Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hap on January 11, 2007, 12:25:22 AM
-
I must have missed the thread. I thought there'd be discussion.
Here's four links. I've read some of the essays in real clear politics over the past bit. I've not delved however. The last link is Pat Buchanan's site. His postions remind me of Republican political positions -- the one's I recollect my parents, especially my father, discussing when I was young -- '65 and on.
I honestly do not know how to describe what currently passes as republican political positions.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
http://www.gop.com/default.aspx
http://www.democrats.org/
http://www.theamericancause.org/
Did the President's speech rouse any of you to rally behind him?
Regards,
hap
-
Did the President's speech rouse any of you to rally behind him?
I have never stopped supporting him, the troops or their mission, sry but war aint a simple 30 minute thing ...
I did find his speech encouraging:
"We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria," Bush said. "And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."
this with moving the battlegroup into the area means we aren't going to continue to let supplies, intel and men to stream in from iran and syria.
looks like we jumped right on it:
U.S. forces raid Iranian consulate in Iraq: Tehran (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070111/ts_nm/iraq_iran_raid_dc_3)
of course the dems are going to whine the exact opposite of whatever he had said .. I do not waste my time listening to their hot air empty promises ..
-
i back the president too, and his new strategy in Iraq. we're in the begininng of a long period of conflict between two major cultures precipitated by the effects of a world wide decline of natural petroleum resources, militant Islam and terrorism. we can't wish it away, we can only try to deal with it.
-
The Democrats now control both houses of Congress. They have made no secret about their determination to "get out of Iraq".
Bush and the Republicans squandered any opportunity to settle this thing. I think the low number of troops was a mistake from the get-go and as a result they have put us in the current situation.
So the window of opportunity passed when the the Dems took over. They will "get us out of Iraq".
That being the case, I see no point in continuing the effort. It will only create another divisive VietNam type situation in the country.
Bush blew it, the Republicans blew it. The Democratic wins in Congress have made the situation unrecoverable so...
time to go.
I'd start bringing the troops home today. All of them.
That's the way I see it. The Dems won't see it through; the decision has been made. No point in losing any more troops.
-
Toad
how did they "blow it"?
by not attacking Syria and Iran at the same time we attacked Iraq?
we won't pull out, nor should we.
If the dems win in 08 and they pull out, then they will have the repercussion on their conscience
it ain't great in Iraq now but if we pull out there won't be an Iraq, just a much larger & stronger Iran
-
By sending a insufficient number of troops to occupy Iraq; by not ruthlessly incapacitating the opposition early on.
I didn't say the result would be acceptable.
What I said was the Democratically controlled Congress has made it a priority to get out of Iraq. With that as a given, there is absolutely no chance of a positive outcome.
With the errors made early on, there is in any case only a small chance of a positive outcome at this late date, 21k more troops notwithstanding.
So, no point in losing any more of our troops. Congress isn't going to support the Iraq operation. Period.
-
Toad, are you saying that you think the president's plan might be successful in making Iraq more secure, but as a practical matter, we should pull out now to save lives because Dems will force a pull out anyway? do i paraphrase you correctly?
-
Probably more correct to say Bush's plan is too little-too late (way too late) but I suppose there has to be some small possibility it might succeed. I don't think the possibility would be "zero" but I wouldn't put it much above that either.
Further, the Democratic Congress is determined to pull out; this will generate an even more dangerous situation for our soldiers as Congress cuts funding in order to force withdrawals of troops. I expect they'll use any tool they can find to remove the troops as quickly as possible.
Therefore, I see no reason to prolong the inevitable and lose more soldiers.
I hope that might be more clear.
-
I am very dissatisfied with bush. Very. But I am going to support this troop surge. It might work. Its the last chance in my book. If this doesnt work then we should destroy Iraq and rebuild it properly like we did Germany and Japan.
To the Iraqis I would say "last chance to get your ***** together"
-
If we get to kick a little Iranian bellybutton it's worth it. They've had it coming for a long time.
-
Originally posted by lukster
If we get to kick a little Iranian bellybutton it's worth it. They've had it coming for a long time.
WE?
Toad has it about right. I'm just wondering how long it will be before the dems are blamed for "losing" the war?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
WE?
Toad has it about right. I'm just wondering how long it will be before the dems are blamed for "losing" the war?
We as in the United States. If we lose it WILL be the dems fault. Perhaps I should say it will be the left's fault. The left that has critized all of our efforts from the beginning, especially the media.
Ridiculed is a better word than criticize in this case.
-
Well that didn't take long.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Well that didn't take long.
The left set out to ensure our failure from the beginning. Was more important to them to see Bush fail than it was for America to succeed.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Well that didn't take long.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Hope nobody's hoping to have a civilized conversation about this... not gonna happen.
-
I’ve been watching the debate prior to and following the President’s address of 10 January 07 on where to go in the Iraq war. I have noted one question that is never asked of those espousing a “phased withdrawal/drawdown/redeploy” (a.k.a. “cut and run”/surrender) approach to the war. The cut-and-run proponents’ rationale for this course of action is that it will force the Iraqis to “stand on their own”, that it will send a message to the Iraqi government that they need to take responsibility for their future. This logic is debatable; if the results of the Russian pull out from Bosnia or our own pull out from Vietnam are any guide, this is not the result predicted by history. Nevertheless, let’s assume they could be right, for argument’s sake.
We come then to THE question not yet asked of those critical of the President’s new plan. It is the flip-side to their own logic, i.e. “What is the likely affect of a cut-and-run plan on the terrorists?” If announcing a pull-out will cause the Iraqis to say, “Oh, the Yanks are leaving; we’d better try harder to stabilize our country,” will the terrorists in Iraq also conclude, “Hey, the Yanks are leaving; we’d better scale back our attacks.” Please consider adding this to your standard list of questions for guests on your show, whether they are for or against the President’s new plan.
On a related issue, what effect would a pull-back of US forces in Iraq have on coalition efforts to help rebuild Iraq, efforts that are heavily dependent on non-Iraqi civilians? Iraqi stability depends at least as heavily on economic and political progress as on security progress.
Finally, I've never seen the press so determined to see us loose a war. In WWII, the press would report bad news, but would also go out of it's way to report when things went right. They understood that maintaining the national will to win was every bit as important as building tanks, planes and ships. And some things have gone well in this war; you just wouldn't know it from the reporting being done. The behaviour of some politicians is also reprehensible, and didn't happen in WWII, no matter how bleak the outlook sometimes looked. We were in a war for national survival, just as we are today. If you doubt it, then you haven't considered the likely consequences of failure. And for the record, thousands of Allied soldiers died after the fighting officially ended in Germany, due in part to having to fight Nazi insurgents that refused to accept the new order. It took 10+ years before West Germany was considered capable of full sovereignity again. A like period of time was required for Japan to operate on it's own, and even then we've maintained forces in both countries since the end of WWII (60 years).
-
what do you really think is going on?
pelosi and her ilk could be saying something useful along these lines "We need to get this president set right so we can properly defeat the extremists in Iraq and the greater middle east" but no, they say...."we need to redeploy" (democratic buzzword for retreat) or simply "we need to get out of Iraq and this presidents failed policies" which translates into outright abandonment of everything so for accomplished in Iraq, including Iraq itself They need the US to fail so they can steal the seat of power on the anger they create.
I can guarantee you if Iraq turns out to be the failure democrats so clearly want it to be then yeah, it will be in large part their fault. There will be no doubt. For another unit of measure just ask yourself who would get the credit if Iraq pulls out of the current nosedive and turns into some sort of stable democracy? it sure as hell wont be pelosi and her crowd of ultra libs. It will be in spite of her.
-
Originally posted by lukster
We as in the United States. If we lose it WILL be the dems fault. Perhaps I should say it will be the left's fault. The left that has critized all of our efforts from the beginning, especially the media.
Ridiculed is a better word than criticize in this case.
I agree, ridiculed is a better word. But only because your efforts have been ridiculous, just like your president.
-
MT deserves a more thought out response. First I want to address the question "WE?" The US military is nothing more than an extension of the American people's will and strength. Every American of voting age bears the responsibility of what our military does. When our military acts criminally it is our responsibilty to ensure justice. When our military succeeds in defeating an enemy every American shares in that action, whether they approve or are ashamed.
As to whether we fail in Iraq or not, it is irresponsible to believe that every major political party or movement with a public voice does not influence the final outcome. How can one believe their enemy is not greatly affected by their enemies morale, both that of the troops on the battlefield and the folks at home?
-
Originally posted by Viking
I agree, ridiculed is a better word. But only because your efforts have been ridiculous, just like your president.
Back under your bridge.
-
You used to be a moderate republican. What happened to you?
-
Originally posted by lukster
The left set out to ensure our failure from the beginning. Was more important to them to see Bush fail than it was for America to succeed.
The Left was not responsible for the mistakes Toad outlined and Mr. Bush admitted in his speech.
It's only 21,000 troops, $6.8 billion, and 6 more months. Practically a comma on a 4 year, $400 billion enterprise so far. Maybe they should stand back and let Mr. Bush attempt to fix his situation.
If the Dems allow the escalation (and how can they prohibit it?) who is lukster going to blame when it fails to make an impact?
-
Originally posted by Viking
You used to be a moderate republican. What happened to you?
Right is the new Left. Where'd you get your avatar, viking? I sort of remember that video.
-
From the viking kittens video, the one with Led Zeppelin.
-
A few thoughts on the responses so far.
First, "Bush"..well, at least our forces under his direction, clearly won the war. That was a stellar, outstanding campaign that destroyed/routed the Iraqi army in short order.
Bush and his administration clearly have not "won" the peace. They have failed to establish a viable Iraqi system of government and to eliminate the threats to a stable Iraqi government in the post-war period.
Similarly, Bush and his administration have not yet "lost" the peace either. I question their ability to "win" but they haven't "lost" as yet. They're seriously behind in the bottom of the 9th though and I think they have two outs on them. It doesn't look good for the home team.
The Democrats in control of Congress will not "win" or "lose" the war. It's not theirs to win or lose. They will, however, call the game due to rain if you'll pardon the continued baseball metaphor. Rain it is; the situation is adverse and they cannot deal with adversity given the position they have taken on Iraq. They might take the blame for calling the game early though.
Bush still has a remote chance to pull this off but I think it's remote because I think the only possible chance is to raise the level of violence against the insurgents to an incredibly extreme level. Think all out war once again. That just won't happen though.
The left set out to ensure our failure from the beginning. Was more important to them to see Bush fail than it was for America to succeed.
I do think there is some truth to that statement. It stems from Gore's inability to carry his home state; the Dems have never been able to reconcile themselves to the facts of that election. :) They became phobic about Bush then, with a "damn the torpedoes" mindset wrt to any other considerations. IMO.
And Scholz... our efforts have been honorable, unlike those of the Dutch at Srebrenica. Just for you, I give you Teddy Roosevelt's quote:
It is not the critic who counts, nor the man who points how the strong man stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly...who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at best, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.
You're just a critic.
-
I love that quote. Who's Scholz?
-
I admire you toad, you take so much time to prepare and put in so much effort to eloquently state your positions and to debate them with others in the same spirit. In my world this is worth doing in a situation where you can actually deal in person with the people your talking or to or communicating with. For me, here on this bsb its typically not worth the effort. I do enjoy reading your thoughts though. Keep it going.
-
Originally posted by Toad
our efforts have been honorable,
Opinions may differ on that one.
Originally posted by Toad
You're just a critic.
So are you.
-
ahhh! viking is gschmoltz lol
thats good to know, what a putz :D
-
I'm just not seeing blaming the Left for this debacle. The Dems did not control any branch of govenment during this time. Toad or Lukster, can you supply concrete examples of how the Left is responsible for the mistakes made that have lead to the current situation? I don't follow your logic at all. Do we all agree that accepting personal responsibility for one's mistakes is the correct course (as Mr. Bush did in his speech last night)?
Sabre, your statement that the press is responsible for maintaining the national will is surprising to me. I think the proper role of the press in a democracy is to report the unvarnished truth, period. You seem to be suggesting that the role of the press is that of a propagandist. That's a little scary. Is that right, or do I misunderstand?
-
That would be kitten Yeager ... kitten.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Opinions may differ on that one.
The intent of the American people was unquestionably honorable.
-
if we lose in Iraq ie "pullout", we will NEVER win against terrorism as the world will know exactly what it takes to defeat us .. and the sad fact would be that it doesn't take much ...
-
Originally posted by oboe
I'm just not seeing blaming the Left for this debacle. The Dems did not control any branch of govenment during this time. Toad or Lukster, can you supply concrete examples of how the Left is responsible for the mistakes made that have lead to the current situation?
I have not indicated the "Left" is responsible for hte mistakes that have led to the current situation. In fact, I think I have clearly faulted Bush and his administration for the current situation in Iraq.
If you think I've said otherwise, please quote what makes you think so and I'll respond.
I DO think the "Left" which in my mind is well-represented by Pelosi, will force a withdrawl from Iraq as fast as they possibly can no matter what effects that action has on the people of Iraq.
Since I believe that to be true, I think it best just to pull out so that no more US troops are lost.
-
Originally posted by oboe
I think the proper role of the press in a democracy is to report the unvarnished truth, period. You seem to be suggesting that the role of the press is that of a propagandist. That's a little scary. Is that right, or do I misunderstand?
if you can't see the slant the media has had against bush and the admin since the 2000 election except for after 9/11 about 90 days 09/2001 - 12/2001, then as you put it "That's a little scary" LOL
-
Originally posted by lukster
MT deserves a more thought out response.
heh.. not really.
But thanks anyway.
-
Hi Toad,
From your post above:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The left set out to ensure our failure from the beginning. Was more important to them to see Bush fail than it was for America to succeed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do think there is some truth to that statement.
Eagler, I don't maintain the media is without slant. I just think it SHOULD be without slant.
-
Originally posted by Toad
The intent of the American people was unquestionably honorable.
Again opinions may differ … depending on which part of the American people you refer to. You are not united in this matter.
The intent displayed by this particular American for instance I find disgustingly dishonorable:
Originally posted by Yeager
The presence of WMDs in Iraq as justification for the most recent war were simply a means to an end. They didnt have to be there, it really didnt matter anyway...hussein was a sunuvabich whos time had come.
I think the WMD threat had two values.
First value was the obvious one. Hussein had them in the past, used them in the past and could very well be prepared to have them and use them again. The evidence, however flawed, "seemed" to suggest this as a likely scenario.
Second value was the silencing effect it had on war critics (aka liberals, peace at ALL costs types...sometimes referred to as morons). Although it didnt silence them it made them look like fools and it probably was a genuine effect.
All being said and done, using WMDs as a tool to justify war was a valid tactic and employed to great success.
And I hardy think he is alone.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Bush blew it, the Republicans blew it. The Democratic wins in Congress have made the situation unrecoverable so...
time to go.
I'd start bringing the troops home today. All of them.
Word. Our so called leaders are too incompetent, and consumed with their petty party differences, to fix this... it was incompetence that got us into Iraq.
To date, the DC crime family drunks have FAILED to prosecute any "war on..." with any modicum of success; the war on drugs is a continuing failure, war on poverty, war on this, war on that... the war on terrorism will be just another long drawn out expensive Gov FAILURE.
Maybe one day enough people in this country will wake the F up and stop rewarding Repubes and Dems for their legacy of failure.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
ahhh! viking is gschmoltz lol
thats good to know, what a putz :D
I have to disagree with you here Yeag. If you use the proper yiddish definition of the term "putz" that is a useful item that has a definite biological purpose. Now shultz on the other hand has no utility, biological or otherwise. In short, referring to him as a putz is an insult to the useful putz.
I believe the proper term would be hemorhoid as that biological thing has no useful function whatsoever.
-
If you were gshlotz.... you wouldn't admit it either. It is pretty cowardly tho.
lazs
-
Another shining example of honorable intentions…
Originally posted by Eagler
we kicked a murdering oppressive dictator's arse ... Iraq and the region are better for it.
let's move on to the next one - we can come up with a reason "why" later - if we really need to ...
-
Originally posted by lazs2
If you were gshlotz.... you wouldn't admit it either. It is pretty cowardly tho.
lazs
I'm afraid I cannot confirm whether I am Gscholz or not. It would be against the rules laid down by Skuzzy.
However if I was GScholz I would stand by my previous posts. After all … when your Iraq debacle draws to its inevitable conclusion it will be GScholz who can say "I told you so".
-
I'm afraid I cannot confirm whether I am Gscholz or not. It would be against the rules laid down by Skuzzy.
