Well, it is official. My view has changed.

[Backtothemac]

I said in my last thread like this one, that I was starting to have problems with the war. Now, that being said, first let me clearly state that I do believe there were WMD's there, and everyone here knows why I feel that way.

Second. I do think that going in was the right thing to do for the Iraqi people. Most of you know, that was one of the major reasons that I supported the war was for their benefit.

Third. I have met many Iraqi's in my day, and that was the reason that I wanted us in, and everything else was second.

Now, let me also clearly say that I do not believe at any level that we are in a quagmire. Desert, you were around in Nam, you know what a quagmire is. BUT, I do think that the administration is really screwing things up. I think that there are serious problems in the administration. I don't believe that Bush is the devil, in fact, I really think that the guy thinks that he is doing the right thing, and that the larger goal that he has is a good goal. BUT, I think his advisors are really giving him bad info, I think that they are lying to each other, and to the people.

Personally, I think that the world needs to get involved, and quickly. We are killing our own country to rebuild another. Nation building has really never been done to completion, other than Germany. AND that was a world effort, albeit that 1/2 of it turned out rather badly for quite a while. I don't want this to turn into a bashing of the President. As I have said, I think his intentions are nobel. However, things are not getting better there until I see a definitive exit strategy formulated, and I have not seen that.

I am actually sad at both parties. The Republicans for thinking that the media lies about everything, and that Bush is 100% right. And the Democrats for taking personal attacks at the President for political gain. Personally, I am sick of the entire thing.

Our foriegn policy has sucked for quite a while now, and it isn't getting any better as best as I can tell. Hopefully that will change.

[zimv20]

how do you feel about bush getting a second term?

[Backtothemac]

Well, he would have to have different advisors. People make mistakes. I just think that the policy is getting really bad. But, as of what I have seen from the Democrats, I like him better than their domestic policies.

[Desertrat]

I'm usually more of a "wait and see" sort than a lot of folks, but I can sure understand Bttm's view. But I definitely agree that some different advisors are needed.

To me, it's not an issue of "fault" or "blame". It's more "If you can't cut it, go away." I'm performance oriented.

For sure, all this running in a circle making excuses and playing blame-games really sucks.

'Rat

[mactastic]

We need someone with an interest in repairing our international relations, and work overtime to restore some fiscal sanity. Doesn't look good so far.

On a related note, long ago in the Clinton years I happened across a magnetic sticker at the Warner Bros. store. For anyone who has seen The Animaniacs, or Pinky and the Brain, my refrigerator bears a bumper-sticker sized, red white and blue magnet with Brain standing like Nixon with his arms up giving the v-for-victory sign, and the caption says "Put a Brain in the White House!":D

"What are we going to do tonight Brain?"
"Same thing we do every night Pinky. Try to take over the world."

[jamesatzones]

Being in public office is a position I would never ever want to put myself in. I do believe that Iraq needed to be liberated, that there were WMD in Iraq but are very well hidden or taken out of the country. Bush over all I feel has handled being President satisfactory, I am neither Dem or Rep but I feel that I would vote for Bush again.

I don't blame Bush for the economy, for the business scandels that shook wall street, for the fires in Cali or for that matter much. He has done his job, I can say that I am rather happy Bush was in office instead of Billy when 9/11 happened, we would have been walked all over due to the lack of his military knowledge. Anyway, my opinion is mine and I would love to hear others...

[mactastic]

Lol, oh and Dubya had a depth of military knowledge to draw on from his stint in the Texas Air National Guard! Puleeze. Both Clinton and Bush rely on ADVISORS for advice on military matters.

[Backtothemac]

Originally posted by mactastic
Lol, oh and Dubya had a depth of military knowledge to draw on from his stint in the Texas Air National Guard! Puleeze. Both Clinton and Bush rely on ADVISORS for advice on military matters.

Exactly. If Clinton would have been in office, we would have gone into Afghanistan at the least. He would not have laid down and taken a blow like that.

[g5man]

Rat has a good point. A “Wait and See” attitude is one that is needed in Iraq. As Americans we want instant gratification. The critics are loud and getting louder and it is easy to jump on the bandwagon.

Personally if we still see the same amount of violence in Iraq three years from now, then I would be ready to start demanding a change of team members.

There were a couple items that I learned that I did not hear in the media. One is that we find quite a few of the roadside bombs before they blow up. This means that there are plenty of people who are helping the Americans. Secondly for every American soldier killed there are at least 12 bad guys killed. These things are not reported and I am not sure why. The increase in attacks do show a moment of desperation on the pro-Saddam forces.

Those who are always ready to point out every negative item in the news would still find fault with Iraq and Bush even if things were going well.

[mactastic]

Some of us thought a "wait and see" attitude was needed in the run-up to the war during the whole inspections process. Funny that some who were in such a hurry before now want to wait 3 years.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by g5man
The increase in attacks do show a moment of desperation on the pro-Saddam forces.

Curious, but do you also feel that when we increased our attacks against alQaeda, that is was showing a moment of desperation on our part? Or that we were desperate when we increased our attacks on Iraq? Or is desperation something only our enemies are capable of?

Personally I see the recent uptick in attacks and soldier deaths as a sign of increased coordination and effectiveness among the enemy, not acts of desperation by them.

BTW BTTM, haven't seen you around here much lately. Good to see you back in here.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by g5man
... Secondly for every American soldier killed there are at least 12 bad guys killed. These things are not reported and I am not sure why. The increase in attacks do show a moment of desperation on the pro-Saddam forces.


I don't know how old you are g5man, but if you aren't old enough to remember, have you heard of the body counts in Vietnam? They were notorious in the false impression they gave. In 1968 we were also told that the Tet offensive was the "last, desperate" actions of the "Viet Cong." I don't mean to say that it is the same situation, but experience tells me not to place too much faith in self-serving pronouncements of our government officials.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Well, he would have to have different advisors. People make mistakes. I just think that the policy is getting really bad.

from a logistical standpoint, how would that work?

i don't think it'd be reasonable for bush to campaign on a platform of "i'll change out my whole advisory team if you re-elect me," because he should just do that now.

absent of him firing anyone (has he, in fact, fired anyone he's appointed?), wouldn't you have to assume he'd stick w/ his team if re-elected?

[mactastic]

No, everyone leaves "for personal reasons" "to spend more time with their family";)

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by mactastic
Some of us thought a "wait and see" attitude was needed in the run-up to the war during the whole inspections process. Funny that some who were in such a hurry before now want to wait 3 years.

Allow me to second that emotion.

What troubles me a bit about this thread is the tendency to drag out the "blame game" rhetoric whenever someone suggests that the administration's approach is flawed. Some of us have been saying this from the very start.

[Desertrat]

IJ, my understanding may be in error as to your "What troubles me a bit about this thread is the tendency to drag out the "blame game" rhetoric whenever someone suggests that the administration's approach is flawed."

I'm one who was not against the war in Iraq. I don't know that I was necessarily slobbering over the chance for us to do it, but I can see lots of reasons for having done so.

That does not mean, however, that I must be in accord with how the public support was created, nor does it mean that I am pleased with the way things are being handled. At this point, for another "however", I'm not so sure that it's as bad as the media seems to portray it. The pundits get excited about explosions, but not about the fact that a lot of Iraqis are apparently quite pleased that Saddam is no longer in power.

