OK, now that the election is history everyone seems to be blaming the outcome on national republican policies - particularly the war. Personally I don't buy it, especially as it relates to Maryland state politics. After all, other than maybe moral support what does the governor have to do with the war or any other national policies?

No, as for the governor's race and those associated with him I feel the office wasn't won by O'Malley it was given away by Erlich. Gov. Erlich alluded to (I wont say promised) a lot of things in his first race and first year that never materialized. True enough most would have failed on the spears of the legislature but too many were left to rot on the vine. While most loyalists still voted for him they sure didn't campaign for him the way they did in 2002. I discussed this very issue with a senior republican delegate in 2004. A perfect example is how the sportsmen community was courted in 2002 then after the (first) election largely ignored. Then two weeks before the (latest) election Secretary of DNR makes a state-wide tour visiting with hunters and fishermen at key spots. WHAT A CROCK! State republican policies concentrated so much on fighting the democrats over the last four years they forgot to take care of those who put them in the state house and the result was predictable.

Don't get the wrong idea. Everything west of Carrol county and east of the bay has negligible impact on anything in Annapolis. Its about numbers and four central jurisdictions have more votes than all 19 others combined and it was there that they lost those crucial swing votes through disillusionment.

Now about that war... I just don't get it. How can people honestly think it will change anything for the better if we leave Iraq & Afghanistan? Reality check folks. Whatever reason we went there the people we're fighting are involved in a religious war and we're the enemy wherever we are! This is a war they've been fighting to one degree or another for two thousand years. A war that only targeted us in the last twenty-five years or so.

Its not about Israel, its not about oil, its not about economics or anything else except for one thing - RELIGION! Its not our war its theirs. No matter where we go on the offensive, we're actually on the defensive and it will not end through any decisive battle, strategic victory or peace negotiations. This is a war of philosophy and such fights only end one way - through the death of the other.

No people, I'm afraid we're in this for the long haul whether we fight back or not. Personally, I'd rather keep em busy on their own soil.

Because the current strategy, if there is one, is a complete failure. It's time to leave Iraq (except for a small placeholder force), regroup, and start planning for the eventual return to the area to, hopefully, get it done right. If the administration can't/won't come up with a viable plan, it's time to bring the troops home until one can be devised.

My reply to the War.

I beleive the war now transends politics/religion. I know of too many classmates or peers that have been killed or maimed in the Middle East. I am a Independent and middle of the road in my view of politics. Having friends die or become disabled from the war means something to me. I wish others well, and I try to respect all views.

I have no problem expressing my sadness for the loss of people I know, ages 18 to 21 years old, from the war. Before it is said, I know many lives have been affected, here and in the Middle East, not just Americans. I am simply speaking from where I am and from what I have experienced.

I recognize no one has the market on loss. Just pointing out a young perspective. Visiting Walter Reed was really wrenching. There are huge numbers of young adults coming through Walter Reed each day with missing limbs, and severe head injuries. Some will go on, not missing a beat. Others will never be able to cope.That was the group I visited. I know there are older soldiers and other moving stories. It is not a good picture at Walter Reed. The staff is excellent, the patients are brave, and their families are wonderfully supportive. But the circumstances are horrible.

Looking at a friend who is 19 and back from Iraq, I say it is time to bring them all home.

The current strategy is not working well and good people are dying, so we should leave.

If we had done that in WWII where would we be? Many hundreds or even thousands of men were lost just in a D-Day training exercise. Should they have cancelled D-day?

The enemy is real. Do we leave and let them grow stronger and bolder?

What about a better/different strategy?

Speak to the non politicians back from Iraq. Those who faced the danger and the hell there mostly do not agree we should leave. Why?

Here ya go Snoopy. (And all other war supporters.)


Hagerstown Army Recruiter
1423 Dual Hwy Ste 2D
Foxshire Plaza
Hagerstown, MD 21740
301-739-1986

Better hurry up, times runnin' out.

What you don't do speaks so loudly that no one cares what you say.

Help me understand how an accident during a training excercise for a solid battle plan compares in the least to the debacle in Iraq?