You just did. :D
-
No I didn't! ;)
-
Originally posted by Viking
No I didn't! ;)
:rofl
-
oboe, not that it would be news.
thomas rick's 'fiasco'.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4926293608118312619&q=tvshow%3ACharlie_Rose
-
Originally posted by oboe
I'm just not seeing blaming the Left for this debacle. The Dems did not control any branch of govenment during this time. Toad or Lukster, can you supply concrete examples of how the Left is responsible for the mistakes made that have lead to the current situation? I don't follow your logic at all. Do we all agree that accepting personal responsibility for one's mistakes is the correct course (as Mr. Bush did in his speech last night)?
Sabre, your statement that the press is responsible for maintaining the national will is surprising to me. I think the proper role of the press in a democracy is to report the unvarnished truth, period. You seem to be suggesting that the role of the press is that of a propagandist. That's a little scary. Is that right, or do I misunderstand?
Oboe: You misunderstand. What I said was, "In WWII, the press would report bad news, but would also go out of it's way to report when things went right. They understood that maintaining the national will to win was every bit as important as building tanks, planes and ships."
That is, I did not say that the press was "responsible for maintaining the national will," only that focusing almost exclusively on the negative would sap the nations will to perservere. Back in WWII, they understood the consequence of defeat and would not actively work to undermine the effort. In this war, they have indeed been active propogandists, but for the terrorists and insurgents!
As for the mistakes made, President Bush has accepted his responsibility for them, even some that he probably couldn't have avoided. However, I must make the counter-point that the left (embodied in the Democratic party leadership) exacerbated those mistakes by emboldening the enemy in Iraq with their constant amplification of those mistakes, incessant criticism of the whole effort, by denegrating our troops, by leaking and or opposing every measure the Administration has enacted to fight the war, and by themselve going so far as to call the entire war unlawful and the President's actions criminal...all in the name of political expediency. Remember too that most of those same Dems voted to authorize the war in the first place. Had they put even half of the energy they've subsequently expended in bashing the President into supporting the War on Terror (which arguably includes Iraq), perhaps it would have been over long ago.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Hi Toad,
From your post above:
Eagler, I don't maintain the media is without slant. I just think it SHOULD be without slant.
In no way will I ever exonerate Bush for his mistakes in Iraq. However, the left has done their damndest to discredit and defame his efforts, especially in the media. This didn't happen in a vacuum.
Sabre said it better.
-
damn Gee schmoltz! thanks for digging that one out! again, I impress myself :)
-
Well, I can see we're all agreed then.
hap
-
whatever happened to the vikings anyway?
-
Oboe, I guess text messages don't lend themselves to easy understanding.
Lukster said:
The left set out to ensure our failure from the beginning. Was more important to them to see Bush fail than it was for America to succeed.
I said:
I do think there is some truth to that statement.
I think there IS some truth to it.
I believe the Democrats would readily sacrifice longterm national benefit to get at Bush in the short term.
I also believe the Republicans would and have done the same thing at other times.
I truly believe the Democratic party as a whole is more prone to that mindset than the whole of the Republican party.
Did that help?
-
As for honorable intent, Yeager has demonstrated that the intent he approves of in all of this is the removal of a bloody dictator from power and giving that nation's populace an opportunity to hold free elections.
You find that dishonorable?
-
I believe the Democrats would readily sacrifice longterm national benefit to get at Bush in the short term. - Toad
I believe this too. The key to understanding this is that the left wing in this country would like to totally trash the Bush persona because they think it will gain them the Whitehouse. pity.
-
some day when a general has had enough of the BS and pulls a military coup you people can sit around and discuss "what went wrong".
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
WE?
Toad has it about right. I'm just wondering how long it will be before the dems are blamed for "losing" the war?
Well it's already being attempted. That's why Bush waited until the new congress was in to do anything. So if they don't support his idiotic plan, he can blame them.
Many of us, like me, knew occupation of Iraq was a stupid idea in 2002. They are completly incompentant, except in the area of war profiteering.
This is one big ....We told you so. It was a stupid idea from the get go.
We told you so...and I'll tell you agin. This is another very bad idea. From a man with a history of bad ideas.
Originally posted by john9001
some day when a general has had enough of the BS and pulls a military coup you people can sit around and discuss "what went wrong".
Why would there need to be a coup when Blackwell and the Supreme Court decided the last two elections?
-
Originally posted by BluKitty
Well it's already being attempted. That's why Bush waited until the new congress was in to do anything. So if they don't support his idiotic plan, he can blame them.
Many of us, like me, knew occupation of Iraq was a stupid idea in 2002. They are completly incompentant, except in the area of war profiteering.
This is one big ....We told you so. It was a stupid idea from the get go.
We told you so...and I'll tell you agin. This is another very bad idea. From a man with a history of bad ideas.
you have a better plan? lets hear it mon general.
-
Toad,
Yes, that helped. Thanks.
Sabre, thanks for clarifying. I think we disagree on the role the press played in this particular war, though. Practically all the mainstream press has been excoriated for not questioning the case for the war in the first place - for bolstering popular support for it from the beginning. I think I've read numerous accounts of how the mainstream media fell down on the job there. My misgivings about the press today go much deeper, but I'll save it for another time.
I think the Left has been much less effective than you guys give it credit for. In fact I can't think of a single significant impact the Left has had during all of Bush's presidency. Seems to me like they've been ignored or steamrollered the whole time (prior to 2007). They've been nothing but whining, simpering, disorganized and incomptetent weaklings. Now that the ***** is hitting the fan, you guys want to place some blame on them. I have to chuckle at that, but I find it pathetic at the same time. This whole thing is Bush and the necons baby. Even now, all the Left can muster is a non-binding disapproval vote. Big deal.
btw I note that Sam Brownback (R), one of Toad's senators, has come out against the troop escalation. (http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/state/16433503.htm) As has Minnesota's Republican senator, Norm Coleman.
FWIW, I don't think Congress can or will stop the escalation or bring the troops home. I think the Dems think no matter what they do, they will get blamed so its better to make noise but do nothing. Judging from this board, they might be right.
Just my impressions.
-
Originally posted by oboe
btw I note that Sam Brownback (R), one of Toad's senators,
Brownback is a Kansas Senator; you assume too much if you think I voted for him.
-
I think the "left" has bent so far left that it is nearly touching my right shoulder.
The "left", in my opinion, seems unable to define itself, and seems leaderless, (unless you count Al Gore {who invented the internet}, John Kerry {who had a plan that he never divulged} and Ted kennedy{who has lived off of his Brothers' reputation for three decades} as leaders), and thus can only "criticize" any action taken by those who dare take a stance on ANY issue. At least Lyndon Johnson took a stance, and stood by it. For him, I have some respect, but he was the last of the "left" for whom I have had any form of respect.
In WWII, in America, the news media was closely watched and censored. Heaven help any journalist who divulged casualty rates as high as 25,000 American to 22,000 Japanese in a period of 35 days without an American Victory! Nor, would the media expouse upon the incarceration of Americans of Japanese heritage into camps as the Nazis did to Europeans of various heritages. No way!
FDR, Truman, JFK, and LBJ were the last of the gunfighters for the left; they were leaders.
-
Originally posted by BluKitty
Why would there need to be a coup when Blackwell and the Supreme Court decided the last two elections?
:noid :noid :noid
Nothing else need be said about that.
Well, except:
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by oboe
Toad,
Yes, that helped. Thanks.
Sabre, thanks for clarifying. I think we disagree on the role the press played in this particular war, though. Practically all the mainstream press has been excoriated for not questioning the case for the war in the first place - for bolstering popular support for it from the beginning. I think I've read numerous accounts of how the mainstream media fell down on the job there. My misgivings about the press today go much deeper, but I'll save it for another time.
I think the Left has been much less effective than you guys give it credit for. In fact I can't think of a single significant impact the Left has had during all of Bush's presidency. Seems to me like they've been ignored or steamrollered the whole time (prior to 2007). They've been nothing but whining, simpering, disorganized and incomptetent weaklings. Now that the ***** is hitting the fan, you guys want to place some blame on them. I have to chuckle at that, but I find it pathetic at the same time. This whole thing is Bush and the necons baby. Even now, all the Left can muster is a non-binding disapproval vote. Big deal.
btw I note that Sam Brownback (R), one of Toad's senators, has come out against the troop escalation. (http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/state/16433503.htm) As has Minnesota's Republican senator, Norm Coleman.
FWIW, I don't think Congress can or will stop the escalation or bring the troops home. I think the Dems think no matter what they do, they will get blamed so its better to make noise but do nothing. Judging from this board, they might be right.
Just my impressions.
The mainstream press has not been "onboard" for this conflict since a month after they pulled Saddam's statue down in the square.
Further, you seriously underestimate the effects that the media and the bloviating liberals can have on the morale of the enemy. You need to read up on what the North Vietnamese said about that war. Their best weapon was Walter Cronkite and the "useful idiots" of the left, who, no matter how well the U.S. military or South Vietnam performed, no matter how many victories they accomplished, always reported that all was lost.
One other thing. A war can not be run by "committee". You have to have a COMMANDER. If you cannot by legitmate means replace the commander, the best thing you can do is support him.
And yes, it is true, the left, liberals, and some Democrats would send this country down the road towards complete and utter failure and destruction in order to gain power that they have no idea how to use for any decent and proper purpose.
-
The war effort is not what sunk Bush
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
The war effort is not what sunk Bush
what was it, then the economy? :)
of course it was the war - over 3k killed for nothing if you listen to the media and half the posts here ... no support which lead to ever increasing pressure to fight the war on terror like it is a game of dodge ball. You think the dems were voted in for the raise on minimum wage? nope - it was the never ending BAD news from Iraq minus any GOOD news from the region which turned the weak willed away ..
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
The war effort is not what sunk Bush
I'd agree with that. I'm very disappointed in Bush. I don't think he's been aggressive enough in the war on terror, both in and out of Iraq. I don't think he's been tough enough on foreign policy in general. He has not been nearly conservative enough on several issues, like illegal immigration, Social Security, spending (MAJOR issue with me), and tax reform/reduction. I find myself dissappointed in so-called conservatives in general. Bill Frist, who I voted for, has been a big disappointment. He folded on several issues. The biggest problem is tha the alternatives are even worse. The laundry list above is what cost the Republican party as a whole last November. They completely failed to be conservative. So now we have a bunch that is even LESS conservative, and not even close to moderate. True, some of the Democrats won as a moderate alternative to Republicans who did a poor job of being conservative, but as a rule they'll be controlled by those they are "beholdin" to, so they'll be on the left side of moderate.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The mainstream press has not been "onboard" for this conflict since a month after they pulled Saddam's statue down in the square.
Further, you seriously underestimate the effects that the media and the bloviating liberals can have on the morale of the enemy. You need to read up on what the North Vietnamese said about that war. Their best weapon was Walter Cronkite and the "useful idiots" of the left, who, no matter how well the U.S. military or South Vietnam performed, no matter how many victories they accomplished, always reported that all was lost.
One other thing. A war can not be run by "committee". You have to have a COMMANDER. If you cannot by legitmate means replace the commander, the best thing you can do is support him.
I don't really follow the mainstream press. But if what you say is true, it seems to me the public has supported the war far longer than the mainstream press has. So it follows the mainstream press must not have as much influence on public opinion as you think.
Regarding the commander statement, an honest question. Did you support President Clinton? Or were you critical of him?
And yes, it is true, the left, liberals, and some Democrats would send this country down the road towards complete and utter failure and destruction in order to gain power that they have no idea how to use for any decent and proper purpose.
Can you bring yourself to say the exact same thing about the Right, neoconservatives, and some Republicans, especially after all that has happened in the last 6 years? I am not asking flippantly - I'm serious.
Torque - thanks for the Charlie Rose link. I've started watching it but it stops about 1/3 of the way through. I like CR a lot - his is one of the great, great shows on TV, IMO.
-
Originally posted by oboe
I don't really follow the mainstream press. But if what you say is true, it seems to me the public has supported the war far longer than the mainstream press has. So it follows the mainstream press must not have as much influence on public opinion as you think.
Regarding the commander statement, an honest question. Did you support President Clinton? Or were you critical of him?
Can you bring yourself to say the exact same thing about the Right, neoconservatives, and some Republicans, especially after all that has happened in the last 6 years? I am not asking flippantly - I'm serious.
Torque - thanks for the Charlie Rose link. I've started watching it but it stops about 1/3 of the way through. I like CR a lot - his is one of the great, great shows on TV, IMO.
I don't remember a WAR that Clinton was involved with. He bailed on Somalia. I guess you could call the Kosovo/Serbia conflicts "wars", and yes I supported him on those conflicts, but did not support him on bailing on Somolia. Would I have supported Clinton in WAR? Yes, I would.
By the way, there's a serious difference between responsible constructive criticism and completely irresponsible and blatant attempts to undermine.
No, I do not think the Right has, is, or was leading the country down the road to failure and destruction, but I'd call them on it if they were. I do call them on any number of failures, see the post in reply to sixpence. I can't figure anything in the last 6 years in particular that I would consider as leading the country to failure and destruction. Have the Republicans in general and Bush in particular been fiscally irresponsible? Hell yes. I think the closest thing you to what you could call taking us down the wrong road would be their failures to push through illegal immigration reform and opening up reasonable oil exploration and drilling. None of that is anything like rolling over for terrorists and sucking up/cowering before Syria, Iran, North Korea, and other countries.
-
Savage,
We share some areas of concern (spending and illegal immigration, tax reform). I guess I put a much higher priority on deficit spending and the national debt than you do - I see it as leading down the road to failure.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Savage,
We share some areas of concern (spending and illegal immigration, tax reform). I guess I put a much higher priority on deficit spending and the national debt than you do - I see it as leading down the road to failure.
There's no doubt it will lead to a major failure of the economy. That the country may survive. I see the liberals as even worse in this regard, as their intent to raise taxes will actually LOWER revenue, and we know they will do less to control spending, that's a lesson anyone can learn from history. I put a very high priority on fiscal responsibility, probably as high as you do.
But the war on terror (better described as a war on those groups that would commit acts of terror) and foreign policy with regards to Iran, Syria, North Korea, and other countries of a "like mind" is even more important. The failure that will result from cowering and inaction there will not be as relatively easy to recover from as a major economic failure. Caving in and cowering to the terrorists and the countries that support and harbor them will have results far more catastrophic than the Great Depression.
-
Originally posted by BluKitty
Many of us, like me, knew occupation of Iraq was a stupid idea in 2002. They are completly incompentant, except in the area of war profiteering.
This is one big ....We told you so. It was a stupid idea from the get go.
We told you so...and I'll tell you agin. This is another very bad idea. From a man with a history of bad ideas.
Exactly. When half the country is sitting back the whole time moaning about this whole thing being "a bad idea" what do you expect the enemy to think? It emboldens and empowers them in believing we don't have the will to win.
-
Bush's biggest mistake was in not realizing we are a country of those who lack ideals, without the foresight or the will to see the war through. Shame on him and us.
-
Luk...we've become Euros. That's the short version.
-
oboe, the original site, an interesting concept and very informative.
http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/index.php
-
Oboe, is it your contention that were it not for the press and the left, the war in Iraq would at this time be going substantially better than it is?
Also, do you think that what ever mistakes the Bush administration has made are minor as to the outcome of the war when compared to how the press and the left have damaged the war effort?
Regards,
hap
-
Originally posted by Hap
Oboe, is it your contention that were it not for the press and the left, the war in Iraq would at this time be going substantially better than it is?
Also, do you think that what ever mistakes the Bush administration has made are minor as to the outcome of the war when compared to how the press and the left have damaged the war effort?
Regards,
hap
I’m not oboe but yes to the first question..
The left and the slant the media has broadcasted about the war has embolden our enemies ... the AQ won our last election.
The second question is a toss up. but please tell us which war was ever fought mistake free?
-
Originally posted by Hap
Oboe, is it your contention that were it not for the press and the left, the war in Iraq would at this time be going substantially better than it is?
Also, do you think that what ever mistakes the Bush administration has made are minor as to the outcome of the war when compared to how the press and the left have damaged the war effort?
Regards,
hap
Not at all - the war is what it is, without regard to the press coverage. I haven't seen any hard evidence that negative coverage of the war by the press has emboldened the insurgents and handed them victories.
I blame Bush and his team for the war. I see the press as havign 'damaged' the war effort - but (disclaimer) I have been against the Iraq war from the beginning. I wanted to see OBL captured in Afghanistan, and wasn't ever convinced of an Iraq connection.
-
I don't see anyone can think that the enemy/insurgents are not emboldened and encouraged by the way the media portrays the daily happenings in Iraq.
-
I voted for Bush in both presidential bids, I guess you can say I had a hand in that "coup" too :rofl
I'd vote for him a 3rd time knowing who the likely liberal con jobs will be.
-
Originally posted by Toad
As for honorable intent, Yeager has demonstrated that the intent he approves of in all of this is the removal of a bloody dictator from power and giving that nation's populace an opportunity to hold free elections.
You find that dishonorable?
Yes. When the justification was something very different, and he made that very clear.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I don't see anyone can think that the enemy/insurgents are not emboldened and encouraged by the way the media portrays the daily happenings in Iraq.
