I think the reason is the people believe that if the war in Iraq is so important to this country, why hasn't the president asked the people of this country to make sacrfices? The only people who have sacrificed are the soldiers, marines, & airmen - some who made the ultimate sacrifice. And of course, their families.

Therefore, the people conclude the war is not all that important.

I think the reason is the people believe that if the war in Iraq is so important to this country, why hasn't the president asked the people of this country to make sacrfices? The only people who have sacrificed are the soldiers, marines, & airmen - some who made the ultimate sacrifice. And of course, their families.

Therefore, the people conclude the war is not all that important.

What sacrafices? Should the president ask 1 in every 25 citizens to kill themselves? Your obsession with WWII rationing is bordering on crazy

People have grown accustomed to changing the channel these days. When the channel is stuck we have a tendency to start beating up on the remote.

A big part of it is probably that the process takes a lot longer than many were expecting, and the only news we hear out of there is soldiers being killed. That grates on you over time, even if the situation is slowly improving on the ground. Things won't speed up any time soon, and there aren't many anticipated events in the next 6 months that will change America's opinion on the war for the better. What can they do, throw a parade in Baghdad? No, they're forming an entirely new government and taking steps to make that happen. How boring.

I will agree with you on the sacrifice. We were asked to sacrifice when Katrina hit. We were asked to conserve energy. Why no sacrifice for this war? It's too late for that though... you don't want to ask people to sacrifice for something that is this unpopular. That would have needed to happen the night of the first strikes. But at the time I don't think the administration anticipated the nature of sacrifice that this war would require over time.

What sacrafices? Should the president ask 1 in every 25 citizens to kill themselves? Your obsession with WWII rationing is bordering on crazy

Giving tax cuts during a time of war - that has absolutely to do with rationing.

:rolleyes:

What sacrafices? Should the president ask 1 in every 25 citizens to kill themselves?
Maybe asking them to pay a few bucks in taxes would have been more practical. Asking for more people to join the military if we're really stretched. I hear conflicting reports on that... either our military needs manpower (and not just as a convenience) or it is fine. But which is it? How deeply does that need run? Should civilians be turning in their jobs for the military right now? Or is the level of recruitment goals sufficient to fill the needs of our nation at this time? I honestly don't know.

I didn't ask them to join the military.

I have long supported a return to the draft. It's not going to happen, because it seems that only Charlie Rangel, mammal, and myself support iti. ;)

The military of this country is being depleted by the war. I've seen estimates that it would take 50-70 billion dollars to bring the army & marines up to snuff, material.

How about we just publicly hang one rich person per day while the war is going on and confiscate their money? I'm sure that would placate some people, especially if that person were in the oil business.

What exactly would higher taxes have to do with Iraq? Spite?

How about we just publicly hang one rich person per day while the war is going on and confiscate their money? I'm sure that would placate some people, especially if that person were in the oil business.

A typical failed attempt at humor by a Repub. :rolleyes:

What exactly would higher taxes have to do with Iraq? Spite?

Surely you jest.

What exactly would higher taxes have to do with Iraq? Spite?
Spite is the fuel that powers the liberal engine.

Surely you jest.
Surely you could actually answer a question

Surely you could actually answer a question

How is the war being financed?

That should give you a clue.

by borrowing.

from what i can tell it is being financed as much as it needs to be (some argue more)

I feel like Im being asked to chase a greased pig in this thread

It's obvious why opposition to the war is growing, and very little of it has to do with some perceived disconnect between casualties and civilian sacrifice. The public perception was that the military effort would be easy, that the Iraqi population would overwhelmingly welcome the troops as liberators, democracy would flourish quickly, and insurgency, either home grown or imported, would be minimal. You can argue all you want over whether the administration led the American people to these conclusions, but it's certain they did little to dissuade Americans of them. Clearly the liberation effort has been more difficult, expensive, violent, time-consuming, and frustrating than a lot of people expected, and they are growing disillusioned, impatient, critical, and pessimistic. The fact that people expected such a rosy progression from chaos to peace and democracy baffles me; equally baffling is the politicians' and pundits' surprise over the reaction to these dashed expectations.

Short attention span? Most of the images out of Iraq are carnage?

Short attention span? Most of the images out of Iraq are carnage?It's a war. If most of the images coming out of Iraq were of schoolchildren singing and daisies growing on the roadside, people might start to wonder why we have so many troops in a place where they're not needed.

I think it's Monday morning quarterbacking personally. They're looking at it from hindsight's perspective, a perfectly human thing to do, and they're seeing no real threat existed to this country and as wenders said, they're seeing it's a lot harder than they originally believed it would be, so they're thinking, let's get this thing over with.

I think most of America was convinced with an advanced civilization such as we are, and with our laser guided bombs and stealth fighters - that taking over a country full of people riding camels and using antiquated pea-shooters shouldn't have been much of a challenge. And now that they realized it's not a cakewalk, they don't like the idea of being there anymore.

Those of us that read up the factions, the open borders, and the clerics who were pushing the people into fighting a guerilla war - we knew this wasn't going to go easily and it would take many many years. It was hoped that it would go a bit easier than it has, and progress would be quicker - but it is what it is. I still support the war in Iraq 100%.

Spite is the fuel that powers the liberal engine.

This is a typical right-wing, Bushite remark. Blame the failure of the Bush administration in the conduct of the war on the liberals (Democrats). It's the Democrat's fault. Everyone knows that. The Democrats have turned the majority of the American against the war.

If that old dog ever hunted - it won't hunt anymore.

I still support the war in Iraq 100%.

I think it's a fair question to ask - 'how long?'

I still haven't bought Murtha's plan; but, I think we need to set some timetables for the Iraqis. Murtha mentioned this yesterday on Hardball. There seems to be a growing chorus for this idea.

Because people like their 1/2 solutions... or 1 hour max. I mean come on if Jack Bauer can twart several terrorist plots after having a heart attack Iraq should be easy by comparison.

Because people like their 1/2 solutions... or 1 hour max. I mean come on if Jack Bauer can twart several terrorist plots after having a heart attack Iraq should be easy by comparison.Hey, you want to put that in a spoiler tag? :grunt:

This is a typical right-wing, Bushite remark. Blame the failure of the Bush administration in the conduct of the war on the liberals (Democrats). It's the Democrat's fault. Everyone knows that. The Democrats have turned the majority of the American against the war.

If that old dog ever hunted - it won't hunt anymore.
The statement had nothing to do with the Bush administration or the war, but it has everything to do with liberal Democrats for the last 40 years. Once you understand their motivation, their nuttier claims are easier to dismiss.

And when you understand the movitivations of conservatives.............

Give me a break!

Your problem is 'lumping.'

Hey, you want to put that in a spoiler tag? :grunt:


It was from 2 or 3 seasons ago...

Spite is the fuel that powers the liberal engine.

Bill Needle, this type of comment doesn't add anything to the discussion. So please don't make posts like this.

This is a typical right-wing, Bushite remark. ...

And, classicman, this isn't any better.

It was from 2 or 3 seasons ago...I haven't kept up. Also, I meant to put a ;) after the :grunt:

On topic - so we can largely agree the reason is unrealistic expectations on the part of the American public?

Is this a rhetorical question.

Wendersfan gave the answer. Heck - I said this is exactly what would happen before the war even started. If it wasn't completed within 2 years, opposition would grow and grow. The carbon blobs in America are extremely fickle - they are ignorant of what war and nation-building entails and they demand results and they demand them quickly.

My fear is that (now I'm not making a direct comparison with Iraq & Vietnam) is that far too many Americans will feel the same humiliation of defeat that they felt in 1975 with fall of Saigon when we leave and things don't work out well - whatever that means - in Iraq after our departure.

