Well, it is official. My view has changed.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Backtothemac, Oct 28, 2003.

  1. Backtothemac macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #1
    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.
     
  2. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #2
    how do you feel about bush getting a second term?
     
  3. Backtothemac thread starter macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #3
    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.
     
  4. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #4
    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
     
  5. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #5
    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."
     
  6. jamesatzones macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2003
    Location:
    Seattle
    #6
    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...
     
  7. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #7
    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.
     
  8. Backtothemac thread starter macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #8
    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.
     
  9. g5man macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2003
    #9
    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.
     
  10. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #10
    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.
     
  11. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #11
    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.
     
  12. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #12
    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.
     
  13. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #13
    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?
     
  14. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #14
    No, everyone leaves "for personal reasons" "to spend more time with their family";)
     
  15. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #15
    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.
     
  16. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #16
    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
     
  17. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #17
    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.
     
  18. g5man macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2003
    #18
    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.
     
  19. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #19
    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.
     
  20. Pinto macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2003
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #20
    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.
     
  21. g5man macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2003
    #21
    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.
     
  22. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #22
    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.
     
  23. Sayhey macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #23
    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.
     
  24. g5man macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2003
    #24
    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.

    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.
     
  25. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville

Share This Page