The insurgents are watching US TV, and reading US newspapers? Surely you're jesting.
Al Jazzera never was on your side, and you can't really expect them to be.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Yes. When the justification was something very different, and he made that very clear.
Apparently you find only the justification dishonorable. Is that correct?
Because in my view, intent is separate from "justification".
The intent was to remove Saddam and give the people free elections. That was done and I think it was an honorable intent.
Do you disagree?
You don't think they get CNN in Iraq?
-
Originally posted by Viking
The insurgents are watching US TV, and reading US newspapers? Surely you're jesting.
Al Jazzera never was on your side, and you can't really expect them to be.
You don't think the leaders of the insurgency and foreign powers involved keep track of American morale and commitment?
-
Originally posted by Toad
I don't see anyone can think that the enemy/insurgents are not emboldened and encouraged by the way the media portrays the daily happenings in Iraq.
I'm using Toad's quote as an example of what others have said and or said in their own words.
I don't think US press coverage in any way emboldens religous jihadists. They don't require, need, or desire emboldening from the West.
Seriously, do you realize that to say so is pretty equivalent to saying the bad guys obtain their motivation to kill us and perserverence in the face of destruction from our press coverage?
Holy Smokes, am I the only one that finds that terribly over rates the power of the western press and under values the impetus of 1500 years of religious zealotry?
But what do I know. I live in Wyoming.
All the Best,
hap
-
Originally posted by Viking
The insurgents are watching US TV, and reading US newspapers? Surely you're jesting.
yes they are,how else would they know if they are "winning" the war, and don't call me Shirley.
-
of course it does
You don't think Iran and Syria watch CNN?
I'm sure the cheekbones with the bomb belt doesn't care whats on the tele but the ppl who give his leaders money and direction do
-
Originally posted by Toad
Apparently you find only the justification dishonorable. Is that correct?
Because in my view, intent is separate from "justification".
The intent was to remove Saddam and give the people free elections. That was done and I think it was an honorable intent.
Do you disagree?
You don't think they get CNN in Iraq?
Sorry Toad, but the 'Intent' was to make us safe based on the perceived threat from saddam and his WMD. Free elections and the ouster of the dictator were just necessities of that goal.
-
Originally posted by Hap
I'm using Toad's quote as an example of what others have said and or said in their own words.
I don't think US press coverage in any way emboldens religous jihadists. They don't require, need, or desire emboldening from the West.
Seriously, do you realize that to say so is pretty equivalent to saying the bad guys obtain their motivation to kill us and perserverence in the face of destruction from our press coverage?
Holy Smokes, am I the only one that finds that terribly over rates the power of the western press and under values the impetus of 1500 years of religious zealotry?
But what do I know. I live in Wyoming.
All the Best,
hap
No, you are not the ONLY one, Hap. I think there are two of us.
To the guys complaining about the negative coverage of the war - what did you expect? Nothing but footage showing US soldiers handing out candy to Iraqi kids while ignoring or supressing all the bad stuff that was absolutely bound to happen? I'd suggest limiting your exposure to Lincoln Group publications (http://www.prwatch.org/node/4235) then.
Lara Logan defends the press' coverage better than I ever could in this clip. (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/cnn_rs_blame_media_lara_logan_060326a.wmv) It's worth a look.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
we won't pull out, nor should we.
If the dems win in 08 and they pull out, then they will have the repercussion on their conscience
Politically, the Dems can pull out in 08, call it "Peace with Honor II" and shovel the blame on the previous administration for bungling it. Regardless of whether it is or isn't true, I think that the American public will accept that story over the years.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Sorry Toad, but the 'Intent' was to make us safe based on the perceived threat from saddam and his WMD. Free elections and the ouster of the dictator were just necessities of that goal.
Or one could, and I do, say that the intent was to make us safe based on the perceived threat from Saddam and his WMD by removing him from power and enabling free elections for and by the Iraqis.
Thus it is all one.
In short, I think you're quibbling.
:)
-
Originally posted by Hap
Seriously, do you realize that to say so is pretty equivalent to saying the bad guys obtain their motivation to kill us and perserverence in the face of destruction from our press coverage?
hap
Hmmmm.... were you politically aware during the VietNam war?
I was in the service at that time; I know the press coverage had a large effect on our own troops.
I think the press coverage had a huge effect on North Vietnam actions and strategies.
I also think the Tet offensive is a clear indication of the power of the press to demoralize our own forces while encouraging the enemy.
All me to quote to state the case quickly and effectively:
Tet (http://cybersarges.tripod.com/rvnvictory.html)
The Tet Offensive is often offered as an example of how American and Allied forces were completely outclassed by the Viet Cong and PAVN, the Siege of Khe Sanh being one of the key 'tragedies' of the Tet Offensive. The facts are that, for North Vietnam, the Tet Offensive was an unmitigated and wildly overestimated disaster. There was no mass, popular uprising and all that was achieved was the exposure of both Viet Cong and Main Force units to the withering destruction of American and Allied firepower. The Viet Cong in South Vietnam were effectively wiped out and ceased to play any effective role in the war from then on. The North Vietnamese mounted an undeniable invasion of South Vietnam through neutral Laos and Cambodia; an act of military amorality equal to Pearl Harbor and the two invasions of Belgium by the German Army in 1914 and 1940. Virtually all their first line combat units were decimated, suffering over forty thousand killed and half that number wounded.
None - absolutely none - of the military aims of the Communist forces were achieved and it was called off by Vo Nguyen Giap when its failure became obvious. It was a military defeat of the order the French Army in 1940 or the Gallipoli Campaign.
Yet, 'conventional wisdom' by the apologists and mythmakers hold the TET offensive up as a shining victory for the North.
At Khe Sanh, particularly, an outnumbered US Marine garrison inflicted a huge defeat on the Communist forces. There, a combination of fighting spirit and technology beat the four NVA divisions arrayed against them and foiled Giap's aim to repeat Dien Bien Phu. This also destabilized overall Communist strategy for the Tet Offensive, tying down valuable forces in the North, hardly a display of the alleged superior military thought of this 'master' strategist and his political master, Ho Chi Minh. The Tet Offensive was a military miscalculation of the most callous and egregious kind, a complete waste of the military resources deployed by the North.
If you've studied the VietNam war, you realize that the above quote is an accurate summation of what happened. The VC and the NVA were decimated during Tet. Yet that's not how it was reported or portrayed in the media and it marks the point where American politicians began to look for a way out instead of a way to win.
I'm sure my opinion stems from my time in the service back then but it hasn't changed one bit.
-
what toad said is the truth, Walter Cronkite reported the tet offensive as a major victory for the communists, LBJ then said "if we have lost Cronkite, we have lost the war".
cronkite, the tokyo rose of the vietnam war.
-
From a wikipedia article on the Tet Offensive: Media Impact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tet_Offensive#Media_impact)
Studies of media impact on public opinion
Daniel Hallin and Clarence Wyatt also studied the effect of the media on public opinion. They found virtually no evidence to support any causal relationship between editorial tone and bias in the media with loss of public support for the war.[24] Hallin maintains that there was in fact a shift in the tone of coverage during and after Tet, but this change was a reflection of the shift in the opinions of elite decisions makers in the United States.[25]
Professor John Mueller also studied the effects of the media on public opinion during the Korean and Vietnam conflicts. He found no relationship between the media and popular support but linked support to casualty levels.
Army historian William Hammond, considered an authority on military and media relations concluded that there was little evidence showing a link between media coverage and popular support. Hammond wrote "that press reports were...more accurate than the public statements of the administration in portraying the situation in Vietnam." But by 1968, the charge that the press lost Vietnam had become an article of faith to many Vietnam veterans.
24. ^ Darley, William M. (2005). War Policy, Public Support, and the Media. Parameters.
25. ^ Hallin, Daniel (March, 2003). Presentation given at the “American Media and Wartime Challenges” Conference (PDF).
Doesn't address the affect of U.S. media on NV popular opinion or morale though.
-
Now research the influence it had on the political leaders of the war, ie: Johnson.
Politicians eat, sleep and breathe the media; it is the universe in which they exist and have meaning.
You might also check NVA Col Bui Tin and see what he thought of the media role in the war.
-
Oh, and one other thing... you might read "A Better War" by Sorely and then tell me who lost in VietNam.
Read up on Abrams and his strategies and tactics...and their successes... and tell me the military "lost" in VN.
The military DID NOT lose; Tet is merely one example. Khe Sahn is another. Approximately one fourth of all the television film reports on the evening news programs in the U.S. during February and March, 1968, were devoted to describing the situation of the Marines at Khe Sanh. It was portrayed as a desperate situation; I watched them.
In fact, the NVA once again got it's bellybutton handed to it at Khe Sahn. Yet it was portrayed as a "loss" and this too had it's effect on the politicians.
So if the military did not lose... and it clearly did not... what happened?
The US politicians and public lost the will to win. If you think the media had no role in that with the continual negative reporting.. like from Khe Sahn... I'd just have to totally disagree with you.
-
This is an excerpt from Stephen Young's interview with Bui Tin: (http://www.viet-myths.net/BuiTin.htm)
Q: What about the results?
A: Our losses were staggering and a complete surprise;. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for re-election. The second and third waves in May and September were, in retrospect, mistakes. Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to re-establish our presence, but we had to use North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. If the American forces had not begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us severely. We suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was.
Q: What of Nixon?
A: Well, when Nixon stepped down because of Watergate we knew we would win. Pham Van Dong [prime minister of North Vietnam] said of Gerald Ford, the new president, "he's the weakest president in U.S. history; the people didn't elect him; even if you gave him candy, he doesn't dare to intervene in Vietnam again." We tested Ford's resolve by attacking Phuoc Long in January 1975. When Ford kept American B-52's in their hangers, our leadership decided on a big offensive against South Vietnam.
Q: What else?
A: We had the impression that American commanders had their hands tied by political factors. Your generals could never deploy a maximum force for greatest military effect.
According to Tin, it was Nixon's breach of law during Watergate and subsequent resignation that boosted the morale of the NV. And Ford's inaction emboldened them.
His reference to the American commanders' hands being tied due to political considerations are references to US/Soviet relations, I believe.
I've never contended the military lost the Viet Nam war. I think they won it in fact. South Viet Nam lost the Viet Nam war. American goals weren't achieved, but that is not due to a defeat of our military.
I've cited and referenced the results of 3 separate studies that absolve the media of negatively influencing public opinion on Viet Nam, Toad. I didn't set out to find them, I just stumbled across them in my research on Tet. I don't blame you for not agreeing with them, since they run counter to your experience and conclusions. I'm OK with agreeing to disagree, and I will bear in mind that the issue is still contended.
This whole thing is causing me to re-evaluate the Right's reaction in light of their 'personal responsibility' mantra, though. To tell you the truth I never would've believed how quickly they jumped to blame someone else for their failures. I don't think Iraq is lost yet, so to me it's a little early for people to be looking for scapegoats. We'll just have to see where things are a year from now, after these extra troops have augmented the Baghdad forces. But I'll keep the lesson I learned about the Right this week for a long time.
-
I do disagree.
I'd say it is nonsense to say the media doesn't shape opinion. How do people form their opinions? The only information is from the media. You can't just sit and ponder Iraq with no input, no facts, no discussion.
People react to what they see, read and hear from the media. How else can it be? Seems self-evident.
-
Originally posted by john9001
you have a better plan? lets hear it mon general.
"My Plan" was never go into Iraq in the frist place ... now ... well I knew it would be a mess and you want 'me' to clean it up?
I guess I could give some idea's, but when you don't listen to people with the wisdom to see that protracted wars are bad...and ouccupation of Iraq would obviously be protracted...... I don't know what to say.... we can try , but even Sun Tzu would sigh....
Originally posted by luksterExactly. When half the country is sitting back the whole time moaning about this whole thing being "a bad idea" what do you expect the enemy to think? It emboldens and empowers them in believing we don't have the will to win.
Oh we have the will. But not when there is not a good reason. Why are we in Iraq agin? to pull potential terrorist recruits to Iraq instead of aginst the U.S mainland? To give the Iraqis freedom? (have you even heard of Darfur?) I say that's the thinking of a coward, or a war profiteer. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, in which we lost very little in comparison to the Iraq war. What is this war about agin? Oil?
Personaly I think of most people who talk as you, as cowards, but I won't call you names. Going to war is a brave venture, rightous or not.
Bush's biggest mistake was in not realizing we are a country of those who lack ideals, without the foresight or the will to see the war through. Shame on him and us.
A war about what? Why should we back any war, let alone this one, that some questionably elected, 'incompetent', draft dodging 'coward' thought of? Bush's reasons have been proven false--anyone with much sense of world events could have told you this in 2002. I don't belive it now, or back it then, so why should I back it now? Only reason I can think of is for the sake of the troops... IMO for the sake of the troops..... bring them home.
-
Do you know anything about the 102? Palace Alert? The 147th Fighter Group?
The base canards get tiresome.
Oh yeah... question.
If the Supreme Court had decided for Gore, would you then say Gore was "questionably elected"?
-
If the Supreme Court had decided for Gore, would you then say Gore was "questionably elected"?
====
hell ya! The cheaten bastidge! and just think, we would have waged a trillion dollar war against the two stroke engine....and lost :cry
-
Originally posted by Toad
I do disagree.
I'd say it is nonsense to say the media doesn't shape opinion. How do people form their opinions? The only information is from the media. You can't just sit and ponder Iraq with no input, no facts, no discussion.
People react to what they see, read and hear from the media. How else can it be? Seems self-evident.
I can see it now. The year is 2020 and America is envaded by Terroists, and home born terroists. They stike major cities with car bombs, and subway bombs, and shoot thousands on the streets. They've taking bases in New Mexico, where they are getting supplies threw the Mexican Border. America is at war, and everyone is defending freedom. Soon massive invasion of 600,000 National Guard soldiers and Army Troops raid New Mexico, and 200 troops are killed in action with 13,000 wounded. The media starts bashing the current president for not sending in enough troops to New Mexico because of 200 troops killed. New Mexico is now in American hands and the border is secured. Pockets of resistance still wounders New Mexico and bordering states. After two months of saving New Mexico 1,400 troops have died. The media starts saying we are loosing the war, and only shows car bombs, dead civilians, soldiers, and RPG attacks on homes and offices. What they don't show is a secure border, thousands of arrests on the border and supporters of the terroists, and progress in restoring New Mexico. Soon America starts leaning towards the media and now its been 2 years since the war in New Mexico, and 2,000 troops have died. Only 600 in 22 months. Soon the Reps loose the office and the dems are now in power. 1 month later troops are rushed out of New Mexico, and New Mexico falls into the hands of terroists. We lose New Mexico because the media wanted to make a profit and they didn't care how.
I can see this happening. To me it is happening now in Iraq. Yes we went to war with little troops, but we didn't think there be insurgents after Saddam was out of power. Yes we have lost troops, but since what 4 years of being in Iraq we have lost as much men as the first day of D-day landings on American beaches. Yes we have slacked off from sending in more troops, but people and nations make mistakes. It happens everyday but we don't see in on the news. Every time I watch the news its CNN, MSN, CBS that are bashing the war saying we are loosing, there killing us and we can't stop it. On the other hand Fox news is a little bit more supportive, saying we are making some progress, but at a high cost. I no longer listen to the news when it comes to Iraq. When the media says different things, I turly think its crap for profit. I just think alot of Americans don't understand the difference from fighting an enemy head on like the Civil War, or on big massive front lines like WW1/WW2. In Iraq its none of those. You are fighting an enemy hiding in civilian clothing. Theres no way an army can fight that. With the little troops we have, theres bigger gaps in locating insurgents. Its like the border. Not that many miles of fences covering the border, which means there bigger gaps, and the people we don't crossing, are crossing over at these gaps in our defense. More fencing means more protection. More soldiers means more protection for Iraqi civilians and coalition troops. Even with more troops, we well lose troops. Its war, and there well never be a war with no deaths. Who ever said war was easy. I say support our troops say YES WE CAN WIN! Shove that YES WE CAN in the insurgents faces and make them eat it, and then they well get the message that YES WE CAN WIN, AND WE WELL!
-
That is about as likely as America being invaded and terrorized by hordes of Icelandic fishermen led by Admiral Angus.
-
Originally posted by BluKitty
"My Plan" was never go into Iraq in the frist place
This would have been my plan, had I the intel that there were no WMD.
As far as war for oil, I thought that was the bootie. Plunder oil, etc.
We must brush up on our plundering.
Where's the Viking guy????
Regards,
hap
-
Originally posted by VooWho
Yes we went to war with little troops, but we didn't think there be insurgents after Saddam was out of power.
You fail to mention what an idiotic assumption that was on the part of the administration. This assumption that Thomas Jefferson was going to come to fill Saddams shoes and everything would be peachy. It was short sighted and foolish.