Of course those non-politicians (I assume you mean soldiers?) returning from Iraq don't want us to leave. Their dedication to finish what they started is admirable and exactly what I expected from our troops, but sometimes you have to ask yourself, "Is the juice worth the squeeze?".

Seriously though, I think you're right and that the republicans that are still around ignore this issue at their own risk. If we still have over 100,000 troops there in 2008 with another 1,000 deaths I think the losses will be worse than they were this year.

Your reruns are getting old, Idiot. How many times you gonna trot out this old line?

If you fought for the idea that only veterans should have a say in government, you were a true idiot.

Any other vets except this idiot believe that? Anyone?

Still sad...I value those who have served and supported our troops from WWl til now. Still sad, today's cost response for this tristate area is huge. Many area (Penn.,W.Va,VA) youngsters sign up to serve in the national guard to earn money for college. They have limited economic options for college and know a degree is needed for the type of career they may feel they are suited for. In today's world they may see a need to pursue college for the type of training that will unlock resources for them or match their skill set. It is a game of roulette if they will return and in what condition?

Speak to the non politicians back from Iraq. Those who faced the danger and the hell there mostly do not agree we should leave.

How many times are you going to trot out that old line?

So if a person hasn't served in Iraq they shouldn't have a say in U.S. policy?

You have just declared that idiot's post about joining the Army is valid.

Would you (generic) relate this conflict more with our conflcit with Japan which invaded us in WWII or North Korea which we invaded in the Vietnam war. This is an open question and I may have my informattion incorrect as I am certain many of you out there are muc more well versed on these past events than I, but it just seems when you weigh the compartive cause and effect this conflict does not fit the WWII references being made here.

Today's war is very sad for our area youngsters. The risks and economics are overwhelming but not as much as the human factor. Strangely, it is so different from past wars, yet very similiar in some respects.

True, Iraq's numbers may be lower than WWll but there is still a growing pain that is getting huge. No current American family or soldier should be marginalized by saying not as many have died as in parts of WWll. That is not the point. We can respect our history and its leaders while recognizing we do not need to loose another soldier or friend.

Heck, maybe it is called learning something, or rising above the frey.

Since when do you have to join the military to get an education or a job? We need desperately plumbers, carpenters, electricians & other professions which often pay more than a college degree in basket weaving. Saying everyone needs a degree is so 60's...

Every life is sacred. I feel for each one lost or wounded.. I also thank G-d that they are willing to serve and preserve my freedom--esp. for those on this panel the freedom of speech which is always fhe first to go..

Once we win we can finish the setting up of the gov't & then come home..

I am merely referring to people I visit at Walter Reed. They felt a need to serve and also earn money for college. They were young and that was the path that looked good to them, and was recommended to them during their senior year in high school.They did not count on returning as an amputee. But that is life for them. Sure I know of many people who are in the trades but there are also some who want a diffent avenue in their life. So heck, dismiss the returnees I was referring too because they wanted a life different from your frame of reference. They were and are proud Americans. Like I said, the human factor can not be measured.

By the way, they are not basketweavers. They did not feel they had the calling or apptitude for certain vocational or trade fields. One is pursuing a career as a math/science teacher. Time will tell what the others will do. Saying everyone needs a degree or everyone needs to go into the trades is not where I am at, I would not speak for everyone. There are plenty of others who try to speak for everyone, my words are not needed in that pursuit.

And people who end up hurt on the job---it is the way of life for them too--stop dodging the argument. Red herring are so lame.........


No one joins the military assuming they will be injured. No one gets behind a wheel thinking, geez, today I'm gonna end up with a fracture in my back from a wreck...stuff happens whether you serve or not..

My point, in case you missed it--was--the military is not the only option to make a decent living. And basket weaving as a degree---there are many people I know who went to college, got a degree in some lovely field like history or english...or marine biology.. do you know what these people end up usually doing for a living? Selling cars, insurance, or some such career which has nothing to do with their degree.

My point: the human and economic factor during this war is huge for the soldier, their family, and support/rehab services back home. If one can not measure the human factor think of it in terms, of your tax dollars now paying for extensive rehab and lifelong care.