Numbers of Iraqis killed per GI death comes from the grunts as well as from the government. I've talked to a couple of guys back here on R&R, and a couple of long-time gun-forum members have also substantiated the idea that our guys are doing pretty well in the ambush situations.

The internal in-fghting for power or prestige within any administration is generally unending. When it gets to be public knowledge, it starts hamstringing everybody's efforts...

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

We can argue all day long about whether the media accurately portrays any given event. We'll have the definitive answer to that question right after we calculate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. To my way of thinking, this is little more then a smoke screen for avoiding discussing what we do know about this or any other given situation.

We do have enough information to discuss whether the Bush administration has made sound decisions. I consider most of the regulars on this board to be more then average informed, and not drawing conclusions based on media visuals or political spin. I personally am not very much moved by the President's political opposition (though I am glad he now has some), nor am I very impressed by the current White House charm campaign.

[g5man]

Originally posted by mactastic
Curious, but do you also feel that when we increased our attacks against alQaeda, that is was showing a moment of desperation on our part? Or that we were desperate when we increased our attacks on Iraq? Or is desperation something only our enemies are capable of?

There is a big difference between our actions and those of the pro- Saddam forces. We are using a 10% of our power while they are using almost 100%. We have unlimited soldiers while they have to rely on new recruits, foreign fighters, and the eventual depletion of their bombs. It will be this way for a while longer. They show desperation in attacking soft targets and civillians. When they loose 12 guys to one of our soldiers they start to attack easier targets.

Originally posted by mactastic
Personally I see the recent uptick in attacks and soldier deaths as a sign of increased coordination and effectiveness among the enemy, not acts of desperation by them.

You are going to have spikes like this since it is a natural progression of a conflict.Six months before the end of WW II, the Germans defeated the Allied forces and captured well over 50,000 in France. True they are getting better coordinated and more effective, but so will we as we learn and change tactics.

Believe it or not (and you will not here this on the news), we are actually protecting the same people who are attacking us. Once we stop doing that the Kurds and other groups will take care of those who attack us. Most of the country suffered terribly under Saddam and revenage is on their minds. The civil war is being prevented and we are paying a price for it. Once their own forces take over security things will be better.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by g5man
There is a big difference between our actions and those of the pro- Saddam forces. We are using a 10% of our power while they are using almost 100%. We have unlimited soldiers while they have to rely on new recruits, foreign fighters, and the eventual depletion of their bombs. It will be this way for a while longer. They show desperation in attacking soft targets and civillians. When they loose 12 guys to one of our soldiers they start to attack easier targets.



You are going to have spikes like this since it is a natural progression of a conflict.Six months before the end of WW II, the Germans defeated the Allied forces and captured well over 50,000 in France. True they are getting better coordinated and more effective, but so will we as we learn and change tactics.

Believe it or not (and you will not here this on the news), we are actually protecting the same people who are attacking us. Once we stop doing that the Kurds and other groups will take care of those who attack us. Most of the country suffered terribly under Saddam and revenage is on their minds. The civil war is being prevented and we are paying a price for it. Once their own forces take over security things will be better.

g5man, some of your assertions reverberate like deja vu from Vietnam, Algeria, Kenya, and every guerrilla conflict of the last 100 years. In each one the power with the great technological advantage did not think it could lose but that is precisely what happened. Iraq maybe different, but the events unfolding there don't give me great cause for hope.

[Pinto]

Let's try look on the bright side.

The more money down the tubes (even if it is going to the Friends of Bush Society business connections), the more US soldiers killed or injured, the less likely the US is going to make up lies or use BS hypocritical reasons to invade someone else for their resources/political reasons.

[g5man]

Originally posted by Sayhey
g5man, some of your assertions reverberate like deja vu from Vietnam, Algeria, Kenya, and every guerrilla conflict of the last 100 years. In each one the power with the great technological advantage did not think it could lose but that is precisely what happened. Iraq maybe different, but the events unfolding there don't give me great cause for hope.

Vietnam keeps being used to make predictions in this conflict. We are now loosing one soldiers every 1.6 days. If this ratio continues in the five years that Vietnam lasted from 1967-1972 we will loose 1140 soldiers, while we lost well over 57,000 in Vietnam. Also keep in mind that the Vietcon were supported by the N. Vietnam and China.

If it appears that Iran and Syria are helping the pro-Saddam forces in a significant way they will be attacked much harder than N. Vietnam.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by g5man
Vietnam keeps being used to make predictions in this conflict.

I haven't heard the Vietnam analogy used for predictive purposes. I think you entirely misunderstand the point being made here, which is that powerful occupying nations can and often are defeated by local insurgencies. These defeats are invariably accompanied by brave talk by the powerful nation about how they can't possibly lose to a backward, ragtag bunch of poorly equipped guerilla fighters. History is resplendent with examples, of which Vietnam is only one.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by g5man
Vietnam keeps being used to make predictions in this conflict. We are now loosing one soldiers every 1.6 days. If this ratio continues in the five years that Vietnam lasted from 1967-1972 we will loose 1140 soldiers, while we lost well over 57,000 in Vietnam. Also keep in mind that the Vietcon were supported by the N. Vietnam and China.

If it appears that Iran and Syria are helping the pro-Saddam forces in a significant way they will be attacked much harder than N. Vietnam.

I don't want to use Vietnam to make predictions; I only want to make sure we learn from our past mistakes. When I hear things like a 12 to 1 ratio in body counts as reasons to think we are winning, I think we did not learn some of the lessons of yesterday. Vietnam and Iraq are very different places, but success against guerilla warfare cannot be measured in the kind of terms you are talking about.

Your last statement about attacking Syria and Iran concern me more than most of your others. If we become the occupying power of all three nations it will be an unprecedented disaster in the making.

[g5man]

Originally posted by Sayhey
I don't want to use Vietnam to make predictions; I only want to make sure we learn from our past mistakes. When I hear things like a 12 to 1 ratio in body counts as reasons to think we are winning, I think we did not learn some of the lessons of yesterday. Vietnam and Iraq are very different places, but success against guerilla warfare cannot be measured in the kind of terms you are talking about.

I do agree with you that the 12 to 1 ratio can paint a wrong picture of winning. Everyone knows that a guerilla war is won by winning the hearts and minds of the population. In this case the population is scared to death. The first two questions asked of a congressman who met the Governing Council on the first trip to Iraq were. "Will Bush win re-election next year? If the Democrats take the White House will they pull the troops out of Iraq? After being tortured by Saddam for 30 years the people of Iraq are truly afraid he will return and if the troops leave more civilians will be killed by his terrorist buddies.

Originally posted by Sayhey
Your last statement about attacking Syria and Iran concern me more than most of your others. If we become the occupying power of all three nations it will be an unprecedented disaster in the making.

I very much doubt that Syria and Iran will be attacked or occupied. They know that it is in their best interest not to interfere too much in Iraq. If the US did attack it would be just enough to get their governments to fall and the population will take care of the rest. Saddam fell in three weeks and he is living in some basement instead of a palace. They remember that and I think they got the message.

[IJ Reilly]

And what message might that be?

[pseudobrit]

Bush fired his entire team of economic advisors.

The economy still sucks.

[g5man]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
And what message might that be?

After Sept 11, America has taken its gloves off. It's present Administration is not afraid to take decisive actions while rebuilding its military at an incredible pace which has not been seen since the beginning of the Cold War.