We are still in Germany 60 years later. We are still in Korea 50 years later. Wars don't clean themselves up and there are no 'quick' invasions. Clue in. We will still be in Iraq 10 years from now... Maybe more... But in 2003 GW sold you that we would sew this up in months, and you believed it. You ate the bait.
Yes we have lost troops, but since what 4 years of being in Iraq we have lost as much men as the first day of D-day landings on American beaches.
Ok, but what you FAIL to mention here is that the war in Iraq is now LONGER than the entire U.S. involvement in WWII. We conqured the whole damn pacific ocean and Europe in four years... But our current foolishness can't even get a grip on the freakin Anbar province. Thats the difference between a war done right and a war done wrong.
You are fighting an enemy hiding in civilian clothing. Theres no way an army can fight that.
You're right, there isn't. And its not like we only found out 3 days ago that they didn't have uniforms. Did they run onto United 93 wearing uniforms? No. We knew this was the case four years ago, but now the government says 'Oh, gosh, we never expected this'.... BULL. And you are eating that spin for breakfast.....
I say support our troops
[/b]
I say support them too.. But didn't you just say we can't win? Read back a paragraph before you say you didn't...
I do support our troops, they didn't ask for this. But I don't support what Washington is doing.
YES WE CAN WIN!
You just said we can't win because the bad guys won't wear uniforms... Make up your mind.
You keep letting Fox pump you full of spew... I know I'm not fooled.
-
Interesting thread.....
But I still think everyone here is over simplyfying the situation. I have read several articles recently on the power struggle going on in the Iraqi government - Shia / Sunni. It is pretty well acknowledged that some of the death squads are actually being run out of the interior ministry and the police and security forces are involved - example; recently UK troops stormed and destroyed a police station in Basra after concluding it was a death / torture centre.
We (the US and UK) are in the middle of a stoneage civil war. The majority democracy we beat our chests over creating will never work in Iraq while the local population is prepared to saw off the head of it's neighbour with a kitchen knife for being a different type of muslim.
There was a very interesting piece in Newsweek detailing the power base in Baghdad and how the US may even have to do a deal with Muqtada al-Sadr to bring him in to the politcal arena just to get some kind of peace.
Remember there has already been a considerable investment made in the rebuilding of the oil infrastruture of Iraq and I can't see that being simply abandoned. If the west pulls out then China will have absolutely no qualms about stepping in and dealing with whatever regime may follow.
400 billion already spent and much more to come - this isn't going to be thrown away. My personal opinion is we will see a US alignment behind the major power base - the Shia - with whatever deals necessary being made to stop the civil war between Shia factions (Al-Sadr and Maliki); the Sunni minority will be labeled the cause of the problem and be aligned to the main terrorist acts so that Iraqi government (Shia) suppression can be justified.
So the need for the 20,000 ? The power in the Shia majority is split between the government and Muqtada Al-Sada based in Sadr City - a no-go area for the US. For the government leaders to have full control Al-Sadr must be knocked down a peg or three. I think we will see an assault on Sadr City with the hope of forcing Al-Sadr to the table with Maliki in a postion of weakness so a favourable deal can be struck - note that already the position is that US forces will be in support of government forces - government forces already accused of sectarian crimes against Sunnis.
In summary this is nothing to do with the final establishment of a true majority democracy, this is a recognition of the failure and the beginning of the protection of an investment for the future.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Oh yeah... question.
If the Supreme Court had decided for Gore, would you then say Gore was "questionably elected"?
Yes ...and certainly if he had been stupid enough to drag us into this foolish war. I don't buy into this whole 'left' 'right' thing unlike many folks. I actually listen to what each person says, then call them morons :p
'
quote: Originally posted by BluKitty
"My Plan" was never go into Iraq in the frist place
Originally posted by Hap
This would have been my plan, had I the intel that there were no WMD.
Well if you were paying attention in 2002 there was pleanty of proof that Bush was full of 'it'. I didn't belive him then, and I wouldn't belive anything of the sort now.
-
Hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I do disagree.
I'd say it is nonsense to say the media doesn't shape opinion. How do people form their opinions? The only information is from the media. You can't just sit and ponder Iraq with no input, no facts, no discussion.
People react to what they see, read and hear from the media. How else can it be? Seems self-evident.
Coupla things about this. First, I think you're discounting personal experience. Viet Nam cost us over 350,000 killed, wounded and missing. A number that large touches a lot of people throughout the nation. Second, nobody likes a protracted war. Popular support is bound to drop over time.
Finally, if negative facts are reported by the media, and public opinion shifts negative - the I'd say it's the facts themselves and not the media that are influencing opinion (I'm thinking here of Abu Ghraib, Haditha, etc.) If you think the media's proper role is to suppress those facts, then we have a disagreement about the role of the media in a democracy.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Viet Nam cost us over 350,000 killed, wounded and missing.
The total U.S. deaths in Vietnam were about 21,000. Wounded counts are a huge percentage of your number. And not all wounds are grevious...
Chucking big numbers around without explaining them is the same way the media manipulates people's opinions.
-
21,000? No way. US deaths were almost 58,000.
Chucking wrong numbers around is the way people try to manipulate other people's opinions. ;)
-
Okay, let's chuck some numbers around...
There are only 26 milllion Iraqis and the average yearly income is now less than $100 per year. So far, the direct cost has been about $376 billion. The extended total cost is more than double that. That's about $30,000 for every man, woman and child in Iraq.
We've spent $120,000 for a family of four in Iraq and they're still making less than $100 per year with less water and electricity then they had before the war. Things aren't getting better and Americans and Iraqis continue to be killed and wounded. I don't know about you, but this seems like a bad deal to me.
I say we offer them $25,000 per person (I get to keep $5,000 per person because it's my idea) and withdraw the troops if they promise not to do again whatever it was they did in the first place.
We set up Walmarts, car dealerships, KFC and KrispyKreme donut places across Iraq so they have somewhere to spend the money. They'll become happy, well-fed consumers who will kick the living crap out any insurgents, politicians or dictator who tries to upset their golden apple cart.
You may think I'm being silly, but I think my plan has a better chance of success (however that's being defined this week) than the "New Way Forward in Iraq." Spilling more blood and money into the sands of Iraq is not a "New Way Forward."
-
Originally posted by Rolex
21,000? No way. US deaths were almost 58,000.
Chucking wrong numbers around is the way people try to manipulate other people's opinions. ;)
Kurt was a lot closer than oboe. The wounded included those like John Kerry.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
21,000? No way. US deaths were almost 58,000.
Chucking wrong numbers around is the way people try to manipulate other people's opinions. ;)
58,226 - now who is throwing bad numbers around? :aok
Yeah, sorry that was a partial number from earlier in the conflict, I was reading fast and grabbed a bad number... My bad, thanks for spotting it.
-
Going back to the remark earlier by VooHoo
You are fighting an enemy hiding in civilian clothing. Theres no way an army can fight that.
I still agree with this remark... And there is a great precedent... There was this big war once where one team wasn't really fond of wearing uniforms, and the other side wore bright red ones.
One team would hide in trees and in bell towers in civilian clothing and snipe those guys in the Red Coats.
It was the American Revolution, and the guys in the uniforms lost.
A war is won by the side that is willing to get the bloodiest... ALWAYS. America simply doesn't do that anymore. We could have, but Bush got distracted after Baghdad... Got over confident and foolishly believed that all the people in Iraq thought he was a great guy for blowing everything up...
Turns out he was mistaken. And now we are paying.
-
Here's where I got my Viet Nam numbers (http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html) . Yes, the wounded total was much more than KIA, and I probably should've broken that down.
After some more research, I do agree with Toad that the media can influence public opinion. The story on the Wm R Hearst's manipulation of public opinion prior to the Spanish-American War is documented. (http://www.humboldt.edu/~jcb10/spanwar.shtml) There are other more recent examples, too. My apologies, Toad.
I wouldn't go as far to say the press lost Viet Nam - not until I could refute the findings of the 3 studies I cited earlier. And I still hold that the media is only one of several factors that can influence public opinion.
The original question was whether our press influences the enemy's morale and emboldens him, and I still haven't found any evidence that supports that case.
I still think its important in a democracy for the media to report the facts objectively without suppression or censorship, and if those facts cause a drop in public opinion I do not blame the media.
Very interesting number-chucking, Rolex.
all.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I don't see anyone can think that the enemy/insurgents are not emboldened and encouraged by the way the media portrays the daily happenings in Iraq.
I'm not quite sure why so many of you believe that the way the American media portray the situation in Iraq has some kind of influence on the average terrorist or insurgent. They don't sit at home watching ABC or NBC or even CNN and read the Washington Post or the New York Times. The average Iraqi certainly doesn't. Most don't even speak English. They have their own media and their sources of information, usually biased and unreliable. Iraqis sees the situation for themselve on the streets around them. I imagine for the average Iraqi knew things were bad when Saddam was around. Then the Americans came and it got worse. They don't need to watch TV to see that.
The US media rightly or wrongly mostly effects the opinions of the American public. Even Fox News has trouble making the situation in Iraq look good these days.
I supported the original reasons for the war and even held to that opinion for a long time. Eventually I wavered and now feel that the whole bloody thing was badly mishandled by GWB and his pals.
I don't think sending more troops will solve the problem. You can send every US servicemand to Iraq and place them on every street corner and you won't solve the problem. But I do agree with one contributor. This will be an ongoing mess for at least the next ten years with or without American troops on the ground.
I wouldn't even presume to suggest a way forward. I suspect no one really knows what to do anymore.
-
OK, take away print and electronic media.
Then tell me how you or anyone else forms an opinion on events at a distant locale.
They don't.
So, from the inevitable acknowledgement that media does play a primary role in forming public opinion, can we agree that slanted news..either way... has a major effect on public opinion?
Also, I find it interesting that people point out that we've had troops in Germany and Japan for over 60 years and then point out that we've been in Iraq longer than we were involved in WW2 as if that is somehow a relevant or significant statistic. It totally is not.
Compare the length of involvement in WW2 where absolutely no holds were barred and nuclear weapons were used to force the surrender of the Japanese to a situation where almost every use of overwhelming force is proscribed. Remember, for a while our troops couldn't shoot at a mosque even when they were taking fire from said mosque. In WW2, that mosque would have been a pile of rubble ASAP. And any crowd rioting against the troops that did that would have become targets themselves. It was total war. TOTAL war. Iraq is not remotely a total war.
I think the difference was that post war Germany and Japan were countries that had been reduced to nothingness; their societies had been destroyed. On top of that there were troops on every street corner and they'd obliterate any sign of opposition without having to call higher HQ and ask "Mother, may I?".
Beyond that, if you're going to use the "60 years" comparison...we have a long time to go in Iraq then don't we?
It's is so different that it's beyond "apples and oranges". Maybe more like "apples and extraterrestial life forms".
Rolex, you've just recycled the Marshall plan. You don't get a 50% commission on a recycled idea. You'll have to settle for maybe 10% and of course Marshall's heirs should get a cut too.
-
All this talk of you being at war .... who with specifically ??
We are NOT in a war and comparison with Vietnam are largely irrelavent. I Vietnam you had pert of the population with you and part against and to some extent a drawn fighting front with enemy territory and freindly territory.
We are in the middle of a civil war trying to act as referee. A civil war we created by entering into a conflict with no clear exit strategy. This has nothing, zero, nahdah to do with the war on terror - that is going on in Afghanistan. This is all about strategic power and influence.
Toad is right about the media and it's influence - look at this thread and see how many people are still buying into the crap about fighting terrorist insurgents - as if Al-Queda is the main enemy force. The Sunni factions and Shia factions BOTH want the US and UK out of the way so they can take the fight to their main rivals - each other. THAT is why our troops are getting killed. GWB hoped that democratic elections would stabilise the country; they didn't and never will in our lifetimes - no majority Islamic country is democratic. Now the realisation is we must pick a side and GWB has done that by siding with the Shia side of the government.
-
Sure they can still form opinions, Toad. Apart from media, word of mouth from friends, relatives who come back or write letters certainly have an impact.
I know a guy who served early on in Iraq, as part of the 3rd Division, which was the tip of the spear into Baghdad. He tells everyone he talks to about his experiences there, and they aren't happy stories. He talks about how creepy special forces guys were; how the regular guys tend to steer clear of them; they are pretty much operate independently. He told me about an Iraqi bus they (the SF) had gunned down and how they stood around laughing and taking pictures of the carnage and corpses. His opinion of the war, and the stories he related influenced my opinion. When I tell people I know about him, it may influence their opinion too.
Completely apart from the media.
I think its possible for the media to have a major impact on public opinion by slanting the news reported, but I think its temporary and the truth eventually will come out. As someone noted previously, even Fox is having trouble making the War sound good nowadays.
-
Hem-haw all you like Oboe.
The overwhelming vast majority of the people in the US form their opinions from what they read, hear and see from the print and electronic media.
People with first-hand knowledge are a tiny minority and usually their views are discarded if those views conflict with an opinion already formed from media information. For example, if I arranged an interview for you with a returning serviceman that said we're winning, I have no doubt you'd find a way to disregard his input.
People with second-hand knowledge (friends who have been there) are again a minority that may perhaps modify in some small degree the views they have already formed from/with media input. You are one example; I'm sure you accept the views of your friend that reinforce your already held opinion and discount the info he supplies that conflicts.
Like it or not, our nationally held views are in large part formed by the media. You're aware of McLuhan, right? He's generally acknowledged as the first guy to try to understand the effects of technology as it related to popular culture. One of his observations was "we become what we behold".
Think McLuan didn't have it right?
-
Oh Kurt what I ment by an Army can't fight a war when the enemy is hiding in civilian clothing, is that its harder to know who is enemy and who is not. I didn't mean to make it say we well lose the war because of this, I ment to say it well be harder to fight a war like this, but we still have a chance at winning even when the enemy hides under a different skin.
-
1 - If the mainstream media has that much sway and power over the minds of the masses then how the devil did Bush get re-elected in 2004? Other than FauxNews, Neocon-Radio and the "Swiftboat Vets for Rove" cronies the media was pretty much anti-Bush.
2 - "Hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20" is rubbish. There was no small minority of voices in 2002 and 2003 saying the Iraq invasion was wrong and based on shaky evidence and transparent reasoning.
-
Originally posted by Westy
1 - If the mainstream media has that much sway and power over the minds of the masses then how the devil did Bush get re-elected in 2004? Other than FauxNews, Neocon-Radio and the "Swiftboat Vets for Rove" cronies the media was pretty much anti-Bush.
In fact, how did the Democrats lose TWICE to Bush?
First, they ran candidates that were even more poor than Bush. Gore didn't even carry his home state; the first major party presidential candidate to have lost his home state since George McGovern lost South Dakota in 1972.
Second, Fox was the top rated news channel (most watched) during both of those elections. Still is.
-
Originally posted by Westy
1 - If the mainstream media has that much sway and power over the minds of the masses then how the devil did Bush get re-elected in 2004? Other than FauxNews, Neocon-Radio and the "Swiftboat Vets for Rove" cronies the media was pretty much anti-Bush.
Well, lets not forget that the Dems but forward Frankenstein.
But really, I think the media tried to go SO over the top anti-bush, and the Dems jumped right on the wagon with them, that it became a little offensive so the Dems lost votes.
Lately both parties are guilty of simply trying to scare the public away from the other. The Republicans were basically saying in 2006 that if the Dems got control of Congress the whole damn world would end and dogs and cats would join together to rule us etc etc. And on the flip side of the coin, you have the Dems trying so hard to villify the Repubs, just yesterday Pelosi was trying to ask Condi Rice a perfectly legit question of "What analysis has been done to lead the Administration to believe 20k more troops will help" -- But she got so damn tied up trying to be as anti-republican about the phrasing of the question that it basically became a personal tirade and an embarrasment. Worse yet, it was so badly stated that Condi was able to side-step the question altogether and instead treat it as a personal insult (which in quite certain it was).
Both parties are trying so hard to get everyone to hate the other party that nothing is getting done anyhow. Until someone in our government decides to govern, we're screwed no matter who is in the White House.
-
Bush can't win this war and he knows it!He's in a lose lose situation; if he pulls out their will be chaos and massive bloodshed for which he will justly be blamed,if he carrys on although he can't win,by the time he leaves office,he'll be able to spread the blame and leave others to clean up his mess.
Bush has no qualms about the young americans he's sending out there,some of which will die.Lets face it.during the other US disaster Vietnam-which the british had the good sense to stay out of- Bush was defending the hostile skys over Texas,and Blairs only experience of war comes from hollywood and TV.
The only thing sadder than Bush Blair and their catastrophic war,are the fools who continue to support them.
God help us all.
-
Originally posted by Hazzer
Bush was defending the hostile skys over Texas,and Blairs only experience of war comes from hollywood and TV.
Another denigrator of the Air National Guard.
