Cracks in the Bush Armor

[BaliBabyDoc]

Yahoo
The US public is tiring of the war effort in Iraq (news - web sites) and, for the first time, a survey said, most believe the Bush administration "stretched the truth" or lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

Although overall support for the war in Iraq remained high, the poll gave indications of its erosion.

Thus, the share of those who unconditionally believe the war was the right thing to do dwindled from 53 percent in early May to 46 percent in early June. Twenty-nine percent, up from 22 percent in May, now say the United States was wrong.

Steven Kull, director of the University of Maryland survey programme, said: "The poll shows the public is in some turmoil about Iraq and uneasy about some of the administration claims.

"But for most people, the pluses of going to war still outweigh the minuses."

 

[DaiShan]

While I certainly don't think the war was right, unconditionally, and certainly not on the premises offered, I support a saddam free Iraq over one ruled by the baath party. However the true test comes in forming a stable and friendly government, one that can hopefully lend stability to the middle east. At any rate bush will hopefully be voted out soon.

 

[ClueLis]

Originally posted by: DaiShan
While I certainly don't think the war was right, unconditionally, and certainly not on the premises offered, I support a saddam free Iraq over one ruled by the baath party. However the true test comes in forming a stable and friendly government, one that can hopefully lend stability to the middle east. At any rate bush will hopefully be voted out soon.

I agree. I would have actually been (somewhat) more supportive of the war had the reason been given as, "Sadaam is a bastard who kills people and must be removed." The main problem, though, is that I think our president foolishly underestimated the amount of effort reconstruction would take, and now he finds himself stuck in a deep hole with nothing but a shovel.

 

[freegeeks]

Iraq could be the next Vietnam

 

[HappyPuppy]

Originally posted by: freegeeks
Iraq could be the next Vietnam

Could be?

 

[CaptnKirk]

Viet Nam was a history lesson for those who learned.
Iraq is another history lesson for those who didn't learn from Viet Nam.

The Viet Nam fighters, guerrilla warfare participants had many years to develop thier underground while the French were there,
and simply dividing the country into the Northern 'Bad-Guys' and the Southern 'Good-Guys' when the French left wasn't going to work.
North and South Viet Nam had blood lines crossing both borders, and we were left fighting for the
South Vietnamese government against relatives on both sides.
They simply went intra-cultural for evading our forces, then fought back by fighting us on their terms,
whenever the loss to us would outweigh the negatives of their losses.
A 10:1 kill/loss ratio was acceptable to them, as they knew it was their country, they would be
staying there, and eventually we would be leaving. When we did leave the bloodlines quickly
reconstituted the country into the one that had pre-dated the French, and punished disenters.

Now we are engaged in occupancy of an Arab nation, bloodlines and tribal monarchies everywhere,
and they have all the time in the world to develop an underground guerilla resistance, and the very
fact that we keep hitting them and making mistakes in who we hit, recruits more sympathizers for them.
The extended families of those who were killed, the people who have been maimed, the children who
will be growing up without hands, feet, arms, legs, and eyes will be their testimonial for recruitment.

A country of 25+ million, with an occupying force of under 200,000 is an overwhelming ratio when they do get organized.
Right now we would have a kill ratio of over 125:1 - if they were to turn on us in mass, but they can 'Nickle and Dime' us to death,
with a ten to one ratio, and know that every year there will be a replacement of troops they defend against - fresh meat each month,
green to the conflict and unaware of what the vetrans that are leaving have learned in order to survive. The danger expands secretively.

Except for the jungles tree canopy, and the dug in underground complexes (maybe-maybe not)
it's getting more and more 'Nam-like' with each hit and run skirmish.
Make no mistake - their army knew they could not fight direct and face-up, so by dissapearing and going underground,
they will be back a few at a time to confront what they want to - on their terms.

It's not a 'Quagmire' until the Fat Lady sings, and she's in the dressingroom practicing the vocal scales now.
It will never be another 'Viet Nam' Viet Nam was Viet Nam, this is Iraq, and will always be Iraq - not a U.S. suburban annex.

 

[LunarRay]

We won't have an "Iraq" because we've had a "Vietnam"... UNLESS... the Agenda is so important and has considered this... as it unfolds we'll see... We better become part of an overall group of overseers before it becomes the US vs the Mid East....

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
We won't have an "Iraq" because we've had a "Vietnam"... UNLESS... the Agenda is so important and has considered this... as it unfolds we'll see... We better become part of an overall group of overseers before it becomes the US vs the Mid East....

I think we are there LR, especially in light of the fact that Rummy says it isn't. He said it is a different time and place. Well yes. However getting run over by a car in 1963 or 2003 is still he same if it is in Pittsburgh or Peoria.