That might have a negative effect not only our foreign policy but our attitude toward our military prepardness for decades - like it did in Vietnam.

On topic - so we can largely agree the reason is unrealistic expectations on the part of the American public?

I would agree w/ that. I think in part those expectations came from info from the admin but in part people themselves are to blame IMHO.

Coincidentially:

Bush to Request $70B More for War Funding
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060202/ap_on_go_pr_wh/budget_emergency_spending

By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer 22 minutes ago

The White House has told Congress to expect requests for about $70 billion in additional funding for the ongoing budget year for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and $18 billion more for hurricane relief, a Senate GOP aide says.

The details of the requests are not finalized but President Bush's budget for 2007, to be submitted next week, will reflect the totals for planning purposes, said the aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Another $2.3 billion to combat avian flu is also expected.

The funding for Iraq is in addition to $50 billion approved in December and should be enough to conduct the war through Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year.

Bush is also expected to set aside $50 billion in the 2007 budget for the war effort, though such funds won't be enough for the entire year.

"We understand that besides the supplemental that now, for the first time, they're going to request a bridge fund," said Rep. C.W. "Bill" Young, R-Fla., who chairs the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee. "This is what we're hearing."

Young and Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record) of Pennsylvania, the senior Democrat on the panel, said late last year that military officials had told them to expect additional Iraq funding of as much as $100 billion for 2006.

But the lawmakers said this week that the total could be lower because of expected troop reductions.

On relief for Hurricane Katrina, the request will include funding for federal facilities such as military bases and veterans hospitals damaged by the September storm.

Although the 'time element' is a factor, I don't believe for a minute it's the only factor.

It wasn't in WWII. Americans were convinced, party through sacrifices, that their way of life was threatened. They don't feel that threat in Iraq - especially after the ruse for invasion, WMDs, proved not to be found.

The question is whether this administration is planning the same thing for Iran?

Is this a rhetorical question.

Wendersfan gave the answer. Heck - I said this is exactly what would happen before the war even started. If it wasn't completed within 2 years, opposition would grow and grow. The carbon blobs in America are extremely fickle - they are ignorant of what war and nation-building entails and they demand results and they demand them quickly.


Where does the "Mission Accomplished" stunt fall into all this?

Because people like their 1/2 solutions... or 1 hour max. I mean come on if Jack Bauer can twart several terrorist plots after having a heart attack Iraq should be easy by comparison.
Definitely. Americans are an impatient bunch. We're too used to having everything we want at a moment's notice. The need for instant gratification mixed with our collective ADD.

Troops dying everyday. Slow perceived progress. Screw-ups and scandals regarding the post-war planning and reconstruction. Plus the perception that this whole affair was going to be smooth and easy.

Iran's getting nukes while we're right next door and Hamas is elected to power.

We're not seeing alot of good news lately.

It wasn't in WWII. Americans were convinced, party through sacrifices, that their way of life was threatened. They don't feel that threat in Iraq - especially after the ruse for invasion, WMDs, proved not to be found.

The America of WW2 resembles the America of today in so few ways I'm not sure it's a valid comparsion.

Is this a rhetorical question.

Wendersfan gave the answer. Heck - I said this is exactly what would happen before the war even started. If it wasn't completed within 2 years, opposition would grow and grow. The carbon blobs in America are extremely fickle - they are ignorant of what war and nation-building entails and they demand results and they demand them quickly.
What's amazing is the time compression of the same attitude that we saw in Vietnam. There, it took what, 3-4 years after regular troop deployment before the public started to go the other way? Now we started seeing the same thing 12-18 months into Iraq. I guess we're a "real time" society, unable to focus on the big picture.

My fear is that (now I'm not making a direct comparison with Iraq & Vietnam) is that far too many Americans will feel the same humiliation of defeat that they felt in 1975 with fall of Saigon when we leave and things don't work out well - whatever that means - in Iraq after our departure.

That might have a negative effect not only our foreign policy but our attitude toward our military prepardness for decades - like it did in Vietnam.
I don't think it will effect our foreign policy. As quickly as people get upset about Iraq not finishing up quickly, they'll just as soon forget when it's time for another intervention. Again, it all goes back to the attention span thing.

Remember what happened to our military when the final American combat troops were withdrawn in 1973 - 2 years before the fall of Saigon?

Let me quickly add - it was Republican presidents who presided over the cuts in the military after that - not Democratic ones - although Carter did for a couple of years.

It certainly affected our foreign policy. It became less 'interest' oriented and more 'McGovern type' oriented.

I think it's a fair question to ask - 'how long?'
When progress is no longer being made, perhaps? This (http://www.mnf-iraq.com/Publications/TWII/23Jan.pdf) link takes you to a publication about the good things going on in Iraq. Yes I know it's a military rah rah publication, but the lamestream media won't report the good stuff - you got to get it somehow.

I am not one for picking a date and saying "Welp! That's it! Didn't make my date when I think everything should be rosey. I give up on the whole thing." That might be for Murtha, but it's not for me. As long as progress is being made, and more and more of the Iraqi military are taking over - then i'm for slowly reducing the number of troops there... but not one minute shorter than the commanders in the field suggests just because some blowhard in washington wants get on the news.

There, it took what, 3-4 years after regular troop deployment before the public started to go the other way? Now we started seeing the same thing 12-18 months into Iraq. I guess we're a "real time" society, unable to focus on the big picture.

I don't think it has anything to do with being "unable to focus on the big picture". I do agree we're a real time society but it's based upon the information society. We have access to alot more perspective these days than they did back then. It doesn't take a genius to see that we've "been there, done that" and how the whole thing is going to end up.

34,000 insurgent attacks against our military last year. Tens of thousands wounded. You won't hear these numbers on the evening news, but you can sure as heck find them on the internet and that's alot more telling of what the true progress is over there than some doublespeak from an admin conman.

I think this is the result of the relentless negativity that people are subjected to when they pick up a newspaper or turn on the TV. Never underestimate the power of propaganda.

Never underestimate the power of propaganda.

You mean like the propaganda that got us over there in the first place?

I think this is the result of the relentless negativity that people are subjected to when they pick up a newspaper or turn on the TV. Never underestimate the power of propaganda.Would you consider any newspaper or television report that doesn't present a positive image of our efoorts in Iraq as propaganda?

Would you consider any newspaper or television report that doesn't present a positive image of our efoorts in Iraq as propaganda?

If people were reminded about the hundreds of thousands of deaths resulting from car accidents *every time* they saw the evening news or read a newspaper, soon motorized transportation would be outlawed.

If people were reminded about the hundreds of thousands of deaths resulting from car accidents *every time* they saw the evening news or read a newspaper, soon motorized transportation would be outlawed.


:lol: apples and fucking oranges

Never underestimate the power of propaganda.

You mean like the propaganda that got us over there in the first place?

Since I agreed with the invasion from the start, I don't consider the reasons given for it as propaganda. :)

But even then, the government's capacity for bombarding the citizen's senses with information is orders of magnitude lower than what the leftist media is capable of achieving.

fucking oranges

dude, this isn't the adult forum. -ohbfrank-

If people were reminded about the hundreds of thousands of deaths resulting from car accidents *every time* they saw the evening news or read a newspaper, soon motorized transportation would be outlawed.Can you answer the question I asked?

A 'yes' or 'no' is all that's needed.

And, classicman, this isn't any better.

What's wrong with that comment? What was with Bill Needle's comment?

neimein is a moderator. He's participating in this thread. Appparently he saw nothing wrong with them.