You're saying the Guard didn't have a necessary mission?
You're saying the 102 was a piece of cake to fly?
You're saying the 147th Fighter Group didn't serve?
You're saying Palace Alert was not really serving?
I guess you're saying any US soldier that didn't/doesn't carry a rifle in Vietnam/Iraq is not worthy of repect?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Another denigrator of the Air National Guard.
You're saying the Guard didn't have a necessary mission?
You're saying the 102 was a piece of cake to fly?
You're saying the 147th Fighter Group didn't serve?
You're saying Palace Alert was not really serving?
I guess you're saying any US soldier that didn't/doesn't carry a rifle in Vietnam/Iraq is not worthy of repect?
:huh
Talk about reading into something... jeesh. He said BUSH was in Texas.. He did not say the the ANG never did anything or that it was useless.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Hem-haw all you like Oboe.
The overwhelming vast majority of the people in the US form their opinions from what they read, hear and see from the print and electronic media.
People with first-hand knowledge are a tiny minority and usually their views are discarded if those views conflict with an opinion already formed from media information. For example, if I arranged an interview for you with a returning serviceman that said we're winning, I have no doubt you'd find a way to disregard his input.
People with second-hand knowledge (friends who have been there) are again a minority that may perhaps modify in some small degree the views they have already formed from/with media input. You are one example; I'm sure you accept the views of your friend that reinforce your already held opinion and discount the info he supplies that conflicts.
Like it or not, our nationally held views are in large part formed by the media. You're aware of McLuhan, right? He's generally acknowledged as the first guy to try to understand the effects of technology as it related to popular culture. One of his observations was "we become what we behold".
Think McLuan didn't have it right?
I don't understand the hem-haw reference, so I'll not address that. You stated that without print and electronic media, people do not form opinions of far off events. I addressed it with what I thought was a valid response and provided an example to back it up.
I agree that we all have a tendency to accept information which reinforces our opinions and discount that which conflicts. Some more than others. But you are wrong that I would 'discard' it. It hangs around and if I eventually collect enough contrary evidence my opinion will change (as it did in this very thread in my argument with you about the influence of the press on pubic opinion). I try to be skeptical but not close-minded.
I'm not very familiar with McLuhan, but I don't disagree in general with the principle 'we become what we behold'. I won't say more until I've had a chance to become more familiar with him.
-
"how did the Democrats lose TWICE to Bush?..."
I agree the Democrats put up candidates that were no better than what the Republicans had to offer. IMO the Republicans were worse given the track record of the prior four years. The Swiftvet puppets and Rove's "Fear, Smear & Anti-queer" campaign was as ugly as Kerry and his record were.
However IMO it was Rove and his campaign style that won the elections for Bush (all the way back to being governer in Texas). IMO it had little to nothing to do with Fox News. For if they are indeed numero uno and a counter-poise to the liberal MSM (every time I've watched Fox they've consistently come off as Republican Party mouthpiece) how could the Democrats capture control of Congress and the "war" be losing support?
IMO the "MSM" (liberal or conservative aligned) does not hold as much sway over the outcome of things such as elections, legislature or if there is popular backing of a war as some would like to try and make it seem. I think people will choose the path of least resistance. They do not think too deep, fail to ask many "why" questions however when they get bitten they'll retaliate and try to "edumicate" themselves on the candidates, issues and just what the truth is - or enough to cast doubt on statements and inuendo being slung about. . IMO we'll see smarter elections for a while and then the majority will go back to being sheep. rinse, repeat..... ad nauseum
"both parties are guilty of simply trying to scare the public away from the other."
Well. That's gone on since the 1780's in US politics. However IMO the level of despicable methods reached a new high-water mark over the last 16-20 years. That and much more of course is why I have not voted for either a Rep or Dem party candidate in the last three presidential elections.
(p.s. Off to Lowe's. Good luck trying to change each others minds... :D )
-
Most other soldiers don't start wars based on Lies,nor are they profligate with their comrades lives.This was not an attack on the ANG.It WAS an attack on your and my glorious Leaders.
Britain has been fighting Terrorist/freedon fighters in a conflict of it's own making for over thirty years!!!we never won!!and the peace agreement would not have been helped by sending in more troops!
But that parochial little affair does not have the dire global consequences of,Bush and Blairs little jolly in Iraq.
Apologies to anyone who served in the ANG this most certainly was not aimed at you.
Nor is it an attack on the American people,whom I have always found most warm and generous,as these boards often show.:aok
-
Originally posted by Kurt
:huh
Talk about reading into something... jeesh. He said BUSH was in Texas.. He did not say the the ANG never did anything or that it was useless.
No, what he said was
was defending the hostile skys over Texas,
What implication do you take from the totally unnecessary addition of "hostile"?
-
Originally posted by oboe
I don't understand the hem-haw reference, so I'll not address that. You stated that without print and electronic media, people do not form opinions of far off events. I addressed it with what I thought was a valid response and provided an example to back it up.
Would you form an opinion on Iraq based soley on the comments of returning soldiers that you personally know?
I don't think so; you're main input is the media and I think you realize it is your primary reference for forming an opinion. That opinion may or may not be modified by returning soldiers you personally know, but the media is your primary source of information.
There was a time when news reporters strove to be impartial; they had poker faces when delivering the best or worst news. That time ended with Walter Cronkite's 1968 comment that the US was losing in VietNam. It was a slow deterioration but I doubt anyone really thinks impartiality is a primary goal in any network newsroom. ANY newsroom.
-
Originally posted by Westy
how could the Democrats capture control of Congress and the "war" be losing support?
Fox hasn't been too supportive of Bush or the Republican Congress over the last two years. They've been critical of them both. Not as critical as the other media but they have pointed out mistakes and errors.
And it isn't so much about changing minds; it's pointing out that there are other interpretations.
-
Originally posted by john9001
yes they are,how else would they know if they are "winning" the war, and don't call me Shirley.
Watching CNN requires some sort form of electricity, a commodity in increasingly short supply since the golden age of the US occupation began. One Iraqi from Najaf was saying this week how he'd had no electricity for the last four days, so no CNN for him -- I doubt they're going to waste what little TV time they have on a pro-US propaganda-riddled foreign-language news channel. They'll be watching Al Jazeera or Al Arabiya if they're watching at all, or maybe Al Hurrah if they want a good laugh.
-
Originally posted by Hazzer
Most other soldiers don't start wars based on Lies,nor are they profligate with their comrades lives.This was not an attack on the ANG.It WAS an attack on your and my glorious Leaders.
[/b]
Do you have a single shred of proof that they lied? Remember that the intelligence services of most other interested countries said they had WMD.
Other nations' intelligence services were similarly aligned with U.S. views. Somewhat remarkably, given how adamantly Germany would oppose the war, the German Federal Intelligence Service held the bleakest view of all, arguing that Iraq might be able to build a nuclear weapon within three years.
Israel, Russia, Britain, China, and even France held positions similar to that of the United States; France's President Jacques Chirac told Time magazine last February, "There is a problem—the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right ... in having decided Iraq should be disarmed." In sum, no one doubted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
So was it "lies"? Or just bad intel from the US, Germany, Israel, Russia, Britain, China and France?
Britain has been fighting Terrorist/freedon fighters in a conflict of it's own making for over thirty years!!!we never won!!and the peace agreement would not have been helped by sending in more troops!
Don't take this as an attack on the British or Great Britain but your problems with Irish terrorists had the same root cause as the trouble in Iraq. The easiest solution to all is probably to reset the national boundaries as close as possible to where they were before colonialism and let things work themselves out. Wonder why you didn't take that course in Ireland? If you had, we could probably use it in Iraq.
-
Why doesn't the US military simply vacate the city? Withdraw to the pipeline and draw a line near al-Nasiryah and simply hold down the oil fields? Let the roaming death squads in the city from Sunni/Shia factions rip each other apart and tear the city to shreds? At this point, what US interest is there in the city itself?
Let's look at what the Bush admin really thinks, when the get the breifings they listen to from Wolfiwitz and the AEI. Most of the 9/11 attackers were Saudi, Osama is Saudi, the Bush family has deep ties with the Saudis. the Saudis control 24% of the world's oil reserves, however - Iraq has at least 12% and perhaps much much more. That's all we want - these religious matters are simply tools at the US disposal. We want to be free of the Saudi power, we're tired of their influence and we want the royal family dead and direct control of fields by the oil companies. We're tired of the Chinese and Russian oil blocks buying up interest in fields, and the Saudis playing east vs. west. Screw that, that oil is ours. France and the EU can go suck dust, or start doing the electric car - the US of A wants that crude to ease down the dependance on foreign oil slowly. Our run rate is much higher.
Let's blockade the Gulf entrance and start spending the money to start new wells and drill, pump and remove as fast as we can. Increase the US strategic oil reserve capacity by a factor of 4 - start building massive holding tanks in Alaska. Just pump the damn country dry. Most of the wells are in the desert, anybody who approaches without a US transponder gets a M1 tank round in the windshield.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilMap.pdf
We need to pump the country dry as quickly as possible. The US went into Kurdish city and captured some Iranians who are organizing the terror. those bastards are funneling IEDs in and weapons. So are the Syrians.
In Bush's speech night before last, he mentioned bringing new Patriot missiles in. You doon't use those against insurgents. He's worried about the Iranians firing missiles into the conflict. He's sending a message. Go read the speech transcript if you don't think so, when he gets to the part about the Patriot missiles.
This is a gambit to stop the control and influence the Saudi government has by controlling so much oil. This is a gambit to break OPEC, and get the damn crude. So - let's move the army to open areas - not urban areas - and secure the stuff and get contractors in there to start as many wells and running as many barrels out of there as possible. The tanker trucks need checkpoints and driver screening, spend the money there.
20,000 troops on top of 130,000 isn't going to cut it if we just stick them into street warfare. I'm tired of the IEDs and sniping, we need to open up ranges and get out of the city. Spend some cash on RFID tags, and start using gunships to wipe out cars on certain roads who dont have them.
Read the accounts of retaking Fallujah. The intensity of the urban combat. Baghdad will be even harder to reclaim streets and start marching into Mosques and arresting clerics and insurgents. The hell with it, just burn the city - let the blood run from the gutters - we need to move south and take what we came for.
if the Iranians oppose our ships in the Gulf, or if they get snarky and try and attack us with terror - I say we use tactical nukes on their nuclear power plant facility. It may be hardened and mostly underground, but it doesn't do much good if anybody who approaches the area dies from radiation poisoning. Light that mountain range up so hot that Chernobyl looks like a resort community - turn the entire area into a microwave oven. because if you think for one moment that as soon as Chalabi figures out how to use that depleted urnaium and make a bomb, he's gonna stick that thing into a pickup truck and drive it to Baghdad and light the fuse. We have to stop him before it gets there.
The Cold War is over, global nuclear proliferation has begun. it's time to hot war the Muslim world now, before Islamofascism gets the bomb. Meanwhile, we need that oil and the damn city of Baghdad can burn to the ground for all we care.
-
John Kerry was "wounded" three times, does that count as three men wounded when they do the stats?
there is no "war" in iraq, just some terrorists blowing up cars because they know if they blow up enough cars the bad americans will go home.
-
Originally posted by Toad So was it "lies"? Or just bad intel from the US, Germany, Israel, Russia, Britain, China and France?
My understanding that up to a chronological point, "bad intel" was the culprit.
After that point, more of a sales job.
Best profile/digest I've seen of it, and I'm probably going to get it wrong, but it'll ring a bell, a PBS, Frontline, is it? Maybe not, but an available online for free, show that aired on TV, detailing the reiterterating theme of WMD after the Administration began getting intel that such was not the case and desired other intel to back up their cause.
Regards,
hap
p.s. Yes, it is Frontline.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline//////
I dont' know which piece though. Maybe "Rumsfeld's War."
-
Maybe if Blair had studied his own countrys history he could have directed Bush to this by T.E. Lawrence published in the times in August 1920.
" the people of england have been led in Mesopotamia(Iraq) into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honour.They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information.The Baghdad communiques are belated,insincere,incomplete.Things,have been far worse than we have been told,our administration more bloody and inefficient than the public knows...We are today not far from disaster."
Politicians never change!I have vowed never to vote positivley again since voting for that messianic fantasist Blair!
Like my father said "you can always tell an honest politican....he's the one with the pink bowler hat".
-
Originally posted by Westy
2 - "Hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20" is rubbish. There was no small minority of voices in 2002 and 2003 saying the Iraq invasion was wrong and based on shaky evidence and transparent reasoning.
The Senate voted in favor for the invasion of Iraq. So much for the "no small minority of voices in 2002/03 saying the Iraq invasion was wrong and based on shaky evidence and transparent reasoning."
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237
-
The average Iraqi or other camel jockey does not have to watch TV to know that America is sharply divided over our presence in Iraq. It takes only their leaders to know what's going on here for it to then be wide spread knowledge. Does anyone here really think these guys don't know what's going?
-
I'd agree with that. The average Iraqi or camel jockey knows more about what's going on than the average American or redneck cowboy. :p
-
Rolex, there's nothing I've read off the O'Club boards over time that would suggest you got that one wrong.
Anyone been reading the Iraqi boards?
Regards,
hap
-
Iraq is the modern generations' Vietnam. I'm just thankfull that the draft is long gone.
Is there really any question as to how this war is going to end? The U.S. will pull out, and Iraq will end up like Somalia.
-
You know Hap, I'm a fairly level-headed guy who doesn't get mad about too many things. Life is pretty darn good for those of us who have clean water, food, medicine and money.
After an unusual week of being trapped in meetings with some handsomehunkes, my glass of patience was empty and it showed. I'd had enough of the obsessive people here who tediously inject irrelevant, political obsessions into any topic.
What in the hell does John Kerry have to do with how many people were killed or wounded in Vietnam? In a normal situation, we'd walk away from a wild-eyed lunatic on the street spewing random political rants into any conversation.
And what in the hell does "Iraqis or other camel jockeys" add to a discussion? Why not just say "Iraqis?"
I think the topic was started in good faith to have a discussion and many people have tried to keep it a discussion, but the "griefer network" always shows up to try to bring everything down to their level. I swear, the internet proves day after day that the planet is infested with handsomehunkes and people in need of medication and counseling to control their obsession to turn everything into a Democrat-Republican, left-right, red-blue spitting match.
Most of the time I just read and laugh. Every once in a while, I sit with my elbows perched on my desk, chin resting in my hands, staring at the monitor thinking, "Wow. How in the world do some of these people get jobs?"
Whew. I feel better now. :)
-
griefer networking:O:O:aok:aok:aok:rofl:rofl:rofl:noid :noid
-
Rolex,
Many times after reading one of your posts I've thought, "Man, I'm glad somebody said that, and put it that well."
Hap, where are "the Iraqi boards"?
-
Originally posted by VermGhost
The Senate voted in favor for the invasion of Iraq. So much for the "no small minority of voices in 2002/03 saying the Iraq invasion was wrong and based on shaky evidence and transparent reasoning."
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237
Really? I didn't know that the entire US population, to say nothing of the populations of France, Germany, Russia etc. had a seat in the US Senate. Plenty of people, yes even the majority of people in the western world warned about this, and their foresight was 20/20.
It hurts doesn't it? The French were right. So much for the "freedom fries" idiocy.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Hap, where are "the Iraqi boards"?
I don't know. But they must exist. Their version of us?
Regards,
hap
-
Many times I've read Rolex's posts and thought does anyone really buy this attempt at spin. Looks like there are indeed a few.
And btw, I'm not the one that brought the large number of wounded in Vietnam into this discussion but was only pointing out that not all of those wounded suffered serious wounds which brought to mind one very prominent case. Camel jockey is no more disparaging than redneck which is bandied about quite freely here. However, since it appears to offend the delicate and PC sensitivity of some, I'll refrain from being so calloused.
-
Oddly.. we all seem to be thinking in a very straight line here... Perhaps it is the sensationalized only news we hear. The plan is not just about sending more troops. There are deadlines and goals to meet by the iraqis.
I was listening to the deputy prime minister of iraq and their ambassador on, of all things, NPR.
The NPR guy seemed to be disapointed in the conversation... I don't think he would have settled for anything less than the iraqis saying that they hated us and wanted us gone and that they all wanted the sadman back.
What was really being said was that the iraqis realized that this was their last chance to get it together and that they needed to work a lot faster toward this goal... they also said that they can not do it without some help from us for the next few years.. they realize that they have goals to meet and strangely... they admitted that they were being politicians for the last few years and doing more to prop up their power than to get things done.
I don't know how it will all work out but if they do start meeting some goals we might see things turn around pretty rapidly.
I have a feeling that a lot of guys here would be unhappy if that happened tho.
lazs
-
I didn't care for Dennis Miller much in the 80's but he's growing on me.
