http://www.msnbc.com/news/956458.asp?0cv=CA01

When is Enough Enough?

In a new Newsweek poll, Americans say they’re spending too much in Iraq with too little to show for it. And with the 2004 approaching, Bush is losing ground

Aug. 23 — Americans are increasingly pessimistic about the U.S. mission in Iraq, saying the United States should reduce its spending and scale back its efforts there, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll.

SIXTY-NINE PERCENT of Americans polled say they are very concerned (40 percent) or somewhat concerned (29 percent) that the United States will be bogged down for many years in Iraq without making much progress in achieving its goals. Just 18 percent say they’re confident that a stable, democratic form of government can take shape in Iraq over the long term; 37 percent are somewhat confident. Just 13 percent say U.S. efforts to establish security and rebuild Iraq have gone very well since May 1, when combat officially ended; 39 percent say somewhat well.

And if we do reduce our effort there and in 5 years another tyrant is in charge of Iraq the same dipshits will be saying we didn't do enough.

I'm sure many of those polled could care less now.
Once Saddam was toppled, many people think "the job is done" or "let them rebuild themeselves!"

I personally think we MUST have a continued presence in Iraq. Without it, another Baathist regime may be built. However, I think the way we are treating our troops is terrible.

Talking about reducing pay is crazy. Give the soldiers something to be proud of! They are risking their lives on a daily basis.. If cutbacks need to be made, make them somewhere else. Pay the troops what they deserve!

Soldiers are spending too much time away from their families.. many that I know have had their tour times extended at least once, a few have had them extended twice or more! Moral will get lower and lower as soldiers miss their families more and more. Not to mention those soldiers who have yet to see their newborn children.
They all know what they signed up for... but being told over and over again that you are going home, only for delay after delay.. it gets old.



Last edited by sharky at Aug 24 2003, 08:02 PM

The problem with US Americans is we have become a nation of the quick fix, immediate gratification.

Iraq is NOT a quick fix it will take 20-30 years.... but it will be well worth it, if we can use Iraq as a base to stabilize the region.

American's forget we still have troops in Germany and Japan.... been there since 1945 - 1946.

We need to long long term, be patient, look at big picture....

The problem is unlike 1945-1946 we have a lot of anti-Americans who are running for office, and controling the press and using Iraq to manipulate voters....

2 interesting articles i just read re: Iraq


Iraq and Arab League
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.j...sID=0&listSrc=Y

U.S. checking possibility of pumping oil from northern Iraq to Haifa, via Jordan
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.j...sID=0&listSrc=Y

Very interesting article Slav!!

:rolleyes: Anti-Americans running for office? Who do you consider anti-American, Torone? Anyone to the left of Ann Coulter? :heil: :heil: :heil:

And using Iraq to maniuplate voters? Exactly how are they doing that? By suggesting that a large part of the justification for the war was of questionable value? By suggesting that the planning for the afterrmath this war was slipshod at based, and based more on idealogical assumptions than in fact? By observing with their own eyes and ears that the administration that did an about-face in two weeks - from denying there was a guerilla war to acknowledging it's existance? By observing with their own eyes that the policy of occupation-lite tactics of this Administration, which are failing in Afghanistan, are now failing in a much more public way in Iraq?

Oh, I know that you and the others who have attained enlightenment and understanding of realpolitik may have difficulty comprehending the dissatisfaction of commoners and the rest of the public-school educated masses; but your most-favored-mullahs in charge better figure out a way to convince them, or trump up another crisis someplace to distract them. Otherwise they may find themselves in some deep doodoo with the voters.

The pathetic thing is that there were people in 1945-1946 denoucing Truman, Clark, Marshall, et al as being Anti-American. The problem is that unlike 1945-1946 we have a lot of folks who don't realize just how tired those lines are, or how silly their entire premise is. The REAL anti-Americans, IMHO, are the self righteous chumps who don't seem to realize that not everyone is willing to call Bush's naked ass a Brooks Brothers suit, and that one does not have to be a right-wing Republican in order to be a patriotic American.