I believe you're becoming way, way too sensitive.

dude, this isn't the adult forum. -ohbfrank-


this isn't the backwards logic forum either

first of all, I can swear all I want. the adult forum is more for the sex stuff that can't be posted on the main forum

secondly, your comparison is just a slippery slope and completely invalid, not to mention absurd. but if you honestly believe that the media is completely backward and should be showing all the building and cars that haven't blown up yet, then I'm wasting my time altogether.

The media is not the [only] reason we're failing in Iraq. We had shitty intelligence, wasted a lot of lives and money.....not to mention that the mastermind behind one of the most horrific events in American history is still at large. These are the reasons more and more Americans are becoming opposed. There's been plenty of well known propaghanda coming from the admin. over the past couple years and I hate to have to stick up for the media since they shoulder a lot of blame for the state of things as well.

What's wrong with that comment? What was with Bill Needle's comment?

neimein is a moderator. He's participating in this thread. Appparently he saw nothing wrong with them.

I believe you're becoming way, way too sensitive.

[c-man]You know what's wrong w/ those comments[/c-man]


Actually Dead got around to saying something before I could so I didn't comment.

Can you answer the question I asked?

A 'yes' or 'no' is all that's needed.

No, Sean Hannity.

Because more people are coming to the realization that the Iraq war has absoluitely nothing to do with America's security.

Doesn't a majority of the American people still believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11?

Didn't Bush, in an around about way, fuel that belief Tuesday night?

[c-man]You know what's wrong w/ those comments[/c-man]


Actually Dead got around to saying something before I could so I didn't comment.

I assume, then, that I can't use the term 'Bushite.' It seems to be off-limit. ;)

No, Sean Hannity.Fair enough.

Now, was that so hard? ;)

this isn't the backwards logic forum either

first of all, I can swear all I want. the adult forum is more for the sex stuff that can't be posted on the main forum

secondly, your comparison is just a slippery slope and completely invalid, not to mention absurd. but if you honestly believe that the media is completely backward and should be showing all the building and cars that haven't blown up yet, then I'm wasting my time altogether.

The media is not the [only] reason we're failing in Iraq. We had shitty intelligence, wasted a lot of lives and money.....not to mention that the mastermind behind one of the most horrific events in American history is still at large. These are the reasons more and more Americans are becoming opposed. There's been plenty of well known propaghanda coming from the admin. over the past couple years and I hate to have to stick up for the media since they shoulder a lot of blame for the state of things as well.

I don't think you understood the point of the post. If ALL you hear is how bad things are going in Iraq, and all other relevant information and viewpoints are systematically ignored or silenced, declining support of the war will be an inevitable consequence. If you are shown only a leg of an elephant, you can be lead to believe it is really the trunk of a tree.

If you are shown only a leg of an elephant, you can be lead to believe it is really the trunk of a tree.

That's pretty good!

May I have your permission to use that in my posts? ;)

I assume, then, that I can't use the term 'Bushite.' It seems to be off-limit. ;)

It's more to do w/ the "typical right-wing" generalization.

It's more to do w/ the "typical right-wing" generalization.

It's hard to quarrel with though, isn't it? :lol:

I don't think you understood the point of the post. If ALL you hear is how bad things are going in Iraq, and all other relevant information and viewpoints are systematically ignored or silenced, declining support of the war will be an inevitable consequence. If you are shown only a leg of an elephant, you can be lead to believe it is really the trunk of a tree.


I get the point. We do see some of the good things going on in Iraq and in no way has allrelevant information and viewpoints are systematically ignored or silenced.

With this war, the bad is outweighing the good......that's the reason you see more negative stories on the news.

The media isn't 100% fair, but there's no way you can honestly say that the media only tells of bad things happening in Iraq. Again, if you truly believe that, then I'm wasting my time. This is where your argument is flawed. You keep using all when you should use some.

When was the last time the NYT overall had anything good to say about Iraq?

Doesn't a majority of the American people still believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11?

Didn't Bush, in an around about way, fuel that belief Tuesday night?
I don't think that the majority of the American people believe that, I don't know if a majority ever believed that, but for those who did, it certainly helped them sleep better with the idea of an invasion.

It's hard to quarrel with though, isn't it? :lol:

No more so than any other generalization.

May I have your permission to use that in my posts? ;)

Information is free. :)

With this war, the bad is outweighing the good......that's the reason you see more negative stories on the news.

That seems like a judgement call to me.

That seems like a judgement call to me.


well, certainly you don't agree with vandalay that 100% of what the media regarding Iraq has been negative. That was what I was arguing.

The media isn't 100% fair, but there's no way you can honestly say that the media only tells of bad things happening in Iraq. Again, if you truly believe that, then I'm wasting my time. This is where your argument is flawed. You keep using all when you should use some.

When was the last time the NYT overall had anything good to say about Iraq?

Bingo. If someone were to measure it, my guess is you'd find that the ratio of negative/overall stories would approach the unit.

And if you don't believe that a glimmer of liberalism in the heart of the Muslim world is something epochal and worth reporting, then, as you say, I'm wasting my time.

I don't think that the majority of the American people believe that, I don't know if a majority ever believed that, but for those who did, it certainly helped them sleep better with the idea of an invasion.

I heard it said by Chris Matthews last evening on Hardball. You know Chris only tells the truth. ;)

I heard it said by Chris Matthews last evening on Hardball. You know Chris only tells the truth. ;)
I used to think he was a hardcore conservative, but he seems to have liberaled out over the past 5-6 years. I think he just likes to criticize whoever is in power.

I used to think he was a hardcore conservative, but he seems to have liberaled out over the past 5-6 years. I think he just likes to criticize whoever is in power.Who, Matthews? If you go over to Eschaton or Media Matters you'll find out that, in spite of being a Democrat, a former chief of staff for 'Tip' O'Neill and a speechwriter for President Carter, he's actually a spokesman for the Republican Party. :lol:

I used to think he was a hardcore conservative, but he seems to have liberaled out over the past 5-6 years. I think he just likes to criticize whoever is in power.

I see Matthews as somewhat liberal - basically a centrist though.

He has taken an anti-war position from the get go.

My problem with Matthews - he likes John McCain. ;)

My problem with Matthews - he likes John McCain. ;)
But he's in the media. I think they sign a contract stating that they will like McCain.

But he's in the media. I think they sign a contract stating that they will like McCain.

I think you're right.

Go here to learn the "truth" about Matthews:

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/people/chrismatthews

:rolleyes:

Oh, and there's also this site:

http://www.openlettertochrismatthews.blogspot.com/

These would be laughable if they weren't so pathetic.

Bingo. If someone were to measure it, my guess is you'd find that the ratio of negative/overall stories would approach the unit.

And if you don't believe that a glimmer of liberalism in the heart of the Muslim world is something epochal and worth reporting, then, as you say, I'm wasting my time.

first off, the NY Times is 1 newspaper and not the entire media and using it as an example is a red herring for this discussion.


Earlier you said (and bolded) that "ALL you hear is how bad things are going in Iraq, and all other relevant information and viewpoints are systematically ignored or silenced," but above you claim that there's a negative to positive ratio i.e. some. So which is it?

Wasn't some of the media proclaiming that 'democracy had come to Iraq' after the election?

That was quite a stretch IMO.

first off, the NY Times is 1 newspaper and not the entire media and using it as an example is a red herring for this discussion.


