A leading Republican senator and prospective presidential candidate said Sunday that the war in
Iraq has destabilized the Middle East and is looking more like the Vietnam conflict from a generation ago.
Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record), who received two Purple Hearts and other military honors for his service in Vietnam, reiterated his position that the United States needs to develop a strategy to leave Iraq.
Hagel scoffed at the idea that U.S. troops could be in Iraq four years from now at levels above 100,000, a contingency for which the
Pentagon is preparing.
"We should start figuring out how we get out of there," Hagel said on "This Week" on ABC. "But with this understanding, we cannot leave a vacuum that further destabilizes the Middle East. I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur."
Polls show the public growing more skeptical about Bush's handling of the war.
In Iraq, officials continued to craft a new constitution in the face of a Monday night deadline for parliamentary approval. They missed the initial deadline last week.
Hagel, who was among those who advocated sending two to three times as many troops to Iraq when the war began in March 2003, said a stronger military presence by the U.S. is not the solution today.
"I don't know where he's going to get these troops," Hagel said. "There won't be any National Guard left ... no Army Reserve left ... there is no way America is going to have 100,000 troops in Iraq, nor should it, in four years."
Hagel added: "It would bog us down, it would further destabilize the Middle East, it would give
Iran more influence, it would hurt
Israel, it would put our allies over there in Saudi Arabia and Jordan in a terrible position. It won't be four years. We need to be out
Was that you?cnredd said:If certain people get what they want...it WILL be another Vietnam...
From an earlier post of mine...
There is has been more terrorist activity in the middle east since Bush decide to invade. Iraq is under marshall law and in case you haven't heard their official consititution and law will be based on Islam. All the other countries that base their laws on Islam are the polar oppoite of havens for freedom..KevinWan said:I think Bush has sacrificed alot of political capital... to change the middle east into a haven for freedom, not terrorism. All that, despite the unpopularness of his decisions.
scottyz said:There is has been more terrorist activity in the middle east since Bush decide to invade. Iraq is under marshall law and in case you haven't heard their official consititution and law will be based on Islam. All the other countries that base their laws on Islam are the polar oppoite of havens for freedom..
scottyz said:There is has been more terrorist activity in the middle east since Bush decide to invade. Iraq is under marshall law and in case you haven't heard their official consititution and law will be based on Islam. All the other countries that base their laws on Islam are the polar oppoite of havens for freedom..
....but that makes it ok for him to speak out against the war, but not Cindy Sheehan.Navy Pride said:Hagel is running for President in 2008.......Nuff said..............
Simon W. Moon said:I see from where you posted it previously that you didn't save the source info to your hd.
cnredd:
"Here's an interesting peice about Vietnam...a war in which EVERY major battle was won by the US, but we lost the wardue tothe lack of resolve within our own borders...I saved it about ayear ago from another site, but I can't find the source."
Have no fear, my google-fu is strong. I shall find that which has been lost.
Sorry for harshing on you.
kal-el said:I think Chuck Hagel dosen't want to be on a sinking ship. He, along with most of America, is realizing the horror of this war, and dosen't want to go down with Mr. Bush.
scottyz said:....but that makes it ok for him to speak out against the war, but not Cindy Sheehan.
Simon W. Moon said:So, from this we can see that it's not at all clear that Mr. Garfinkle's comments were intended to apply to much more than sixties-style, street protests. Though it remains unclear if you meant the same thing when you said the exact same words.
cnredd said:Keep in mind that what I posted was all I had...With other comments and quotes surrounding it, it MAY take on a different meaning, but I'm relating the overall theory that applying political pressure to a miltary action lengthens the military actions...
I also remember a Vietnamese General saying they were close to quitting if the protesters didn't get the US government to quit first....Now THAT'S a post I should've kept...with the source, of course!:2razz:
Navy Pride said:Like I said Hagel is running for president in 2008.......
I don't know how old you are but I think America realized the horrors of war long ago but cutting and running is not and option..........
Its President Bush and how is he going down? He is not running for president again.......
Simon W. Moon said:The majority of Americans already realizes that invading Iraq was a mistake.
The majority of Americans already realizes that we were deliberately misled in re the threat from Iraq.
The majority of Americans already realizes.
There's no longer an antiwar movement. This is the sentiment of the country. There's a merely a pro-war movement.
Unfortuately, in our barberic and primitive world you may be right. But IMO, nothing justifies violence. Gandhi was prepared to fast to death and still was able to oust the English from India.
kal-el said:Violence never solves anything, Never. Violence just leads to more, and once it starts, it doesn't stop, and if we step in and get involved, we are obligated to carry on more.
KevinWan said:Its people like Hagel that make Iraq a new Vietnam... Hes wavered to the pressure of liberals, in the interests of his own political ambitions. In Vietnam liberals instigated so much pressure that politicians were forced to change their views, and hence we lost that war... not on the battlefield, but at home. Opposition to a war is always bad news... you can't win divided. Ted Kennedy, Dean, Moore, etc etc divided the country and opposed to war to turn public opinion. Why? They want America to lose. Thats why we lost in Vietnam... and I hate to say it but thats why we'll lose here too. I would give some credit to Bush though.. he hasn't done enough to shut liberals up. I think being a "profile in courage" as President Kennedy admired... is always best. Its part of American democracy... to defy the constuency to do whats RIGHT, not neccessarily POPULAR. I think Bush has sacrificed alot of political capital... to change the middle east into a haven for freedom, not terrorism. All that, despite the unpopularness of his decisions.
Alan Ryan said:"Violence never solves anything" - a pious hope. Violence can solve lots of problems: the coercion of laws and the regulation of the state depends upon implied violence. Self defense must resort to violence when necessary: and so on and on...........
Orwell is supposed to have said, "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf": He was right.
Iriemon said:I thought Hagel was a Republican? How on earth could he be "pressured" by liberals? Or making this up for his own political ambitions? How would the political ambitions of a Republican be improved by question the was of his own party's president?
It is political suicide for him to criticize the war effort. This guy has the biggest b*lls I've seen for quite a while, certainly not seen of the Demoflats side of the isle. Something I would expect from a true vet.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?