Red Herrring, injuring your back lifting a patient in a Md or Pa hospital or in a car wreck stateside does not translate to life in Iraq. Sure there could be a range of injuries at work in the USA but the abilty to secure care on the roadside in Md is different from a warzone. IEDs or incoming shells or having your legs pinned while your humvee rolls and burns from an explosion is not like an injury at the factory. Waiting to be cut out and airlifted away from incoming shells, and then finally receive wound care is very protracted in a warzone. The injury, rehab and potential for recovery and re-integration into the work force is totally different. It is not a workman's comp situation where you might have the potential to retool to a different career track.

No point continuing/ I respectfully disagree. It is apples and oranges to compare stateside working conditions to a war zone. Again, I respect all opinions, it is insightful. Have a good day. Bottomline: the cost of this war is huge and translates to an economic and human toll we may not fully realize for years and years.

What are we supposed to win?

Our army beat Saddam's army when we invaded. Didn't we win?

"We" can finish setting up the government? If the Iraqis don't agree to be governed than there is no government. Who wins?

No, Mr. Mensa, I did not. Idiot suggests if you support the war you must join and fight. I was saying those closest to the conflict and with the most to lose generally support it, and those less close should perhaps study why that is.

-

Well written with some good points. I disagree that leaving won't change anything for the better. "Reality check" as you said may also be applied to the number of soldiers being killed each day. If we leave ( slow/graduated departure), the end result will be a decrease in the daily death or injury count for American soldiers. A decrease in the daily death/injury count is an important concern/goal to my family. Appreciate your viewpoint, adds to the discussion. It is a 360 from my perspective.

We are all good Americans.

my problem with the whole "lets cut and run" strategy is yes it will save futures deaths by our soldiers but if we pull out now what do you tell the families of the soldiers that were already killed?

We decided it really isn't worth the effort anymore sorry your kid got killed but on the bright side we will sustain no more casualties. And the day after we leave there will be chaos in Iraq. Not to mention that every other would be terrorist nation now has a blueprint to win any conflict with us. Keep picking off their soldiers until the american public gives in then the govt. will withdraw. either way we seem screwed

they have 300,00 trained irag troops , we have to start stepping back now and let them do more of there fighting, if they wont fight , run , then tell me what is the point staying there fighting for them,, it was said the other day we can look at being there for at least 15 years,

Like I said. We are screwed either way. My personal favorite would be to temporarily abandon Korea, germany, iraq, phillipines anywhere we have troops overseas and tell everyone we have things to attend to at home and good luck to you youre now on your own.

for everyone that is complaining that the Iraq situation is taking too long where is all the uproar over having troops stationed in Korea for 50 years now? why do we have anyone over there at all. Is it because we are afraid that if we leave the north will roll right over the south? Probably true but how long do we stay? If 50 years isn't too long for South Korea to come up with a defense plan why do we think the Iraqi's should have one in ten years?

So they let the troops keep dying to avoid having to admit they were wrong. They may not admit it but guess what, those families have already figured it out.



No, just the ones we start for no good reason.






And how many troops from the DMZ have been killed since Mar 20, 2003? I don't want them there either but at least they aren't dying at a rate of almost 3 per day. If they were you can damn well believe I'd be just as vocal about it.

Ok we can all agree that Americans are being killed essentially everyday. We can all agree that is regrettable. What we seem to disagree on is the fact that those who are dying are men and women who volunteered for that dangerous job. Perhaps not specifically to go to Iraq or Afghanistan. Perhaps not to be in a combat zone but the military's job is fighting wars! Fighting wars where ever they are as a result of government decisions. Remember the old adage; "A soldiers job is not to question why, a soldiers job is to do and die." Can you really be so naive as to insult the intelligence of those brave men and women by insinuating they weren't aware they could be risking their lives when they joined?

Now, we are losing brave, valuable lives. They are soldiers who volunteered to take that risk though. Does anyone but me suspect that by walking away just as the radicals (terrorists) have always said we would we reinforce their position and power? Does anyone else agree that by doing so we will eventually see many more American lives lost but instead of soldiers who volunteered to risk their lives for the rest of us it will then be innocent civilians cut down while going about their daily lives? Men, women, children, White, Black, Hispanic and even Arab AMREICANS who did nothing more threatening than live in this country.