Most Americans have not forgotten about Sept 11, that is why the president's actions have not hurt him politically. He does not have to change anyone on his team and appears very confident of a second term with the same team.

Iran and Syria have regimes that will not be around by the time the War on Terror reaches its peak. The states that sponsor terrorism have gotten a free pass for about 20 years and their get out of jail card has expired.

[IJ Reilly]

Well, that's a very nice speech, but it doesn't have much to do with reality.

[3rdpath]

Originally posted by g5man
The states that sponsor terrorism have gotten a free pass for about 20 years and their get out of jail card has expired.

could it be that the states that sponsor the sponsors of terrorism have had their cards expire?

look behind the saddams, the osamas and the turmoil in iran and you'll see the hand that moves the puppet...hint=u.s.a.

[Desertrat]

Thanks for the insight, 3rdpath. And all the time I thought it was the Bilderbergs! It's nice to know we have all that much influence in Iran, so they can support those who kill us.

'Rat

[mactastic]

Originally posted by g5man
There is a big difference between our actions and those of the pro- Saddam forces. We are using a 10% of our power while they are using almost 100%. We have unlimited soldiers while they have to rely on new recruits, foreign fighters, and the eventual depletion of their bombs. It will be this way for a while longer. They show desperation in attacking soft targets and civillians. When they loose 12 guys to one of our soldiers they start to attack easier targets.

I strongly disagree with you here. We have most of our deployable troops in Iraq, something on the order of 150,000. We had some 250,000 there at the peak of the invasion. Somehow I don't buy your "10%" number. Saddam had an army numbering several hundred thousand, and I don't see that number of people attacking our troops. Perhaps you would like to go back and give us some kind of justification for those numbers. Unless you just made them up to make a point. I'd like to see the source myself.

The idea that we have unlimited soldiers is also false. We have a very limited number remaining that haven't been on a tour of duty in the last 24 months. The idea that we can "deplete" their supply of bombs by continually running over them with our soldiers is also false. How easy is it to get explosives in that part of the world? From what I have heard, there are arms bazzars where you can buy all kinds of weapons with little control (NRA heaven :D ) and I somehow doubt that weapons aren't flowing into Iraq as the insurgents use up the thousands and thousands laying around already "in country".

I'm still not buying your argument that a change in tactics by the enemy shows desperation while a change in tactics by the US shows that we are "adapting to the situation on the ground". How do we know the enemy isn't adapting as well? Attacks against soft targets may achieve their aims faster than direct confrontation with our troops. In that situation, would you continue the less-effective attacks on Americans, or move to the soft targets and try to run groups like the ICRC out of Iraq? If the ICRC goes, that would be a major blow to attempts to rebuild Iraq IMHO.



You are going to have spikes like this since it is a natural progression of a conflict.Six months before the end of WW II, the Germans defeated the Allied forces and captured well over 50,000 in France. True they are getting better coordinated and more effective, but so will we as we learn and change tactics.

That was before "major combat" ended in Europe AFAIK ;)

Believe it or not (and you will not here this on the news), we are actually protecting the same people who are attacking us. Once we stop doing that the Kurds and other groups will take care of those who attack us. Most of the country suffered terribly under Saddam and revenage is on their minds. The civil war is being prevented and we are paying a price for it. Once their own forces take over security things will be better.

You mean the Sunnis? Part of the problem here too is that we are still dealing with the effects of colonialism and the disparate groups that were forced together in Iraq in the early 20th century. There is a whole lot of racial, ethnic, tribal, and religious hatred there. Sunnis and Shias may band together to toss out the US, but if we leave them to their own devices they will be at each others throats real fast. Not to mention the ethnic Turks, and the Kurds in the north. Setting up a representative government here is a major challenge. I don't see handing things over to the Iraqis right now as making things any better. In fact if we cut and run now, we will leave Iraq worse than it was under Saddam, and it will become another failed state that will be a haven for terrorists.

[zimv20]

the insurgency has the second law of thermodynamics on its side.

[g5man]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Bush fired his entire team of economic advisors.

The economy still sucks.

The economy grew at 7.2% last quarter.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031030/D7UGJQTO0.html

[3rdpath]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Thanks for the insight, 3rdpath. And all the time I thought it was the Bilderbergs! It's nice to know we have all that much influence in Iran, so they can support those who kill us.

'Rat

c'mon rat, you're wiser than that...;) remember the shah and who put him in place? of course you do. our meddling has done nothing to make their country better...some would say it's made it much worse. either way their destiny, like iraq's, is not for us to choose.

call it karma, payback or just the fall-out of unwise policies...

bottom line is: many many people in the middle east don't see us as heroes, helpers or saviors and they are going to continue to make their displeasure known for as long as our military is over there. end of story.

or as god said to noah, " how long can you tread water"?

more insight to come, you lucky dog.:D

[Desertrat]

3rdpath, the way I understand the history of our "installing" Pahlevi was that Mossadegh was making happy noises with the Soviets. So, as part of our Cold War effort of containment, the CIA did their thing and got Mossadegh out and the Shah in. A major concern in those days was that the USSR, with any serious influence in or control of Iran, could then control oil shipments from the Persian Gulf states.

The Shah attempted a degree of secularization and a westernization of the economy. This reduced the power of the mullahs, who then began preaching against the regime. Khomeini became a notable opposition leader; he was exiled to France. The Shah's secret police (SAVAK?) became ever more brutal as the mullahs' disciples fought against secularization.

The rest, as they say, is history...

But we didn't put the Shah in for no rational reason...

In the context of the early 1950s, were we so obviously wrong? And, could anybody have foreseen the amount or effectiveness of the resistance to secularism?

'Rat

[Taft]

Originally posted by g5man
The economy grew at 7.2% last quarter.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031030/D7UGJQTO0.html

Yeah, and the fed has pushed interest rate down to the point where they have little other options, the unemployment rate is still outrageously high, consumer debt is very high and jobs continue to move overseas.

I like the fact that the GDP went up, but that is only a sinlge measure of how the economy as a whole is doing and whether or not it can sustain that pace. Further, trends such as the dramatic consolidation of wealth in this country don't bode well for the middle class. That type of trend could cut out the knees of the American economy long term.

I'm optimistic that the economy can be improved, but Bush's policies thus far have not been all that impressive.

Taft

[Taft]

Originally posted by Desertrat
3rdpath, the way I understand the history of our "installing" Pahlevi was that Mossadegh was making happy noises with the Soviets. So, as part of our Cold War effort of containment, the CIA did their thing and got Mossadegh out and the Shah in. A major concern in those days was that the USSR, with any serious influence in or control of Iran, could then control oil shipments from the Persian Gulf states.

The Shah attempted a degree of secularization and a westernization of the economy. This reduced the power of the mullahs, who then began preaching against the regime. Khomeini became a notable opposition leader; he was exiled to France. The Shah's secret police (SAVAK?) became ever more brutal as the mullahs' disciples fought against secularization.

The rest, as they say, is history...

But we didn't put the Shah in for no rational reason...

In the context of the early 1950s, were we so obviously wrong? And, could anybody have foreseen the amount or effectiveness of the resistance to secularism?

'Rat

The problem with this scenario is that US actions were only looking to solve a short term need for our country. The US government intervened in another country's politics and leadership not for the good of the Iranian people, but for our own interests.