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player06.html?011207/011207_hc_miller&Hannity_Colmes&Real%20Free%20Speech&acc&Opinion&-1&Opinion&164&&&new
-
Originally posted by lukster
Camel jockey is no more disparaging than redneck which is bandied about quite freely here. However, since it appears to offend the delicate and PC sensitivity of some, I'll refrain from being so calloused.
I think you're over reacting. Speaking for myself, some of the opinions expressed here are just so bizarre that they are beyond the pale. It's like watching "Lord of the Flies" except the kids are now pot-bellied middle aged nuts-o's.
Anyway, "name calling" always encourages me to take what a person says less seriously rather than make me perk up and think, "now this person has something to say, and I want to pay attention."
Except when the adjective nuts-o is used. :cool:
FWIW
hap
-
I just found that NPR interview on their website and listened to it. Here is the link. (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6827975) The transcript is available on the same page.
I must not be as perceptive a listener as Laz- I wasn't able to detect the disappointment in the interviewer's voice or discern his unspoken wish that the Iraqi DPM admit a hatred for the U.S. and a desire to have Saddam back. Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih is a Kurd, so it seems unlikely to me that he would want to live under Saddam Hussein again.
Salih is an impressive figure - educated in England, he has a BS in Civil Engineering, an MS in Computer Modelling and PhD in Oceanography.
I think Laz's summary of the DPMs comments is pretty fair account - that up to now the politicians were just being politicians. Looking over some of his answers I'd say their still being politicians. I was disappointed he didn't get a sense that they were on a timeline to show progress, and he really stepped around the issue of telling us whether the Iraqi government was in favor of the additional troops.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
.. they also said that they can not do it without some help from us for the next few years.. lazs
They're screwed then.
They'll be getting the same support from the 110th Congress that the South Vietnamese got from the 93rd Congress.
In December 1974, the Democratic majority in Congress passed the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974, which cut off all military funding to the South Vietnamese government and made unenforceable the peace terms negotiated by Nixon.
-
Bush has said he has made his decision and he is going forward with the deployment (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070114/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq), no matter what Congress says or does.
National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley says once the troops are in harm's way (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/washington/15troopscnd.html?_r=1&ei=5094&en=ca5e605433444629&hp=&ex=1168837200&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1168866187-08Kevs9FKH3A9o6/e9mGmw), Congress will support them. (I assume he's referring to the Democrat's aversion to cutting funding this time, as opposed to what they did in 1974).
So the administration's thinking here is apparently to get these additional troops into harm's way as quickly as possible.
-
When asked if the White House was ignoring the will of the American people, Cheney said no president worth his salt would make big decisions based on polls. "You cannot simply stick your finger up in the wind and say, 'Gee, public opinion's against; we'd better quit."
I think about half of the people in this country are trying to eliminate their salt intake.
-
America does not have the stomach and in the end we will lose
good news is that in 20 to 30 years, jobs will be outsourced here from around the world for $10.00 an hour and Mexico will have the illegal immigrant issue as we head south to greener pastures ...
-
Originally posted by Eagler
America does not have the stomach and in the end we will lose
good news is that in 20 to 30 years, jobs will be outsourced here from around the world for $10.00 an hour and Mexico will have the illegal immigrant issue as we head south to greener pastures ...
So you've joined the "Blame America First" crowd and given up.
-
Originally posted by oboe
So you've joined the "Blame America First" crowd and given up.
Weak spin there oboe, too much elbow.
I think you understand he is saying that without the will to succeed in Iraq we most certainly will fail.
-
failure is guaranteed in Iraq. the american people voted for failure. Its called the 110th congress.
-
This is like saying any Joe off the street can successfully fly a plane with just the will to succeed.
I think it's pretty clear that a plan and a little training are needed. Quit blaming the people who are pointing out the lack of a decent strategy or implementation and start looking at the real culprit.
It sure sounds like some of you are accusing the American people of a lack of resolve in carrying out a bad idea, when a resolve in carrying out a bad idea is kinda like the definition of insanity. I don't think most of us are insane.
-
oboe... I can't think of the question but the interviewer definetly whined a few times and tried to lead the interview. Perhaps our different political orientation makes us see it differently.
NPR did redeem itself tho as I knew they would. After not getting the doom and gloom and hate for the US that they wanted from the people in power in iraq.... they went to old npr/socialist never fail standby.... they interviewed some arab professor...
He delivered... he told em that everything would be fine if we had not interfered and that no one wanted us and that no good was done.. he did stop a little short of saying that the sadman and shieks were the very best thing for the region but... not much short.
I have allways thought it odd that no iraqi politicians seem to be interviewed and asked what they want or how they think things are going...
The whole thing seems weird... like only westerners and hairsprayed anchorpeople have any opinion with the occassional retired general or military man here and there and way too many American politicians that couldn't find iraq on a map telling us what we should or, mostly, shouldn't do.
I can't listen to NPR without talking back... It is crap. If they interview a lefty they lead him and throw him softballs and don't bother to question (except retoricaly) even the strangest statements he makes... they are like straight men in a comedy routine. fawning and pandering to the worst the west has to offer.
listened to em talking to a democrat who is trying to kill the subsidies (tax breaks) for oil companies. the guy didn't say one truthful thing...not one. He never once mentioned that it would raise the price of gas and that it would create another big government agency that would cost us money and do nothing. Not once. He said that Amercicans had to drive 15 mpg cars because the automakers fight cafe standards... like we can't allready buy any car we want getting anywhere from 15 mpg (on the very lowest end) to 40 or more...
It is just so dishonest a radio station... it would not exist without the government propping it up. I don't mind that they are far left so much as them pretending to not be.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
oboe... I can't think of the question but the interviewer definetly whined a few times and tried to lead the interview. Perhaps our different political orientation makes us see it differently.
NPR did redeem itself tho as I knew they would. After not getting the doom and gloom and hate for the US that they wanted from the people in power in iraq.... they went to old npr/socialist never fail standby.... they interviewed some arab professor...
He delivered... he told em that everything would be fine if we had not interfered and that no one wanted us and that no good was done.. he did stop a little short of saying that the sadman and shieks were the very best thing for the region but... not much short.
I have allways thought it odd that no iraqi politicians seem to be interviewed and asked what they want or how they think things are going...
The whole thing seems weird... like only westerners and hairsprayed anchorpeople have any opinion with the occassional retired general or military man here and there and way too many American politicians that couldn't find iraq on a map telling us what we should or, mostly, shouldn't do.
I can't listen to NPR without talking back... It is crap. If they interview a lefty they lead him and throw him softballs and don't bother to question (except retoricaly) even the strangest statements he makes... they are like straight men in a comedy routine. fawning and pandering to the worst the west has to offer.
listened to em talking to a democrat who is trying to kill the subsidies (tax breaks) for oil companies. the guy didn't say one truthful thing...not one. He never once mentioned that it would raise the price of gas and that it would create another big government agency that would cost us money and do nothing. Not once. He said that Amercicans had to drive 15 mpg cars because the automakers fight cafe standards... like we can't allready buy any car we want getting anywhere from 15 mpg (on the very lowest end) to 40 or more...
It is just so dishonest a radio station... it would not exist without the government propping it up. I don't mind that they are far left so much as them pretending to not be.
lazs
Well, that's why I posted a link to both the interview and transcript. I just didn't hear what you heard. (Which is interesting in light of Toad's and McLuhan's contention that the media is a strong force for shaping opinion - here you and I listened to the same exact story and came away with different impressions). To be blunt, I think your political fanaticism colored what you heard.
Regarding the Arab professor interviewed, many people would say that presenting interviewees with opposing viewpoints is an effort toward balanced journalism. Your explanation has a hint of paranoia to it.
Studies have shown that NPR listeners have a more accurate view of news events than the public at large. And this quote is from a study on Media Bias done by a UCLA professor:
Yet another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom relates to National Public Radio, often cited by conservatives as an egregious example of a liberal news outlet. But according to the UCLA-University of Missouri study, it ranked eighth most liberal of the 20 that the study examined.
"By our estimate, NPR hardly differs from the average mainstream news outlet," Groseclose said. "Its score is approximately equal to those of Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report and its score is slightly more conservative than The Washington Post's. If anything, government‑funded outlets in our sample have a slightly lower average ADA score (61), than the private outlets in our sample (62.8)."
My advice to you is to just stop listening, if it bothers you so much. Find a FOX news affiliate in your area. The news and views presented there should be more agreeable to you. Life is too short to get yourself upset about stuff like that.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
This is like saying any Joe off the street can successfully fly a plane with just the will to succeed.
I think it's pretty clear that a plan and a little training are needed. Quit blaming the people who are pointing out the lack of a decent strategy or implementation and start looking at the real culprit.
It sure sounds like some of you are accusing the American people of a lack of resolve in carrying out a bad idea, when a resolve in carrying out a bad idea is kinda like the definition of insanity. I don't think most of us are insane.
The people who have decried our presence there from the beginning may get their wish for us to be out of there, damn the consequences. They will be, at least in part, responsible for our failure to institute democracy there much as they were in Vietnam.
Whether you want to name our attempt there "insane" or a "bad idea" is up to you but you cannot deny that those unwilling to stay the course will share the repsonsiblity and the consequences of our failure.
-
Originally posted by lukster
They will be, at least in part, responsible for our failure to institute democracy there much as they were in Vietnam.
The goal of "instituing democracy" is a wrong headed goal for America. So said Candidate Bush in his debates with Vice President Gore during their exchange on the topic of foreign policy and "nation building" specifically. Which is straight out of the Republican foreign policy playbook. One with which I agree.
If the response be "well, that's what America does" that's wrong. And don't comapre WW2 with this "war."
If the respons be, "well, that's what America should do," well, that's really wrong.
Read Pat Buchanan's Where the Right Went Wrong. I've never been an all out fan of Pat's politics, and some of his opinions I do not share with equivalent vigor. However, he got so much right in that book, it's very much worth a read for those interested in world politics.
You can get it free from your library. There are no pictures though.
Regards,
hap
-
Originally posted by Hap
You can get it free from your library. There are no pictures though.
Regards,
hap
:rofl :rofl :rofl
shamus
-
The reasons for failure in Iraq are many, but the primary reason is the unmitigated incompetence of the current administration. When Gen. Shinseki said he needed several hundred thousand troops, it wasn't just a wish. He didn't need them to defeat the Iraqi army, but to maintain order and "win the peace." But as with most things in this administration, anything worth doing is worth doing half-assed.
What would have taken 300.000 to 400,000 troops initially would likely require close to a million now. The rifts between the three primary factions are so deep now that it will take decades to smooth over, either through understanding and diplomacy, or the last faction left standing wins. The current situation is unfixable without putting a squad at every street corner and shooting anything that remotely looks like it is unfriendly. That, or arm everyone and fall back to the borders to contain the blood bath.
-
It sure sounds like some of you are accusing the American people of a lack of resolve
====
The majority of americans supported this thing when it started, the majority dont now that it has become complicated and challenging.
yeah....I feel very good calling that a lack of resolve.
We deserve failure and the resulting insecurity that brings. But its ok. Because the next go round will cost +100,000 americans their lives, then we can get back on track and maybe, just maybe finnish this thing.
-
Originally posted by Hap
The goal of "instituing democracy" is a wrong headed goal for America. So said Candidate Bush in his debates with Vice President Gore during their exchange on the topic of foreign policy and "nation building" specifically. Which is straight out of the Republican foreign policy playbook. One with which I agree.
If the response be "well, that's what America does" that's wrong. And don't comapre WW2 with this "war."
If the respons be, "well, that's what America should do," well, that's really wrong.
Read Pat Buchanan's Where the Right Went Wrong. I've never been an all out fan of Pat's politics, and some of his opinions I do not share with equivalent vigor. However, he got so much right in that book, it's very much worth a read for those interested in world politics.
You can get it free from your library. There are no pictures though.
Regards,
hap
I'll ignore the insult and simply ask why this war should not be compared to WWII? It does in fact bear many similarities including resistance at the outset by many Americans.
-
I can still see like my post earlier. We are going to get invaded by someone, or people from within and in a 2 year war, we lose 2,000 troops, and the enemy loses 30,000 and the American people say lets give up.
To me these days America seems to be giving up. People give up in school, people give up good health just to do drugs over a long period of time just so they can feel good, people give up on dieting because they just can't say NO JUNK FOOD in there head. People now in America give up in every conflict America goes in. If we do invade Iran 90% well support it, and by 4 years 30% well support it. We first support a war, but then when we lose 200 troops, people think we are losing.
Americans didn't think we could win the Revolutionary War, but we did. Americans didn't think we win the war of 1812, but we did. Americans didn't think we win the Civil War, but we did. America didn't want to fight in WW1 and we did and every american was proud to kick Germanys butt. We didn't want to fight in WW2 and thought after Pearl Harbor we might not win this war due to the Depression, but we did. Then comes Korea, and the modern day politics. We kick Koreas butt, and push the communists back to China but then American politics said NO to MacArthur, that wasn't the plan and we can't do that and then the chinese push us back to where we started, and I don't think Korea was a popular war. (Not sure about that) Then Vietnam came and people supported it, but then the media came to age with 'Live' coverage, saying Americans were losing, and the people gave up hope and we came home after we had lost around 53,000 troops to like 1 million or more. Then comes the Gulf War. I don't think alot of people supported this war too, but we came out winning, and everyone supported it after that, saying we kick Iraqs butt. Now were here at the 2nd Gulf War and you know the rest. To many people give up hope in America, and if you expect to win a war and get your troops back ASAP, support the war. Its like a sport, you start cheering your team, they get pumped up and they kick @%$. If you don't cheer they end up losing or barley win. Nothing well change peoples minds now, but the next war we come to, we all need support our country threw the whole thing. Then we well be victorious.
-
Originally posted by VooWho
People now in America give up in every conflict America goes in. If we do invade Iran 90% well support it, and by 4 years 30% well support it. We first support a war, but then when we lose 200 troops, people think we are losing.
America didn't want to fight in WW1 and we did and every american was proud to kick Germanys butt. We didn't want to fight in WW2 and thought after Pearl Harbor we might not win this war due to the Depression, but we did. Then comes Korea, and the modern day politics. We kick Koreas butt, and push the communists back to China but then American politics said NO to MacArthur, that wasn't the plan and we can't do that and then the chinese push us back to where we started, and I don't think Korea was a popular war.
Then comes the Gulf War. I don't think alot of people supported this war too, but we came out winning, and everyone supported it after that, saying we kick Iraqs butt. Now were here at the 2nd Gulf War and you know the rest.
I was thinking about WW2 as well as American "war sentiment". But I also think there is a question of leadership, politics and rationale that must be considered, too.
My question is this: How much is our recent leadership responsible vs. how much is public sentiment at fault?
In 3.5 years in WW2 we went from being bombed, to near victory. In Iraq 2, we have bumbled about against insurgents/terrorists/whatever with rifles and roadside bombs.
How has the most powerful, technologically advanced military not achieved total success in a single country conflict? Bush and co have had a blank check for 3.5 years, and now 20,000 troops (and change of Sec. of Def) seem to be just a political move in response to the last election.
I think Bush has screwed the pooch on this one. Our servicemen and women (and their families) have paid the ultimate price. Many more Americans will pay the price in the future, no matter what the outcome.
As a side question: Why did we give up in Iraq 1? We should have gone all the way then...
-
I think Americans get tired of duplicity in their leaders. Have you heard of the Pentagon Papers, or know why they are significant to the Vietnam era?
Its the same sort of thing with Iraq and the missing WMDs, the cherry-picked intel, the Downing Street Memo and the Project for the New American Century. The press has an important role in exposing these deceptions, but when public support for the effort goes south, they get blamed. I guess we just like to shoot the messenger.
I don't recall a lot of controversy regarding the Gulf War. I recall pundits fears that it would turn into a Vietnam-like quagmire, but it didn't.
Also to Laz - I'd like to apologize for using the words 'fanaticism' and 'paranoia' in my response to you above. You didn't deserve that - your post to me was civil and I should've used less strong words to convey my meaning. Sorry about that.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
It sure sounds like some of you are accusing the American people of a lack of resolve
====
The majority of americans supported this thing when it started, the majority dont now that it has become complicated and challenging.
yeah....I feel very good calling that a lack of resolve.
We deserve failure and the resulting insecurity that brings. But its ok. Because the next go round will cost +100,000 americans their lives, then we can get back on track and maybe, just maybe finnish this thing.
You cut out the part of the sentence that entailed the entire point.
Heres another way of saying it:
There is a sliding door in your house. You keep walking into it. It hurts. You resolve to keep doing it till you get it right. It still hurts, but you feel good about your resolve. A friend hands you a key. You slap his hand away cause he doesn't agree with your plan to resolve to keep up the pain.
oh and BTW... it isn't a glass door.
-
Originally posted by kamilyun
How has the most powerful, technologically advanced military not achieved total success in a single country conflict?