Maybe it's time for one of your civil disobedience stints you are so proud of. :wankit:

LMK if you need bus fare. :bwave:

Oh boy ... haven't seen much of Tweedle Dee lately, who likes to pull "You read Marx" into any conversation, regardless of context or relevance.

Good to know that Tweedle Dumb believes he has found equal "ammunition".

BTW ... I have no need of bus fare. I own to V8 equipped American manufactured automobiles that would get me anywhere I want to go just fine, thank you very much.

:rolleyes:

why shouldn't people be pessimistic about the "mission in iraq"?

people are getting killed everyday.
soldiers are being killed everyday.
their cities were attacked and bombed.
Iraqis are not exactly jumping for joy at their "liberation"
and there certainly does not seem to be any big caches of WMD's to
be found, though it was promised time and time again, with 100%
certainty, both before and after the war.

it seems that PD was very right to be skeptical of the motivations
for going to Iraq. no one said "we need to bomb and invade Iraq because
Saddam Hussein is evil" - it was all about the "WMD's" that don't seem
to exist. I supported it because it seemed logical that there was
something to be found. seeing what happened, whats happening and
seeing the uncertainty ahead, i cant say that i would have made the same
decision if i knew then, what i know today.

JR combat operations are still going on in Iraq. Bush claimed and end to MAJOR military action - meaning the thousands of air sorties flown a day, huge tank manuevers, etc... But small unit warfare is still going on, and probably will for awhile. It happens after all wars....

This has happened after all wars - after spanish american war, in philipeans, in cuba, all the way through Iraq.

What is REALLY sad is more people are murdered in the US in a day - 43 a day average....

We need to put things into perspective.... our enemys know we have become a week country and hope by still picking off an American soldier will get us to leave - like Somolia.... that is the thinking the World has on us.

It is time to change, and let people know we now stay to the end.... we finish what we start,and will not be chased away.

It has to be done eventually, or we will never "win" another war again....

i dont disagree with any of that. all i was saying was that if i knew then what i know now, i would probably have felt differently about the whole thing.

the whole issue of not finding weapons, while that was the entire justification for going to war, is something i am not real comfortable with. it does not say much for the competence of the Bush Administration, no matter how you look at it.

JR, what do you think happened to them?

i dont know. its already a moot point. the US is there, the war came and went. the Administration and military commanders were absolutely certain they would "have some major finds" , and had "more than 1000 sites to inspect" yada yada yada - and so far have came up with nothing and have been so discouraged that they scaled back their efforts long ago.

now the US and Britain is there and they cannot leave. no matter how unpopular it gets, they cannot leave. no matter how bad it gets, how many soldiers get killed, no matter how many terrorist acts their are... they cannot leave. the situation is not reversible.

i am not saying that there were a lot of easy choices to make. there clearly wasn't. certainly not after 12 years of fumbling the entire issue.

browse through the video files here to see how bad it can get...
http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/video/





Last edited by JR at Aug 25 2003, 07:00 AM

another important aspect .....

How will we (The USA) view this operation in 10 years?

JR - I respectfully disagree with your statement " the war came and went"

We are still at war in Iraq

From what I understand and have read - there has been a lot of things collected, and a report will be issues middle of September that exposes a lot of the WMD research, including Nuclear.... it is being claimed to be a smoking gun.

We shall see....

Of course those who do not want to beleive, those who were against the war and Bush from day 1 will try to spin all the evidence, and say its just a cover up, etc....

They make it too easy tp predict.....

Depends on what happens next.

Biggest checklist

1. Will Saddam be caught?
2. Will there be consistent elections?

i dont know. its already a moot point. the US is there, the war came and went. the Administration and military commanders were absolutely certain they would "have some major finds" , and had "more than 1000 sites to inspect" yada yada yada - and so far have came up with nothing and have been so discouraged that they scaled back their efforts long ago.

now the US and Britain is there and they cannot leave. no matter how unpopular it gets, they cannot leave. no matter how bad it gets, how many soldiers get killed, no matter how many terrorist acts their are... they cannot leave. the situation is not reversible.

i am not saying that there were a lot of easy choices to make. there clearly wasn't. certainly not after 12 years of fumbling the entire issue.

browse through the video files here to see how bad it can get...
http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/video/[/b][/quote]
I always felt that it was a combination of things that led to the war in Iraq, including oil.