In this case, the actions caused long term instability in Iran, causing the suffering of many of its people. All for our interests. I don't consider this acceptable.

Also, you grossly over-simplify the role of religion and secularism in causing the problems of 1950's Iran. The real problem was rooted in a US installed government imposing their will on the people. This government was not elected by the people or even executing the will of the people (unlike the government we disposed of). Who knew people don't like being ruled by an installed government with different ideals than the very people they are ruling?? :rolleyes:

Taft

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Desertrat
3rdpath, the way I understand the history of our "installing" Pahlevi was that Mossadegh was making happy noises with the Soviets. So, as part of our Cold War effort of containment, the CIA did their thing and got Mossadegh out and the Shah in. A major concern in those days was that the USSR, with any serious influence in or control of Iran, could then control oil shipments from the Persian Gulf states.

The Shah attempted a degree of secularization and a westernization of the economy. This reduced the power of the mullahs, who then began preaching against the regime. Khomeini became a notable opposition leader; he was exiled to France. The Shah's secret police (SAVAK?) became ever more brutal as the mullahs' disciples fought against secularization.

The rest, as they say, is history...

But we didn't put the Shah in for no rational reason...

In the context of the early 1950s, were we so obviously wrong? And, could anybody have foreseen the amount or effectiveness of the resistance to secularism?

'Rat

'Rat,

Mossadegh was a secularist and a nationalist. His greatest crime in the eyes of the west was the "noises" he made toward the nationalization of Iran's oil industry. In the 1950's that was all it took to be viewed as a "threat" to "vital US interests." It was indeed the CIA that put the Shah on the throne, with Kermit Roosevelt as the man in charge.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by g5man
The economy grew at 7.2% last quarter.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031030/D7UGJQTO0.html

You'll of course have noticed that a large part of that blip were those hefty tax rebate checks. Those were a one time thing and gw has pretty much done all he can to reduce taxes. While it has helped the economy it is not an indication of a healthy economy. There will be more money to spend but since the majority of it will be spent on imported goods, the lasting effects of his cuts are minimal. Just one question. Where are the jobs?

[g5man]

Originally posted by Ugg
You'll of course have noticed that a large part of that blip were those hefty tax rebate checks. Those were a one time thing and gw has pretty much done all he can to reduce taxes. While it has helped the economy it is not an indication of a healthy economy. There will be more money to spend but since the majority of it will be spent on imported goods, the lasting effects of his cuts are minimal. Just one question. Where are the jobs?

We are changing subjects but I don't think anyone will mind.

Since it appears the tax cut assisted in boosting the GDP, then the argument that (tax cut for the rich will not help the economy) no longer holds water. Come this next summer the bid debate in Congress is to make the tax cuts permanent.

The manufacturing of an imported good makes up a small percentage of the benefits in selling the product upon the economy here in the US. A shirt is made for $3 in China but sold here for $40. That means $37 goes to someone else other than the manufacturer. That $37 will boost the economy of this country not the $3 lost to overseas jobs.

What do you consider minimal? Jobs will come but that takes a little more time.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by g5man
Since it appears the tax cut assisted in boosting the GDP, then the argument that (tax cut for the rich will not help the economy) no longer holds water. Come this next summer the bid debate in Congress is to make the tax cuts permanent.

The manufacturing of an imported good makes up a small percentage of the benefits in selling the product upon the economy here in the US. A shirt is made for $3 in China but sold here for $40. That means $37 goes to someone else other than the manufacturer. That $37 will boost the economy of this country not the $3 lost to overseas jobs.

What do you consider minimal? Jobs will come but that takes a little more time.

Tax cuts always provide a smokescreen for presidents to hide behind. This one is no exception and its ability to permanently regenerate the economy is in serious doubt. This time next year, the true effects of the cut will be apparent. The problem with the tax cut is that there isn't a complentary reduction in government spending. Therefore, government borrowing will skyrocket putting upward pressure on interest rates and reducing credit to business wanting to expand. The budget overrun this year is what, around $400 billion? The largest ever and all gw & co want to do is increase govt. spending. $87+ billion for Iraq, huge increases in HL Security spending, huge Medicare Drug Benefit, huge everything but with no money to pay for it. Tell me this time next year that gw has done the right thing for the economy and I'll likely laugh in your face. His "successes" are being forced forward onto future generations in a way that Roosevelt and Johnson only dreamed of.

Add another dollar or two for the British/German/French/Dutch transportation company, another buck or two to the foreign flagged steamship line or air carrier, another buck or two for domestic transportation and warehousing, a dollar or two will go to the employee of WalMart where it is increasinly likely that that shirt will be sold. Of course that employee is only paid minimum wage and must pay 1/3 of his/her wage for insurance costs and then the coverage is only for catastrophic health care. Then a few more bucks for management and equipment then a nice whopping ten bucks for the Walton family and of course ya gotta reward those share holders! So that shirt has done very little good for the majority of Americans and has greatly benefitted a select few.

How much time is it going to take? Jobs are going overseas at a rate faster than ever before and there are no replacements for them. We are supposedly two years out of a recession and yet the jobless rate has never ever been this high with such a recovery. The times they are a changing and gw has failed, once again, the people of this country. Kick him out I say.

[Pinto]

Originally posted by Sayhey
'Rat,

Mossadegh was a secularist and a nationalist. His greatest crime in the eyes of the west was the "noises" he made toward the nationalization of Iran's oil industry. In the 1950's that was all it took to be viewed as a "threat" to "vital US interests." It was indeed the CIA that put the Shah on the throne, with Kermit Roosevelt as the man in charge.

You must realise that as far as Rat is concerned "good for the US" is really all that matters.

Installing murderous dictators, invading countries, supporting wars, turning a blind eye to torture are all very secondary concerns.

If you're not lucky enough to be born American, then you're just a second class world citizen.

[Frohickey]

If I am not mistaken, it took quite a long time to rebuild Japan from WW2. This is probably more along the lines of what is happening in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Germany and France and Engliand post-WW2, they were essentially a western nation, whereas Japan was totally different.

I still think that the Afghans and Iraqis are better off. You don't have executions in soccer stadiums and you don't have people in plastic shredders anymore. What you have is hit-and-run attacks from remnants of Taliban and Hussein forces, with al-Qaeda forces mixed in.

Japan was a bit easier since its not as easy to get into Japan. But enemy combatants can get into Afghanistan and Iraq though their porous borders.

What I'm more afraid of is that post-WW2 Japan ended up challenging the US' position as the #1 in the world economy. Imagine what Iraq could do with a highly educated and industrious population. Akbar motors and Sunni video game consoles? :p

[Pinto]

Japan was a s***hole until they happened to be nice and close to another war (Korean).

A Cheap labour force and close proximity to an mainly American Army requiring supplies was required before the "rebuilding" happened.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Pinto
You must realise that as far as Rat is concerned "good for the US" is really all that matters.

Installing murderous dictators, invading countries, supporting wars, turning a blind eye to torture are all very secondary concerns.

If you're not lucky enough to be born American, then you're just a second class world citizen.

Pinto,

I know very well that many administrations, Democratic and Republican, have taken the cynical view of other nations you describe. The coup in Iran to bring the Shah to power certainly qualifies as just such a case.

I do not assume that is the same kind of thinking with 'Rat.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by Pinto
Japan was a s***hole until they happened to be nice and close to another war (Korean).