Now the question is how long it will take the politicians and public to figure it out. Us old farts remember seeing the same attitudes in our younger days that we see in those supporting this war. Notice that relatively few of us who lived through those days come out and support the Administrations position? Oh, some may say it was necessary, but I see none of us waving the flag shouting "bring it on". We know bringing it on means soldiers die. To provoke when there is no need to is criminal stupidity. Sooner or later the pics of body bags will be popping up, and as casualties build day after day, year after year, I see an anti war movement potential just as in VN. If we stay there that long, I don't see how it could be helped. We have our obligations there though. We are in the Mid East Roach Motel. We checked in, but checking out isn't going to be easy. In the end, I suspect Bush will be held in high esteem years down the road. Same as Johnson and Nixon.

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: DaiShan
While I certainly don't think the war was right, unconditionally, and certainly not on the premises offered, I support a saddam free Iraq over one ruled by the baath party. However the true test comes in forming a stable and friendly government, one that can hopefully lend stability to the middle east. At any rate bush will hopefully be voted out soon.

Not the US gov'ts place to be "forming a stable and friendly government", why do you and your fellows think it is?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: LunarRay
We won't have an "Iraq" because we've had a "Vietnam"... UNLESS... the Agenda is so important and has considered this... as it unfolds we'll see... We better become part of an overall group of overseers before it becomes the US vs the Mid East....

I think we are there LR, especially in light of the fact that Rummy says it isn't. He said it is a different time and place. Well yes. However getting run over by a car in 1963 or 2003 is still he same if it is in Pittsburgh or Peoria.

Now the question is how long it will take the politicians and public to figure it out. Us old farts remember seeing the same attitudes in our younger days that we see in those supporting this war. Notice that relatively few of us who lived through those days come out and support the Administrations position? Oh, some may say it was necessary, but I see none of us waving the flag shouting "bring it on". We know bringing it on means soldiers die. To provoke when there is no need to is criminal stupidity. Sooner or later the pics of body bags will be popping up, and as casualties build day after day, year after year, I see an anti war movement potential just as in VN. If we stay there that long, I don't see how it could be helped. We have our obligations there though. We are in the Mid East Roach Motel. We checked in, but checking out isn't going to be easy. In the end, I suspect Bush will be held in high esteem years down the road. Same as Johnson and Nixon.

A certain 19 yr old around here is thinking of going down and joining the service.... so he can be part of the effort and not stand by while the US frees the world.... A noble gesture... No contra argument seems to change his mind... because he is convinced Mr. Bush is the Leader the World needed.. needs.. Viet Nam to him is simply a bunch of aging cry babies who ought to have gone to Canada too.. He actually believes we went there to free the people and were successful... The reason so many died on our side was mainly due to the drafting of pot heads and losers who couldn't follow orders... and on and on.. He has reconciled the 'Gulf of Tonkin' episode as Johnson's only means to get the job done... like FDR's Lend Lease with Britain.. So... I've pretty much concluded that if this is the attitude to Iraq it won't be anytime soon that the body bag count will start to matter... they must live through their own "Vietnam" I guess.... and come to their own conclusion... I know the attitude... It was mine as well.. but, I was already in when it started... gung ho... go America... and me a coward!!!

So... it will come to pass... as you suggest and not as I suggest because the youth are the doers and their dads and moms had no loser war to view... or live through.. a gap of experience... as it were... I assume no one with a read of reality would think differently than me but, alas... they've only '91 in focus or Yugoslavia and the other triumphs...

So I guess I'll just shake my head a bid them Au Revoir.... and ... A Bientot.. I hope!

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Not the US gov'ts place to be "forming a stable and friendly government", why do you and your fellows think it is?

The good news: The US government removed a brutal dictator from power . . . in a stable albeit oppressive regime.

The bad news: The US government is now responsible for forming a stable government. If we focused on the stable part Iraq would have a chance in the long run. Trying to make it stable and friendly to the US is a pipe dream. If 51% of the population wants to dislike American foreign policy that's their perogative . . . we can leave once we've given them the semblance of structure (responsible domestic police force, military to defend their borders, schools, hospitals, considerate governing bodies) . . . basically all the things I wish we had in America.

At current pumping capacity <2m bpd, Iraqi crude is worth less than $60m. After billions of investment dollars, the top figure is likely 6m bpd. Assuming crude settles around $25/barrel means $150m per day or around $51b a year in revenue by 2010. In the interim, the US taxpayer will pick up the tab for Iraqi security (to the extent that it's secure) and reconstruction. Can you say tax increase?

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Not the US gov'ts place to be "forming a stable and friendly government", why do you and your fellows think it is?

The good news: The US government removed a brutal dictator from power . . . in a stable albeit oppressive regime.

Still bad news. Never any of the US government's business to invade another country, especially one that hadn't acted aggressively towards it. Bush and company took another page out of the Hitler handbook.

 

[da loser]

lol, the infamous hitler reference.

I agree with BBD, and it's nice he's taken some time from his neffing. we should concentrate on the north and south, and stop trying to solve to all the problems in baghdad of people that don't really want us there and aren't looking to work with us. I don't see the numerous problems in America, there's little problems here and there, but the greatest opportunity still exists in America.

I guess i'm young and I feel like what LunarRay describes perfectly, maybe not as gung ho. I'm thinking of leaving and going over there, albeit stealing their oil . I think this is a great opportunity, even if people feel its been of illegimate reasoning.