Earlier you said (and bolded) that "ALL you hear is how bad things are going in Iraq, and all other relevant information and viewpoints are systematically ignored or silenced," but above you claim that there's a negative to positive ratio some. So which is it?
All I know is that when I go to the newstand tomorrow and pick up a copy of the any of the "big" newspapers whether it be L.A. Times, NY Times, etc.. or if I flip on any of the major news networks whether it be ABC, NBC, or CNN - I can guarantee I will find at least one story about bad things going on in Iraq. I know I won't find any positive articles, even though there are positive things going on (or if I do it will be once a week, buried behind the comics somewhere). I understand that good news doesn't sell, and most Americans care more about the roadside bomb that killed 5 people than they do about a new school opening or something - but the constant and consistant negative reporting gives the impression that good is NOT happening. I don't think it's too difficult to see how the constantly negative reporting would lead the average american who comes home from work and pops on the 6pm news to get a one-sided view of the war and slowly but eventually go from supporting to not supporting it. That, and what I said before about people thinking it was going to be a cake walk, I think contributes a lot to peoples chaning additude about it.

All I know is that when I go to the newstand tomorrow and pick up a copy of the any of the "big" newspapers whether it be L.A. Times, NY Times, etc.. or if I flip on any of the major news networks whether it be ABC, NBC, or CNN - I can guarantee I will find at least one story about bad things going on in Iraq. I know I won't find any positive articles, even though there are positive things going on (or if I do it will be once a week, buried behind the comics somewhere). I understand that good news doesn't sell, and most Americans care more about the roadside bomb that killed 5 people than they do about a new school opening or something - but the constant and consistant negative reporting gives the impression that good is NOT happening. I don't think it's too difficult to see how the constantly negative reporting would lead the average american who comes home from work and pops on the 6pm news to get a one-sided view of the war and slowly but eventually go from supporting to not supporting it. That, and what I said before about people thinking it was going to be a cake walk, I think contributes a lot to peoples chaning additude about it.

I agree. I was just arguing that the media is not the only (all) reason for the loss of support for the war. Some of the blame goes for the reasons I've listed before (OBL still wanted, loss of money/lives, faulty intel...etc.) and that was all I was getting at. To blame the media 100% for the failures is what I have the problem with (the slipper slope of some --> all)

I missed the whole long thing, are people claiming that Iraq would be viewed as a success if the media portrayed it in a manner they considered to be more objective?

I missed the whole long thing, are people claiming that Iraq would be viewed as a success if the media portrayed it in a manner they considered to be more objective?

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showpost.php?p=6751078&postcount=44

I missed the whole long thing, are people claiming that Iraq would be viewed as a success if the media portrayed it in a manner they considered to be more objective?



I believe it was more a comment on the patience of the American public rather than one on the measurement of success or failure. I don't want to completely speak for others though.

I don't want to completely speak for others though.However, I will speak for others. :)

People from the extreme left are saying that it's because Bush lied and the truth is finally coming out. Those on the extreme right are saying it's because of the relentless liberal media propaganda machine. Those in the middle are saying it's because of initial unrealistic expectations by the public, and a general lack of patience and desire for immediate gratification. I think I've made my own feelings pretty clear.

However, I will speak for others. :)

People from the extreme left are saying that it's because Bush lied and the truth is finally coming out. Those on the extreme right are saying it's because of the relentless liberal media propaganda machine. Those in the middle are saying it's because of initial unrealistic expectations by the public, and a general lack of patience and desire for immediate gratification. I think I've made my own feelings pretty clear.


I think it's a part of all those things to some degree.....just not one. I thought I made myself pretty clear, too.

I think it's a part of all those things to some degree.....just not one. I thought I made myself pretty clear, too.Why must you always be so 'wishy-washy'? ;)

I think it's a part of all those things to some degree.....just not one. I thought I made myself pretty clear, too.
And I agree with Dick :) It's also in the eye of the beholder. Someone may see a car bombing that killed 3 and then a story about a new factory built that will give jobs to 200 people and have a myriad of reactions. Some will be mortified that 3 died and who cares about this stupid factory, and I understand that. Some will shrug off the deaths as a part of war and recognize that progress was made - and I understand that as well. Someone will shrug and flip over to American Idol because they really care more about that. :shrug:

But like I said I think constant exposure to negative news over time, even to those that don't particularly care, has an effect.

However, I will speak for others. :)

People from the extreme left are saying that it's because Bush lied and the truth is finally coming out. Those on the extreme right are saying it's because of the relentless liberal media propaganda machine. Those in the middle are saying it's because of initial unrealistic expectations by the public, and a general lack of patience and desire for immediate gratification. I think I've made my own feelings pretty clear.



Call it the failure to see the big picture. I do believe it is really that simple.

Now a large part of that blame must fall on the shoulders of the administration.

The same liberal media in the BIG papers all but sold the premise for starting this WAR in the first place. They beat many drums over WMD and an IRAQ/9-11 connection, just as the administration desired. Now that they are not printing exactly what you want, THEY are driving the opinion of the masses in the US. Unfortunately, things work in two directions and we are now experiencing repercusions from mistakes that were made in the past.

"Liberal Media" is an old talking point and totally unrelated to any newsreports in the past or future.

When can we move on? We really must stop arguing over past mistakes and try to salvage what is left of our dignity as a country.

I admit there is blood on the hands of George Bush and the current administration. They intentionally misled us in order to invade Iraq, but there were also democrats who knew the truth and acquiesced as well. We did not vote any of these people out of office, so we also have blood on our hands as a society. We were all fully aware of the truth when we went to the polls in 2004 and we voted to stay the course. Shame on all of us.

I really wonder how many of you staunch war supporters have actually served in the Iraq War? The soldiers returning from that region do not quite have the rosy picture of new schools and progress that seems to be stated in this forum. Iraq is a country at war and WAR is hell! Opening a new school in a war zone must certainly be gangs of fun for the students and teachers.

Until we stop repeating the party line and talking points of our politicians and start making decisions for ourselves, our democracy is in serious jeopardy, from both sides.

I really wonder how many of you staunch war supporters have actually served in the Iraq War?Call me a "chickenhawk" if you like, but I'm a little old for military service. :shrug:

I admit there is blood on the hands of George Bush and the current administration. They intentionally misled us in order to invade Iraq, but there were also democrats who knew the truth and acquiesced as well. We did not vote any of these people out of office, so we also have blood on our hands as a society. We were all fully aware of the truth when we went to the polls in 2004 and we voted to stay the course. Shame on all of us.

:lol:

I really wonder how many of you staunch war supporters have actually served in the Iraq War? The soldiers returning from that region do not quite have the rosy picture of new schools and progress that seems to be stated in this forum.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The exact opposite is the prevailing sentiment. Those serving over there are typically perplexed by the constant drumbeat of negative spin in the coverage of the progress being made.

Call me a "chickenhawk" if you like, but I'm a little old for military service. :shrug:

You can work in the soup kitchen.

You can work in the soup kitchen.
Only the best and brightest need apply for that duty:

Frank Costanza: Inchon, Korea, 1950. I was the best cook Uncle Sam ever saw, slinging hash for the Fighting 103rd. As we marched north, our supply lines were getting thin. One day a couple of GIs found a crate, inside were six hundred pounds of prime Texas steer. At least it once was prime. The Use date was three weeks past, but I was arrogant, I was brash, I thought if I used just the right spices, cooked it long enough...

Kramer: What happened?

Frank: I went too far. I over seasoned it. Men were keeling over all around me. I can still hear the retching, the screaming. I sent sixteen of my own men to the latrines that night. They were just boys.

Kramer: Frank, you were a boy too. And it was war. It was a crazy time for
everyone.

Frank: Tell that to Bobby Colby. All that kid wanted to do was go home. Well he went home alright, with a crater in his colon the size of a cutlet. Had to sit him on a cork the eighteen-hour flight home!

I've heard different figures that Bush is planning to ask congress next week or so in an Iraq supplemental - from 70 to 120 billion.

Question: Why doesn't Bush and the Republicans put these appropriations in the regular defense budget?