Whatever the original reason for going to the middle east, we cannot escape the fact that we are fighting dedicated radicals willing to commit suicide for their cause, willing to kill us - any of us - at any cost and by any means. They maim and kill hundreds of their own people to get to a handful of us. Not just in Iraq, what about Kenya, Tanzania, Bali, Beirut? Maybe we do need a new strategy but is the saving of a hundred, five-hundred or a thousand volunteer soldiers worth jeapordizing the lives of civilians?

Yes they did and thousands of them have fulfilled their commitment. Now let the military fulfill theirs.



Do they have to protect you for the rest of their lives? Or just until there’s no more terror in the world? Maybe we should change the rules again and just make them permanent soldiers because there are very few new recruits. It's too bad that people like you and Snoopy don't have the courage of your convictions or we could solve that problem.





Get a grip. You've been drinking too much Kool Aid.

Id- read his signature - he's not crazy, just a little Un-well

Please explain why Spain and England who both had troops in Iraq didn't prevent the lose of innocent civilian lives from bomb attacks in Madrid and London? Your theory is that terrorists are being kept busy in Iraq and therefore don't have the time, ability or inclination to attack elsewhere. Why do you think that terrorists suffer from some kind of attention disorder?

Boys and girls, this "war" isn't something WE can decide to be a part of or not. It is something we will be a part of for the rest of time. The only thing we can decide is whether to actively defend ourselves from intimidation and terror or pretend it doesn't exist and shudder at the effects of the radical Muslim's murderous hatred when it is manifested among us.

This "war" has been going on for two thousand years! It's only been since about 1984 that we've been a target of it. Now that we are we will never cease to be.

Now in keeping with the advisory on etiquette I'll refrain from sniping back at those who've obviously missed it... although it'd be terribly easy!

So we keep sending our young troops over there to die forever? And where are we going to be getting these troops from? In case you haven't noticed there are very few new enlistments lately.

Why don't we try to defend ourselves here instead of letting arab countries control our ports? We CAN defend ourselves and yes, some may die in the process. Civilian or military, it doesn't matter. American lives are all equally important. We would ALL proudly join that fight and there is no doubt that we could win it.

get used to it. it doesn't matter what your opinion is if it isnt in step with certain people here they think you are an Id..(bad choice of words)..MORON. Oh and as far as the rules of etiquette go. They only apply to certain people at certain times. And if you do challenge certain people the intensity of the attacks will just ramp up. As far as some of the points you made I and a great number of posters happen to agree with them.

[Under the policy, soldiers who normally would leave when their commitments expire must remain in the Army, starting 90 days before their unit is scheduled to depart, through the end of their deployment and up to another 90 days after returning to their home base. With yearlong tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, some soldiers can be forced to stay in the Army an extra 18 months.] By Tom Regan, csmonitor.com January 31, 2006

I do not apologize for missing friends who have served.
I do not apologize for respecting your views while demonstrating my own views.
I do not sanction letting more Americans perish in Iraq/Afganistan to justify the losses already occurred.
I have experienced losses and do not need other soldiers to perish to justify those who perished in 2004, 2005, 2006.
I respect those who enlisted, some due to ecoonomic barriers, some out of patriotism, some who felt it the right thing to do. All are brave patriots. All deserve the opportunity to come home in one piece.

I am not arguing, and am not under the illusion anyone here will listen to me or change their mind. I am at peace with my views, and yours.

It is ok with me that the US soldiers return home, even if others have perished. It does not mean I do not respect them or their contributions to the freedom effort. It does not mean I want anything negative, I just do not want others to feel such a loss. That is it for me.

Apparently your Kool-Aid is spiked with booze. You speak like a drunken fool half the time and a regular fool the other half. You repeatedly insult my courage on an internet board where you are safe, yet you know virtually nothing about me.