A Cheap labour force and close proximity to an mainly American Army requiring supplies was required before the "rebuilding" happened.

The same with Germany and its proximity to the USSR.

The differences are quite clear in regards to Iraq. Both Germany and Japan had strong pre war manufacturing abilities and strong education systems. While Iraq does have a decent education system, its industrial output revolves almost solely around oil. We know only too well what has happened with that industry, it has been parceled out to American firms.

Both Japan and Germany were aggressors in WW2 whereas Iraq was attacked without provocation. Its only crimes were not providing info to UN arms inspectors. Its human rights violations were pretty awful but no worse than a few dozen other dictatorships around the world. In other words Japan and Germany both knew they had done wrong and wanted to put the past behind them. Iraqis seem to feel bewildered by the increasing US presence in their country. I'm sure most are glad to see SH gone but they will be even happier to see us gone.

Afghanistan has known nothing but war and terror and drugs and repression for the last 20 years. Iraq at least has oil, Afghanistan has nothing but some of the most forbiddingly beautiful mountains and deserts in the world. The hope that Afghanistan will become an industrial powerhouse ignores the reality that it is nothing but a backwater of the worst kind. Wishful thinking seems to be all that gw is doing these days other than blaming the media for all his problems that is.

[Desertrat]

Pinto, once again I see the mistake of assuming that because I comment on why or how some situation came to be, I'm somehow espousing the action that led to it. Sorry, big mistake.

People have friends. "Governments do not have friends; they have interests." The purpose of the U.S. government is to look to the interests of its citizenry as superior to the interests of others. One can only hope that there is at least a reasonable effort at fairness in governmental actions abroad, since even governmental negotiators are people dealing with people.

IMO, Taft hit on one of the primaary reasons for many of the troubles that have built up as a result of foreign policy decisions: "The problem with this scenario is that US actions were only looking to solve a short term need for our country."

Some of you might recall my occasional gripe about "unintended consequences" or "unanticipated side effects". That's exactly what happens to those who aren't quality players in the Grand Chess Game of international relations.

You don't have to be mean, nasty or corrupt to screw up bigtime.

'Rat

[mactastic]

'Rat, you might also recall some of us who also cited unintended consequences as a caution to rolling our military into Baghdad as well. You aren't the only one worried about those unintended results of an action taken with the best of intentions.

Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw at school the other day "The road to hell is paved with liberals".

[Desertrat]

Yeah...

Seems to me that with the televising of the Vietnam war, our repugnance against losing any of our guys led to the idea that we must be able to "do war" without taking casualties. So, we pretty well managed that with Desert Storm and in the Balkans. We continued no-to-low casualties with our efforts in the combat phases in Afghanistan and Iraq. Look at us! Ain't we neat?

It's sort of an "All of a sudden!" thing in Iraq that the realities of warlike hostilities jump up and bite perception in the butt. As usual.

Harking back to my comment that no war is over until an 18-year-old grunt can sit on his helmet and eat his MREs without watching his six: The war in Iraq ain't over. As wars go, we're not losing many men, so "That's good." Saddamites/Al Qaidas are doing ambushes and car bombs, so "That's bad."

The question is, then, how long before the mix of armed troops and Iraqi citizenry/police can bring things under control.

I dunno.

'Rat

[Frohickey]

Remember what happened when we pulled out of Somalia after our loss in 'the night of the Rangers'. Even though the mission was a success, where we caught Aidid lieutenants, we pulled out of Somalia, and that emboldened the radical islamists.

That is what is being hoped for by the Saddam loyalists in Iraq, that we would tuck-tail-and-run, just as we did back in 1992.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Remember what happened when we pulled out of Somalia after our loss in 'the night of the Rangers'. Even though the mission was a success, where we caught Aidid lieutenants, we pulled out of Somalia, and that emboldened the radical islamists.

That is what is being hoped for by the Saddam loyalists in Iraq, that we would tuck-tail-and-run, just as we did back in 1992.

I also remember every conservative in the nation, or close to it, saying we couldn't get into this mess of "nation-building." Clinton ordered the US forces out of Somalia, a situation he inherited from Papa Bush, because there was no support in this country for losing US lives in the effort. Did you support the effort or is this in the way of mea culpa for the conservative contribution to that efforts failure?

I'd be the first to admit that the Somalia '"adventure" wasn't well thought out by either the Bush or Clinton administrations, but then again it looks like this effort in Iraq is even less well thought out and on a far grander scale.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by Desertrat
I'm usually more of a "wait and see" sort than a lot of folks, but I can sure understand Bttm's view. But I definitely agree that some different advisors are needed.

To me, it's not an issue of "fault" or "blame". It's more "If you can't cut it, go away." I'm performance oriented.

For sure, all this running in a circle making excuses and playing blame-games really sucks.

'Rat

i am in agreement with you two also about the advisors and i also do not directly blame bush

rumsfeld has got to go...4 star general franks doesn't like him, 4 star general shinsheki does not like him, and powell, a former 4 star general does not like him...all that and some of rumsfeld's duties have been stripped from him and given to the more trusted condi rice

when reagan had a problem with someone on his staff, like alexander haig who proved to be a liability, he dumped him and this is what needs to be done to rumsfeld

if bush does that, i may even vote for him in 2004:D

i lke rice, powell, cheney, and i thought i would never say this, ashcroft has not been bad (though not great)

if others need to go, i am sure bush has an idea of what he needs to to but this war did not help him in the same way that it helped his father...no matter what historians say about george hw bush the president, no one will take away the fact that he fought, beat, and broke off cleanly from the first gulf war brilliantly

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
i am in agreement with you two also about the advisors and i also do not directly blame bush

rumsfeld has got to go...4 star general franks doesn't like him, 4 star general shinsheki does not like him, and powell, a former 4 star general does not like him...all that and some of rumsfeld's duties have been stripped from him and given to the more trusted condi rice

when reagan had a problem with someone on his staff, like alexander haig who proved to be a liability, he dumped him and this is what needs to be done to rumsfeld

if bush does that, i may even vote for him in 2004:D

i lke rice, powell, cheney, and i thought i would never say this, ashcroft has not been bad (though not great)

if others need to go, i am sure bush has an idea of what he needs to to but this war did not help him in the same way that it helped his father...no matter what historians say about george hw bush the president, no one will take away the fact that he fought, beat, and broke off cleanly from the first gulf war brilliantly

jeff, while I agree with you on Rumsfeld, I think you are giving too much slack to Rice, Powell, Cheney, and especially Ashcroft. Besides his campaign to expand the already abusive "Patriot" Act I would give you these two examples discussed in this forum:

an open society (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45067)

and

Ashcroft is pulling out all the stops to prosecute protesters (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42341)

His use of his powers as a prosecutor seems very politically one sided and abusive of our civil rights.

I freely admit, however, it would take a miracle to even get me to consider voting for Bush. Maybe if Lyndon LaRouche or Richard Perle were the Democratic standard bearer. They are both Democrats who I think are positively looney. Nah! I'd vote Green.

[IJ Reilly]

Perle is a Democrat? I saw him on the NewsHour last night relentless hammering home the White House's political case for "staying the course" in Iraq.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Perle is a Democrat? I saw him on the NewsHour last night relentless hammering home the White House's political case for "staying the course" in Iraq.