In addition - how many supplementals does this make?

Can't speak for anyone else, but myself, I'm not into supporting wars where traitors send our soldiers to die. If anyone else wants to support it, go ahead. Undertakers appreciate your business.

Reuters:

Insurgent attacks kill five US troops in Iraq

Rebel attacks killed four U.S. soldiers and a marine on Wednesday, the U.S. military said on Thursday.

A roadside bomb killed three soldiers south of Baghdad on Wednesday and another died of his wounds in a separate shooting attack, a statement said.

A marine also died of wounds after being hit by small arms fire near the former insurgent stronghold of Falluja, west of Baghdad, a separate statement said.

Can't speak for anyone else, but myself, I'm not into supporting wars where traitors send our soldiers to die.

Me neither. That's why I wouldn't support Kerry (or any contemporary Dem) as commander in chief.

:rimshot: ;)

I've heard different figures that Bush is planning to ask congress next week or so in an Iraq supplemental - from 70 to 120 billion.

Question: Why doesn't Bush and the Republicans put these appropriations in the regular defense budget?

In addition - how many supplementals does this make?
Well, what's another $50 billion to flush down the toilet?

I think they've asked for supplementals every year since the war(s).

I've heard different figures that Bush is planning to ask congress next week or so in an Iraq supplemental - from 70 to 120 billion.

Question: Why doesn't Bush and the Republicans put these appropriations in the regular defense budget?

In addition - how many supplementals does this make?

Here's a running total of the cost. (http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182) .

That's quite a few experimental fusion (not fission) reactors (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8385911/) that we could've built to make some progress towards a clean practically unlimited source of energy.

Call it the failure to see the big picture. I do believe it is really that simple.

Now a large part of that blame must fall on the shoulders of the administration.
So you feel that if they sold the real reasons for the war from the beginning, that we wouldn't be in this mess? I agree with you in a way, I would agree that we would not be in this mess because we never would have invaded in the first place. ;)

Me neither. That's why I wouldn't support Kerry (or any contemporary Dem) as commander in chief.

:rimshot: ;)Why would you suppose Kerry (who had nothing to do with Bush sending troops to die) is a traitor? Or any democrat?

Your attack is a misguided and unfair one. I'm a conservative, but I can at least show respect for rivals.

Lying bastards, however, who joke about the war they start while soldiers and innocents die - no. They deserve contempt. George Bush is a pig.

Why would you suppose Kerry (who had nothing to do with Bush sending troops to die) is a traitor? Or any democrat?

Your attack is a misguided and unfair one. I'm a conservative, but I can at least show respect for rivals.

Lying bastards, however, who joke about the war they start while soldiers and innocents die - no. They deserve contempt. George Bush is a pig.
Thank you. As a liberal, I may differ from you in many philosophies, but I respect your ability to look beyond your politics and see Bush for what he really is - someone we should all be ashamed to have as a leader of this country.

Why would you suppose Kerry (who had nothing to do with Bush sending troops to die) is a traitor? Or any democrat?

Your attack is a misguided and unfair one. I'm a conservative, but I can at least show respect for rivals.

Lying bastards, however, who joke about the war they start while soldiers and innocents die - no. They deserve contempt. George Bush is a pig.

You're kidding, right? For eight solid years during the Clinton administration, John Kerry was champing at the bit for Clinton to invade Iraq. John Kerry was hollering about Saddam's WMD before George W Bush was even elected Governor of Texas. It's ironic how selective memory serves the agenda of people like you.

You're kidding, right? For eight solid years during the Clinton administration, John Kerry was chomping at the bit for Clinton to invade Iraq. John Kerry was hollering about Saddam's WMD before George W Bush was even elected Governor of Texas. It's ironic how selective memory serves the agenda of people like you.
:up:

Me neither. That's why I wouldn't support Kerry (or any contemporary Dem) as commander in chief.

:rimshot: ;)

Kerry is a traitor?

My god!!


BTW: Neither is Bush a traitor.

Ah yes, political discussion reaches a new level of rationality. The State of the Union? We're not particularly united, are we?

The Big Picture? Ripples from the Iraq fiasco are worldwide. We've lost our moral authority, our reputation for competence, and a whole lot of friends. We've emboldened and empowered our enemies, and effectively recruited for the Islamist fundamentalist nutcases.

Ah yes, political discussion reaches a new level of rationality. The State of the Union? We're not particularly united, are we?

The Big Picture? Ripples from the Iraq fiasco are worldwide. We've lost our moral authority, our reputation for competence, and a whole lot of friends. We've emboldened and empowered our enemies, and effectively recruited for the Islamist fundamentalist nutcases.
At precisely what moment in time do you believe the US lost it's moral authority? ... It's reputation for competence?

What friends have we lost?

We've emboldened and empowered our enemies, and effectively recruited for the Islamist fundamentalist nutcases....how?

I don't know what moral authority means in the international arena. Therefore, I won't comment.

We've emboldened and empowered our enemies, and effectively recruited for the Islamist fundamentalist nutcases....how?
How many Jihadists were in Iraq before the war? A handful at best. They're crawling all over the place like rats now.

The Big Picture? Ripples from the Iraq fiasco are worldwide. We've lost our moral authority, our reputation for competence, and a whole lot of friends.
In the past, yes, I agree, but recently, we've seen some progress in the international community with respect to Iran and their nuclear weapons program. Some of the credit has to go to Rice and the administration for bringing our European friends into the mix in confronting Iran.

I think the reason is the people believe that if the war in Iraq is so important to this country, why hasn't the president asked the people of this country to make sacrfices? The only people who have sacrificed are the soldiers, marines, & airmen - some who made the ultimate sacrifice. And of course, their families.

Therefore, the people conclude the war is not all that important.

URL showing poll results?

URL showing poll results?

[QUOTE=classicman2]I think the reason......

URL showing poll results?
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

The majority of the polls there are negative with respect to Iraq. I don't feel like cutting and pasting and I'm not good at making those spreadsheets like nemein. ;)

Apparently some have to a have a poll or a URL showing what somebody else thinks to determine how they think. :lol:

Apparently some have to a have a poll or a URL showing what somebody else thinks to determine how they think. :lol:
I would think you were familiar with this. Your state does border the "Show me" state.

I just currently reside here - like Dan Rather, my home is in Texas. ;)

What's interesting about polls is they are determined by whether the public thinks we are "winning" or not. It's like a football game. You don't want to keep the coach who loses you the big game. I on the other hand think the ideas the administration is putting forth at this point (forget the invasion for a second) to get us out of Iraq are fairly sound. But the public doesn't judge the plan, they only look at the results and they're still seeing bad stuff on the news every night.

BTW: The genesis of this thread was a discussion the other evening my bridge club had.

There were 18 people present - at least 14 of them were Repubs.

A political science professor (not a raving liberal - probably a Democrat - I was probably the most liberal of the bunch) brought this idea of lack of sacrifice up.

BTW: All but 5 wanted an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. I was one of those 5.

I think that has some meaning when 13 people, all supporters of the war at the beginning, from a very conservative state, a very Bush state expresses that idea. It's probably as reliable as polls are on the issue, btw.