Whether it was right or wrong in the end, the decision was a strategic decision derived from many angles and I am okay with that.

I'm just glad that I do not have to make these type of decisions.

I think it was completely logical to think that WMDs were in Saddam's Iraq.

Bush thought so, Clinton said so, and Bush said so. Past UN inspectors thought so. CIA analysts said so. Other nation's intelligence agencies said so.

Assuming they are not and were not it makes a whole lot of people wrong. Is that because the intelligence in general was wrong? Is it because this is precisely the nature of intelligence? Is it because Saddam was very clever? Is it because people were seeing what they expected to see? Is it because people lied? Did Bush lie to go to war? Did Clinton lie to bomb Iraq? Did the CIA lie to support both presidents?

I don't know the answers to these questions. I will probably never know.

There is no doubt the war in Iraq was fought due to other geo-political issues then WMD. Oil is one of them.... the largest is stability. We had US troops in Saudi Arabia and this was causing a lot of problems, we had to move them out. The reasons the troops were there was the threat from Saddam.

So we go to war, topple Saddam - which allows us to pull our troops from Saudi and now station them in Iraq.

I think 20 years from now, it will be seen as a GREAT MOVE.... 50 years from now Historians will praise it as a great move...

Nations do not have any permanant friends or enemies, just interests.... and that is exactly what Bush was protecting and securing US long term interests.

ok, i agree with that 100% - but, if you knew what you know now and someone several months ago said "Colin, we need to invade Iraq right now" would you have a different opinion maybe than you did at the time?

Mike, I think you are on to something.

From what I have been reading, there will likely be alot of problems in Saudi Arabia. The house of saud is not what it usd to be and I would not be surprised to see it unravel at the hands of islamic extremists.

i think thats true of the entire region.

Just exactly how is the daily number of murders committed within the United States on a daily basis relevant to the Iraq situation? Sounds to me like you are trying to sell an acceptable body count - not a very wise strategy (see Johson, Lyndon; Nixon, Richard).

I find your references to the Spanish-American War interesting in a couple of ways. First of all, it was a war "sold" to an America bitterly divided about the wisdom of the conflict. The sales job hid blatant imperialism behind a humanitarian smokescreen.

As much as it pains me to admit it :D, there is some truth to what you are saying. I don't for a moment buy into the "we have become a weak country" hogwash the right has been crying since the days of the Cold War. Still, I have to agree that there is a perception that we can be driven out, either in abject defeat like Somolia, or in the face saving disgrace of another era's "peace with honor."

Unfortunately, I don't think the tactics employed by the Administration in Iraq or in Afghanistan are doing much to dispell the notion. This admistration is OBVIOUSLY in over its head. The fact that post-conflict planning - if in fact there was any - was done poorly, with certain naive idealogical assumptions, and without much genuine knowledge of the real world is obvious to everyone on the planet except the Administration and its blind followers. This "occupation lite" strategy is further alienating large portions of the population and providing a tactical advantage to the enemy.

The United States of America cannot win the peace in Iraq by itself. The United States of America cannot rent enough friends to put enough boots on the ground to win the peace in Iraq by itself. The massive military force that will cow an Iran or a Syria does not mean shit to a tree to a terrorist/gurellia/freedom fighter/whateverthefuckyouwannacallem. You cannot scare them out of action. You can, however, piss enough people off to recruit MORE followers to their cause. I don't think the abject defeat of a Somolia is going to happen. I do, however, think that the other alternative is more than possible - and that would be a disaster, not just for the U.S., but for the Iraqi people themselves, and the stability of the region and the world.

I was against the war, and I still believe rightfully so... but now that we've gone this far, our only option is to stick it out and finish what we started.

At present it looks like there weren't WMDs in Iraq one year ago so with that information I would agree with you (subject to future revision, of course). It's a strange question though. Kind of like looking back on Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the benefit of hindsight and saying one wouldn't have used atomic weapons on Japan.

I think it was a fair decision to make at the time with the information made at the time.