Yes, Perle still describes himself as a Democrat. He got his start working for Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson the Washington Democrat who was known as "the senator from Boeing." You can't get much further to the right than Perle without wearing a brown shirt, but he is still a Democrat. Of course, since working for Jackson he has worked for every Republican administration there has been.

IJ, if you take a look at many of the neocons they have Democratic pasts, including some who have what you would have to call social-democratic politics in their very distant biographies.

[ColoJohnBoy]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
first let me clearly state that I do believe there were WMD's there, and everyone here knows why I feel that way.
That's a nice claim. I'm afraid I'm one that doesn't know why you FEEL this way. Perhaps you could enlighten me. Then, once you've explained your FEELINGS, you could provide some sort of solid proof that Huessein possessed or even pursued weapons of mass destruction since the Gulf War. Can you imagine what the world would be like if every country went around doing whatever the hell they pleased based simply on a feeling????


Second. I do think that going in was the right thing to do for the Iraqi people. Most of you know, that was one of the major reasons that I supported the war was for their benefit.

Third. I have met many Iraqi's in my day, and that was the reason that I wanted us in, and everything else was second.
There's no debate over the fact that now, and in the long run, the Iraqi people will be much better off without Huessein. I ask you this: why wasn't that given as the primary reason for going into the country? Why was evidence falsified in regards to WMD when the administration had a pefectly legitimate reason to do what they wanted? Because it would make us hypocrites. We give Most Favored Nation status to China, a country with as many blatant human rights violations as the old Iraq. We leave the Sudanese alone to massacre themselves. We ignore the world over the same thing which so many are holding up as a justification for waging war in Iraq. It's a legitimate reason, but it doesn't fly in this case, bucko.


Now, let me also clearly say that I do not believe at any level that we are in a quagmire.
Stunning. Where do you get your information? Having read my father's letters, the letters of other soldiers in his unit (who are scattered randomly throughout the country), spoken with him on the phone, and consumed nearly every scrap of news I can (Including Fox News) I can safely say that we are indeed in a quagmire. Nowhere near the situation we were in in Vietnam by any means, but rapidly approaching it. Remember - Vietnam lasted for 21 years. We've been in Iraq for all of seven months.


Personally, I think that the world needs to get involved, and quickly. We are killing our own country to rebuild another.
Why should they? We told them to screw off when they didn't support us in the first place - remember? Bush said the relevance of the UN hinged on that one vote. Well, apparently a world organization designed to do just what it is needed for now is irrelevant. Guess we can count it out. As far as individual nations go, there are already dozens assisting us to the best of their abilities. But none of them are about to go out on a limb and do what is being done here, just as you said: screwing their own country. Beside, we haven't provided them with any economic or monetary incentive to do so. There's no justification in their eyes for risking the lives of their men to rebuild a country without any say in out, while we reap all the profits. It isn't realistic.

Bush and his advisors got us into this mess and they sure as hell better do their damnedest to get us out of it before they get their asses thrown out.

[coolsoldier]

Originally posted by Sayhey
if you take a look at many of the neocons they have Democratic pasts, including some who have what you would have to call social-democratic politics in their very distant biographies.

Republican and Democrat are just names ;).
Seriously, I don't trust anybody who just stands for a party line. If you don't stand for your own original ideas, then you don't really stand for anything. The people who just carry their party lines can't be trusted because they are too likely to change their ideas on a whim.

[jefhatfield]

right now, i think rumsfeld sticks out like a sore thumb and a defense secretary that cannot get along with his generals is not the person we need running the show right now in the sensitive situation we have in iraq...my prediction is that rummy will be gone sometime next year and america will be better for it





[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sayhey
[B]jeff, while I agree with you on Rumsfeld, I think you are giving too much slack to Rice, Powell, Cheney, and especially Ashcroft. Besides his campaign to expand the already abusive "Patriot" Act I would give you these two examples discussed in this forum:

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
right now, i think rumsfeld sticks out like a sore thumb and a defense secretary that cannot get along with his generals is not the person we need running the show right now in the sensitive situation we have in iraq...my prediction is that rummy will be gone sometime next year and america will be better for it

I agree with you, Jeff, but it won't do much good unless Rumsfeld's assistants go as well (Wolfowitz in particular.) It will also take a change in Bush's thinking. That I don't think is likely, no matter who is fired.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Sayhey
I agree with you, Jeff, but it won't do much good unless Rumsfeld's assistants go as well (Wolfowitz in particular.) It will also take a change in Bush's thinking. That I don't think is likely, no matter who is fired.

I don't know Sayhey, Bush moving control of the operation from Rummy to Condi may be a sign he is starting to lose patience with the neocons. At least I hope thats what's going on behind the scenes. I would think Bush would be furious with the people who pushed this particular agenda whose basic underpinnings have proven false. He'd never show it in public, but if I were him I'd be plenty pissed at people like Chalabi, along with the people who assured him WMDs were laying around everywhere in Iraq, and that we would be greeted as liberators as we rolled in to Baghdad. And the ones who said it could be done cheap and be over before his re-election.

You know Rove did not want the war to be dragging on into '04.

[SPG]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Seems to me that with the televising of the Vietnam war, our repugnance against losing any of our guys led to the idea that we must be able to "do war" without taking casualties. So, we pretty well managed that with Desert Storm and in the Balkans. We continued no-to-low casualties with our efforts in the combat phases in Afghanistan and Iraq. Look at us! Ain't we neat?

It's sort of an "All of a sudden!" thing in Iraq that the realities of warlike hostilities jump up and bite perception in the butt. As usual.


I have to jump in and take issue with this idea that media coverage or even the casualties themselves caused the American public to lose their support and in turn lose the Vietnam war.
As we've seen from WWII and WWI the american public is willing and capable to do what it takes and suffer the losses necessary even when they are huge as they were in WWII, but only when it's truly necessary. As the war in Vietnam dragged on it looked less and less like a place where the United States had any real business. What were we fighting for? What is the best possible outcome? What will it take to achieve our goals? When the administration had to rationalize our involvement it became obvious that Vietnam was a mistake and that the American people were not willing to make the sacrifices of WWII for what could very well be a dead end.
The Balkans, Gulf War I, Haiti, Grenada, and all the other little countries we've fought in recently have been optional wars when weighed against the survival of our Nation, our People, Our way of life. Had the US been invaded in this time, and had that war cost many lives there would be very little opposition to it. High casualties be damned the USA would prevail to protect itself from foreign invasion.
Now let's apply this to the current invasion of Iraq. This war was sold as one of those non-optional wars. We were being told that there was an imminent threat by Iraq using weapons of mass destruction that would cause untold death and destruction on the people of the United States. Had this been a real threat supported by real evidence there would have been real support for the war. Instead we had no real threat and the lack of proof that got a lot of people protesting the rush to invade Iraq with only the "true believers" of Bush, the misinformed, and those with ulterior motives supporting the war that we are currently in. Now that the reality of the situation is that there was no pressing need to protect ourselves by invading Iraq, then this war falls clearly into the column of optional war. If it becomes even clearer that this was optional, especially if it comes out that our leaders knew it was optional, and that is now going to be costly as well with no real plan to achieve our goals you will see even stronger opposition to the war.
Americans will do what it takes when it needs it. Did Kosovo, Haiti, Panama, Grenada, warrant thousands of our sons and daughters killed and wounded? Does a former militairy power weakened by a decade of sanctions and bombing with no offensive capability and no offensive intent warrant hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of our sons and daughters killed and wounded?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by SPG
As we've seen from WWII and WWI the american public is willing and capable to do what it takes and suffer the losses necessary even when they are huge as they were in WWII, but only when it's truly necessary.