Because we can't fight it like any war before this one .. Otherwise we'd carpet bombed them in the shock n awe phase and never gotten to this point..
The only thing that will win it in Iraq is time. we do not have the patience nor the sacrifice it takes to win today's warfare. the terrorist will win, ie Iran will absorb Iraq. You guys cry about the debt you leave your grand kids with the deficit but you should think about the war you certainly guarantee them with your chicken sheet cut and run antics today..
-
Originally posted by kamilyun
I
How has the most powerful, technologically advanced military not achieved total success in a single country conflict?
they did , twice, but as long as people like you keep saying the "war" is lost, the terrorists will keep blowing up cars.
right now the democratic congress is talking about "disengagement",(cut an run)
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Because we can't fight it like any war before this one .. Otherwise we'd carpet bombed them in the shock n awe phase and never gotten to this point..
The only thing that will win it in Iraq is time. we do not have the patience nor the sacrifice it takes to win today's warfare. the terrorist will win, ie Iran will absorb Iraq. You guys cry about the debt you leave your grand kids with the deficit but you should think about the war you certainly guarantee them with your chicken sheet cut and run antics today..
Me chicken sheet?! When did this get personal? I don't see your body "staying the course" in the sands of Iraq so as far as I'm concerned we are both just talking heads. Take a chill pill, dude.
How many Sept 11th hijackers were from Iraq?
How many were from Saudi Arabia?
Why are we in Iraq fighting terrorists?
How many Muslim countries will we have to stay in for a long time to win the war on terror?
You are right in that this in not a conventional war. It is a cultural war and has many more aspects than just invading a country to 1) change a regime, 2) find WMDs, 3) stop a civil war (or sectarian violence, whatever the PC term is today), 4) fighting terrorism.
I'm not "cut and run". I'm all for whatever the military asks for. Send a million troops if that will get the job done. Bomb weapons factories in Iran to make a point. Destroy convoys of shipments from Syria and Iran. Freeze the assets of politicians in those countries.
-
Originally posted by john9001
they did , twice, but as long as people like you keep saying the "war" is lost, the terrorists will keep blowing up cars.
right now the democratic congress is talking about "disengagement",(cut an run)
Where in my post did I say the war is lost?
You seem to think there are only 2 sides to this issue. "stay the course" and "cut and run".
I have stated that IMHO that the last 3.5 years of war/conflict in Iraq have been poorly planned and executed. Maybe there is a measure of success that I am missing?
As for future strategies, 20,000 troops is a start.
In your perfect world, what should our strategy be? Not sarcasm.
Same for you Eagler...how long, how many troops, rules of engagement, anything else to get the job done...?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
This is like saying any Joe off the street can successfully fly a plane with just the will to succeed.
I think it's pretty clear that a plan and a little training are needed. Quit blaming the people who are pointing out the lack of a decent strategy or implementation and start looking at the real culprit.
It sure sounds like some of you are accusing the American people of a lack of resolve in carrying out a bad idea, when a resolve in carrying out a bad idea is kinda like the definition of insanity. I don't think most of us are insane.
Midnight..
That was one of the best posts in this thread.
-
Heres another way of saying it:
There is a sliding door in your house. You keep walking into it. It hurts. You resolve to keep doing it till you get it right. It still hurts, but you feel good about your resolve. A friend hands you a key. You slap his hand away cause he doesn't agree with your plan to resolve to keep up the pain.
oh and BTW... it isn't a glass door.
====
Midnight..
That was one of the lamest posts in this thread.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
That was one of the lamest posts in this thread.
Why?
If the idea sucks, sticking with it isn't going to make it better.
Other than a need to agree with the President, what is lame about the point he made? If you are doing something that isn't working, 'Staying the course' is retarded... Its pretty clear cut to most of us, but I'd like to hear your take on it, since we disagree....
-
Originally posted by Auger
The reasons for failure in Iraq are many, but the primary reason is the unmitigated incompetence of the current administration.
Every administration that starts a "war on", loses... its the legacy of republican & democrat failure.
The War on drugs has made weed the #1 cash crop in the USA, war on gangs?, LA City spends $82 million (some Fed $$) annually, yet gang membership has grown 6x, gang crime is up 14%.
This latest "War on.." (terror) will go the same way, our so called leaders cant help but screw things up... its what they are best at.
-
Originally posted by kamilyun
Where in my post did I say the war is lost?
You seem to think there are only 2 sides to this issue. "stay the course" and "cut and run".
I have stated that IMHO that the last 3.5 years of war/conflict in Iraq have been poorly planned and executed. Maybe there is a measure of success that I am missing?
As for future strategies, 20,000 troops is a start.
In your perfect world, what should our strategy be? Not sarcasm.
Same for you Eagler...how long, how many troops, rules of engagement, anything else to get the job done...?
well there were 61 US divisions (1.6 Million american soldiers out of a total of 3 mil in europe) in Germany on VE day which were used to occupy the american sector....
so somewhere between 20,000 and 1.6 million should suffice...of course that would be beneficial 3 years ago
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by kamilyun
Same for you Eagler...how long, how many troops, rules of engagement, anything else to get the job done...?
as many troops as it takes, as long and it takes
the alternative should not be acceptable to the US ppl or the rest of the world as Iran as a superpower will create a war which makes Iraq look like the skirmish it really is
do you not think Iran will absorb Iraq if/when we retreat?
They might even if we stay and stabilize the place, they definitely will if we turn tail and run as the left wants us to do today .. j so they can spend the money we now spend on the military on their useless voting base ..
as for rules of engagement, yes it has to get bloodier before it gets better ,,, the blood should be insurgent blood but the sad fact is to spill more of that blood, more innocent Iraqi blood will spill also ..
-
oboe... I may be paranoid but I don't believe I am fanatical.. I would say that the socialists trying to run my life are the fanatics.
I listen to NPR and I listen to fox. I find them equally biased (despite what some liberal professors study said). Overall they may rank as only the eighth most liberal station out of 20 but there are some pretty bad ones in that study I would bet.
When I listen to NPR I hear old men and women and brits all whining and pleading and using terms like man made global warming crisis in normal conversation like it is a given. I hear them taint everything they say with a very socialist liberal viewpoint. I probly hear about a half hour per day on average... all in my work vehicle.
I do not pretend to know much about every subject they are talking about... I kinda have to take their spin on most... that is not what I am judging them (or any source) on...
How I do it is when there is a subject that I know a lot of... have experiance with or researched... It is how they handle those subjects. It is also how they avoid subjects that are important to me... Like the ACLU.. they avoid the second amendment even with 80 million homes haveing firearms in them.
The interview with the democrat on his new raise gas prices to start a government screw up subsidy for carpetbagger flim flam men "alternative energy" plan was a perfect example of socialism by consent... the way NPR does things... they weren't the liberals... the guest was... they just didn't call him on anything. sheesh...anyone recall the subsidies for solar hot water heaters and the way it killed all research and put a bunch of cheap junk on peoples roofs that later killed their property values? Give a damn billion dollar prize for the first solar electric panel that is 80% efficient and costs under a grand if you want the government involved.
As for "fair and balanced" I don't think that you need to balance the leaders of iraq with some saudi liberal professor unless you have an agenda.
lazs
-
Do I get 2 awards? Best and Lamest?
I'd like to thank the academy......
-
Why?
If the idea sucks, sticking with it isn't going to make it better.
====
So here we are pursuing new tactics and increasing force levels to finally force the iraq government to break the cycle of sectarian violence and include all sects in the decision making process, to come down hard on the militias. So you should be happy. Right? trying something new, something that just might work, right?
Whats your plan? withdraw all forces and leave Iraq high and dry? if thats the plan you support then say it. To stop funding the troops in battle? Give Iraq to the radicals....might as well retreat from afganistan. You know what that would do :lol
and the sliding door analogy was just retarded, lame. Sorry mt, no award.
-
laz,
Here is a link (http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664) to the study. They did take pains to keep bias out of the study:
The researchers took numerous steps to safeguard against bias — or the appearance of same — in the work, which took close to three years to complete. They went to great lengths to ensure that as many research assistants supported Democratic candidate Al Gore in the 2000 election as supported President George Bush. They also sought no outside funding, a rarity in scholarly research.
"No matter the results, we feared our findings would've been suspect if we'd received support from any group that could be perceived as right- or left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only with our own salaries and research funds that our own universities provided," Groseclose said.
I listen to NPR often because of all the inane DJ chatter and so many ads in the commercial broadcasts.
Whether or not global warming is man-made and a crisis seems like a scientific question not a political one, so the answer shouldn't depend on a political viewpoint.
I can't tell whether you are for subsidies or not. You attack them in relation to solar water heaters but you seem to be a favor of keeping them in place for the oil companies -- even as some of them experience more profit than any other companies in the history of commerce? I woulda thought you would dismiss those too as socialism.
-
A study done by a liberal school is allways suspect but even so... NPR was rated pretty liberal even amoung the 20 they surveyed when... it is pretty much a given that even under the best of circumstances the media leans toward the left.
to me.. a survey by lefties on a lefty institution (the media) showed that NPR was pretty... well.... lefty.
I am against taxes.. you and the democrats and NPR may call em subsidies but to me they seem to be tax breaks. It seems to me that the more we tax the oil companies the more it will cost us at the pump.
Now... it is not like if the oil companies are taxed more that the rest of us will get taxed less..... nope.. they, the socialists, just want more money to spend.
Sooo this seems to be a way to increase taxes on a group..... increase the price of a product.... Increase our dependency on foreign oil and...increase/form another expensive government agency... and..
subsidize cheapo crap "alternative energy" gizmos that will destroy any real research.
I see no win in this.
This is simply more underhanded socialist class warfare to fund more and bigger government... It's all ok so long as you can demonize a group before you penalize em. smokers, drinkers, risk takers, the rich... the ones not completely in step with the herd..
As for telling me that if NPR makes me mad then I shouldn't listen... that is perhaps one of the dumbest bits of advice I have herd here. If you always agree with people telling you how to think then you will learn nothing. Even tho I disagree I think I might learn something or.. it may drive me to check it out.
I Believe listening to both sides.... NPR and fox say... is far better than listening to just one. If I could listen to only NPR tho.... I would probly not listen to anything.
The internet, fox, right wing talk shows... these are all good things and add balance to what I consider to be a socialist left wing media out of touch with at least 50% of the population.
lazs
-
and oboe... from your study..
"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."
"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar."
They admit that overall there is a distinct an significant bias to the left.. Fox news is far more centrist than NPR is.
lazs
-
Late last year, McCain needs to find a way to appeal to the neocon cabal. He knows the war in Iraq is finished and lost, but he cannot admit as much and hope to get out of the primaries.
He sees the Iraq Study Group close to advocating a gradual withdrawal, and conventional wisdom was convinced (despite all evidence to the contrary) that Bush would take that advice. So McCain hatches his too-clever-by-half plan -- while Bush works to draw down forces, he'll argue for a "surge". And when people wondered in the coming years why we lost the war -- a war that McCain had cheered from the beginning -- he would say, "if they had only listened to me, we would've won!"
"Roughly, you need another 20,000 troops in Iraq," Mr. McCain said Friday during a visit to northern New Hampshire. "That means expanding the Army and Marine Corps by as much as 100,000 people. … It's just not a set number." - October 2006
Unfortunately for McCain, Bush called his bluff, suddenly embracing the escalation of the war in Iraq.
McCain is smart enough to know that the "surge" ain't going anywhere. The war is lost, and adding 20,000 troops won't help us secure Sadr City, much less the rest of Iraq.
Problem is, this was McCain's effort to bamboozle people into thinking he could've saved Iraq. And now, he's destined to be associated with the failure of the GOP's last-ditch effort to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.
So how does McCain respond? By moving the goalposts.
Mr. McCain embarked on a high-profile television tour announcing his support for Mr. Bush’s move. In an interview, he said he would have preferred that the White House send in even more troops, and noted that he had pressed this position on the White House, unsuccessfully until now, for more than two years.
A complete lie. As quoted above, Bush did exactly as McCain has been suggesting the past year.
But McCain has no choice. He is now tied to the Iraq War more than he ever thought would happen. McCain put his trust that Bush would follow the sane, reasonable path handed to him by the ISG. Instead, Bush embraced McCain's bull**** plan.
And that's how the Iraq War became the Bush/McCain War, and how the escalation became the "McCain Doctrine".
And no matter how we look at this, there's no way that this is what McCain had in mind.
-
the "war' is lost, yes, it is true , the terriorsts have lost the war. They were defeated by the "neocon cabal". but, now you neolibs want to help the terriorsts to come back from defeat to a victory just for your political gains.
-
:noid 2 X
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Iran as a superpower
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Dude... Aren't you putting the cart WAY before the horse here? You don't become a superpower just because you have a n00k.
You need to have a navy that can be anywhere in the world at all times, and an airforce that can do the same. Iran does not now and never will have the capability to project that kind of power.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Whats your plan? withdraw all forces and leave Iraq high and dry? if thats the plan you support then say it.
Hey, we screwed up Vietnam and walked away, and today, other than the brave souls lost over there, it doesn't mean a hill of dung in the world scheme. The world didn't end, the commies still lost the cold war.
Should we have thrown another 50000 on the fire for the chance of winning and the cold war still going the way it did...? To have another little puppet government in Asia? Just to prove that we can win every fight that the French can't? It didn't matter. And in 20 years neither will Iraq. There will still be militants over there that hate us, and there will still be dictators that won't play by American rules.
This idea that the world needs constant hand-holding of the United States or else it will descend into Chaos is pure weapons-grade CRAP.
We never should have gone into Iraq to begin with, My exit stratigy was not to enter, but the President didn't ask me.
-
Originally posted by Toad
The Democrats now control both houses of Congress. They have made no secret about their determination to "get out of Iraq".
Bush and the Republicans squandered any opportunity to settle this thing. I think the low number of troops was a mistake from the get-go and as a result they have put us in the current situation.
So the window of opportunity passed when the the Dems took over. They will "get us out of Iraq".
That being the case, I see no point in continuing the effort. It will only create another divisive VietNam type situation in the country.
Bush blew it, the Republicans blew it. The Democratic wins in Congress have made the situation unrecoverable so...
time to go.
I'd start bringing the troops home today. All of them.
That's the way I see it. The Dems won't see it through; the decision has been made. No point in losing any more troops.
Wow!! The dems dont control the war. The president does. If we lose its his fault. Unless of course you reps are going to blame the troops?
-
Excellent post Kurt. The war on terror has alot of analogies to the war on communism (the cold war). Instead of fighting in south east asia, we are in south west asia. We are still fighting a guerilla type war, lots of squad level combat.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
A study done by a liberal school is allways suspect but even so... NPR was rated pretty liberal even amoung the 20 they surveyed when... it is pretty much a given that even under the best of circumstances the media leans toward the left.
to me.. a survey by lefties on a lefty institution (the media) showed that NPR was pretty... well.... lefty.
I am against taxes.. you and the democrats and NPR may call em subsidies but to me they seem to be tax breaks. It seems to me that the more we tax the oil companies the more it will cost us at the pump.
Now... it is not like if the oil companies are taxed more that the rest of us will get taxed less..... nope.. they, the socialists, just want more money to spend.
Sooo this seems to be a way to increase taxes on a group..... increase the price of a product.... Increase our dependency on foreign oil and...increase/form another expensive government agency... and..
subsidize cheapo crap "alternative energy" gizmos that will destroy any real research.
I see no win in this.
This is simply more underhanded socialist class warfare to fund more and bigger government... It's all ok so long as you can demonize a group before you penalize em. smokers, drinkers, risk takers, the rich... the ones not completely in step with the herd..
As for telling me that if NPR makes me mad then I shouldn't listen... that is perhaps one of the dumbest bits of advice I have herd here. If you always agree with people telling you how to think then you will learn nothing. Even tho I disagree I think I might learn something or.. it may drive me to check it out.
I Believe listening to both sides.... NPR and fox say... is far better than listening to just one. If I could listen to only NPR tho.... I would probly not listen to anything.
The internet, fox, right wing talk shows... these are all good things and add balance to what I consider to be a socialist left wing media out of touch with at least 50% of the population.
lazs
Leftleaning media LOL
The battle cry of the cons.
If the media were left Bush wouldnt be Pres.
If the media were left we wouldnt have attacked a country that didnt attack us.
I could go on and on.
-
Originally posted by Kurt
Aren't you putting the cart WAY before the horse here? You don't become a superpower just because you have a n00k.
You need to have a navy that can be anywhere in the world at all times, and an airforce that can do the same. Iran does not now and never will have the capability to project that kind of power.
nope
you don't need a navy or an airforce or an army to fight your battles.
Iran seems to be doing well (winning in the eyes of those that want to turn and run) in Iraq and they have not sent one official "soldier" into that country.
and yes, all you do need is a nuke and a fanatical group willing to die to deliver it.