I would need a random sampeling of people NOT playing a womans card game before I draw any conclusions

I would need a random sampeling of people NOT playing a womans card game before I draw any conclusions


1. Since when is bridge a woman's card game?

2. Nothing else needs to be said since your premise is false.

How many Jihadists were in Iraq before the war? A handful at best. They're crawling all over the place like rats now.
I'd rather have them in Iraq than NYC. There was no shortage of Jihadists during the Clinton administration. Eight years of Clinton's 'ignore the problem and hopefully it'll go away' attitude is what actually emboldened those lunatics into believing that they had the upper hand against us. Why wouldn't they think they could get away with murdering thousands of our citizens on 9/11 without suffering retaliation? They saw how easily Saddam manipulated the UN for a dozen years...they saw how the Clinton administration handled the '93 WTC bombing as if it was a minor offence...they saw how the Clinton administration all but ignored every terrorist attack against the US overseas. They saw how Yasser Arafat was rewarded for his decades long reign of bloodshed with a Nobel Peace Prize and his own room at the White House. GWB didn't create a single one of those lunatic bastards, but he has put them on the defensive...somebody had to do it.

Hmm! I see. Clinton is responsible for all of it.

That's pathetic.

Blame Clinton for what he was responsible for - certainly not what you post indicates he was responsible for.

I'd rather have them in Iraq than NYC. There was no shortage of Jihadists during the Clinton administration. Eight years of Clinton's 'ignore the problem and hopefully it'll go away' attitude is what actually emboldened those lunatics into believing that they had the upper hand against us. Why wouldn't they think they could get away with murdering thousands of our citizens on 9/11 without suffering retaliation? They saw how easily Saddam manipulated the UN for a dozen years...they saw how the Clinton administration handled the '93 WTC bombing as if it was a minor offence...they saw how the Clinton administration all but ignored every terrorist attack against the US overseas. They saw how Yasser Arafat was rewarded for his decades long reign of bloodshed with a Nobel Peace Prize and his own room at the White House. GWB didn't create a single one of those lunatic bastards, but he has put them on the defensive...somebody had to do it.
They also saw how Reagan pulled the Marines right out of Beruit after a bloody nose. It's easy to overlook that when you have administrational tunnel vision.

VinVega,

When some of our more conservative members blame the Democrats for the runaway spending under a Republican president and a Republican controlled congress - what else would you expect? :lol:

Hmm! I see. Clinton is responsible for all of it.

That's pathetic.

Blame Clinton for what he was responsible for - certainly not what you post indicates he was responsible for.
What's truly pathetic is your inability to recognize the truth.

What's truly pathetic is your inability to recognize the truth.


:rotfl:

They also saw how Reagan pulled the Marines right out of Beruit after a bloody nose. It's easy to overlook that when you have administrational tunnel vision.I'll be the first to admit that Reagan handled that situation badly, and yes, it contributed to our perceived weakness in the eyes of our enemies. I'm no mindless GWB cheerleader or Republican shill...I could write volumes on my dissatisfaction with Bush and Republicans in general. The GOP of my youth is but a fading memory.

C-man, I'm curious, within this discussion of sacrifice, did anyone bring up the loss of personal liberties and freedoms?

C-man, I'm curious, within this discussion of sacrifice, did anyone bring up the loss of personal liberties and freedoms?I've got more Liberty and Freedom than I know what to do with.

C-man, I'm curious, within this discussion of sacrifice, did anyone bring up the loss of personal liberties and freedoms?

Since theres not a single American who can actually cite a liberty or freedom in thier life that they have lost...Im pretty sure the answer is no

:rotfl:


I'd rather have them in Iraq than NYC. There was no shortage of Jihadists during the Clinton administration. Eight years of Clinton's 'ignore the problem and hopefully it'll go away' attitude is what actually emboldened those lunatics into believing that they had the upper hand against us. Why wouldn't they think they could get away with murdering thousands of our citizens on 9/11 without suffering retaliation? They saw how easily Saddam manipulated the UN for a dozen years...they saw how the Clinton administration handled the '93 WTC bombing as if it was a minor offence...they saw how the Clinton administration all but ignored every terrorist attack against the US overseas. They saw how Yasser Arafat was rewarded for his decades long reign of bloodshed with a Nobel Peace Prize and his own room at the White House. GWB didn't create a single one of those lunatic bastards, but he has put them on the defensive...somebody had to do it.Where am I wrong?

C-man, I'm curious, within this discussion of sacrifice, did anyone bring up the loss of personal liberties and freedoms?How does it feel to live in a Country where books are routinely censored and banned by the Government? As an American, I can't even comprehend such a thing actually happening.

You're kidding, right? For eight solid years during the Clinton administration, John Kerry was champing at the bit for Clinton to invade Iraq. John Kerry was hollering about Saddam's WMD before George W Bush was even elected Governor of Texas. It's ironic how selective memory serves the agenda of people like you.You claim I have an agenda, which is untrue. You also say "people like me". Who do you think I am? I'm probably just like you.

As it is, your reply was to my message, asking why Kerry was being labelled a traitor. If you think he is a traitor, you did not prove it.

Thank you. As a liberal, I may differ from you in many philosophies, but I respect your ability to look beyond your politics and see Bush for what he really is - someone we should all be ashamed to have as a leader of this country.Thank you. I wish more people would think about issues rather than follow exactly what others say, or attack someone out of spite for their politics.

Since theres not a single American who can actually cite a liberty or freedom in thier life that they have lost...Im pretty sure the answer is no

You might ask Jose Padilla that question.

They also saw how Reagan pulled the Marines right out of Beruit after a bloody nose. It's easy to overlook that when you have administrational tunnel vision.
And Clinton's brilliant handling of Somalia.

Are you saying that the Reagan administration gave the impression America was gutless? That would be the first time I have heard that argument made anywhere.

You claim I have an agenda, which is untrue. You also say "people like me". Who do you think I am? I'm probably just like you.

As it is, your reply was to my message, asking why Kerry was being labelled a traitor. If you think he is a traitor, you did not prove it.


Why would you suppose Kerry (who had nothing to do with Bush sending troops to die) is a traitor? Or any democrat?

Your attack is a misguided and unfair one. I'm a conservative, but I can at least show respect for rivals.

Lying bastards, however, who joke about the war they start while soldiers and innocents die - no. They deserve contempt. George Bush is a pig.

I was simply pointing out your blatant hypocrisy regarding this matter. You take great offence at someone referring to John Kerry as a traitor, yet you refer to President Bush as a "Lying bastard pig". By what criteria do you judge President Bush so harshly, while defending Kerry against defamation?

And Clinton's brilliant handling of Somalia.

Are you saying that the Reagan administration gave the impression America was gutless? That would be the first time I have heard that argument made anywhere.I think it's generally acknowledged that Reagan's pulling the Marines out of Lebanon provided an example to Middle East terrorists of how we would behave in the future during similar circumstances.

Clinton reinforced that impression with Somalia.

Apparently some have to a have a poll or a URL showing what somebody else thinks to determine how they think. :lol:

No, but I require data to show that "more and more people" are deciding anything, not just your baseless conjecture and hearsay.

And Clinton's brilliant handling of Somalia.

Are you saying that the Reagan administration gave the impression America was gutless? That would be the first time I have heard that argument made anywhere.
Then you need to get out more. It's been referred to numerous times by terrorism experts. I know it's hard to accept that the god Reagan might have done a dumb thing, but in this case he did.

I think it's generally acknowledged that Reagan's pulling the Marines out of Lebanon provided an example to Middle East terrorists of how we would behave in the future during similar circumstances.

Clinton reinforced that impression with Somalia.
Clinton sucked as far as backing off from the terrorists. Had we stuck to the mission in Somalia, we wouldn't have gotten into that whole mess.

No, but I require data to show that "more and more people" are deciding anything, not just your baseless conjecture and hearsay.

What in the hell do you believe polling is?

When you talk to conservative people, in one the most conservative states in the country, which gave Bush huge pluralities, and they tell you they're fed up with what's going on in Iraq, I think that has meaning.

This forum is not, as been cited time and time again, not indicative of the general populace.