...snip...

Does a former militairy power weakened by a decade of sanctions and bombing with no offensive capability and no offensive intent warrant hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of our sons and daughters killed and wounded?

I'm not so sure. The American public that lived during WW1 and WW2 is not the same American public we have today. In WW1 or WW2, did you have Americans go to Canada in order to avoid the draft? I remember reading about people who were despondent because they were ineligible for the draft or were told that they couldn't serve their country in a military capacity. Not so today.

Apparently, Congress has agreed that the situation in Iraq warrant hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of our sons and daughters killed and wounded. Congress has the power of the purse, and they have given their approval with their joint resolutions for the action in Iraq. I still think that Congress did the cowardly act of issuing resolutions instead of declaring war, which it also has the power to do. I think this goes back to LBJ, which is a shame.

Someone has compared the current situation to Vietnam, but remember, Vietnam was a low intensity conflict that was expanded, starting from the Eisenhower era, all the way to the Nixon era (with Kennedy and LBJ in the middle).

I think what Americans want is a definite start and definite stop, instead of the open-ended war on poverty, war on drugs, war on terrorism, etc that have been sold to us by weak politicians without the intestinal fortitude to say something and mean it.

[g5man]

Originally posted by Frohickey
I'm not so sure. The American public that lived during WW1 and WW2 is not the same American public we have today. In WW1 or WW2, did you have Americans go to Canada in order to avoid the draft? I remember reading about people who were despondent because they were ineligible for the draft or were told that they couldn't serve their country in a military capacity. Not so today.



Actually I disagree to an extent. There were many who felt we had no business going to Europe.

After we took Hitler out there were even more asking why we were in Germany and what did we really accomplish by taking him out.

In reality not much has changed 60 years later.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by g5man
Actually I disagree to an extent. There were many who felt we had no business going to Europe.

After we took Hitler out there were even more asking why we were in Germany and what did we really accomplish by taking him out.

In reality not much has changed 60 years later.

What are you talking about! What did we accomplish by helping end Nazism? You've got to be kidding, right? The world is pretty much the same it would be if Hitler had stayed in power? Please, be serious.

Frohickey, in WWI there was a substantial antiwar movement. The Debs campaign was evidence of that. In WWII almost all opposition to involvement in the war disappeared with Pearl Harbor. Two very different situations. Today we saw how fast the people of our country can unite after the events of 9/11, but we are also seeing how we will continue to question policies like the war in Iraq. Again, two very different situations.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Sayhey
What are you talking about! What did we accomplish by helping end Nazism? You've got to be kidding, right?

i think you misread him. i believe he meant: people questioned taking out hitler, which turned out to be a good thing, which should serve as the lesson for taking out hussein. but still, people question.

[Desertrat]

SPG, your "I have to jump in and take issue with this idea that media coverage or even the casualties themselves caused the American public to lose their support and in turn lose the Vietnam war." may well be correct, but it still doesn't obviate my belief that the televising of the horrors did indeed affect our national attitude about taking casualties.

"If we gotta have a war, it oughta be a 'clean' war, where our guys don't get hurt."

Remember all the boo-hooing before Desert Storm? The pundits in all gravitas were talking about us taking 10,000 casualties or more? (We lost more in training in Desert Shield than in actual combat in Desert Storm.)

So the techno-boffins took us from dumb bombs to smart bombs to Even Smarter bombs...Sneaky-snake F-117s...TV-guided Tomahawks...

Damfino...

'Rat

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by zimv20
i think you misread him. i believe he meant: people questioned taking out hitler, which turned out to be a good thing, which should serve as the lesson for taking out hussein. but still, people question.

I hope you're right, zim. My apologies, g5man, if I took your comments the wrong way.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Sayhey
What are you talking about! What did we accomplish by helping end Nazism? You've got to be kidding, right? The world is pretty much the same it would be if Hitler had stayed in power? Please, be serious.

Frohickey, in WWI there was a substantial antiwar movement. The Debs campaign was evidence of that. In WWII almost all opposition to involvement in the war disappeared with Pearl Harbor. Two very different situations. Today we saw how fast the people of our country can unite after the events of 9/11, but we are also seeing how we will continue to question policies like the war in Iraq. Again, two very different situations.

Yeah, if Hitler stayed in power, we would have a united Europe with Germany at the top. Now, we have the European Union, we have a united Europe with Germany at the top. :o

Hitler in power would have allowed him to kill all of the gays in Europe. Would have allowed him to kill all the gypsies in Europe. Would have allowed him to kill all the Jews in Europe.

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by SPG
I have to jump in and take issue with this idea that media coverage or even the casualties themselves caused the American public to lose their support and in turn lose the Vietnam war.



The bringing of the war into everyone's living room night after night, year after year had a *huge* impact on support and perception of Vietnam in the states. The Vietnam War is a watershed event in TV journalism history, and it was the starting point for the rift and mistrust that exists between the military and the media today.

Before Vietnam if you wanted to see footage of the war you saw news reels at the local movie theater (so maybe once a week you saw a short news segment showing advancing allie's and dead germans). Not to mention that the footage you saw was heavily censored by the military. Reporters and news crews were kept at a very long arms reach. If you wanted to film anything that was worth filming you had to be in the Army which usually meant joining up into the First Motion Pictures Unit.

TV news was not the only reason for the unpopularity of Vietnam, but it did have a significant impact on public perception of what was going on on the other side of the Pacific.


Lethal

[manitoubalck]

Originally posted by Backtothemac
1. I think his advisors are really giving him bad info, I think that they are lying to each other, and to the people.

2. Our foriegn policy has sucked for quite a while now, and it isn't getting any better as best as I can tell. Hopefully that will change. (Just numbered the sections)

1. Couldn't agree with you more. Rumsfelt particually he's been pissing in the wrong pool for way to long.

The problem with the US foriegn policy is that it is just that,
'We'll just go and help these people whether they or the rest of the world wants us to or not.'
The US are hated world wide for that very reason, because they stick their nose where it doesn't belong and people get pissed off. (having a texan running the show doesn't help either)

[manitoubalck]

Originally posted by SPG
I have to jump in and take issue with this idea that media coverage or even the casualties themselves caused the American public to lose their support and in turn lose the Vietnam war.

As the war in Vietnam dragged on it looked less and less like a place where the United States had any real business. What were we fighting for? What is the best possible outcome? What will it take to achieve our goals? When the administration had to rationalize our involvement it became obvious that Vietnam was a mistake and that the American people were not willing to make the sacrifices of WWII for what could very well be a dead end.


The US lost the war in vietnam because they were no wanted just like they are not wanted now in the middle east, or central asia. The only difference now is that the US technologhy him iproved much faster than anyone elses and they are on a non-jungle playing field so their technological advantage is more useful.

[Frohickey]

I had thought that we were wanted by the south vietnamese government. But the reason we really got into it was that we were allied with the French, who got their butts kicked by the Vietnamese.

Ho Chi Minh actually tried to petition the United States to support Vietnamese independence from the French, but we got involved in 'entangling alliances', as specifically warned against by ol' George W.

