war was "a bad idea"
Your point? Polls show the opinions of people one way or the way, with a 3% error either way. So it could be 55% or 61% think the war was a bad idea. Almost all polls in the last year have showed a majority of people in the US think the war was a bad idea. It is safe to assume that based off of many, many polls and recent polls that the majority of Americans think this war was a bad idae.

Almost all polls in the last year have showed a majority of people in the US think the war was a bad idea.

As a result of the press and punks like Guerilla running around saying that Iraq needs to be stuck in its dark ages with that Ba'athist regime. :D

Your point?

Unless it surveyed every last adult in america, it is not exact. Surveying say, 3000 people who are "likely voters", does not show anything. Their ages, religions, party affiliations, locations and other things come into play. I do not see any of these polls they release as accurate...that "3% margin of error" has the possibility of being 75% off in many cases.

It is safe to assume that based off of many, many polls and recent polls that the majority of Americans think this war was a bad idae.

Well, if many, many of these polls are released it makes them proof. I will decide to release 10 polls under different organizations surveying coke drinkers who think pepsi is the devil. And in doing so i will be able to establish that pepsi is in fact the devil. :D

I too believe that most americans disagree with the war in general at this point in time. The lack of WMDs, the massive budgets, the reasons we went to war, the length of time its taking, the terrorists springing up there, and so on.

I am not doubting Guerilla's statistic at all, i am just bringing up the fact that if i were to publish that 2800 of 3400 people prefer coke over pepsi, it does not make coke better (despite that it is ;)).

Lets just hope we will pull out before new years and can pay off alot of it in the near future and eliminate the huge government and massive expenditures of our current administration. Let us just wish Iraq the best and keep our eye on them, they may prove a good ally in the future if they stay afloat. :)

Originally posted by Evakian
As a result of the press and punks like Guerilla running around saying that Iraq needs to be stuck in its dark ages with that Ba'athist regime. :D
Yes, lets blame the "media" ::sigh:: How typical. Just face it, far more people in America now do not support this war.

Originally posted by Evakian
Unless it surveyed every last adult in america, it is not exact. Surveying say, 3000 people who are "likely voters", does not show anything. Their ages, religions, party affiliations, locations and other things come into play. I do not see any of these polls they release as accurate...that "3% margin of error" has the possibility of being 75% off in many cases.
How dose it have the possibility of being off by 75%? They have done many studies and found that the margin of error is only 3% either way. To disagree with that is just political and bias. When polls don't go in your favor, it is typical to make claims that are so far-fetched that it makes the poll appear false when really it isn't. Politics 101.

Originally posted by Evakian
Well, if many, many of these polls are released it makes them proof. I will decide to release 10 polls under different organizations surveying coke drinkers who think pepsi is the devil. And in doing so i will be able to establish that pepsi is in fact the devil. :D
Except it is a random selection of people they choose to survey. To think otherwise is again, bias and political. We must assume they are just asking "Democrats", even though before we knew all the facts regarding this war (No WMDs etc), the polls showed 88% supported the war.

Originally posted by Evakian
I am not doubting Guerilla's statistic at all, i am just bringing up the fact that if i were to publish that 2800 of 3400 people prefer coke over pepsi, it does not make coke better (despite that it is ;)).
I think you are comparing apples and oranges. There are actual facts around the Iraq War debate. There is nothing that can factually say that Coke tastes better then Pepsi, because everyone has different taste buds. Whereas you can actually, factually disprove the Iraq War or vise versa.

When polls don't go in your favor, it is typical to make claims that are so far-fetched that it makes the poll appear false when really it isn't.

Despite the fact i attack those that do go in my favor anyway.

Yes, lets blame the "media"

Yes, lets.

To disagree with that is just political and bias.

No, its reasonable doubt.

Except it is a random selection of people they choose to survey.

Which is a problem, since that is not fair or unbiased.

Whereas you can actually, factually disprove the Iraq War or vise versa.

Actually, that is impossible, since it has already passed on and actually did happen, you cannot disprove it. You can just disagree with the reasons to go, how it was conducted, etc.:D
Much like the coca-cola/pepsi battle, this is all in the eye(or mouth ;)) of the beholder.

Evakian

Yes, lets.
Because using scapegoats is so logical.

No, its reasonable doubt.
Not when they have done studies to show that it is only a 3% margin of error. That is scientific and it has been proven.

Which is a problem, since that is not fair or unbiased.
It is random in the way that they don't just call everyone from one state, or one area. They make sure to make it random throughout the entire United States and in random towns, cities, not all in the same places.

Actually, that is impossible, since it has already passed on and actually did happen, you cannot disprove it. You can just disagree with the reasons to go, how it was conducted, etc.:D
Much like the coca-cola/pepsi battle, this is all in the eye(or mouth ;)) of the beholder. [
Wow. Lets get anal about this. Okay, you can factually prove that the reasons for this war were wrong to begin with or right to being with. You cannot change someones taste buds. You can change someones opinions, since opinions are based off of facts etc.

Bush has a hard core base of ~ 30%. Those folks will support whatever he does PERIOD (except for send their own kids to fight). That leaves 70% against the war.

The hard part for his followers is deciding whether to stick with him when he truly goes over the edge with an invasion of Iran, Syria, Venezuela or Cuba which would of course mean a draft and their own kids would have to fight -- something conservatives aren't used to doing.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Bush has a hard core base of ~ 30%. Those folks will support whatever he does PERIOD (except for send their own kids to fight). That leaves 70% against the war.


Your 30% + 70% accounts for the entire populace.

Only around 19% of the populace voted for Bush.

He may have a *hard core base* of 30%, but i'd still say that far more than 30% support---or are at least willing to go along with-- the "war" on Iraq.

Many Kerry voters ---even though they didn't like Bush-- are in favor of the "war".

The **my-country-right-or-wrong** brainwashing that the people have been subjected to for centuries is deep seated in the herd.

Few people really reflect on war and whether or not it is just and humane and fair that we send armed forces to kill other people because they are in the way of the US getting what it wants.

If every American would read the writings of Mark Twain and Smedley Butler, it might begin to turn the tide of kneejerk war hysteria that afflicts such a large segment of the populace.

I ---like Twain--- can muster little if any respect for a person as a human being who will eagerly march off to war under the banner of "We're right and Godly and you're EVIL!!"

______________________________

“Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes. And armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. “In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended. Its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force of the people. “The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war… and in the degeneracy of manners and morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”-------- James Madison, 1795

Point taken free -- I was speaking on very general terms which I know, I shouldn't do here.