You say you served in the military, yet you use that fact that should be honorable and dishonor it by using it to repeatedly bash those who were not soldiers. I know lots of soldiers, and yet I never heard one who tried to demean others who did not become soldiers (other than a few nationally known jerks like Kerry who I do not know personally).

Yeah, you're a reeeeal courageous man. All hail Idiot, war hero par excellance. Let no one dare question him. After all, he was a soldier.

Did you know Idiot was a soldier? It insulates him from criticism for all-time.

BTW -- what kind of discharge did you get?

I dont think anyone on either side of this debate wants to see more soldiers killed. I think the problem is balancing a workable exit strategy (which nobody seems to have yet) without appearing to the rest of the world that we are cutting out because the insurgents won the fight by picking off our troops and crushing any support for the effort by the american public at large.

If we just bug out do you think its possible that we may lose even more soldiers in the future because despots, tyrants, & terrorists will think it is possible to attack us and feel that the country will not back any full scale retribution? You have to admit that if we pull out now the insurgents, Al Queda or whoever is running the show will claim victory against us and their recruiting efforts for future terrorists will be much easier.

[quote name='samy0' date='Nov 17 2006, 12:48 PM' post='69606']
I dont think anyone on either side of this debate wants to see more soldiers killed. I think the problem is balancing a workable exit strategy (which nobody seems to have yet) without appearing to the rest of the world that we are cutting out because the insurgents won the fight by picking off our troops and crushing any support for the effort by the american public at large.

Good, we agree on some things. I too see the troops coming home.

I really do not think the majority of citizens advocating the safe return of our troops equals a cut and run plan. I give them more credit. The US has the brain power and skills to work with others in coordinating resources for a troop redeployment & eventual withdrawl. But it has to be talked about now to get the process going. I doubt anyone thinks it can happen tomorrow or next month. Saying that all who advocate the troops coming home want a cut and run approach is a tactic or emotional crutch to rehash old points of opinion, which only lengthens the process and hinders a foward solution. People read and hear the parts they want to read or hear.

God bless the troops, their familes, and friends. Hope to see you home sooner than later. I know we have the capability to begin a new plan vs. staying the course and increasing our numbers. The time is now to begin the planning. Why repeat history. Make 2007 count for something, a beginning.

No, but within a few weeks of making that decision it could begin, be well on the way towards completion in several months, and be done in less than a year. I think that's realistic. It would mean abandoning Baghdad and the embassy idea, which after what happened at Forward Operating Base Falcon a few weeks ago is probably lost already anyway, move to the north and south, protect our positions with air power if need be, and systematically withdraw.

I believe that within a year we could not only get the troops out safely but because we have bases in both regions with runways long enough for large cargo planes we could also remove most of the material, supplies, and equipment we took there. That's something we couldn't do in Vietnam. It's hard to even imagine how much stuff we left there.

[hijack] That reminds me of the special I've seen called "War Dogs". It was about dogs (mostly Shepards) serving in combat. Most of it was about the Sheps that would go on patrol with the soldiers in Vietnam. When we left Vietnam, nearly everything was left behind, including kennels containing scores of these dogs that fought along side our troops. To see these vets talk about the heroic things these dogs did for our men and the guilt of having to leave them behind was absolutely heart-wrenching. [/hijack]

Oh boy, I probably shouldn't be doing this...but heck, its Monday & I'm kinda in a mood...inlaws coming for turkey day--gotta be nice to them.

Do any of you peacniks know your history? Barbary Pirates were around in the 1780's and Europe paid them tribute(bribes) to navigate the waters in the area. Jefferson sent troops to the area rather than tribute--he said millions for defense, but not a penny in tribute. We were there for 3+ years and fixed the problem. Our ships were able to sail w/o being attacked, and by the way, Europe cashed in on our answer but never sent any troops of their own...

So, how is pulling out now not just like Vietnam? Or Korea? And what about our troops still over in Europe allowing all those wussy nations not to have to maintain a 'real' army....that way they can complain & attack our system while enjoying the benefits...just like some posters here...

And P.S. I have relatives and friends in the military. When you sign on, you are US property...your body is not your own...one friend got a sunburn and they told him not to do that again unless he wanted to be on report...

Have a nice day..