Since the situation is still playing out, I might even switch opinions once again depending on what occurs. There will still be more to add to the hindsight caregory. Even hindsight is not 20/20.



Last edited by Colin at Aug 25 2003, 10:32 AM

i think thats true of the entire region.[/b][/quote]
JR, yes except when you consider the relationship the US has had with the houe of saud vs. other middle eastern countries.

I think it would have much farther reaching implications.

That's a statement that applies to all wars though. WW I, WW II, and the Vietnam War come to mind real fast. Students protested World War II. A good percentage of Americans argued for years that the US should enter the war on the German side.

Even the Revolutionary War was "bitterly divided". I'd venture to guess you would find a lot of people opposed to the War of 1812 too and yet I've never read such a thing.

That's a statement that applies to all wars though. WW I, WW II, and the Vietnam War come to mind real fast. Students protested World War II. A good percentage of Americans argued for years that the US should enter the war on the German side.

Even the Revolutionary War was "bitterly divided". I'd venture to guess you would find a lot of people opposed to the War of 1812 too and yet I've never read such a thing.[/b][/quote]
Check out The Cousins' Wars by Kevin Phillips. New England was much more hesitant to go to war in 1812 because of commercial interests.

IMHO, the WWI and WWII analogies don't fit. Spanish-American, Korea, and Vietnam do.

Check out The Cousins' Wars by Kevin Phillips. New England was much more hesitant to go to war in 1812 because of commercial interests.

IMHO, the WWI and WWII analogies don't fit. Spanish-American, Korea, and Vietnam do.[/b][/quote]
Yes, we're making different analogies. All those wars were sold to the public and in some cases the propaganda machine started rolling years before they were entered into.

We'll just have to agree that some people - maybe even most people - vote with their wallet.

The US people are driven for the need to fear something. Everything we do and buy is based on this premise. Now that there is nothing to immediately fear many people will not feel the need to continue in Iraq with great intensity.

Islamic terrorism just isn't filling my Cold War fear quota like it should. Maybe I should start to worry about the economy or the environment to make up for the shortage.

Islamic terrorism just isn't filling my Cold War fear quota like it should. Maybe I should start to worry about the economy or the environment to make up for the shortage.[/b][/quote]
Oh, come on now ... you can always fear the Anti-American candidates running for office, the coming thunder of the jackboots of creeping socialist hordes who wish to take away your guns, further persecute the oppressed rich, furthering the homasexual agenda while questioning the need to make the world safe for Haliburton.

Exactly! Actually, that is what is happening. The fear shifts towards the economy or to something else that is more tangible to the average citizen.

But, after the next attack on US soil or interests and the fear will shift back again.

Oh, come on now ... you can always fear the Anti-American candidates running for office, the coming thunder of the jackboots of creeping socialist hordes who wish to take away your guns, further persecute the oppressed rich, furthering the homasexual agenda while questioning the need to make the world safe for Haliburton.[/b][/quote]
That would be loathe, not fear. Oh, and pity.

Oh, no thanks. That takes WAY too much effort. Don't forget, PD. I'm a founding member of the "Everything is Pretty Much OK Party".

Actually I fear islamic terrorists more then the former USSR.

The USSR and Communists were predictible to a point. A bilateral system was pretty stable. They knew where we stood, and we knew where they stood. They did not want to blow up world, and neither did we.

However the modern terrorist would nuke every US city if they could, would unleash bio weapons without pause.

Iraq is a part of WWIII - if Afganistan and Iraq were not connected, why are so many arab jihadists/terrorists flocking to Iraq to fight US troops?

In the big scheme this might be best for us... its much easier for the enemy to come to us, then for the US to try and find them across 4 continents....

An important distinction from USSR and terrorists - you could deal with the USSR, make treaties, with terrorists you cannot....
so hence we must kill them all, and destroy the gov't who support them.

That would be loathe, not fear. Oh, and pity.[/b][/quote]
The people I pity are the ones who can make statements like the bullshit I posted with a straight face.

The people I pity are the ones who can make statements like the bullshit I posted with a straight face.[/b][/quote]
Whew.... I guess we both forgot our smilies. :P

weapons founds ...
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/b...breaking_1.html

World Tribune says they are in Lebanon; National Enquirer says they are on Elvis's space ship.