The blind partisanism you seem demonstrated over and over on this forum, by both conservatives & liberals, is clearly an indication of that.

Clinton sucked as far as backing off from the terrorists. Had we stuck to the mission in Somalia, we wouldn't have gotten into that whole mess.

I disagree. Clinton's problem that he changed the mission in Somalia from a humanitarian mission to the capture of Adid.

Reagan was supposed to be a tough guy. He proved to be a weenie as far as Beirut was concerned.

Of course he did demonstrate that he could violate the law with Iran-Contra, didn't he?

Since theres not a single American who can actually cite a liberty or freedom in thier life that they have lost...Im pretty sure the answer is no

The right to own new magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and put a bayonet lug on a new rifle
but that wasn't done under bush

Well, I didn't read this whole thread, but...

In response to c-man, there is absolutely no comparison between WWII and Iraq. People had very good reasons for believing in WWII. First off, Hitler was aggresively invading other countries. When Iraq attacked Israel in Iraq I, I don't remember seeing as much dissent as in this war. Secondly, America was attacked by an acknowledged ally of the Nazis, the Japanese. 9/11 is not comparable, as the connections between the terrorists and Iraq are exceedingly tenuous.

Secondly, once we took Berlin, a massive portion of the troops returned home. Yes, there were forces that stayed behind, but there were also British and Russian forces to lighten the load on the U.S. Now, America is doing most of the work.

Also, WWII resulted in a booming economy that must have looked like a godsend to people who lived through the Depression. Here, we have the opposite, going from a booming economy to a worse economy.

And, finally, with all the talk about Iran, suddenly people are thinking, "You know, Iraq has no WMDs...and Iran is talking about nukes...maybe we're in the wrong country!"

Iraq invaded Iran & Kuwait - remember?

Were you old enough in WWII to remember the dissent? I think I'm older than you are, and I don't remember. ;) However, I've read enough history to know that before Pearl Harbor, the country was split on the war in Europe.

In addition, the economy was on the slide before we invaded Iraq.

The comparison I was making was in response to the idea that the time element was the principal reason for the public's disenchantment with Iraq. I said it was reason; but, I also said it wasn't the only reason. Then I brought up WWII. It lasted longer than Iraq has. The American people stuck it out.
I argue there must be some other reason for American's disenchanment with Iraq. I also believe that since Americans haven't been asked to sacrific anything, they conclude, after awhile, that Iraq is not that important to sacrfice lives and treasure over. As opposed to WWII in which nearly every American sacrificed some thing. There was a draft then. Nearly nearly everyone had a son, father, uncle, brother, cousin, or neighbor who was in combat either in Africa, Europe, or Asia. That's not true with the all-volunteer force. The vast majority of Americans don't have a father, a mother, a brother, a sister, or other close relative fighting in Iraq.

Of course the stakes were higher in WWII. Or at least the American people thought they were.

And we went to war with them for it. When this war started, Iraq was contained. Furthermore, war was already going on in Europe when we stepped in. This war wasn't a case of us joining existing hostilities. There are so many gaping differences between this and WWII that I can't imagine saying a sense of personal sacrifice is the only reason people aren't behind this one.

No, I wasn't alive for WWII, Korea, or Vietnam. But I've read my history, too. I know that America was heavily split on entering the war in Europe, in large part due to WWI. But my point is that they had many good reasons to stay committed, none of which are present in this war.

Edit: That isn't to say there aren't good reasons to stay in Iraq now that we're there, just that the many things that made WWII such a patriotic and heavily supported war aren't present in Iraq.

Speaking of the draft - IMO, if the country had a draft and draftees were fighting, getting wounded, and dying in Iraq, you'd see huge demonstrations in the streets all over the country as you did in Vietnam.

Speaking of the draft - IMO, if the country had a draft and draftees were fighting, getting wounded, and dying in Iraq, you'd see huge demonstrations in the streets all over the country as you did in Vietnam.
I agree. I would also say one can support the war and oppose being drafted without being hypocritical.

Agreed. However, if this thing with Iran blows up into a full-scale war, the U.S. will have no choice but to institute another draft. There's no way we have the manpower to take on Iran and Iraq at once. Unless we just decided to obliterate Iran from the face of the earth. In which case, we could probably do that without a draft.

Unless we just decided to obliterate Iran from the face of the earth. In which case, we could probably do that without a draft.

Do we have to obliterate the oil wells? ;)

I think it's generally acknowledged that Reagan's pulling the Marines out of Lebanon provided an example to Middle East terrorists of how we would behave in the future during similar circumstances.

Clinton reinforced that impression with Somalia.
I understand your point, and ideally would have liked to see that handled differently. But under Reagan we also took direct and sometimes personal action against those who wronged us, to a chorus of wailing and gnashing of teeth from the usual suspects (many of the same ones we still hear from now). I'm talking about the overall tone. The US was constantly criticized at home and abroad for its over-aggressive and militaristic stance during Reagan's term. The Reagan administration: soft on national security -- is a new one on me.

Which country did Reagan take direct action against that 'wronged us?'

Again speaking of oil - do people remember that shortly before the war in Iraq that we were buying huge quanities of Iraqi oil, while calling Saddam a Hitler and mad man? ;)

Do we have to obliterate the oil wells? ;)


Of course, watching them burn would be half the fun. ;)

And besides, then we can get on with developing more hydrogen power.

By the way, did my post make sense about how a WWII/Iraq II comparison doesn't work? If anything, a WWI/Iraq II comparison makes more sense, in terms of public sentiment and the reasons for it.

Speaking of the draft - IMO, if the country had a draft and draftees were fighting, getting wounded, and dying in Iraq, you'd see huge demonstrations in the streets all over the country as you did in Vietnam.
You are probably correct, though during Viet Nam the demonstrations where nowhere near as big or widespread as you may have been led to believe. The Viet Nam demonstrations also ended the moment the draft ended. True statement. Even if they were a mile wide they were an inch deep.

Which country did Reagan take direct action against that 'wronged us?'
I didn't say country, and it wasn't always at the point of a gun, assuming that's what you mean. Your answer is in any good history book.

Which country did Reagan take direct action against that 'wronged us?'Is this more rhetorical crap or do you really not know the answer? There is an answer.

You are probably correct, though during Viet Nam the demonstrations where nowhere near as big or widespread as you may have been led to believe. The Viet Nam demonstrations also ended the moment the draft ended. True statement. Even if they were a mile wide they were an inch deep.

I saw a number of them, after returning home from Vietnam. They were large and widespread - and, yes, violent, on occasion.

They had a profound effect on one of our major political parties - the Democratic Party.

Again speaking of oil - do people remember that shortly before the war in Iraq that we were buying huge quanities of Iraqi oil, while calling Saddam a Hitler and mad man? ;)



Yeah, those damn pesky Iraqi women and children who needed food and medicine. We never should have done it.

-ohbfrank-

I saw a number of them, after returning home from Vietnam. They were large and widespread - and, yes, violent, on occasion.

They had a profound effect on one of our major political parties - the Democratic Party.
You must have come back before the draft ended, because after that those give peace a chance college kids didn't give a damn about Vietnam any more.

The draft didn't end until all American combat troops left Vietnam in 1973.

Yeah, those damn pesky Iraqi women and children who needed food and medicine. We never should have done it.

-ohbfrank-

Yeah - that's the reason we did it. Sure it was. Please!

If we so concerned about Iraqi women and children we wouldn't have been eforcing the embargo.

Correction: Sanctions - not embargo

Yeah - that's the reason we did it. Sure it was. Please!

If we so concerned about Iraqi women and children we wouldn't have been eforcing the embargo.