I don't see the absolute similarities. I don't see the political restraint placed on our army. I see everything being given for the possibility of success. I do see the opposition, muslim fundamentalism, but I see no where in the world that this movement has brought any success or power. Communism had Russia and China, Is Saudi Arabia a reluctant sponsor or a subtle opponent? Either way, I feel if we do this right, we can seal the coffin of a movement that is on the verge of becoming our bane. I guess I'll go talk to some Vietnam vets around town and do some more research.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: da loser
lol, the infamous hitler reference.

I agree with BBD, and it's nice he's taken some time from his neffing. we should concentrate on the north and south, and stop trying to solve to all the problems in baghdad of people that don't really want us there and aren't looking to work with us. I don't see the numerous problems in America, there's little problems here and there, but the greatest opportunity still exists in America.

I guess i'm young and I feel like what LunarRay describes perfectly, maybe not as gung ho. I'm thinking of leaving and going over there, albeit stealing their oil . I think this is a great opportunity, even if people feel its been of illegimate reasoning.

I don't see the absolute similarities. I don't see the political restraint placed on our army. I see everything being given for the possibility of success. I do see the opposition, muslim fundamentalism, but I see no where in the world that this movement has brought any success or power. Communism had Russia and China, Is Saudi Arabia a reluctant sponsor or a subtle opponent? Either way, I feel if we do this right, we can seal the coffin of a movement that is on the verge of becoming our bane. I guess I'll go talk to some Vietnam vets around town and do some more research.

<sigh> Yes, you cannot see, yet. Not your fault, but do talk to vets nearby. BTW, political restraint is not the issue, nor the failure of the "mission" It was about the legitimacy of it all. But you cannot see, or hear and take it to heart. Best wishes, and I mean that.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I agree with BBD, and it's nice he's taken some time from his neffing. we should concentrate on the north and south, and stop trying to solve to all the problems in baghdad of people that don't really want us there and aren't looking to work with us. I don't see the numerous problems in America, there's little problems here and there, but the greatest opportunity still exists in America.

I feel the chill wind of DesertCart . . . nothing like support to make one question themselves. I don't think I said anything about deserting Baghdad in search of friendlier environs. I think I said we are inextricably tied to the success of Iraq and success will be measured by establishing a sustainable, somewhat democratic government, restoring infrastructure, and then hitting the road like a bat out of hell. We've solved very few problems in Baghdad but we cannot use that excuse b/c we weren't invited . . . we invaded.

 

[Brie]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Yahoo
The US public is tiring of the war effort in Iraq (news - web sites) and, for the first time, a survey said, most believe the Bush administration "stretched the truth" or lied about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

Although overall support for the war in Iraq remained high, the poll gave indications of its erosion.

Thus, the share of those who unconditionally believe the war was the right thing to do dwindled from 53 percent in early May to 46 percent in early June. Twenty-nine percent, up from 22 percent in May, now say the United States was wrong.

Steven Kull, director of the University of Maryland survey programme, said: "The poll shows the public is in some turmoil about Iraq and uneasy about some of the administration claims.

"But for most people, the pluses of going to war still outweigh the minuses."

I question the implication the polls are indicating. Is dwindling support for the war due to its cause or due to the state of being at war itself. In addition, if people who feel the war is right is falling, I would certanily hope that the number who feel the war is wrong would go up. We can all argue if the war is right or wrong to our hearts content but this isnt the only variable in the poll. Considering our troops have been oversees for several months now, i feel it natural for people to question the reasons for war in general (considering we all feel war is wrong to begin with!). I bet anything that we can make parallels to other wars like WW2 and the Revolutionary War in terms of support for the war. I do also believe that in the two previous wars I mentioned there was a significant portion of the population who did not even want to go to war in the first place!!!

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Go to Gallup and check out their polling. It answers your questions.

 

[da loser]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
If we focused on the stable part Iraq would have a chance in the long run. Trying to make it stable and friendly to the US is a pipe dream.

I guess I thought you meant the stable part of iraq, not the stability part of reconstruction. of course we want stability, but it's the current way we're doing it that's not going to work. we're trying to have a soft hand, when we need to bloody some noses.

gallup poll
69% say the troops are need in iraq, 56% are pro-war, 56% say reconstruction is going well down from 85% in april (this number closely resembles those who support the war, I think). plus if you look at the graph, during the war it gains support, then after the war it goes to pre-war levels. I think this means, support for the war is irrelevant, and the troop support and how the war is going are the pertinent data.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

As Americans we will always support the troops. It was probably part of the Bush administration calculus in the rush to war. It doesn't matter if their prelude to war was contrived . . . once US troops are in harms way. Support for the war was always irrelevant b/c Bush was committed to war last year. Now that we cannot extricate ourselves from a bad situation the majority of Americans will support the troops while a confused subset will perpetually equate support for the troops with support for the war.

 

[Kraeji]

I AGREE WITH BALIBABYDOC! BUSH IS HITLER AND MUST BE KILLED!

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I feel the chill wind of DesertCart . . . nothing like support to make one question themselves.