My money's on Miss Scarlett in the pool room with the pipe wrench.

I too was against the war in the begining..and still think it was wrong for us to go alone to do the job of removing the regime in power.

However, we can not leave now until we have restored a proper order,

Remember George Bush standing like a peacock saying we would not come and go llike before... that is how he swayed countries like Turkey to allow usage of there land.

We have to live up to our words now , or risk being isolated.. VOTE for ANYBODY other than BUSH again....

Hmmm.... Somehow it doesn't wash with me... I fully believe that if Iraq actually had the weapons, they would have used them. They would not have given them away or moved them out of the country, they would have used them.

And this part just does not seem right at all.... By january, the CIA would have jumped on a convoy moving out of the country... But the article says:

"U.S. intelligence first identified a stream of tractor-trailer trucks moving from Iraq to Syria to Lebaon in January 2003. The significance of this sighting did not register on the CIA at the time"

I agree with you there Sarettah, it seems awfully odd that the CIA didn't jump all over that...

However, I don't know about Saddam using the weapons if he had them. I wonder... even if he had chemical weapons we knew he didn't have nukes yet, so I think that no matter what he had, he was still no match for the US. Does he go out in a blaze of glory and prove to the world we were right about his weapons, or does he disappear along with the weapons and make us look really, REALLY bad? Saddam is dumb like a fox...

I dunno, just a thought.

Look ... if Saddam had an active WMD program immediately prior to this war ... even if he had an active WMD program three YEARS before this war ... the evidence would be all over Iraq, not in mystery trailers in Lebanon or floating at sea in some mystery ship.

If the Bush Administration is willing to publicly pay multimillion dollar sums for the location of two of Saddam's spawn, can you imagine the amount of money that would be available to somebody who could hand them the ultimate "see - I told you so" material? Somebody would have sold them out long before now.

Believing that those "Waskally Irwakis" are so inept that their military essentially fell apart in days, but are so ultra-competent that they can successfully hide even a small WMD program requires a level of gullibility that boggles my imagination.

There ain’t no WMD no how no way, unless they are floating on invisible torpedo boats that the Iraqi’s purchased from Vietnam … the ones they used in the Gulf of Tonken oh so many years ago. :ph34r:

this is why i say that the whole thing was a little dissapointing. it's fine to say that we knew about all the descrepencies, deception and lies for the 12 years and that there were large amounts of weapons unnacounted for - which was entirely true.

what is dissapointing to me is that there was such confidence in what was there and what would be found. large teams were assembled that fanned out accross the country, simple suspected finds (if everyone remembers the pesticides and other crap) were HUGE media hits though they ended up being false. the list can go on and on.

as PD says... you can't just wake up one morning and hide all traces of evidence of active weapons production on a whim. it simply can't be done. that means that there was a lot of bad information, a lot of willingness to act on bad information, a lot of willingness to listed to exiles with bad information and there was just a lot of bad intelligence to begin with.

Colin Powell was pretty specific at the UN about what they "knew" to be there right? where is all that stuff? they found a couple semi trailers which were sterilized and buried in the desert..... and? a fist full of parts to some nuclear related thing burried in a guys backyard. That does not seem like an eminent threat to me.

if the cry for war would have been simply "Fuck these guys, i am sick of their shit" - i would have readily accepted that under the circumstances. But the US Administration went through a great deal of trouble to prove what Iraq had, what they were hiding, what they were pursuing and what a threat they were and that was the basis for telling the world "its going to be a campaign of Shock and Awe" - so in retrospect, i think it was a pretty big mistake to do without the support of the international community considering that it is now something we can't walk away from and the UN is probably not going to get deeply involved in (security aspects) and they clearly are not happy about the US being there.




Last edited by JR at Aug 25 2003, 10:47 PM

Debka reported sometime before the war same thing that weapons were in Lebanon. In makes a lot of sense if you think about it, the only other country Saddam hated as much as Americans was israel, so putting weapons closer to Israel and in Hazbullahs control to one day use will in a sick way fulfill Saddam's agenda of one day wiping out Israel.