They have half of that equation now.
They know they could never beat us in a fair fight and they know they do not have to. Heck, just 3000 dead soldiers in a war has spilt this country in two. And those deaths have had zero affect on the market. Imagine a city or two going up in mushroom/radioactive clouds and the market tanking to 1990 levels or lower. We would finish the job for them...
It's not about Iraq, it is about Iran .. maybe it always has been.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Wow!! The dems dont control the war. The president does. If we lose its his fault. Unless of course you reps are going to blame the troops?
Apparently you forgot one thing. While it is true that the President as Commander in Chief does control the military the Congress is responsible for appropriating funds to pay the bills. No funding and there is no money for the troops supplies such as fuel, food, ammo, etc. etc. while they are overseas.
-
silat.. are you saying that the media controls every aspect of thought in the country? I am saying that there left leaning bias shows to anyone with a shred of honesty in them and that... they are so far off from the average American that they have only a small effect.
I would say that if they weren't left wing socialists that kerrie would have lost by a much larger margin... I am saying that if they weren't lefties that we wouldn't have quite so many questioning the war in iraq. They do have an effect it is just not as large as they want.
It is like socialist public schools.. the little buggers do get brainwashed but then....life happens. You really need an even more controled cradle to grave brainwashing like in soviet russia for it to work.. the democrats are working on it tho with the "fairness doctrine"
lefty radio can't exist... it is the last bastion (along with the internet and fox) of right of center media. The fairness doctrine plans to make talk show radio have both sides of every issue equally supported. This sounds kinda fair but... it is not. Not when you have the choice to listen or not. Would they extend it to other sources? nope.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Kurt
Hey, we screwed up Vietnam and walked away, and today, other than the brave souls lost over there, it doesn't mean a hill of dung in the world scheme. The world didn't end, the commies still lost the cold war.
Should we have thrown another 50000 on the fire for the chance of winning and the cold war still going the way it did...? To have another little puppet government in Asia? Just to prove that we can win every fight that the French can't? It didn't matter. And in 20 years neither will Iraq. There will still be militants over there that hate us, and there will still be dictators that won't play by American rules.
This idea that the world needs constant hand-holding of the United States or else it will descend into Chaos is pure weapons-grade CRAP.
We never should have gone into Iraq to begin with, My exit stratigy was not to enter, but the President didn't ask me.
I dunno Kurt. Even if you don't consider important the millions that died as a direct result of our cut and run policy in Vietnam we hardly ceased our "war" on communism. Without Reagan's aggressive buildup of our military in the 80's there's a good chance most of Europe would be speaking commie today. Oh wait....
-
the difference btwn Vietnam and Iraq is simple ...
Russia was not the fanatical cheekbones Iran is ...
-
Originally posted by lukster
I dunno Kurt. Even if you don't consider important the millions that died as a direct result of our cut and run policy in Vietnam we hardly ceased our "war" on communism. Without Reagan's aggressive buildup of our military in the 80's there's a good chance most of Europe would be speaking commie today. Oh wait....
Thank you Lukster for protecting us from the commies.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
the difference btwn Vietnam and Iraq is simple ...
Russia was not the fanatical cheekbones Iran is ...
Perception of reality is arguably more influential than reality itself. If you perceive your enemy as more powerful than you and united in their will to defeat you, your morale will suffer. The difference between the Islamic fascists and the Russian communists is that the Islamists have faith they have God on their side making them undefeatable against any enemy. The Russian's faith in communism was lacking.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Perception of reality is arguably more influential than reality itself. If you perceive your enemy as more powerful than you and united in their will to defeat you, your morale will suffer. The difference between the Islamic fascists and the Russian communists is that the Islamists have faith they have God on their side making them undefeatable against any enemy. The Russian's faith in communism was lacking.
plus they were not ready to kill themselves over their cause as they did not believe a reward of 72 virgins in heaven awaited them ;)
not to mention the fact russia was content with the north taking over the south whereas Iran would not stop its madness after it rolls over Iraq .. why should it. It will have swelled its ranks and power to a level that will only be stopped by joint co-op of every non cheekbones nation against the cheekboness and they know we will never bond together for such a cause as we are weak and ignorant of the danger until it is too late...
-
Should Iran conquer much of the mideast at least we'll have a more clearly defined enemy should there come a time we need to demonstrate our power or retaliate for an attack on our soil. Little doubt the US will be blamed for giving Iran control of the middle east much like we are for Saddam's atrocities though.
-
maybe before we evacuate our forces from Iraq we can get pelosi to annex those oil fields. At least until we get out money back :aok
-
WACK!
ow.
WACK!
ow.
WACK!
ow.
-
El'Presidente Pelosi Senore' like a big pizza pie.........
-
Originally posted by Yeager
maybe before we evacuate our forces from Iraq we can get pelosi to annex those oil fields. At least until we get out money back :aok
I keep saying, let's spend the money on oil pumps. Get as much out of the ground as possible in the next two years. Boost the strategic oil reserve.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
WACK!
ow.
WACK!
ow.
WACK!
ow.
And yet we keep voting democrats into office. :p
-
Robert Novak's essay on Iraq being a "black hole" for the GOP is worth a perusal. If not alone for conservative and respected voices w/in the GOP salient opinions.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/01/the_gops_black_hole.html
For those of you bent on an American "empire," skip it. The short read will vex you.
Regards,
hap
-
Originally posted by lukster
And yet we keep voting democrats into office. :p
Yeah... those bastages have been in power for over a week now! It must be their fault.
-
Novak has always been an odd character to me. This peice is quite linear in its depth, or lack thereof. Interesting little fragment of a larger picture though.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Interesting little fragment of a larger picture though.
Very much so Yeager, and one which we all suffer from in here due to a variety of reasons. Fragments of a larger picture that is.
We're in a pickle in Iraq. Much less so than the Iraqis themselves.
Regards,
hap
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Yeah... those bastages have been in power for over a week now! It must be their fault.
If we'd handled Saddam differently beginning in '91 we might not have had him thumbing his nose at us and the UN for so many years and might not have had to kick his bellybutton outta power.
-
Originally posted by lukster
If we'd handled Saddam differently beginning in '91 we might not have had him thumbing his nose at us and the UN for so many years and might not have had to kick his bellybutton outta power.
That's bogus and you should know that. If we had gone to bagdad and taken him out we would have been fightng a unified coalition of arab countries immediately afterwards. The entire coalition effort mandated leaving him in place. It wasn't a military decision to stop where we did, it was a political one to avoid having to start fighting all of our, up till then allies, with our forces in the middle.
-
We should have left him in power but made it clear to him that we would remove him if he did not behave and do as he was told........oh wait a tic :rolleyes:
-
I'm not saying we should have taken him out sooner. I think we, the US and the UN, handled him poorly all those years leading him to think he could get away with rejecting the terms of his surrender. Stern military action at the beginning likely would have kept him in line.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Without Reagan's aggressive buildup of our military in the 80's there's a good chance most of Europe would be speaking commie today. Oh wait....
Thats a mighty big jump Lukster, my rant ended 10 years before Reagan showed the russians that we have more money than they do... How did Reagan get in here? I never said a word about him, and you have no idea what my opinion about him could possibly be.
(he was a genious by the way) because he did with simple fear what GW can't even do with actual guns.
-
Ex-commander of all forces in Middle East nixes Bush plan.
Division commander in Gulf War 1 nixes Bush plan.
Ex-head of Army Intelligence doubtful of Bush plan.
Former Army Chief of Staff supports Bush plan. Admits success depends upon the unknown quantity of current Iraqi gov't.
Retired Generals' opinion.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/18/politics/main2369869.shtml
I do hope things turn out better than this forecasts.
Regards,
hap
-
there is a reason they are "retired generals"
-
Originally posted by Viking
Thank you Lukster for protecting us from the commies.
You're welcome.
-
Originally posted by john9001
there is a reason they are "retired generals"
Yup, owning to their grey hair.
Or, John, do you call into question the quality of their strategic/tactical thinking and evaluative ability and/or their patriotism?
Regards,
hap
-
Having bare criticism is one thing, even from the subject matter experts. What I would find far more enlightening would be criticism with an alternative strategy brought forward. Just saying the car is broke doesn't get it fixed. You have to have a way or thought of how to fix it to be proactive.
-
Three thoughts:
1) Find me a man who thinks one way and I will find an equivalent man who thinks just the opposite.
2) Once you commit your forces to battle you should finish what you started.
3) Since gaining the majority, the democrats have brought fourth no new strategy to discuss as an alternative to their desire to retreat. This includes some "retired" generals.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Three thoughts:
2) Once you commit your forces to battle you should finish what you started.
Some salient examples of "in for a penny, in for a pound" during past WW conflagations suggest Yeager that your assertion could use a qualifer or two.
All the Best,
hap
-
Ok, Ill qualify it like this: Once you commit your forces to battle you should "at least try and" finish what you started.
Heres another qualification: Since gaining the majority, the democrats have brought fourth no new strategy "for success" to discuss as an alternative to their desire to retreat. This includes some "retired" generals. "This effort to bring Iraq into the modern age is not a world war, not yet. If we turn tail and evacuate Iraq we could very well be on the cusp of a world war."
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Ok, Ill qualify it like this: Once you commit your forces to battle you should "at least try and" finish what you started.
Heres another qualification: Since gaining the majority, the democrats have brought fourth no new strategy "for success" to discuss as an alternative to their desire to retreat. This includes some "retired" generals. "This effort to bring Iraq into the modern age is not a world war, not yet. If we turn tail and evacuate Iraq we could very well be on the cusp of a world war."
1) Yes, I agree to "try and finish what we started."
2) Re "retreating," it's a preferable option if the results of "staying the course" are worse. Since I've no crystal ball. I don't know.
3) "Effort to bring Iraq into the modern age," it didn't need our help. Ask for our help. We attacked them without them attacking us. Our intel was erroneous & time will tell if the higher ups knew it.
4) Yes, it isn't a world war. I don't think it will become one either.
5) "We could be on the cusp of a world war," not in the traditional sense I think. And not one where nations change their economy to support an all out "war effort." Might the Islam V The West exist for the rest of my life. Sadlly, I expect so.
6) As far as "trying to finish what we started," if you were the Boss, Yeager, and had a 100% compliant congress and media, how much longer would you "try," and what would you do?
Regards,
hap
-
if you were the Boss, Yeager, and had a 100% compliant congress and media, how much longer would you "try," and what would you do?
====
Good question. I dont know :D
-
At this point, the only viable option, other than the obvious one of taking our toys and going home, is ethnic cleansing. Separate all of the sects and invoke marshal law. No one crosses into a different sect's territory without a military escort. Close the borders and shoot everything that tries to cross at other than a military check point. Of course this will have to remain in place until another iron fisted dictator comes to power, or several generations go by and we can re-educate them not to want to kill each other on sight.
There aren't enough members in the military to pull that off. That would require a draft of every able-bodied 18-26 year old. As that isn't likely to happen, it is time to take the advice of the ISG and bring 'em home. There really is no other option. Staying the course (and a troop "surge" to levels we had there 2 years ago is just that) is only going to get more Americans killed needlessly and sow more hatred.
The primary thing keeping us there, and which kept us in another excursion we had no business in, is pride. Americans hate to admit when they're wrong, especially when the evidence of the mistake remains. We go absolutely ballistic at the thought of giving up while there is still time for a "Hail Mary". The politicians will continue to pour other people's blood on the ground in the faint hope that things will get better and they'll come out as heroes. We'll run out of blood long before this one gets better.
-
Originally posted by Auger
At this point, the only viable option, other than the obvious one of taking our toys and going home, is ethnic cleansing. Separate all of the sects and invoke marshal law. No one crosses into a different sect's territory without a military escort. Close the borders and shoot everything that tries to cross at other than a military check point. Of course this will have to remain in place until another iron fisted dictator comes to power, or several generations go by and we can re-educate them not to want to kill each other on sight.
Auger, this is so. It was broken beyond repair, an entire generation's blood and money could not fix it -- maybe 10 generations -- before we attacked them. History says it can't be done.
Hopefully we can say our mea culpa's, and learn from this debacle. Each generation it seems has to relearn a lesson or so a past generation tried to pass on but the new kids on the block just don't get it.
Regards,
hap
-
Split them into 3 countries. Suni (sp) can be Enron. ****e can be Texaco. Kurds can be Conoco.
Then let them slug it out as they have been doing for a couple of thousand years.
-
everyone says the democrats don't have a plan, if fact they have four plans. They just can't decide which one will win in the 2008 elections.
A. run away now
B. phased run away
C. run to Kuwait and wait until they have to re-invade Iraq. ( murtha's plan)
D. split up Iraq into three parts, then run away. (biden's plan)
-
Iraq is a quagmire. There's no reason to reach desperately for victory since defeat has already occurred.
-
Originally posted by Hawco
Iraq is a quagmire. There's no reason to reach desperately for victory since defeat has already occurred.
A defeatist attitude if ever I heard one.
-
Originally posted by lukster
A defeatist attitude if ever I heard one.
Your comment is beside the point Luckster. Do you think Hawco's statement be true of false?
And if true, why? And if false, why?
Regards,
hap
-
Hawco's statement is false.
Iraq is not a quagmire.
defeat has not already occurred.
-
Originally posted by Hap
Your comment is beside the point Luckster. Do you think Hawco's statement be true of false?
And if true, why? And if false, why?
Regards,
hap
No it's not over and we haven't yet failed.
-
I'm beginning to wonder about this new General in command of US Armed Forces in Iraq. He seems very gung ho about the revision in tactics. About this surge. I also wonder if the democrats, being so resistant to the change, this surge, if politcs might be at play here? hmmmm.....
I wonder if deep down the democrats are worried this thing might still turn around. Would it be in the best interests of the democrats for the mission in Iraq to fail? And no, in spite of what some here would like to see, failure has not yet occurred in Iraq.
Also, the democrats are trying to pass legislation forbidding an attack on Iran.
This thing could go clinically insane yet.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I'm beginning to wonder about this new General in command of US Armed Forces in Iraq.
How would one learn about the new commander? Best practices??
Regards,
hap
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I also wonder if the democrats, being so resistant to the change, this surge, if politcs might be at play here? hmmmm.....
Right, because only the democrats play politics... The republicans are pure...
I want to know where you buy your drugs, because they sound REALLY GOOD.
-
The basic tenor and context of many posts borders on the delusional.
It's as if the democrats are 6 guys in a back room gumming up the works, and how much better we'd all be if they just went away. And FWIW, there are a couple "normal" democratic party ideals over the past 20 years that I'm dead set against.
Good post Kurt.
This, ripping it out of the context of Americal politics, is essentially the same rationale any crackpot has used throughout history to get rid of the folks they deem to be "gumming up the works."
And actually, purging a nation isn't really the point at all. It's a ploy to get folk unified AGAINST anything -- to focus their discontent as a means to get elected.
During my lifetime, both parties have erred at different times and in varying degrees in this matter.
The best reason to back anyone or any political party -- or non-party -- is the superiority of their ideas. Makes it nice and tidy because discussion can ensue as to why this set of ideas is better then that set of ideas.
This, today, is a rarity especially on "open" forums. Scream TV, political pundits racking in large dollars for 15 second diatribes that exist as tabloid journalism makes things worse. Sadly, many buy that version of discourse as aokay.
Happily, many, yet do not.
Regards,
hap
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Would it be in the best interests of the democrats for the mission in Iraq to fail?
of course it is ... victory in Iraq is a defeat for the left. Retreat/quitting in Iraq is a victory for the dems .. sad isn't it
-
you guys must be bored. I know I am. Its an observation Kurt, no doubt if the shoe were on the other foot.....well you know. Hap, your above average intelligence. Kudos man and welcome to the team :)
-
Originally posted by 2Slow
Split them into 3 countries. Suni (sp) can be Enron. ****e can be Texaco. Kurds can be Conoco.
Then let them slug it out as they have been doing for a couple of thousand years.
****e can be Texaco.
*****e can be Texaco.
My apologies for the misspelling of *****e. Then again, maybe I got it right the first time. ;) (meatball e)
Edit: Go figure, it won't let me spell S h ii t e as one word.
-
"I also wonder if the democrats, being so resistant to the change, this surge, if politics might be at play here? hmmmm....."
That is the new rant, "We need a change!"
I don't care for changing things for the sake of changing. I want progress. So far, according to others and my own observations of history, only conservative policies applied/followed over a long course of time succeed. Liberal stuff only gives one ( not I) warm fuzzies and placates the masses into believing things are getting better.
My final word on the matter.
-
The only version of "change" I have heard yet from the demos is rather simple. Leave iraq. If they have any other ideas of "change" they seem to have forgotten how to make it public. I don't mind if someone has a criticism as long as they have an alternative idea of how to handle it. Right now I'm not seeing any tactical or strategic options being voiced other than go away and the sooner the better.