Correction: Sanctions - not embargo



I could give the same silly and overly simplistic answer back to you:

If we only cared about the oil we would have lifted the sanctions and bought more of it.


What happened when Iraq stopped shipments for a short time? Hint: nothing.

The legitimate question to ask now is - can we agree that the invasion of Iraq was not necessary, since from all available evidence they were not pursuing a nuclear program, they didn't possess WMDs, due to the sorry state of their military they posed little threat to their neighbors?

Pharoh,

I'll say one thing for you - you have an almost 'romantic' view about what should be U. S. foreign policy. ;)

BTW: Congress stopped the purchase of Iraqi oil.

Pharoh,

I'll say one thing for you - you have an almost 'romantic' view about what should be U. S. foreign policy. ;)

BTW: Congress stopped the purchase of Iraqi oil.


:lol:

Laughing because I've often been accused by those that know me and with whom I do business with that I am a cold hearted pragmatic son of a bitch.


I believe the truth lies somewhere in-between.

;)

The legitimate question to ask now is - can we agree that the invasion of Iraq was not necessary, since from all available evidence they were not pursuing a nuclear program, they didn't possess WMDs, due to the sorry state of their military they posed little threat to their neighbors?



No, because those were never the overriding factors.

As an aside, if I do possess a 'romantic' view of anything, it is of development and market liberalisations.

I don't know what to do about Iraq. I do know the American public no longer buys the Bush refrain 'just stay the course.' I also believe that the American public doesn't think that Bush has a plan for ultimate success in Iraq. IMO there will continued erosion of public support for the war unless there is a signficant improvement (or least a signficant perceived improvement) of the situation there.

Pharoh,

I want to ask you a straight out question - now take off your blinders a little bit ;) - do you believe George W. Bush mislead (I didn't say lie) the American people on Iraq- at least a little?

Pharoh,

I want to ask you a straight out question - now take off your blinders a little bit ;) - do you believe George W. Bush mislead (I didn't say lie) the American people on Iraq- at least a little?



First a quick comment. I don't have or use blinders. I do defend the administration for many reason, not the least of which is that I believe in their goals and ambitions. However, I don't fail to acknowledge their faults.

That having been said, I do think they mis-presented Iraq. They primarily sold what they felt would be the best and most easily accepted reason. While I am certain they convinced that some WMD would be found, I do believe that some could genuinely feel they were misled. They just might be right.

classicman2, why do you think Iraq was invaded? You appear to rule out and ridicule any and all rationales, so why do you think it happened at all?

As an aside, if I do possess a 'romantic' view of anything, it is of development and market liberalisations.

I concur on this. I believe the administration's biggest mistake is placing more importance on politics than trade and growth.

They primarily sold what they felt would be the best and most easily accepted reason. While I am certain they convinced that some WMD would be found, I do believe that some could genuinely feel they were misled.
Those paying attention since the first day of class know that Iraq's history of WMD development and use was only one reason used to justify the action, others being sufficient. But with the benefit of hindsight it was a mistake to overemphasize that one. That being said, they had nothing to gain by doing so unless at the time they were supremely confident something would be located.

I was simply pointing out your blatant hypocrisy regarding this matter. You take great offence at someone referring to John Kerry as a traitor, yet you refer to President Bush as a "Lying bastard pig". By what criteria do you judge President Bush so harshly, while defending Kerry against defamation?There is no hypocrisy. George Bush is a liar; this is a proven, incontrovertable and accepted fact. "Bastard" and "pig" are common insults that attest to Bush's character.

"Traitor", however, is a strong claim, and no-one has shown how Kerry is one. My reaction would be the same if someone called a Republican a "traitor" without merit.

George Bush, however, sends Americans to die needlessly. He jokes about the war in which Americans die. He lied about our reasons for going there and staying there. The man has betrayed this country's trust and people.

Those paying attention since the first day of class know that Iraq's history of WMD development and use was only one reason used to justify the action, others being sufficient. But with the benefit of hindsight it was a mistake to overemphasize that one. That being said, they had nothing to gain by doing so unless at the time they were supremely confident something would be located.

Talk about an understatement. It was the overriding justification for war. Remember all the diagrams Colin Powell showed us? Bush saying in his state of the union that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear material? They made some half-hearted attempts to link Iraq to 9/11 and then quickly launched into the WMDs. It happened so quickly that I distinctly remember wondering why we were suddenly talking about Iraq. And then, quick as you please, we were at war. Only when we DIDN'T find WMDs, did they start focusing on bringing Democracy to Iraq.

There is no hypocrisy. George Bush is a liar; this is a proven, incontrovertable and accepted fact. "Bastard" and "pig" are common insults that attest to Bush's character.

"Traitor", however, is a strong claim, and no-one has shown how Kerry is one. My reaction would be the same if someone called a Republican a "traitor" without merit.

George Bush, however, sends Americans to die needlessly. He jokes about the war in which Americans die. He lied about our reasons for going there and staying there. The man has betrayed this country's trust and people.So, President Bush is a proven traitor by your estimate? If he is guilty of the crimes you accuse him of, he could be nothing but a traitor of the worse sort. Care to present eveidence to support your claim?

Well, he did openly admit to committing a crime, and his plans to continue committing it, with the whole NSA thing.

Those paying attention since the first day of class know that Iraq's history of WMD development and use was only one reason used to justify the action, others being sufficient. But with the benefit of hindsight it was a mistake to overemphasize that one. That being said, they had nothing to gain by doing so unless at the time they were supremely confident something would be located.
And they had every reason to feel confident that WMD would be found. For eight years, the Clinton administration said Saddam had WMD. The UN said he had them. The Russian, German, French, and British intelligence said he had them. For a dozen years, Saddam stood in continuous violation of the '91 cease fire agreement. Saddam halted every effort made by UN weapons inspectors to do their job. By most standards of reason, innocent people don't generally go to such great lengths to act like they've got something to hide. It was fully within Saddam's power to comply with UN inspectors, thus avoiding the war altogether. He chose not to do so. It was a costly mistake on his part. But Hell, it's easier to just call Bush a liar than to simply face the facts. It would have been easy enough for the Bush administration to plant damning evidence against Saddam if it had been their intent from day one to deceive everyone.

Well, he did openly admit to committing a crime, and his plans to continue committing it, with the whole NSA thing.No he didn't.

Talk about an understatement. It was the overriding justification for war. Remember all the diagrams Colin Powell showed us? Bush saying in his state of the union that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear material? They made some half-hearted attempts to link Iraq to 9/11 and then quickly launched into the WMDs. It happened so quickly that I distinctly remember wondering why we were suddenly talking about Iraq. And then, quick as you please, we were at war. Only when we DIDN'T find WMDs, did they start focusing on bringing Democracy to Iraq.
Bush used 16 words during a lengthy justification in that state of the union speech to say they had received reports Iraq was trying to buy yellow cake uranium. 500 tons of yellow cake uranium was found in Iraq. Did you know that? Don't worry, for some reason most people don't.

Given recent history it was naturally wondered if Iraq may have had something to do with the 9/11 attack. But it was soon discovered to be the Taliban supported bin Laden, and 9/11 itself was subsequently never directly used as a justification for action against Iraq. The fact that Iraq was a terrorist friendly nation was used as supporting regime change.

Focusing on bringing democracy to Iraq happened as soon as regime change became the goal, long before military action ever began.

But Hell, it's easier to just call Bush a liar than to simply face the facts. It would have been easy enough for the Bush administration to plant damning evidence against Saddam if it had been their intent from day one to deceive everyone.
The day evidence is found the same folks will say exactly that. You can bet your life on it.

No he didn't.

He didn't admit to approving the NSA wiretapping? I could have sworn he did.