As to Iraq, I think that Iraqis actually want us in. Maybe, the war should have been intentionally slowed down, allowing the shia Iraqis to kill off the Baathist party loyalists while they are trying to mount a counter attack on the US forces. But we did it so fast that the Baathist party members are in hiding and plotting guerrilla attacks.

I bet that we are also wanted in Iran, by the student movement against the imams. Heck, all they want are satellite TV! So, we are not unwanted in the whole of the middle east

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Frohickey
As to Iraq, I think that Iraqis actually want us in.

Very few of them want us there. They hated Saddam, but they hate us infidels worse.

I bet that we are also wanted in Iran, by the student movement against the imams. Heck, all they want are satellite TV!

A student movement does not a nation make. This is simple logic.

So, we are not unwanted in the whole of the middle east

And now you've taken the illogical conclusions you've jumped to and applied them to everything.

[SPG]

I guess I should have been a little more clear in my post, but that's why I'm not a lawyer or politician...
I have to jump in and take issue with this idea that media coverage or even the casualties themselves caused the American public to lose their support and in turn lose the Vietnam war.
Let's expand a bit, especially with some of the recent news coming out of Iraq...
What would it have taken to really win in VietNam? Invasion of the North? Going toe to toe with China? Where any of these options viable? Would it have even worked in a best case where the US wins the invasion of the North and China just sits back? Would we still be in VietNam fighting a low level counter insurgency and facing four decades of terror attacks from the Vietnamese?
One of the big problems of the Vietnamese war was the South Vietnamese government's corruption and it's lack of real support among the people. If you want to read a different perspective of the war and VietNam, pick up a copy of Into a Black Sun by Takeshi Keiko, who was a Japanese war corespondent in 1964-65. He had a much better handle on how the whole thing was going to play out than any of the generals or politicians.
Check out the perspective on this site: http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/ from a western educated Iraqi computer engineer living in Baghdad. I'm not so quick to disregard the comparisons to VietNam anymore.
What are we doing in Iraq? What are our goals? What is it going to take to achieve them? Are we willing to do what it takes to achieve those goals and is that price worth it?
The idea that the resistance to the occupation is desperate has become even more laughable in light of the recent uptick in attacks. The Red Cross is pulling out a lot of their staff, so is the UN. The Japanese aren't coming anymore. The Turks got denied by the INC and after the deaths of more than a dozen Italian soldiers the other day I wouldn't be surprised if it's just us and the brits after the "coalition of the willing" becomes the coalition willing to stay through their original one year promised deployment and that's it. Are we going to send in another 50,000 troops? Can we send in another 50,000 troops without reinstating the same draft that all the chickenhawks dodged? Can Bush even think about reinstating the draft in an election year? What's left then? More and more attacks until Rove orders Bush to order the troops to cut and run while there is a hasty election that leads to a three way power grab and civil war while the politicians try to spin the outcome into "that's exactly what we wanted all along"?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by SPG
What would it have taken to really win in VietNam? Invasion of the North? Going toe to toe with China? Where any of these options viable? Would it have even worked in a best case where the US wins the invasion of the North and China just sits back? Would we still be in VietNam fighting a low level counter insurgency and facing four decades of terror attacks from the Vietnamese?
One of the big problems of the Vietnamese war was the South Vietnamese government's corruption and it's lack of real support among the people.

I think it was Russia that was supporting the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong. I think China was still smarting from the stalemate in Korea. At least, this is what all the documentaries that have been made since the Iron Curtain fell have said. There was interviews with Soviet pilots saying that they are not to be caught in Vietnam.

Thanks for the blog link. I've been reading other Iraqi blog links too... http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/

Iraqis reactions to attacks vary widely. Most are indifferent but lately the attacks against the IP stations and the threats against schools have largely changed that. Iraqis now openly show their disgust for such actions and this has also made them eager to report any suspicious individuals in their neighbourhoods. We have our fools such as the 'dancing peasants of Fallujah' as Alaa nicely put it, who show their glee whenever they come across a camera. And on many occasions , as I have told you earlier, Al-Jazeera and Al-Aribiyah deliberately encourage people to do so before rolling the cameras.

Anyone know of the stock ticker symbol for the biggest satellite dish provider in Iraq? I need to make some money. :D :p

[groovebuster]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Yeah, if Hitler stayed in power, we would have a united Europe with Germany at the top. Now, we have the European Union, we have a united Europe with Germany at the top. :o

Amazing statement!!! :D

groovebuster

[wwworry]

The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/shouts/content/)

QUESTIONS FOR PRESIDENT BUSH’S NEXT PRESS CONFERENCE

by CALVIN TRILLIN

Issue of 2003-11-17
Posted 2003-11-10



Friendly question: “Sir, although your supporters’ predictions that Iraqis would greet our troops with flowers haven’t been borne out, isn’t it possible that, given the problems with the water supply and the infrastructure in general, there is a serious shortage of flowers over there and that Iraqis might be greeting our troops with flowers if Iraqis had any flowers?”


Follow-up question to friendly question: “Mr. President, in your budget for the reconstruction of Iraq, is there any money specifically earmarked for rebuilding the Iraqi cut-flower industry, and, if so, would any American company be able to bid on that contract, or would they have to go through your friend Joe Allbaugh’s consulting firm?”


Zen question: “Sir, if the ability of the Star Wars ABMs to hit a nuclear missile is imaginary and the nuclear missiles in Iraq are imaginary, does that mean a Star Wars ABM could hit an Iraqi nuclear missile?”


Follow-up question to Zen question if answer is yes:“How could that be verified?”


Follow-up question to Zen question if answer is no:“Would you consider that justification for having gone to war against Iraq?”


Strategic-planning question: “Sir, now that you’ve acknowledged that there was never any evidence of Iraqi involvement in the September 11th attacks by Al Qaeda, does it remain your policy that in the event of any future Al Qaeda attack against this country we would still retaliate against Iraq, and, if so, how would you avoid hitting our own troops?”


Follow-up question to strategic-planning question:“If not, then did you have some other country in mind to retaliate against?”


Coalition question: “Is Bulgaria still part of the coalition, and, if so, what have they done for us lately?”


Follow-up question depending on answer to coalition question: “Would you encourage the American people to drink more Bulgarian wine?”


Follow-up question depending on answer to coalition question: “Would you encourage the American people to boycott Bulgarian wines, and, if so, do you know of any French wines that might make a good substitute?”


Second Zen question: “If, as you’ve said, Mr. President, the interim report stating that no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq justifies our having gone to war to remove weapons of mass destruction, what would a report stating that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq justify, if you know?”


Alternative to friendly question: “Sir, do you think that the flowers with which your Administration said Iraqis would greet our troops will ever be found?”


Follow-up to alternative to friendly question if answer is yes: “Then would that justify having gone to war with Iraq?”


Follow-up to alternative to friendly question if answer is no:“Then would that justify having gone to war with Iraq?”


Somewhat off-the-wall question: “Speaking of Iraq and Al Qaeda, sir, do you think it’s fair that Arabs don’t have to use a ‘u’ after a ‘q’?”


Follow-up to somewhat off-the-wall question if answer is no:“Then would that justify having gone to war with Iraq?”

[zimv20]

Originally posted by wwworry
The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/shouts/content/)

hilarious. thank you.